How to start in RC Flying

Thanks for your reply. Your characteristically dogmatic opine is noted.

It's just a shame that in your subsequent waffle, you didn't address the specific question asked. Of no matter.

In any case it was really more drawn of the curiosity in seeing if we'd get an all too predictable regurgitation of the pro Realflight G2 dogma for which you are 'infamous', or whether you'd surprise us with a cogent response. 'Silly' me! ... ;P

I see you have excelled yourself, in staying well on topic too.

|> |>>Once I learnt to fly G2, I found I could also fly my planes. It saved me |>>a fortune. |>>

|> |> Not to criticise G2's functionality, but don't you think that if he's |> hesitant about initially paying out for tangible RC equipment, |> pandering to Realflight's usury at this juncture is moot? Especially |> where for a student or the average early post solo phase flyer, FMS |> which is free, will adequately fulfil the role. |> | | |First of all, I do agree that G2 is not cheap. HOWEVER it sells at that |price, its a pro piece of software, and it gets upgraded. | |Secondly, as has been pointed out, it probably has better resale value |than almost anything else you might spend money on in this hobby. Try |selling a smashed up 40 trainer for anything like what you paid for it, |or even an engine and radio. | |I can't answer points relating to FMS because I have not used it. | |My opinion is unchanged: If you cannot practically get buddy style |training - and lots of it - then G2 will save you money - lots of money. |FMS may well save you more. I can't say.

$200 is not a lot for a program. From what I have seen of G2, it is well done.

Look at X-Plane which is for those wanting to simulate flying a real aircraft. That program is certified for IFR and commercial instruction.

|Welcome to a great hobby. The idea of a simulator is excellent. You |can learn a lot about flying and not too many worries about crashing |and spending more $$$. | |When you do get serious, visit a local flying field and see what they |recommend for a trainer. The Hangar 9 Alpha is a good choice, but |there are others just as good. | |Read some magazines and talk to people. | |Dick Pettit WA2ROC |Associate Editor R/C REPORT Magazine

So far, I have only seen the Hanger 9 Alpha and Arrow as well as the Hobbico line. Hobbico and the Alpha do allow you just have the basic plane. However, the Arrow is only sold as a combo kit with radio (JR Quatto) and engine.

I like the Arrow as it is an aerobatics trainer. Are there other such trainers?

Hobbico's Avistar has the ability to do aerobatics on a basic level. That is what one of the guys that flys regular here flys all the time. The only thing I wish they would have included in the Arrow is the 421 radio instead of the quattro. The fifth channel is a nice addition plus the memory option is another nice feature. There are a couple of other airplanes that are high wing trianers that will do basic aerobatics just look for a semi-symatrical wing and not a flat bottom wing. I bought the Extra Easy and it was an excellent trainer(was replaced with the EE2), ended up replacing the 40 size MDS engine with a OS and then later TT 46. They fly the airplane much better than the MDS engine did. I also side on buying a simulator and using it when you can as it does help in the long run, I did that and it helped me transition into the hobby and solo very soon after first starting. John

Flat bottom wing trainers will also do basic aerobatics including knife edge. You gotta know how to fly first.

John,

I just solo'd with my Tower Hobbies 40 trainer (.46 engine) 2 weeks ago, and am starting to do loops & inverted flight. It does them just fine & it has a flat bottom wing. --

Jim L.

The loops with the xtra easy was very slow and inverted flight was attempted but did not show much promise. I just moved onto a plane designed for doing such things, and would do them better. I know one person here who took the xtra easy to extremes in the dihedral of the wing and it was interesting. While not the best for aerobatic flights flat wings will do them but a semi-symatrical wing will do it better and with better response. Maybe it was just the combo of engine and prop along with the plane. With the 40 size engine I would not even try some of these areobatics but with the 46 size OS engine it was better and would do a loop but it was still slow in going thru the loop and I do belive that my instructer took it inverted but not for very long. I later advanced to a Tower Hobbies Voyager which is a great first low wing airplane, it does not cost that much and it would do everything that I wanted expect for going into the ground(not what I wanted but I commaneded it by mistake). That plane held a good inverted flight along with doing really nice rolls and loops. I took the OS forty six out of the trainer and put it in the Voyager and put in a TT46 because of the problems I was having with the MDS40 and keeping it tuned. Any since I rekitted the voyager I need another airplane which I bought used from a hobby shop in KC, it is a T34 from world hobbies and it flies really nice but can be a bit touchy. I just recently bought a Dragonlady 60 and flew it for the first time a few weeks ago, I powered this plane with a saito 100 and it too is a nice flyer but due to weather have not been able to take it out and play with it. My trainer is setting in the garage awaiting my kids to start learning in the spring. John

"Jim Lilly" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net...

Now that would be intresting to see. John

| Flat bottom wing trainers will also do basic aerobatics including knife | edge. You gotta know how to fly first.

Yes, they will do plenty of aerobatics -- basically anything that involves loops, rolls, stalls and similar maneuvers are possible. You might need to increase the control throw a little to get a decent roll rate, but your basic trainer can do a lot of things.

Inverted flight is possible but difficult, as the dihedral will try to flip the plane right side up.

But knife edge? I don't know about that ... the dihedral and high wing would make it just about impossible ...

Why ?

IMHO you should at least be able to do all the sportsman manoeuvres (even if they don't look as good as a pattern ship!) before leaving your high wing trainer behind.

As instructors say at our club, fly the wings off your trainer before bothering to get your 2nd plane.

If, once you have learnt the basics, go and fly the wings off your trainer, and start to learn how it flies - experiment a little - set the throws a little higher - have fun!

When I got bored with the fact that the trainer was too slow, not snappy enough, did I go out and get something a little sportier (a 40 sized CAP232) for my 2nd plane.

I see a lot of people, who once they solo go out and get a much faster plane rather than learning how to fly. Generally, these people will only ever be mediocre pilots rather than good, as they didn't take the necessary time to actually learn any more.

You bet! :-) I have a Goldberg Freedom 20 (it's described on their web server at ), with an OS FS-26S engine. It's a great trainer -- highly recommended! Extremely forgiving, flies out of just about any situation, rugged enough to withstand harsh treatment, yet light enough to fly well.

I've flown it for two years, now, and little by little have taught myself to do loops, rolls, snaps, spins, stall turns and various combinations. The model will do a passable avalanche, for instance, and, with careful energy management, square loops and even clover leafs are possible. Energy management is key: I believe that this plane is a great aerobatics trainer, exactly because it has very little power, so you have to actually fly it through all maneuvers; you can't drag it around by the prop.

I had to add quite a bit of throw, yes, and also move the CG back a good distance from the suggested starting point. As originally set up, it was impossible to get it to snap roll, for instance, but with the CG set for optimal balance (the model will no longer pull out of an accelerating dive on its own), snap-and-a-half to inverted using only rudder and elevator happens really fast, and the precision is, as with all aerobatics I do with it, obviously totally up to me.

As you can see from the photo on Goldberg's web page, the Freedom has very moderate dihedral. I found it to be plenty for a trainer, and it's certainly enough that you can fly it without ailerons, including the use of rudder only to correct turbulence induced banking during final approach. Inverted flight is not particularly difficult with the Freedom -- but this is after a modification I did: I used one servo for each aileron, to get adjustable camber. Lowering both ailerons, I can more easily take off when the grass on our field gets longish, or there's a light covering of snow. Raising them, I can land at a higher speed in turbulence, for better stability, but, more importantly, I can comfortably fly inverted. (The above mentioned snap-and-a-half to inverted involves flicking the ailerons up during the exit from the maneuver.) Not only that, but the trainer will do an English bunt with raised ailerons, and I've managed outside snaps a few times, and, once, a rather strange looking inverted spin.

There's nowhere near enough power in my trainer for sustained knife edge, but I can certainly hold it on edge for short periods of time. Sustained full power side slips with maximum rudder deflection give me about 45 degrees of bank, I guess.

-tih

I'll second that one....

Take half the suggested dihedral out of the wing, increase the throws one notch, maybe two more than suggested, and it'll knife edge pretty darned good. The lesser dihedral also helps in the inverted department. Mine's got a OS .25 in it, I think an SF--ball bearing, schneurle-ported. CG is as on the plans.

Same airplane had a OS .32 helicopter engine in it at one time--unlimited vertical. The Freedom is 6 years old now, and still going strong.

J.D. to e-mail, pull the post

Had an O.S. 46 FX in my Avistar. Flying inverted, knife edges, snaps, rolling circles, spins, etc. were no problem at all as long as the throws were at max. Hovering was possible also with the right prop. Wing is strong, in fact much stronger than the rubber bands, (or wing dowels?), one day, the wing came off and fluttered down, fuselage went straight into the ground, ouch!

Frank;)

Bob, As far as my statement that I would love to see the knife edge with a trainer it would be interesting to see. I have seen some Mods to trainers that have turned my head but the knife edge flight would be a good sight to see. But my reasons for moving to a second plane when I did are as follows. I did not and would not have gone out and buy a plane that would be beyond my ability which my second airplane was not and if I would not have crashed it would still be flying it. The ariplane I bought was a low wing trainer and flew very well in landing and taking off. But it allowed me to do things that I did not feel comfortable to do with the trainer, since it will see second life this coming spring as I take my boys and maybe one of my nephews out to the field to learn to fly. I want the trainer to last and therefor moved on to a differnt plane to learn the basic aerobatic manuvers, like someone else said you are limited because of the dehidral of the wing and did not want to modify the wing because of the reason above. The person that trained me to fly helped me pick out a second airplane and we discussed it, I might have waited a little longer maybe a couple of weeks to a month but Tower was discontinueing the Voyager model and coming out with a new one that would not be out until Sept of this year and this was early summer late spring. So I decided to buy my second airplane and was very happy with it and flew the heck out of it. The replacement for it was a T-34 and it is a little bit more to fly but still very fun. I took advantage of a sale that Hobby people were having and picked up my fourth airplane which is a tail dragger, Model Tech Dragonlady 60 and installed a saito 100 on that plane. I like the way it flys and as I get used to I will be upping the throws on it for better response. On the trainer the throws I belive were at there max but I would have to look at the radio and see what it was set for but I belive that I had them set for 150 percent. Do not get me wrong I was happy flying the trainer but I felt I wanted to move up and my instructer agreed that I should move up to the next airplane but I should watch what I buy. I would not agree with purchasing a plane like a cap or p51 but instead a low wing trainer like the voyager or anyother plane like it for the second airplane. John

"Bob" wrote in message news:bo9rf9$bbl$ snipped-for-privacy@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...

I had the Monokote Avistar version with an O.S. 46FX, unmodified otherwise. With the control throws set as far as possible without binding, rudder could move to 50deg for example, one can do aerobatics with the thing. Knife edge, rolling circles, inverted flight, flat spins, etc., may not be the best for aerobatics but it was possible. Wings built like a tank, I either snapped all the rubber bands, or broke the wing dowels, but one day, "SNAP", fuse went straight into the ground, wing fluttered down 2 minutes later w/o damage;)

Being able to knife edge a trainer is very common.