How Important is the Selection of a Trainer?
First, I should define a couple of terms. When I refer to balsa, I mean the typical balsa lite-ply RTF or ARF. When I make a comparison or contrast, it will be to a similarly sized model. Perhaps the best way to put it is to characterize by class, so we will be talking about the .40 class of models.
Before I get into the topic, I should clear up some misconceptions some of you have regarding the Duraplane Trainer 40. It's hard to understand what some of you are rambling on about when you say the plane has too high a wing loading and in a second breath complain it flies too fast. First heavy planes don't fly faster than similarly sized planes that weight less. They fly not only slower but need more power and a longer take off roll to get airborne. This also implies a heavier plane will use more fuel.
Does the Duraplane fly too fast? At full throttle with an OS LA 40, the model makes a rapid transit of my private flying field of about 100 acres. However, I can easily slow the model down to a crawl by closing the throttle and increasing the angle of attack to maintain altitude. In fact, I can slow the model down to a point where it does slow flight (high angle of attack with enough power to maintain altitude) across the runway. For amusement, I like to perform this stunt about a foot off the runway.
Along with the whining about the wing loading, is the bad rap that the plane lands too hot or fast for the novice pilot. Only very ignorant pilots make statements like this, since they don't understand the mechanics of how to land an airplane. Always remember model planes operate on the same principles as full-scale planes.
First a landing is simply stalling the wing at the point the wheels touch the ground. To learn this in a full-scale plane, the student is taught to stall the wing (high angle of attack and reduction of power) and then recover (decrease angle of attack and increase power). The next step is slow flight (very high angle of attack and increasing power to maintain altitude). The pilot must stay on the rudder (step on the ball) to maintain the balance of the plane in the air as it will want to fall off to one side or another.
Slow flight is difficult in a model, since most models are over powered and rudder control is obviously more difficult. The whole point of slow flight is to demonstrate that increasing pitch reduces airspeed while application of power controls sink rate.
Now we come to landing the Duraplane. Very few model plane pilots know much more that to cut the power and guide the plane in. However a skilled pilot can place his model any where on the runway by controlling the rate of descent with power and the airspeed with pitch. The model can land at any speed above the point where the wing will stall, and on the Duraplane, this is about the speed of a fast walk of a fat guy.
How about the maneuverability of the Duraplane? It has a fair amount of dihedral to maintain stability (level flight) in the air, but I find the model is very responsive to the stick inputs. A few weeks ago, I started flying it upside down. I approached this with a fair amount of trepidation fearing the model would be a handful, but it wasn't. I can now make passes over the runway inverted and a few feet off the ground all to the utter amazement of spectators (when I allow them on my property).
The facts are the Duraplane Trainer 40 will fly as fast or slow as any other 40, and you can land it gently or hot. The model has outstanding fuel economy getting more than 16 minutes on an 8 ounce tank of fuel. I estimate that I could probably fly it at least two more minutes before having anything to worry about.
So now to the topic. I have visited many flying fields over the world, and what I mostly see are a lot of old men who probably came to the field more for some companionship than flying. Occasionally I saw a young fellow or two, and once, I saw an eight-year old boy doing a fairly good job of piloting his Sig LT-40. Frankly the hobby has mostly old men who are likely retired and probably very lonely.
Many of these old fellows bragged about being in modeling for 30 or 40 years, so I expected them to be expert flyers. I noticed some of them flew beat up battered fuel soaked balsa trainers while the rest had models a step or two above the typical trainer. I would say none of their planes would offer a challenge to a modestly competent pilot.
After observing these field geezers pilot their aircraft, it was obvious that a simple trainer on a calm day was more of a challenge than most of them were up to. Am I putting these people down for their inept flying skills? No not really. They can't be blamed, because they were taught on planes where the emphasis was on low-risk flying. Models that were very light (low-wing loading) and stable (lots of dihedral) that had the flight characteristic of kites rather than airplanes.
Flying models or full-scale involves some risk if you want to gain any flying skills above piloting a dirigible. Most novice pilots are between a rock and a hard place when choosing a trainer. Most trainers are too stable making it difficult to maneuver them around, and they are too light to make accurate approaches unless the wind is dead calm. Balsa complicates things further, since the novice is likely to wreck anything that doesn't gently float in like a feather.
Most aspects of the hobby have advanced over the years with technology except the models. They are still basically the same as they were forty years ago, i.e., balsa. When was the last time you read something in Model Airplane News or one of the other airplane rags about anything but balsa and perhaps a few foam models?
Even in the area of electrics and foam models, the AMA and the airplane rags have only reluctantly and recently begun to pay any attention to them. In regard to composites, SPADs, and the Duraplane, all planes that would make good trainers, they are pretty much ignored. The controlling forces in the model plane world, mostly old field geezers, don't want to give up their precious balsa models and give way to better airplanes.
Anyway, I am exploring new pathways, because I refuse to fly balsa models. I like to fly with abandon, and I don't like to repair or build fragile balsa planes. In this vein, I have discovered a new and interesting source of planes:
I have ordered the FX Easy Goer and a new OS 40 FX engine to put on it. I will be giving a full flight test report in the near future. I'm so excited!
Ciao,
Mr Akimoto