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.