Trainers that dont look like Trainer VS Trainers that do...

Whoa Ed, how did you know that you "wear" an F-16 ??????

Guess where I come from ....

You should mention the specific model but I will ASS-U-ME it was the Hangar

9 P-51 PTS. If not, nothing below is relevant.

When the PTS was announced there were dozens of threads about how it could not possibly be a trainer. This was before the plane even existed at the retail level. There are a lot of preconceived notions about "warbirds" that were immediately attached to this plane. Now that it is out, people have been able to see that it is absolutely not a "scale" model of the P-51, it is simply a plane with a warbird covering scheme and a shape that's similar enough to a P-51 to generate sales. Instructors who have actually flown it have mixed opinions regarding its suitability as a primary trainer. I'd like to see and fly the PTS but none of our club members has one.

I do believe that if the instructor is uncomfortable about the plane it will be harder for him to teach someone. Is it 'right' to arbitrarily label a plane as unsuitable? Probably not. But instructors give up their own flying time to teach for free, so it is their right to say no.

I agree with the other reply that it is probably best to find out, from the instructor, what to get before spending any money.

Carrell

To all who replied, I thank you very much for all of the replies to my question.I was going to buy one of the-yes you guessed it P51'S with the new training system (congrats to all who guessed right)in it. when i ran into my buddy, he told me that when the season starts up again,we can all be sure there will be plenty of these non trainer trainers at the field and yes the LHS is pushing these like they are going out of style.Any person who wanted to get into the hobby was steered into this direction right past the "typical"trainers-Alpha's Avistars and all the trainers that any new person would not want, I think you can hear the sales pitch,So i wont go into it.

OUR instructor at my club is always overwhelmed with new pilots, I am sorry to say that he is the only instructor in the club(designated) so when he's not there you observe. or if you can get another member to help out consider yourself lucky.I have not heard anyone say that they should be paid for what they do..... I sent my instructor a gift cert to the LHS or taken him to lunch, to show my gratitude. he does not really care what you come with(within reason) just be willing to learn and there is never a mention of money... "some guys are like that, I am not" yes, he likes to fly HIS planes at the field too so after my time with him i go get lost some where...there have been times when i have seen him arrive at the field and like the secret service running along the presidents carnew pilots swarming all over him with the car still moving asking him questions...THAT DAY he never unpacked his car he flew planes ok... but none of them were his......."I like this.. flew all day and never unpacked my car"

Perhaps i have gotten off the subject, But i just wanted to find out why some are so afraid to try another kind of trainer,But thanks to you good folks i know.I know that if i were looking for a trainer and the guy behind the counter said they are BOTH trainers.. it would not be hard to make a choice PTS or a boxy avistar? I know which way i'd go. It's a good thing the P51 was not around when i started.... thanks all..... HAPPY NEWYEAR.... TIMES SQUARE AWAITS....

If you haven't flown the P-51 trainer, you are in no position to pass judgement on it.

There is nothing magic about having a box fuselage with the flat bottomed wing on top. There are many disadvantages to this configuration. You cannot learn to fly if your model is grounded because the grass is too high and your plain bearing forty can't get the model off the ground.

You cannot learn to fly if your model is grounded because the field is busy that day and the wind is blowing across the field at a fair clip at forty-five degrees to the direction of the runway. Busy days usually mean no exceptions to the takeoff straight down the runway rule. This is fine for experienced pilots, but many "instructors" that I have known cannot handle the task, much less than when being handicapped by an underpowered model, higher than normal grass and a weak powerplant. Add to that a flat bottom winged model without enough control surface area/throw and you are asking for disaster.

What I am trying to point out is that the old conventional wisdom does not always provide the present day beginner with the best information, instruction or hardware. Beginners are at the mercy of the hobbyshop clerks and the jabberjaws at the field that love to hear themselves talk just for the perceived self-importance. Did I mention that some of these same fellows are "instructors"?

I have not flown the P-51 myself, so I have no comment other than it is possible to learn how to fly on a sleek, low wing model. I did so myself with a Testor's RTF single-channel proportional model in 1969. Before that I had a few turns at the sticks of a "multi" model (Ugly Stick) owned by MSgt. Ed Thompson. Before that it was a lot of control line and a tad of free flight.

I wish the OP lots of success and happiness in the hobby.

Ed Cregger

Hi Gig, You sound like the kind of student I would love to teach (If my flying skills/reflexes had not ....). You're motivated, listen well, polite, considerate, analytical and patient. You seem to have found a great instructor who possesses all the same qualities. I think you're really going to enjoy this great hobby. Good Luck -

Hi Ed#2 HAHAHA Not enough Ed's spoil the broth there is certainlty a lot of them!! Thanks for the kind words... I do like to fly it's fun... but the reason i wrote this post was to find out why some folk don't like the "new breed of trainer" VS the old style.coming here i found my Answer.... I see that some do and some dont like to teach using new methods.I have also found out through question and answer that it depends on the actual skill of the instructor, his confidence level and pateince level with the student. The student will also need the same.. Thanks for all of the replies.....

I encourage people to experiment with different types of models and models that are beyond their present level of comfort.

However, when one takes on the title of instructor, I become a by-the-rules prick.

When instructing, one is responsible for the safety of the student pilot's model and radio gear. I have seen more self professed instructors dump student pilot's models due to incompetency than most folks would believe. Then they blame it on something other than their incompetence.

My rules is, if you dump the student's model, you pay for the replacement. There simply is no excuse for crashing a student pilot's model. After all, it is the instructor's job to ensure that the model is flight worthy. That is part of what we should demand of each and every instructor. If you can't pay for your crashes, you have no business instructing.

Ed Cregger

People resist change. That is the main reason for some folks resisting the possibility that a model other than a square box with a flat bottomed wing on the top can actually train successfully. Oddly enough, it isn't always old people either.

Many are not up on aerodynamics. Ignorance is the problem. Arguing with these folks is usually pointless. I have set up Bridi/Great Planes Trainer

40s that would float nicer than a typical Asian trainer ARF and proven to folks that it is a better trainer in every respect by having them flying the model around, but then you get the "no comprendo" stare from the subject. When that happens, you may as well save your breath. They repeat back the typical R/C dogma, not logic. I give up - most of the time.

I admit that I am a bit jaded. I've been in model airplanes as a hobby since the Fifties. I've seen our hobby evolve from a make-it-yourself/do-it-yourself hobby to a buy it and fly it hobby. I miss the old days.

People were more serious when modeling required much more work and lots more money. They educated themselves at the libraries and through monthly publications. Many of today's student pilots and instructors are more akin to Homer Simpson than Charles Lindburgh.

The last statement only applies to those that qualify. Certainly not everyone and maybe not anyone in any particular club. There are still smart folks out there and more are being born every day, so please don't think that this is one of those generational rants. It isn't. If someone loves aviation and is willing to put in the time and work, I'm available for them, regardless of their age.

Thanks for listening.

Happy New Year to everyone.

Ed Cregger

Hopefully someday, minds will open up to the idea that there is anothe

way to teach. In my experience, it doesn't really matter what kind o plane my student brings to learn on. I've found that newbies tend t bang the sticks around alot, which tells me that they, are much to nervous and/or have tons of learning the wrong way on a sim and/o played video games.

I have to disagree with those who think that kids will learn faste because they have tons of hours playing video games, as the vetera flier knows, unless you are flying 3D, all it takes are very tiny an smooth movements on the sticks. I've trained many kids over the years and I have to say that men and women in the 60s and older, catch o much faster than video playing kids.

CC

-- fliers

----------------------------------------------------------------------- fliers1's Profile:

this thread:

And that's truly unfortunate. I learned to fly in the 70's flying a well used, 3rd hand Falcon 56. In the club where I learned this was *the* trainer. I think it was every bit as forgiving as "modern" trainers and with the semisymmetrical wing it would carry the newbie longer than the current breed of flat bottom winged trainers.

To add to another topic discussed on this thread, my beloved Falcon was wrecked by the local "instructor" who was know for crashing every beginner's plane. That's one thing that has improved with the advent of trained instructors. At some clubs anyway.

Dave

I have found the older folks to be more receptive to being educated. But the kids usually solo before the older folks, in my experience.

We're just a couple of instructors in the hundreds or thousands of us out there in the world. It is certainly possible that our experiences are both true and that just the circumstances were different.

Some kids flying sims first solo on the first day. I have heard of that more than once. I don't know how many oldsters are in that much of a hurry, therefore not affecting my perception as much.

Ed Cregger

| My rules is, if you dump the student's model, you pay for the | replacement.

That sounds fine, except that in my experience, people willing to be instructors, good or not, are generally rare, and this would only make them even more rare.

| There simply is no excuse for crashing a student pilot's model. After all, | it is the instructor's job to ensure that the model is flight worthy.

Of course, there's a number of things that can go wrong with a model and lead to it's crash that even the most thorough pre-fligt can't detect. It hardly seems fair to make it a policy to make the instructor pay for accidents -- he's donating his time, he's not getting paid, and now he has to pay if something goes wrong?

| That is part of what we should demand of each and every | instructor. If you can't pay for your crashes, you have no business | instructing.

Instructors are already rare.

Personally, when I started flying, the instructors generally made it clear up front that any damage done to my plane was my responsiblity, no matter who's fault it was. And it was never a problem -- I flew with a few different instructors, and there were no crashes of my plane. All the instructors I flew with seemed to be pretty good at flying.

(And I have seen cases where the instructor was blamed for crashes (at least by the student), when it seemed pretty clear that it was the student who was to blame.

It certainly sounds nice to have your instructor replace any crashed planes, but I'd really not want to make it a policy. But then again, I'd hope that any instructors that regularly crashed student's planes wouldn't remain an instructor for long. Perhaps the club where I started was unusual, with a relatively formal instructor program.

That may also be part of why it was difficult to find an instructor, and I'd spend a lot of time at the field waiting for one to become available. I've considered becoming an instructor myself -- I'm good enough at flying, but I'm not sure how good I'd be at teaching, and the formal program makes it a bit harder for me to `try it out'.

Though while I didn't have any crashes myself, I'd seen a few happen. In at lest some cases, the instructor did help repair the plane, even if he really didn't have to.

I agree with every point you have made Ed. The nonsense that only a square box with a flat bottom wing is a decent trainer should have died a long time ago. I have seen way too many people learn and learn fast on other types of planes. Some people even learn on things like the Duraplane. Talk about hard! That is the only plane I have ever flown that was harder to take off then it was to land. Particularly if it only has a plain bearing 40 and you are flying off grass. Yet I have seen people learn with it as a first plane. I have seen people learn with fully symetrical wings also. I have seen young people solo the first day. I have seen older people learn fast. I have seen some people who flew a lot of hours and never learned regardless of age, although this is far more common in older folks.

The biggest puzzle to me is where did the stuff come from that a trainer must have a flat bottom wing? For a given air speed, surface area and angle of incidence it does not provide a bit more lift then a fully symetrical wing or a flat plate for that matter. Anyone can look up the Cl at various angles of incidence and see this for themselves. It is more forgiving at a high angle of incidence in that it stalls later. Anyone who has it flying at greater then 10 degrees angle of incidence has bigger problems then the angle of incidence.

The big problem I see with many flat bottom wing trainers is way too many people get bored fast with flying in circles and doing a few loops. So they go up in performance and fly something on their own that is too far over their skill level and the best outcome is they crash without injuring anyone. I think any trainer that can not do inverted figure 8s is a poor trainer by definition. Some flat bottom trainers are just fine. An LT40 with a 46 on it is a great trainer for instance. Particularly if built with minimal dihedral. Some are simply horrid. The main thing you want in a trainer is a low wing loading so it will take off, fly and land slow and still have adequate control authority. If you have these it will be a good trainer. If not it will be poor. Also, too much dihedral is worse then not enough. Why should the student have to fight a plane that is too stable in roll? It just makes it harder for him.

I make these comment based on my own experience in learning to fly as well as teaching others. My instructor would take the plane off, hand me the transmitter and walk away saying let him know when I wanted to land. Heck of a nice guy but a little like trial by fire. The big thing he did was set standards on what I needed to do before my second plane. So after three or four days of this I was on my own and all I had were his standards to shoot for. I did get really fast at rebuilds. I could bust the fuse in half and be flying again within two days. These days with buddy cords it is a lot easier to learn I think.

This thread turned into a really interesting and quite informative source of information.

I've had a brief stint with R/C aircraft around '93 and gave up when I first crashed my home-built trainer. It flew, but without instructor or even any help trimming the plane, without the 'net I crashed it on 5th flight or so - although the damage was relatively minor I ditched it and gave up.

About two years ago I got bored and bought a R/C heli. Learned to fly it without help but with lots of sim time, but me "sweetheart" nagged me so much about "that dangerous toy" that I sold it.

Last fall I figured I'd try airplanes again, and start with a nice RTF parkflyer - ParkZone F27B Stryker. Not a trainer by any standards. Again without instructor, just with lots of sim time. Worked perfectly. First crash after about 20 flights, my guess would be due to servo failure.

Anyway what I am saying is: With todays good sims it's easy enough to learn how to fly. Even a sim like FMS is in my opinion totally sufficient to learn the basic "takeoff, cruise, land" routine.

Nowadays I'm saving for a bigger but reasonably docile plane, good radio equipment and so on - I may even break down and build one myself, and I am loath to touch any tools :) (and boys, stick "typical girl" comments where the sun never shines ;p )

And I think for these blasted cold winter hours I want a shockflyer. Thank goodness for access to a gym.

In all honesty, without the 'net, and the people sharing their knowledge

- and discussing it among themselves it would be impossible for loner gals like me to get into this wonderful hobby.

So, to everyone: THANKS

Jenni

Yeah, he has been around a long time but I doubt if you should call him old .... A bit worn on the edges maybe, but old ?? Nah !!!

I can't imagine any flying field that would be less than perfectly happy to see more members of the fairer sex participating in the fun! As relaxing and enjoyable as R/C flying is, I'm surprised it doesn't appeal to a larger percentage of girls and women.

Hopefully you'll feel free to contribute to our home spun knowledge base here as you continue to explore this terrific hobby!