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

I agree that tricycle landing gear would make learning to takeoff much easier.

I also agree that there are some folks for whom the ideal model that you described would suit their needs better than one of the new breed trainers. It depends upon the demographics of the student pilots, however.

If the student pilots are youngish in their vision and reflex resources, I'd prefer a trainer that is not auto stabilizing. I want to teach them to fly and if the curve is a little steep for the first ten or so flights, so be it. After that, they will be thanking me that I did not force them to train on a model that they will have to replace shortly because they outgrew it in less than 25 flights.

As usual, the final answer is - it depends.

I have no experience with Horizon's P-51 trainer. I am referring to Ugly Stiks, etc.

Ed Cregger

I have taught many folks to fly using a Stik, Trainer Forty/Sixty, Falcon 56, Senior Falcon, etc. Each had some dihedral and the model was set up to be a trainer, not a hotrodder. So many people have flown these models as hotrods, me included, that many folks forget just how gentle they can be made to fly when set up properly.

Ed Cregger

Seems the new R/C Report has a quite lengthily review of the P-51 -- goes through the process of what happens as the extra items are removed (such as the air brakes & wing slats) as well as what happens when the flaps are made functional and the heavy flywheel spinner is replaced. All in all, a favorable review

Lyman

Yo Gig,

How about an example of a non-trainer trainer. I'm a little mystified as to wht airplane(s) you're talking about.

Thanks,

CR

Gig wrote:

Umm, that would be the Hangar 9 P-51 Mustang PTS for the win.