Gang, it's all a matter of personal choice. I've flown a Duraplane and own a Telemaster, a very lightly loaded plane, and enjoy flying both. Plastic models are heavier than their balsa counterparts and a plastic plane will have a higher wing loading than a balsa model of the same size. That means the plastic plane will have a higher landing speed. However, sometimes this isn't such a bad thing. Every flier has had the experience of trying to land a floater in gusty winds, and a higher-loaded model can handle wind better. To each his own.
I doubt you are a sloppy flier :-) The comment was directed toward Mr Akimoto's refusal to fly balsa because they are too fragile. It sounds like he just can't land well enough to keep them together.
| Anyway, I am exploring new pathways, because I refuse to fly balsa | models.
If this is true, then why were you telling us how to set up an Ultra Stick 40 about a month ago?
| I like to fly with abandon, and I don't like to repair or build | fragile balsa planes.
I don't like repairing or building either. So I do my `risky' flying with a plane that can handle it, mostly my electric flying wing (basically a Zagi.)
As for my built up balsa planes, I'm a little more careful, and very rarely crash them. And when I do, I suck it up and repair them, or strip out all the goodies and give it to somebody who will repair them if I don't want to :)
I've never crashed an airplane so hard that it wasn't repairable, though I did put my US40 wing through a limbo pole that pretty much disintegrated 6" of the wing -- that required a new wing kit. But the rest of the plane was relatively intact.
No mystery to why the .40 size trainer is so dominant. True Ready-to-Fly training packages are only available in .40 size or .60 size craft for glow planes. .40 size start at about $229 while most .60 size run from $349 to $399.
If somebody manufactured a true .25 ready-to-fly training package, it could sell in decent numbers. The problem is it would be the same price as a good .40 size, maybe slightly more. It wouldn't be quite as stable during breezy conditions, either.
There's probably a niche market there. I like driving small cars, and in the past I've either owned or had access to small pastures that aren't big enough for a .40 sized trainer. Both of these make a .25 size trainer attractive.
I suspect that many of the 380 and 400 sized electrics out there are more than adequate for learning how to fly.
No matter what you're not going to get much below the starting price for a .40 sized trainer -- most of the money is in the labor, not materials, so you don't save much if anything by going smaller.
The 40 size trainer has been standard for a long time, far longer than ARFs have been available.
The other part of it is that a model airplane is a model airplane, but for some reason people have the notion that a 25 size plane and a 25 size engine should cost significantly less than a 40 size plane and a 40 size engine. No matter whether one plane is more desirable than the other, people will usually go ahead and get a 40, just because it is perceived as "getting a lot more for the money".
How well you can see the plane is important to some people. I came by a 60 size trainer with a K&B on it at the Waco swap meet and am very happy with it. The smaller the trainer the harder it is to see. You can fly a small one close in but a new person's reaction time has to be taken into account. IMHO mk
This is also true. I was flying my slow little 25 size old timer type airplane once, back when I lived in Texas, and a friend showed up with his new 60 size Tower Trainer ARF. It flew twice as fast as my plane, but it looked like half the speed because the plane was flying extremely far away.
Regardless of optical illusions, the plane was very smooth and fun to fly.
What do you like about the .15 and .25's over the .40? I'm trying to decide between an Eagle 2 and an Eaglet. Somewhat even thinking about an .049 since I know those 1/2A's are nearly indestructible.
What I like about smaller planes is less crash inertia and more nimble flying in general. A good glow powered 20 size airplane is simply a lot of fun to fly.
When I was learning to fly about 15 years ago I didn't have any help. I crashed a few 40 size trainers and rebuilt them. I did some minor damage to an Eaglet and repaired it, but I had good enough sense to stop and reassess my options before I totally destroyed it.
What finally got me going was the RCM plans catalog. I ordered the plans to the Q-Tee 049 trainer, which was very easy to build, not difficult at all to fly, and most importantly it ran out of gas in three minutes and I HAD TO land it. Even when I cartwheeled the airplane or landed sideways, it did not break. It was right back in the air in just a few minutes, shortly followed by another landing lesson. In one afternoon I went from knocking knees and fear of complete failure to consistently smooth landings no more than ten steps away from my feet. I loved the Q-Tee enough that I have built new ones every two years or so since then, and I always pass them along to somebody I think will get some good training out of it, or just some fun. It's really a great airplane. I currently have three of them framed up in my basement, and I'm going to put an AP 061 on the first one.
Back to the main point, if you have no help, build or buy a plane in the Q-Tee class. In other words, a small balsa plane with 049 to 061 engine and 32 to 42 inch wingspan. I really don't know or care much about electrics, so I'll confine my comments to glow powered planes. My Q-Tees have always weighed 16 to 20 ounces. At this weight they could survive anything. I was being stupid one day with my first one and did a power dive into the concrete. The Cox engine was ruined, but the airplane was back in the air the next day after I reattached the firewall, and that's it. My first few days out, my plane got stuck in a tree, flipped onto its back a few times, cartwheeled a few times, and landed on its nose more than once. But the important thing is that it flew so well that I was able to thermal it for several minutes on more than one occasion, it would do all kinds of maneuvers you wouldn't think a 2 channel plane could do, and it also was capable of rock solid flight of the type that teaches you to fly and turn like you think a real airplane should. And believe it or not, it was capable of flying in very strong wind.
Regarding the Eaglet, this is one of the best planes on the market in my opinion. I have built several of these, and they fly very well. Of course this is due to the very light wing loading. Due to its small size it doesn't have enough energy behind it for it to be destroyed by minor mistakes. If you are a total beginner you could get a case of reverse-syndrome and get into a spiral that would destroy it if you don't have competent help. I would advise you to fly a tiny plane that can handle a beginner's mistakes and then definitely build an Eaglet when you are confident that you won't turn the wrong way while the plane is coming at you, or get help in the first place and build the Eaglet or other plane that tickles your fancy.
Which is why I wrote: "Recommendations on trainers should take everything into account, such as students budget, areas of interest in the hobby, availability and convenience of flying sites, flying conditions, instructor availability, etc. There is no single trainer that is best for all situations."
The 40 size trainer is a standard for several reasons. Two are particularly important in the foundation of the 40 institution: Price point, and standard radio size.
As others have pointed out, the 40 size engine isn't much more expensive than anything smaller than it. Same goes for the planes. It's not really any cheaper to build a 20 size trainer. You don't get a price break until you get down to 1/2 A. These small planes are cursed with finicky power plants. In the hands of a novice, the small motors are a pain to deal with. I learned on Cox Black Widows and I sure wished I had something a little more consistent. The engines only added to the learning curve. I've got Norvels now. Great little motors, but they have a tough break in and I still prefer a novice to get something easy and reliable.
The cheapest radios are available with "standard" size servos. They are relatively heavy by modern standards, but they weigh about the same or less than they did years ago. The weight and size of the standard flight pack is best suited to the power and size of a 40. They fit fine in a
25, but then we're back to the pricing issue. There are a lot of other reasons to like this size, but bang for the buck is still tough to beat unless you go with a small high performance electric. Then we aren't talking trainers anymore.
Electrics have been dealt with over and over on this group. It's a field that will continue to grow in all aspects of our hobby. The reliability and convenience sure is a pleasure when teaching. Again it's the students interests, budget, and goals that will determine what is best to start with.
the plane is a "great planes" 60 size cub, built per the instructions and plans, balanced where the plans called out. Power is from a Saito .91 four stroke with an APC 14x6 prop. It is covered with monokote in "cub yellow", no fancy scale details or anything, just a basic cub with a crappy covering job ( I did it myself ).
The problem is that even after triple checking everything, the plane is just NO FUN to fly. On the ground, it is sometimes possible to get a nice straight takeoff run going, get the tail to fly, and then it will do one of two things, either a violent "ground loop", or it will literally leap into the air, and attempt to do a violent left turn. In the air, the plane acts like it is grossly tail heavy with the elevator highly OVER sensitive, and rudder control being basically non-existent.
Ok, So I'm thinking it is just ME, and the plane is actually ok, so I get a VERY experienced GOOD pilot to fly it, and he had exactly the same problems I had.
On the plus side, It WILL float forever on final to landing ;-)
see, I told you it wasn't all that interesting Ed,,,
Have you tried hanging a bunch of weight in the nose, in case there was a misprint in the manual (or you misread it)? Have you checked the incidence of the wing/tail, looked for warps, all that stuff?
Just because it came out of a factory doesn't mean it's better than you could have made it.
It does sound tail heavy. I'd creep the balance point forward until it tamed a bit.
I ran my Goldberg Cub nose heavy in order to make it flyable in relatively high wind and to get it to land quickly, without getting into ground effects and gliding out of the county. It worked.
Scale models sometimes have ineffective control surfaces due to their small size for model use. Naturally, running as much throw as you can muster can sometimes help.
I thought you were saying that you had hopped up your Cub with mods.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.