Stupid newbie. Aeral camera platform.

The Big Stick series of models are based upon trainers and they retain all of the good trainer habits. With that said, they will not fly themselves for long. Free flight models fly themselves, R/C models do not. Even good R/C trainers. Yes, this is a matter of opinion. If you need automatic stability, fit the model with one of the many inexpensive electronic auto-stabilizers that are available.

I would not use a four-stroke engine for powering a camera platform. Why? Because their normal vibration is much greater and of lower frequency than a two-stroke engine. A soft mount for the engine can move the vibration's frequency down a bit further and reduce the amplitude, but then you run into problems of engine parts shaking loose, needle valves changing settings from vibration and spongy throttle response. I would choose a high quality two-stroke engine that has a reputation for being smooth. OS and Webra are my two favorites. There are other equally good two-stroke engines available, but find out which ones shake the least.

The set up of your model is what will determine your success in flying it. As you know from the simulator experience that you have gained, airplanes are quite a bit different from helicopters.

Find an experienced modeler that knows how to set up your Big Stick 60 as though they were going to train someone with zero experience. It is easily done, by those with the experience.

Those without the experience will claim that it can't be done and that you should begin with a flat-bottomed airfoil trainer. Don't do it. Find someone that knows what they are talking about. These folks will almost always have gray hair and a gray beard, if they still have a beard or hair, and will have cut their own flying teeth on a Trainer 40, Trainer 60, or even an Ugly Stick. These are the folks that can get you on the road to success.

By using the Big Stick 60 (or 40) instead of a traditional (these days) trainer with a flat bottomed wing, you will have a model that is easier to land and takeoff and a model that can fly comfortably in much higher winds, while shaking about much less than a slower model with a flat-bottomed wing.

Avoid the Slow Poke. The Slow Poke is a novelty plane and while it is a good sport model, it is not suitable for training or serving as a camera platform.

Good luck and let us know how you fare.

Ed Cregger, AMA #73846

Try electrics.

I have been hearing good things of Senior telemasters which will fly with remarkably little power.

IMHO something around the 60-80" span of a 'vinatge' nature equipped with an electric motor is ideal - slowish, good weight carrier, no oily residue (important with cameras) engine can be shut down completely to reduce vibration, and still not so big you need a second mortgage for the batteries.

Basiaclly the right sort of plane for camera work IS and honest by gosh trainer ... and I would say you should be able to fly straight off if you can master G2.

I think its probably a good plane, except for the noisy smelly oily thing up the front :-)

Take a look at aerial photography, vintage and open fora in

A big lazy electric is SO much simpler to fly than a smaller faster model, and if the wings are big enough even a lowish powered one will heft a load of batteries and a camera aloft.

Gearing makes em more efficient - at slower speeds you can pretty much multiply the capacity in cubic inches by a thousand and get watts needed for a leccy plane - i.e. .40 cu in = 400 watts to a very crude approximation.

Didn't think of that; probably figured the constant airflow would make the mess less of a concern. How many sticks do you think I'll need for 30 minutes flying time at low speed? The goal really is to fly a camera out to scout and patrol the back forty acres. Twenty minute flight times are likely.

What do you think of stingers or a pipe to move the exhaust behind the wing?

[...elided for brevity...]

Thanks, Ed. Is it much more than building in some dihedral and limiting control throws? It's not that I'm entirely anti-social... just wondering if it's something I can manage on my own.

Why not just a remote camera or two? Those can work in all weather as well as day and night. A lot easier to control as well!

The reakl killer is the 8lb weight, because that means about 400watts of leccy power, than that is somethig like 10 cells at 40A. and even throttled back unless you go Lithium Polymer more than 15 minutes is unlikley with GP3300 NiMh cells or whaterver the latest and greatest is.

However I would say that a 6000mA/h pack should do the trick on lithiums

- 3s3p or so. See

Something like $250 for that - and a decent motor - maybe a de walt geared from - won't break the bank either. Or fit AXI 2820/10. The Dewalt needs more volts and less amps - instead of 3s3p probably needs 5s2p etc.

The electric solution will cost a lot for batteries, but in the end I suspect it will prove more reliable. It's ideally suited for this sort of big wing slow speed stuff.

I don't fly glo any more, so not the one to ask.

I am sure you could manage if you can fly the sim. Biggest issue is dealing with out of trim and potentially low power together, and especially rearward CG. If built true with CG in the right place, mostly they roll off the runway a steady as a rock..

Something Cub like might also fit the bill.

But this is what I think will do best of all

Allegedly that will fly on way less power than indicated - a mere

250watts of electric. Sort of .25 power at best.

As TNP said in another post, if you are careful with the CG and incidences and keep the weight down, you will probably be able to handle alone.

The recommended control surface throws are usually very conservative with most ARF kits. Use their recommendations in the low rate setting and increase it by another twenty percent for hi rate settings. Fly on low rate first, unless you find it extremely uncomfortable, then switch to high.

The things that will give you the most trouble when making the transition are little items like where the sun is in relation to the model, etc. Chances are, if you mostly hovered your helis (this is an assumption on my part), you aren't used to considering the position of the sun, or what to do if you find your model crossing the sun. Also, you have to take off as directly into the wind as possible. Once you are used to flying the model, you can vary quite a bit from this strategy.

It is the little things that can jump up and bite you in the butt. I'm sure that you already have the reflexes that you need to fly a model.

Good luck and tell us how you fare.

Ed Cregger

I am using a Sig Kadet Senior ARF for my wireless video platform. I dont know how much it is carrying but it carries the CCD camera, small tx,

10 cell AA nicad pack and was also carrying in addition to the above a small telemetry unit and 6 cell AA nicad pack in addition to the standard full size flight pack. Powered with a Super Tigre G .51 ringed engine. Takes a decent run to get airborne but flies great and even makes non-panic dead stick landings. Floats down for landings powered or dead stick. Plane was assembled stock. Only change I would do over would be to drill for and install a dubro (or similar) anti-vibration engine mount. Pre-drilled holes dont match the Dubro mount and I am too lazy to dig the tank back out to retro-fit. If you want a kit, most would recommend the Senior Telemaster but I hear it is kind of labor intensive assembling all the sticks for the fuse.

Where is the fun in that?

By the way, is your website down? All I get is some text and place markers for your graphics. Interested in a set of bearings for a GMS .32 to replace the ones I buggered during a rebuild.

Practically speaking, you're probably right. Tree mounted cameras with solar cell chargers will probably work well enough. Heck, a couple hounds wired for sight and sound will work almost as well and with fewer hurdles. It's a more or less random, recurring thought while out thrashing the heli. Gosh, wouldn't a camera under the belly be just great for scouting around? It's not as though I have problems with poachers or BATF agents. (That I know of.)

Even if I don't act on it, I walk away with a new perspective on fixed wings. First a Stik, then. Maybe a camera later for fun, not recon. And win, lose, or draw, possibly a 3D ship next spring. Thanks for the chat and reality check, guys.

The Senior Telemaster is very labor intensive to build and flys very scale like in that you must perform co-ordinated turns using aileron and rudder. Having flown both the Senior Kadet and the Senior Telemaster, I would go for the Kadet. It's a real floater with a .40 and it'll haul a fair amount of weight with a .60. At least the kit did. I really don't know about the ARF. Just my .02

Jim W

I'd strongly second the Kadet Senior recommendation. I think it is an excellent choice for a camera platform and will also be easy to learn to fly. It will pretty much fly itself after basic trimming. While the Stik .60 is otherwise and excellent flying and well mannered aircraft, it is intended for greater maneuverability and has less inherent stablity and higher flying speeds. The Kadet Senior will fly in a sedate and stable manner with minimal pilot input if/when desired.

Mike D.

No, the web site is just fine. Jeck that you have the Java run time module (?) installed. Several people have complained and that was the problem.

Well, not sure exactly what setting I am supposed to change so I guess Im outta luck. Oh well.

MikeWhy scribed in :

try a kite?

I think you'll do yourself a service to build the Big Stik stock.

I also think you'll do yourself a big service to find an expert to help you out the first couple of times. With heli experience, the transition to fixed wing will be fairly quick and painless, but do you really want to risk hours and hours of building, not to mention a bunch of money, to a "dumb thumbs" incident right off the bat?

I hear ya, but it's not the dumb thumbs I'm most worried about. It's the goofs in the pit or on the bench that kill. Sims don't teach the first thing about those. Gotta agree an expert's eyes will be useful for the pre-flight, and check flights so I don't get ahead of myself.

On a more banal note... I was leaning toward the Big Stik 60 because it will take a .91 two-stroke, which seemed to be important because the video gear will likely double its weight. Do you have any thoughts on that? Wondering now if a .61 wouldn't have more than enough juice for hauling the extra freight. The big guy is the same size and weight as the little one... would it hurt to go bigger even if it might not help much?