After reading in the Usenet archives, I guess those (Scout/Outlaw/Commander) are bottom of the line radio controlled aircraft.
... Do any of those three not fly? ... Why is "Smart-Trak" better than "Flight-Trak"? ... Is the Scout better for taking damage since the propeller is rearward? ... Why buy the Commander if "X-Port" is useless to me?
Should I buy extra propellers and main wings?
If I haven't asked too many questions, thanks very much in advance.
They all fly. Out of the three, it seems that the outlaw is the one people have the most trouble with.
One is a fancy name for "differential thrust control," that is, using the motors to control climb, dive, and turning on the Outlaw. The other is a fancy name for the motor/rudder control on the Scout and Commander. They're just different ways of controlling the plane, and one isn't necessarily better than the other.
The planes aren't designed to crash. However, you do stand less of a chance of breaking the prop with it in back.
If the Xport is useless to you, then don't buy the Commander. It's that simple.
Thanks for the concise/kind answers. I bought a "new in box" Outlaw for 49 USD shipped Priority Mail (eBay item 5946247090). I think it's a great price because it includes a free wing, assuming it arrives factory fresh. I can get replacement parts locally.
| One is a fancy name for "differential thrust control," that is, using | the motors to control climb, dive, and turning on the Outlaw. The other | is a fancy name for the motor/rudder control on the Scout and | Commander. They're just different ways of controlling the plane, and | one isn't necessarily better than the other.
Oh, that's hardly true. The planes with no control surfaces (where they steer by adjusting the power to each of their two motors) fly much worse than the planes with real control surfaces.
`Differential thrust control' sucks. I imagine it could be made to work somewhat acceptably if more care was put into the plane's design and trimming, but none of these cheap models really does this.
Ultimately, you want a plane with at least three channels -- throttle, turning (either rudder or ailerons) and elevator. A V-tail or elevons instead of a rudder and elevator is OK too, but anything that only has two channels (as in throttle and rudder) just isn't going to fly very well if one of those channels is throttle and the other is turning.
| The planes aren't designed to crash. However, you do stand less of a | chance of breaking the prop with it in back.
Most of these planes do handle crashes pretty well. As you said, having the motor and prop in the back helps a lot in this regard.
I guess that's why the Outlaw is so cheap. I'll keep your comments in mind.
As a beginner, I probably don't want elevator control. Landing is my only concern, and promises to be exciting.
| >Ultimately, you want a plane with at least three channels -- | >throttle, turning (either rudder or ailerons) and elevator. | | As a beginner, I probably don't want elevator control. Landing is my | only concern, and promises to be exciting.
You actually do want elevator control. The *only* reason to skip it is to save a few bucks, which they've obviously done.
Without the elevator, your landings will be faster, since you've got to land at only slightly slower than normal slight speed.
Apparently the thrust control does not make the blades spin. Tried two brand new regular and alkaline 9 volt batteries in the transmitter. Charging the batteries again (again after discharge). If no further comment, sorry, please disregard that reference.
have flown all 3 ;all need fairly large area to fly in as they dont tur
very tight;the outlaw is especially bad for needing lots o space;overall as beginner planes they 're ok trainer
-- daddio
----------------------------------------------------------------------- daddioz's Profile:
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.