Hello Gang, I just have one question.... Why is it that when you first appear at the field grinning from ear to ear with your new "non" trainer trainer,the instructor looks at you and says "that's not a trainer" and then they point you to the "usual"lineup of trainers, when the guy behind the counter says that Yes YOU CAN TRAIN WITH THIS TOO. I had a chat with one of the instuctors of another local club(saw him at home depot) and we got to chatting... told me that they tend to discourage anyone training on anything other than the typical trainer. Are there many other clubs like this? if so why?
It all depends on the kind of persons the Instructors are. If the "instructor", is not comfortable with the plane you showed up with, then the answer you got is justified. OTOH, if the instructor "knows" the plane, then he might say that the plane you have is not what you should train on. It may be a bit too sensitive and might need constant attention from the pilot to fly. The usual trainers as was shown to you are usually very docile planes, that have a large amount of wing dihedral, and may have only a flat bottom wing. So learning on those kind of planes is easier. But, if the instructor feels that he can handle the plane well and knows that he can teach correctly, (many just let you fly, and they have their finger on the trainer button, but do not really teach) then you might be able to learn on the plane you showed up with. So what plane did you show up with ??? Lets go from there, no ?? Later.
It isn't easy to find people in a model club that have the time to volunteer to teach others to fly. Instructing student pilots is very time consuming. I have known instructors that were so busy that many days they went home without flying the model that they brought with them for their own personal enjoyment. In fact, I have been in that very same position myself. Newbies tend to join clubs in clusters. Even if you have three or four dedicated instructors, it can be a very demanding undertaking to teach others to fly.
With the previously mentioned lack of folks with the time to instruct, comes the lowering of standards for prospective instructors. Many of them, with the very best of intentions, are not suited to solo themselves, much less teach anyone else how to fly. But, you go with what you have available.
A decade or so ago, one of the clubs in which I was a member, was having a problem with their instructors crashing the student pilot's plane. Several student pilots resigned from the club and complained to the appropriate county folks, the folks that granted us our field. It was clear that we had to do something about the situation of bad instructors.
I was appointed Chief Instructor. It was my responsibility to come up with an evaluation method and, if necessary, a training program for flight instructors in order to bring them up to speed in competency.
I sat down one evening and wrote up a small list of abilities that I thought that any flight instructor should have securely fastened under his belt. I then presented my plan to the club's officers/board of directors. It was approved and I was free to proceed with the implementation of my program.
I won't bore everyone with all of the details, but I will, instead, present the one criteria that nearly lost us all of our instructors.
In the evaluation flight criteria, it was expressed that all qualified instructors be capable of landing satisfactorily from either the left or right direction. Does that sound overly difficult for someone that is supposed to be competent enough to teach others how to fly safely? It seemed reasonable to me. Boy, you should have heard the howling that went on when everyone found out this one, single requirement.
We did, in fact, lose half of our instructors. They quit instructing and they would not let anyone assist them in learning how to land in the direction from which they felt uncomfortable. Oddly enough, the ones that quit were the very ones with the most complaints about them crashing newbie's models. It worked out perfectly.
All of the gentlemen that quit are deceased, so I'm not worried about embarrassing them, if you know what I mean.
Hey! That'll be something to practice. The field where I fly has a strong prevailing wind that nearly always comes from the right end of the pits, so everyone flies in a left circle and lands left to right. I'll have to try some right-to-left landings -- but only when the wind isn't up.
Right now I'm concentrating on re-learning how to land, so making sure I can do it from both directions will be good. A long time ago I flew primarily gliders and little things with 049s and no landing gear, then I stopped flying at all for a number of years. Now I fly great big planes (42" wingspan and a 25, my goodness!) so I have to figure out what to do with those wheels.
We had a similar situation at our field just this week -- two new guys with one of those new "Trainer P-51s" -- you know, with fixed flaps, air brakes on the gear, tip leading edge anti-stall strips, gear canted well forward, and all. These guys did not have a clue -- not one!
One of our instructors checked out the model, it looked airworthy, so after running a tankfull of fuel through it, he did the test flight.
Afterwards, he pronounced it OK to train on, but suggested it would be best suited to a second model. Why? First off, it didn't have quite the positive stability necessary for the model to recover on its own from an upset like a high-wing trainer with lots of dihedral. Secondarily, learning the nuances of a tail-dragger is just one more thing a new student has on his plate.
"Final Answer" -- Nothing really wrong, but the learning curve would probably be best with a traditional trainer first. BTW, that P-51 was a good looking model with some high-vis markings.
Cheers -- \_________Lyman Slack________/ \_______Flying Gators R/C___/ \_____AMA 6430 LM____ / \___Gainesville FL_____/ Visit my Web Site at
Your type is one of the reasons I quit instructing. I had people show up with non trainers too.
You must understand that you are taking the non-paid instructors flying time to help you. You should do everything you can to shorten that time. One example is good simulator time can reduce instruction time by at least 3 hours because it trains you on the left/right problem. A non-standard trainer will increase the learning time and hence more of the instructors time. You must understand that you are not the only student getting free time. If you were paying for the instructors time, I bet you would do everything you could to reduce the time you need.
Once an instructor is known, he is expected to train anytime he is at the field. That is another reason I quit instructing. I couldn't go to the field anything and relax and fly my planes. I came very close to not going to the club field and stay at home and fly. But I decided that was not fair to myself, so I decided to quit instructing and after about 6 months of politely saying no, I can now fly and enjoy.
It is also discusting to observe after you spend your time helping students learn to fly that they leave the hobby as fast as they came in to it. My observation is that out of 10 students, you are lucky is one of them is still a club member after 3 years. I tried to get my club, if the newby required instruction, to charge three years dues up front.
As someone said previously, some so called instructors stand by while you learn. I actually tried to teach and would give ground school before we flew so you would know what to expect and know how to do the manuvers before hand. This type of instructing is very tiring for the instructor.
I'm glad I quit and your statement reinforces that I made the correct decision.
What the guy behind the counter should have said is "Yes, you can PROBABLY train with this too." I've seen lots of people who can't fly trainer-trainers, and I've seen some people who've learned on Ultra Stick
40s with flaps. Everyone's different.
In general, your probability of success is going to be higher training with a trainer-trainer simply because they tend to be more forgiving of the mistakes that you're going to make (everybody does). It's not to say you can't learn on a more advanced aircraft, but it'll take longer before you're ready to solo and you just have to accept the additional risk that you're going to crash and re-kit that more expensive plane. More advanced planes typically fly faster meaning you can get in trouble a lot faster than your beginner reflexes can recover. This also makes them somewhat more dangerous in your hands at the field in terms of it getting out of control and crashing in the pits or parking lot and possibly injuring someone.
But if your instructor is willing to buddy-box with you for more flights with the non-trainer-trainer until you can handle its performance, then there's not really a problem jumping ahead in my opinion. Control throws on the surfaces can be reduced to keep you from over-controlling it until you get more time in and your confidence builds.
I've only flown at my local field so above is what I've seen. I'm sure there are guys in my club that would balk at training someone with an Ultra Stick 40, but others wouldn't have a problem at all (like me, but I'm not a "designated" club instructor even though I've buddy boxed quite a few beginners, including a guy with an Ultra Stick 40).
Of course, if you've spent time flying on one of the sims, then your probability of success no matter what type of first airplane you've picked is a lot higher.
I completely follow what IFLYJ3 said. I am roughly in the same situation as him, but I still learn others to fly. But I refuse any beginner with a non-trainer, because I don't want to spend more time to him than to anybody else just because that guy doesn't like a trainer-look and doesn't care about the time the teacher has to spend to give lessons for free. And YES, I can land from left or right, even landing on the back from left and from right...without damages except prop! A new instructor has shown-up at our flied and encouraged 4 newbies to start with a low-wing without dihedral. It worked well for 1 guy, the youngest who was 18. The 3 others crashed either during tuition on landing phases at 2 meters (6 feet) above the ground, either crashed very soon after their solo flight during landing. Too fast, the plane, and without time to forgive! Now 2 of the 4 mentioned members have a trainer-trainer and are doing well on their own, one is quitting because disgusted, and the youngest one is flying a CAP as second plane, but not able doing any acrobatic figure... So basically : you could learn with any type of airplane, yes, BUT at what cost of time for the teacher???? So it's a no-no, just because that egoistic point of view of the beginner, or the wrong intentions of the RC-shopkeeper willing to sell whatever plane to whatever newbie.
Because most of these clubs are run with the "old boy" system. If they didn't think of it, it's not "good". Most of the club leadership are old, non-progressive farts, with way too much time on their hands. Personally - the "non trainer" trainers, work just fine. I was a little surprised at some of the abrasive replies that you recieved. Maybe not too surprised - lots of Peckerheads on this group.
You should use the equipment that your instructor recommends, or find another instructor. Personally I would check with a prospective instructor _first_, then go buy a plane.
If the instructors at a particular club tend to discourage anyone training on anything other than a typical trainer it's probably because they've watched enough failed attempts to know what they're talking about.
In the full scale world this is summed up by "there are old pilots, there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots".
When the plane makes a new post hole in the field it'll be your instructor, not the guy behind the counter, who looks like a dork. If you _must_ fly with that plane go back to the shop, explain your predicament, and ask the guy behind the counter when he'll be available to teach.
I for one think "slow and forgiving" planes are way underappreciated. In spite of owning several sport planes, I still enjoy flying my Easy Fly 40 out at the field whenever I get the chance. I might not be able to do Cuban Eights with it at full throttle like I can my Tiger Stick, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy flying it!
A traditional flat-bottomed trainer aircraft is something no pilot ever truely outgrows. They're a pleasure to fly when you're not in the mood to go 100mph doing inverted passes six inches off the runway. They can be flown fast or slow, most will do basic aerobatics just fine, and they're ideal to keep handy in case a buddy who hasn't flown before wants to try their hand at flying on your buddy box.
Adrenaline junkies may feel free to disagree with me, but a high-wing trainer aircraft is not only the best airframe for new pilots to train on, it's an essential component of any well-stocked model hangar. I honestly can't imagine being without a high-wing trainer aircraft to fly when I just want to relax and enjoy spending a beautiful sunny day out at the flying field.
| What the guy behind the counter should have said is "Yes, you can PROBABLY | train with this too." I've seen lots of people who can't fly | trainer-trainers, and I've seen some people who've learned on Ultra Stick | 40s with flaps. Everyone's different.
To be fair, set up properly, an Utra Stick 40 is a very stable plane, and probably wouldn't make a very bad trainer at all if the control rates were turned way down and the center of gravity was pushed a bit forward from where it might be for a stunt plane.
The only thing missing would be some dihedral, but having a high wing gives you a little bit of the benefits of dihedral.
Getting the buddy box working properly might be a bit more complicated, as most US 40's are set up with a few sorts of mixing and only the latest radios (Futaba 9C, probably a few others) will allow the master radio to do all the mixing if the buddy box can't/doesn't, but it's certainly something you can work out.
I never really did understand why people are so fond of tricycle gears for trainers. Tail draggers aren't hard to deal with at all, and they're far more forgiving of poor landings.
Really, the most important things that I see is that the trainer needs to be slow and to have relatively low rates. Dihedral is nice, but not essential.
IMHO, The instructor who insists on a high wing, high dihedral, flat bottom airfoil type may be unsure of his own ability. An instructor must be a very proficient pilot who also *loves* to teach and knows how. The student who crashes while being taught usually does so because the instructor was probably unaware or of his own limitations and let the student get in too deep.. A good instructor must allow the student to make mistakes without getting in so deeply that the instructor can't recover. Different *good* instructors may have different skill levels and different "thresholds of pain." I recall flying with a USAF primary instructor (old T6) who complimented me a on a good landing when he was actually all over the controls - bad instructor. There are many non-typical trainer types that make excellent trainers. Sig 4 Star 40, Goldberg Eagle II, Fly Baby, 40 Stik, etc. So chose your instructor carefully.The student should remember to choose his instructor and make sure he's not a stick knocker who flies like an epileptic on amphetamines. He should also choose someone who is willing to talk to him and with whom he enjoys talking.
In the ol' days I really enjoyed teaching anyone who was really interested in the hobby because it established a permanent bond and I made a new friend, I used to get warm fuzzies from the looks of panic on their faces when I told them this flight would be a solo *and* when they greased it in. An instructor who constantly complains about how difficult it is or demanding, tiring, thankless, etc. perhaps shouldn't be an instructor. Instructor may burn out because they don't manage the student load properly. Why not set a comfortable level on the number of students you accept. One instructor may set 1 or 2 as a limit while another will take on 5 or 6 (too many IMO). It's a position for which *you* volunteered and it should be fun. I've talked to some instructors who think the backside of a power curve is a sexual position, and they still consider themselves to be aces.
I would always spend time telling a student what we were going to do and why. I'd get a 10-15' flight with a the student, recap, watch for awhile, fly my bird, relax and watch with my student while we observed others fly and critiqued the flights.Sometimes a student would get one flight sometimes two - it didn't matter because he learned just by watching and asking questions. I think it may be unfortunate that some of the newbies are members of the "Me, I want it now," generation and are inclined to think that a club instructor is obligated to teach no matter what. Why not take him aside, explain that you'd just like to fly your bird and relax for a bit. Let hi stand alongside while you explain what you're doing. If you think he's ready,let him get a few minutes of stick time on your bird. That'll get his juices flowing and increase his confidence in you.
BTW, when was the last time anyone saw an instructor teach recovery from unusual positions before he allowed a student to solo, or how to taxi in various wind conditions. The only requirement I had for a solo real or model) was "if he gets into trouble can he recover?" When a student reaches the point that I could answer that question with an unqualified yes - he was ready to go. I didn't mean to step on any toes or to criticize. Instructing
*is* demanding and stressful but so is strapping on an F-16 and it's done because it's so much fun.
I enjoy listening to some of my fellow old farts who came up through Jim Walker sling shot gliders, Wakefield, free flight, U-Control, Galloping Ghost, Reeds, and finally propo (I said *some* because some are really old fart idiots.) Heaven forbid you may actually learn something. If you hear them discussing Frank Zaic's "Spiral Airflow", run for cover because most of the discussion may be way over your heads - That's my story and I'm stickin' to it ;-))
Hi Tim, I think that statement may have antedated parachutes or ejection seats . Bob Hoover, Jimmy Doolittle and thousands more. Substitute "dumb" for "bold" and you've got a winner. ;-)
Not exactly -- The ORIGINAL Ugly Stik was designed by Phil Kraft to be a "Quick and easy-to-build" (using stock wood sizes) and reliable model with it's primary function to TEST Kraft radios :-) Then everyone discovered it's characteristics to be the ideal trainer at that time.
With modern stik varients, a lot depends on control surface sizes and dihedral. The GP Big Stik is a good trainer-style stick because it has moderate dihedral built into the wing and the control surfaces aren't much bigger than a typical trainer.
My Tiger Stick .40 offers similar modest control surface areas, although the elevator is deceptive. It doesn't look like there's all that much elevator there, until you throw it into a "split s" or an Immelmann and it whips around in the blink of an eye. The Tiger Stick (at least mine) came with a zero dihedral wing brace as well. It's as comfortable flying upside down as it is right side up, but this isn't necessarily a good thing for a first trainer.
When you move up to ARFs like the Ultra Stik by Hangar 9 or the Wild Stik by Carl Goldberg, you're dealing with a completely different animal than the Big Stik. Much larger control surfaces, sleeker airfoils, and zero dihedral all make for a much more aerobatic flying experience; even if you don't build them with seperate flaps and ailerons. Model Tech has a larger Stik design called the Fun Fly 90 that is also designed for wild aerobatic flight.
There are plenty of other stiks that should be suitable as trainers, but I haven't flown them myself so I can't swear they'd be as gentle as the GP Big Stik. There is the Model Tech Lucky Stik .40 and Joss Stik .60, the World Models Super Stunts .40 and .60, and the VMAR Xtreme Stik Shoulder Wing, V-Stik .40, and V-Stik .60 to name a few. There are even a few low-wing stik ARFs available that look like they'd be fun. These include the VMAR Xtreme Stik Low Wing and the Sportsman Aviation Sport Stik .40.
With so many different sizes and design variations, it's difficult to make any particular generalization about "stiks" that aren't contradicted by at least two or three different major ARFs. All I know for sure is they're fun as hell to fly!
During the seventies, symmetrical (Bridi RCM Trainers, Ugly Stiks and variants) or semi-symmetrical airfoil equipped models (Senior Falcon, Falcon
56) replaced the old fashioned semi-free flight, flat bottomed airfoil equipped models. It was a natural progression, a step up in evolution, that made sense and benefited the student pilot. It was decided by many that if the model flew itself, you were not learning anything of value as a student pilot.
I agreed with this philosophy. I still do. The problem is that not all prospective student pilots are equally talented or endowed with good vision. There are some folks that are not capable of progressing beyond the semi free-flight models. Unfortunately, some of these folks end up being instructors. These are usually the ones that insist that a flat bottomed airfoil equipped trainer is the only way to go. And, for them, that is true. Unfortunately, they try to inflict their philosophy upon every student pilot.
However, the majority of new student pilots have at least average vision and hand-eye coordination. For these folks semi-symmetrical or symmetrical airfoil equipped models should be their minimum choice for initial flight instruction.
Why? While the flat bottomed airfoil will usually stall at a lower airspeed, the stall is sharp and abrupt, with little chance of recovery without a lot of altitude beneath the model. On the other hand, semi-symmetrical, or better yet, a thick symmetrical airfoil, provides plenty of warning before it stalls (the model begins sinking/mushing without snapping). A little down elevator/added power can easily bring such a model out of the danger zone and begin flying again with full control.
As everyone who has ever flown R/C knows, landing is the most difficult learning aspect of the hobby. This is precisely where the semi-symmetrical or symmetrical airfoil shows its stuff. Such an airplane, with a modest bit of dihedral (more on that later) will provide the student pilot with enough time to react and rectify the situation. Whereas, the flat bottomed airfoil will have stalled and in most cases will be beyond the student's ability to recover.
Also, very light wing loading floaters with flat bottomed airfoils are subject to being blown over in slightly crosswind takeoffs. The symmetrical airfoil equipped models tend to fly at rather higher wing loadings/speed and ignore the slight crosswind on takeoff. Your chance of taking off successfully is much higher with a faster, sleeker model than a flat bottomed airfoil equipped box kite.
Dihedral is not your enemy. Too much dihedral is. Large control surfaces are not your enemy, too much control throw with a rearward balance point is. This is when you are training - not when you are flying 3D.
Dihedral stabilizes the model significantly on approach, thus freeing the student pilot from constantly needing to correct for minor roll/yaw errors that are introduced by flying through turbulence - the stuff you can't see, but which moves a wing tip up or down when you are concentrating on timing the application of elevator for a smooth landing.
Just a tad of dihedral will not seriously affect the rolling ability of the model. We're not talking about needing a model that does F3A pattern quality rolls here, so lets forget about making your trainer a hot rod and instead make it a trainer that will do what is needed. All of the macho stuff can come later, after you have become a successful pilot.
Will flat bottom airfoil equipped models train satisfactorily? Yes, of course. But if you are pressed financially and cannot replace your free flight R/C assisted box kite after less than 20 flights, try to find an instructor that is a good pilot and who is comfortable teaching you how to fly on a Stik. You will get through those first few flights with ease on the Stick type of model and will quickly move up in ability because you are flying the model. It is not flying itself.
There are two possible reasons, both mentioned by others and neither good. Eithor the instructor is uncomfortable teaching outside his 'box' or he is not very good. The issue about too much time being spent is really not valid, because the truly committed will always enjoy flying even if it is someone elses airplane. Many a day another instructor and I never even unpacked our planes, but we flew all day long. Remember the average student only has a 10 minute attention span once the wheels leave the ground until they are almost ready for solo. CCR, stay out of this because your methods are very different from what is commonly used - even if you ARE right .
I have been known to do the first flights on Super Sportsters, Kougars, Kaos' and the like. I even have done some serious instruction with a Kougar. The only issue is your instructors ability to transmit knowledge to you on the level needed for your understanding. That comes from being able to break the act of taking off, flying around, and landing into very fine detail and sharing each and every one of those segements with you until you can replicate them at will. With a good instructor, your model should last a very long time (one of my students sent me a Christmas card and told me he is STILL flying his 10 year old 'trainer' [that was NOT a flat bottomed wing bird but it was FAST]). A poor instructor makes the hobby shop money in the short term but hurts the hobby in the long term..
That all being said the more stable airframes tend to allow the beginner more room to spend his air time learning rather being at the mercy of the instructors need to recover the unusual attitudes. I will train on almost any non IMAC, pattern, or racing airframe. Some add air time requirements because the student needs to be well versed in all flight regeims, and some airframes make that difficult. As an example, slow flight figure 8's are a teaching tool I use to prepare for landings no matter what the wind is doing. Pitts biplanes tend to be real dogs for slow flight turns, where many flat bottomed high wing deep dihedral birds excell at that. The point here is that I am trying to teach the differing control 'feel' at low speed similar to what we land at.
I also have fought the battle of bad instructors and implemented a 'club approved instructor' program that included a flight test where a 'student' tried many of the errors normally seen for the prospective instructor. To keep the wanna be for social reason's out, we reqired the prospective instructor to provide the airframe, radio, and buddy box for the test flight. The 'students' were encouraged to try to break the rules but were discouraged from actually breaking the plane. Prior to working with the 'student' he had to demonstrate take off and landing to the left and right, slow flight to the left and right, and a dead stick where the engine was cut midway on down wind and he had to make an on runway landing to pass. Oh yeah before he took off on his demonstration flight, we "fixed" his trims because most newbies show up with birds that are totally out of whack and can be exciting once off the ground. During the 'student' flight multiple attempts at breaking the safety or common sense rules were tried. If he 'fixed' the problems, he passed as long as he did not violate safety rules (which include the runway edge).
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.