Suggestions for Semi-symmetrical trainer

|Don't know if anyone has addressed this (and I'm too lazy to read all the |replys, but the Kadet LT-40 (by Sig) is an excellent trainer but does NOT |have a semi-symmetrical wing. it has a flat bottom airfoil. never the less, |I found it to be a WONDERFUL trainer and I've even taught it a few tricks! |:-) |Mark

It, and the Kadet Senior, have been mentioned. Good planes. As is the Avistar. Another one is the US Aircore. Basically I want to purchase a good 6 channel radio thus I will not be buying into the package deals like NexStar.

|> I am looking for a trainer (I know, common newbee question) that has a |> Semi-symmetrical wing (gives me a bit of versatility as I progress). |> What planes are available. I do not a package as I want to pick a |> good 6 channel radio. |>

|> So far There is Hanger 9's Arrow. And the Sig Kadet Lt-40. |>

|> I know that I am opening myself up to all sorts of opinions as this |> tends to be a very subjective subject. |>

|> Thanks... |>

The Avistar is an excellent trainer. However, IIRC someone had an ARF version of the RCM trainer out. The RCM trainer I saw (built from plans)had a fully symmetrical airfoil, and flew beautifully.

Thank you Ken.

So you would say the Monokote version is better constructed then the old AWARF then?

I am going the ARF route as I want to put an entry lvl computer radio in it so maybe I should plan on trying to modify it to the metal rod variation of wing joiner. So you are running it with a .40 size engine, would you then say the .46 size would be just right or on the overpowered side?

I also read somewhere (possibly here in the NG) that reinforcing the firewall is recommended so perhaps it is a neccessary modification if one opts to go for a .46 engine.

Thank you, David, for bringing this up.

The most important flight characteristic of a trainer is that it MUST FLY SLOWLY! Here in southernmost Texas near the gulf coast, where the wind blows tall, a flat-bottom wing is most assuredly a liability as you describe (the Sig LT-40 with raised phillips entry is an exception).

I STRONGLY RECOMMEND an airplane such as the Avistar or any of the so-called "Stiks" for a trainer in these or any other parts, PROVIDED THAT THE TRAINEE HAS AN INSTRUCTOR HANDY!

"Self-righting" airplanes are pilot-fighters and they only train students to neutralize the sticks rather than correct the attitude of the airplane.

An airplane that FLIES SLOWLY, and has NEUTRAL STABILITY is the ideal trainer plane provided that the trainee HAS AN INSTRUCTOR!

Texas Pete AMA 59376

Patrik Henriksson" snipped-for-privacy@mediaone.net asked:

I am going the ARF route as I want to put an entry lvl computer radio in it so maybe I should plan on trying to modify it to the metal rod variation of wing joiner.

So you are running it with a .40 size engine, would you then say the .46 size would be just right or on the overpowered side?

I also read somewhere (possibly here in the NG) that reinforcing the firewall is recommended so perhaps it is a neccessary modification if one opts to go for a .46 engine.<

Patrik

I wouldn't say that the current Avistar is better constructed than the previous version. The redesign made the screw-together RTF model possible, and the Monokote was definitely needed. However the Avistar was a fairly well built ARF before the redesign (in my opinion, I have seen much worse).

A computer radio is not needed for the Avistar. That being said I fly mine on a JR XP8103 8 channel computer radio (don't own a basic system). I personally would not use the metal rod version of the wing without permenantly gluing the wing rod in place and gluing the wing halfs together.

I put a OS 40 SF in my Avistar because I had one. If I didn't already have the engine I would have went with a 46. The model is designed for a 40 - 46 sized engine and will not be overpowered with a 46, it will just have better vertical performance than my Avistar. Remember the left stick is the throttle, you don't have to fly at full throttle all of the time.

I would reinforce the firewall, mine came out. I would use triangle stock on the front side of the firewall connecting the firewall to the cowl cheeks. I believe that the firewall is being pulled out by shock loads from the nose gear, that's why the triangle stock needs to be on the front side of the firewall.

If this is your first R/C aircraft build it exactly as the instructions say. Don't attempt to modify the model in any way without a local experienced modeler showing you exactly how the modification(s) needs to be done.

Hope this helps Ken

| |>Why do people think that a flat-bottom wing is great for a trainer ??? |>I find them to be very speed/pitch sensitive. They are at their worst |>during landings - catch a gust of wind or add a little throttle and UP |>it goes. Wind drops off or cut power, and DOWN comes the nose! | | Thank you, David, for bringing this up. | | The most important flight characteristic of a trainer is that it |MUST FLY SLOWLY! Here in southernmost Texas near the gulf coast, |where the wind blows tall, a flat-bottom wing is most assuredly a |liability as you describe (the Sig LT-40 with raised phillips entry is |an exception). | | I STRONGLY RECOMMEND an airplane such as the Avistar or any of the |so-called "Stiks" for a trainer in these or any other parts, PROVIDED |THAT THE TRAINEE HAS AN INSTRUCTOR HANDY! | | "Self-righting" airplanes are pilot-fighters and they only train |students to neutralize the sticks rather than correct the attitude of |the airplane. | | An airplane that FLIES SLOWLY, and has NEUTRAL STABILITY is the |ideal trainer plane provided that the trainee HAS AN INSTRUCTOR! | |Texas Pete |AMA 59376

What are the "Stiks"? Are those by Hanger 9?

The Avistar sounds interesting. However what about the US Aircore trainer? (It is a flat bottom however)

The 'original' Stik was designed by Phil Kraft to use as a radio test bed airplane. IIRC, it was first just a set of available plans. Jensen Enterprises kitted the first 'Ugly Stik'.

Anyway, 'Stiks' = Ugly, Slo, Ultra, Pico, etc., etc.

David

It's like the airfoil on a Piper Cub where the first 15-20% of the wing lifts up to the LE, and Cubs have always been nice fliers.

David

|The 'original' Stik was designed by Phil Kraft to use as a radio test |bed airplane. IIRC, it was first just a set of available plans. |Jensen Enterprises kitted the first 'Ugly Stik'. | |Anyway, 'Stiks' = Ugly, Slo, Ultra, Pico, etc., etc. | |David

Are the Hanger 9 products included?

How much more work would it be to have a stick over a standard trainer as a first plane?

Any plane with Stik in the name that's nitro powered would be quite acceptable. If you want a Hangar 9, I'd get the Super Stik, NOT the Ultra Stik, for use as a trainer.

If by 'more work' you mean harder to fly... yes, slightly. A Stik is not as self-righting as most trainers because they tend to have much lower dihedral. IMHO, the semi-symmetrical airfoils they use make them MUCH easier to control in landing.

David

All Sticks have fully symmetrical airfoils. This is what makes them so much fun to fly!

| Any plane with Stik in the name that's nitro powered would be quite | acceptable. If you want a Hangar 9, I'd get the Super Stik, NOT the | Ultra Stik, for use as a trainer.

The Super Stick that I've seen is covered with shelf paper. I'd avoid it.

I'd think that the Ultra Stick would actually be ok -- certainly, no worse than the Super Stik. Just make sure that the control surfaces are set to have pretty small amounts of deflection (via the linkages themselves would be best), and make sure that the center of gravity is a little bit further forward than you'd normally have for aerobatic or

I still think a standard trainer would be better, but this might be ok, as long as you have an instructor. Certainly, they're pretty forgiving airplanes (I do have one.)

Note any planes that require any sort of mixing (like having two aileron servos on two channels or a v-tail) will *not* work properly with a buddy boxes, unless either 1) the buddy box can do (and is set up to do) the same mixing, 2) the mixing is done with a module in the plane (and not in the radio at all) or 3) the master radio is one of a very few that can actually decode the buddy box signal.

About #3 -- the Futaba 9C can do it. I don't think the 8U can, and certainly the 6XAS and older models cannot. (No idea about the 9Z.) And no idea about other manufacturers, but I doubt that many can.

| If by 'more work' you mean harder to fly... yes, slightly. A Stik is | not as self-righting as most trainers because they tend to have much | lower dihedral. IMHO, the semi-symmetrical airfoils they use make | them MUCH easier to control in landing.

The high wing does provide some self-righting.

I don't think the airfoil really matters much. Both planes will slow down almost just like a trainer for landing.