One Tx for All: An Impossible Dream?

I thought the original point was that this is a great flying airplane by a real RC manufacturer, not a "toy" made in China. I thought it was made in Germany, but wherever it's from now, it'll be light years better than his experience with the "toys".

PCPhill

----- Original Message ----- From: "mjc13 @verizon.net>"

Reply to
PCPhill
Loading thread data ...

There are two issues, really: what the good RTF planes are, and where they are made. I'm not going to help subsidize the relocation of production to China (and preferably not places like the phillipines) any more than necessary. There are serious labor and environmental issues here. I will be watching for that model used.

Reply to
mjc1

On 03 Sep 2007 16:14:27 GMT, "Doug McLaren" wrote in :

You should have seen Bob Noll flying a twin-propellor toy plane during the Pattern Nats this summer in Muncie.

Bob is a professional builder.

He flys F3A (the top pattern class).

He seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the challenge of the little toy airplane with twin propellors.

There was a cute foamie biplane sitting next to Chip Hyde's van. Dollars to donuts it was Chip's.

Jason Shulman, who won the F3A class at the nats, told stories about how much fun he had with a $69 ARF trainer. Or two. I think he splintered the first one and had to go back for a replacement.

Marty

Reply to
Martin X. Moleski, SJ

wrote in :

I've read a couple of reviews of 'thrust vector' planes by RC enthusiasts, and they hated them. Why? Because they could get the planes to turn without crashing into the ground. Having learned on the things, I know how to turn them, and can even do a tight 180 if conditions are right. I may be setting myself up for a fall (or crash), but I think I'll find two and three channel planes with servos a breeze, because I can already keep a plane aloft with motor power alone.

Reply to
mjc1

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:06:16 GMT, "mjc13" wrote in :

I presume you meant "couldn't get the planes to turn".

As you can see from the reviews (if I've interpreted what you were saying correctly), the two different kinds of planes seem to take two different skill sets.

It will be interesting to see whether the things you've learned on the thrust vector planes will help you learn to fly a more conventional plane.

Let us know how it all turns out.

Marty

Reply to
Martin X. Moleski, SJ

| I've read a couple of reviews of 'thrust vector' planes by RC | enthusiasts, and they hated them. Why?

Because they usually fly like ass, and they're being compared to planes that cost 6x as much. At best, you can fly them in circles around the field, and if it's not the best, they may not fly at all.

And some reviews of these planes are reasonably good, but that usually takes into account what they are and how cheap they are.

| Because they could [n't] get the planes to turn without crashing | into the ground.

Actually, somebody familiar with R/C already will have a far better time with them than a complete newbie. A newbie won't know about getting the CoG just right first, and won't know how to get it trimmed out to fly sort of straight. Sometimes the instructions mention these things, but not usually well enough, and usually people don't read the instructions anyways.

These thrust vector planes generally have very little control authority, and so you need to stay a few seconds ahead of them -- if you want it to avoid something in three seconds, the time to start turning is now. Newbies rarely get this right right away, and so the planes crash an awful lot. Sometimes they put the motors way out on the wing, and then this gives you a reasonable amount of control authority -- but if you actually use it, it spins out of control for a few seconds.

And remember that not all of these planes are created equal. The current batch is not too bad, but in the past some of them could just barely fly, even if you really knew what you were doing. I had a Nerf thrust vector plane that flew like utter ass if it flew at all -- and a HFT Honey Bee that actually flew OK once trimmed out.

I've also got an Air Hogs Storm Launcher too -- it uses differential thrust, but adds an elevator. It flies like ass -- any `crazy stunts' it does are usually completely unintentional! It's fun on the ground, however, and it works reasonably well for making short hops into the air.

But once I destroy the frame, I'll move the electronics into a $7 big foam glider -- I'll bet it would fly reasonably well. Having elevator control would fix many of the complaints with most thrust vector planes.

| Having learned on the things, I know how to turn them, and can even | do a tight 180 if conditions are right.

... and if they're not right, it spirals to the ground.

| I may be setting myself up for a fall (or crash), but I think I'll | find two and three channel planes with servos a breeze, because I | can already keep a plane aloft with motor power alone.

The experience will help, yes, but you'll find better planes different too. If you get the Easy Star or something similar (foam, lots of dihedral, motor in back) then they'll be quite forgiving of mistakes and you'll probably do just fine.

Other similar planes are the Wingo and the Soarstar --

formatting link
formatting link
though I couldn't tell you where they're made. Probably some places you don't approve of.

One thing to keep in mind with these three+ channel planes is that turning will work like you're used to now (but better!) and that where you currently use the throttle, you'll start using the elevator instead. As a (very!) general rule of thumb, elevator controls speed and throttle controls up and down.

Reply to
Doug McLaren

wrote in :

Yes. You can always tell when someone's been on the net for too long: they can no longre spot their own typos!

I'll do that.

Reply to
mjc1

The cheap planes I'm flying perform pretty well. And they do turn. As for what else they can do, it's more than just fly in circles. I can soar, bank, do figure eights - once I even did a loop, although, that was unintentional, and ended up only 75% completed, because the ground got in the way. ;-)

Who said anything about experienced RC fliers vs complete newbies? My point was that people who learn on these planes can often do more with them than people who are used to having control surfaces. Obviously they have to practice a bit, first.

From what I've seen of RC flight videos, most RC planes need a little lead time to turn, as do most full-sized aircraft. My planes have twin inboard motors, and the "control authority" is still ok: it's more a question of knowing when to back off the turn input than of not having enough of it.

I understand that. As best I can tell, your point is something like 'Thrust vector planes fly worse than much more expensive types, and used to be even worse than they are now.' I have no argument with that, and never claimed otherwise. I just think that they shouldn't be discounted as beginner planes, especially when you can get a couple of them from a clearance outlet for $50. In my case the cheapo powered gliders have been much more durable than the Hobbyzone Scout that was supposed to be 'perfect for beginners.'

Anyone want to buy a lot of Scout parts?

Reply to
mjc1

On 05 Sep 07 at group /rec/models/rc/air in article

Reply to
Wolfgang Allinger

| The cheap planes I'm flying perform pretty well. And they do turn. | As for what else they can do, it's more than just fly in circles. I can | soar

At the simplest level, soar means to fly without losing altitude. And that's probably exactly what the box means.

Or perhaps you mean it can ride thermals, but so can a $1 balsa wood glider.

| bank

It's what leads up to a turn!

Ultimately, when a plane says `soars! banks! zooms!' on the box, you know they're probably not setting their sights very high.

| do figure eights

Two turns in a row in opposite directions! When they say crazy stunts, this is what they mean! Well, either that or a figure nine ...

Actually, I don't mean to put down figure eights -- they can be remarkably difficult to do _right_ (round, symmetrical, maintaining altitude exactly), but easy enough to do not so perfectly. They're a great thing to do to get the hang of any plane.

| - once I even did a loop, although, that was unintentional, and | ended up only 75% completed, because the ground got in the way. ;-)

They call that a figure nine maneuver.

| > | Because they could [n't] get the planes to turn without crashing | > | into the ground.

| > Actually, somebody familiar with R/C already will have a far better | > time with them than a complete newbie ... | Who said anything about experienced RC fliers vs complete newbies?

You seemed to think that the reviewers weren't being fair to these planes because they couldn't fly them. Or at least that's how I read it -- perhaps I misinterpreted you.

| My point was that people who learn on these planes can often do more | with them than people who are used to having control surfaces. Obviously | they have to practice a bit, first.

You need to fly some better planes!

It sounds like you've learned to deal with, and even take advantage of, the quirks of your planes. Try something with an elevator and a rudder or ailerons next! They'll still have quirks, but they'll be less extreme.

| From what I've seen of RC flight videos, most RC planes need a | little lead time to turn, as do most full-sized aircraft.

Of course. But the thrust vector planes generally need a lot more than most planes.

| My planes have twin inboard motors, and the "control authority"

No need to put it in quotes -- it's a commonly used term.

When the motors are close to the fuselage, the plane is generally more stable, but takes longer to turn. When they're far out on the wing, the plane generally is more nimble, but more likely to go into a spin if turned too tightly. In general, especially in the hands of the typical buyer of these planes, the former is better than the latter.

| is still ok: it's more a question of knowing when to back off the | turn input than of not having enough of it.

You need to fly some better planes. With three channels, you generally don't have to back off -- you just let it bank the plane to a certain angle, and pull back on the elevator to do the actual turn.

| I just think that they shouldn't be discounted as beginner planes

They're much harder to fly than higher quality planes, and so they discourage a lot of beginners. A plane that flies better is generally a lot more fun, and you'll crash less.

| especially when you can get a couple of them from a clearance outlet | for $50.

Their price is their primary redeeming feature. They're generally resilient too, because they have to be, but that's a feature they share with other planes.

They're still fun to fly once you've gotten into better planes, but different. Sort of like a moped might still be fun after a night of motorcycle racing :)

| In my case the cheapo powered gliders have been much more durable | than the Hobbyzone Scout that was supposed to be 'perfect for | beginners.'

`Perfect for beginners who just want to pay a small sum to probably get turned off of the hobby forever.' Since when have advertisements told the complete truth?

Actually, the Hobbyzone Scout has a real control surface -- a ruddervator. (Well, it has two, but they're controlled together.) But still no elevator control. For a few dollars more, they could have put in two servos rather than one, added in the needed mixer, and given you three channels, and made a plane that flew much better. Of course, they do sell that plane too -- just under some different names, like the Aerobird Challenger.

Reply to
Doug McLaren

"mjc13 @verizon.net>"

Reply to
Six_O'Clock_High

Reply to
mjc1

In article , mjc13 wrote: ...

| >> The cheap planes I'm flying perform pretty well. And they do turn. As | >>for what else they can do, it's more than just fly in circles. I can soar, | >>bank, do figure eights - once I even did a loop, although, that was | >>unintentional, and ended up only 75% completed, because the ground got in | >>the way. ;-) ... | Heh. I think I like "Ground Loop", too.

A ground loop is something entirely different.

You do a ground loop without even leaving the ground.

formatting link
It can be quite damaging to the plane (or might do no damage at all, especially in a model), but it's a *lot* better than a figure 9.

Reply to
Doug McLaren

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.