 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / August 2004First plane for a newbie
I have been wanting an R/C plane since I was 14 (am now 38) and have finally decided that now might be the time to look at buying. I have talked to many people locally about what to get for my first plane, but am still undecided. Part of my problem is local availability. We do have a hobby store that sells lots of r/c planes and equipment, and I have gone and looked and asked lots of questions. Everything in the store seems way over priced from what I can find on the internet. The staff at the store (the owner operator) refused to answer any of my questions about electrics. I am leery of buying something I can not feel/touch/look at first so I don't really want to buy something off the net. I guess I will have to go to "the big city" of Saskatoon to have a look around there. I do know of a place called Daganfly Innovations located there that makes and sells a plane called the "Vortex Extreme" www.rctoys.com . Has anyone heard of or seen/used this plane? Would this be a good start or what should I look for or stay away from? Kerry (Prince Albert, SK Canada) Their Vortex is easier to fly than their "Extreme". Your choices are larger airplane (which gives you more time to react, more tolerance t wind but usually more damage in a crash) or a smaller airplane which i less tolerant of wind, requires quicker reflexes and can usually (bu not always) crash with impunity. In either case, getting help from local club or flyer is usually a BIG plus that shortens the learnin curve and reduces the number of crashes and frustration. There ar those who have learned on their own but most self-thaught flyers do no complete their apprenticeship and move on to other hobbies. It's no hard, just not "natural", particularly those first few times when it i coming towards you! Once you identify who is going to help you, as them for their recommendation... A powered glider is usually a bette choice if one has discarded the notion of the "Glow Powered 40 siz trainer" that generations learned on -- Lomceva If you don't mind electrics, GWS foam planes are great for beginners.. e.g. GWS Slowstick, GWS E-starter Check out http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ and http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=167 The pros and cons for GWS planes are all heavily discussed there. > I have been wanting an R/C plane since I was 14 (am now 38) and have finally > decided that now might be the time to look at buying. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Kerry (Prince Albert, SK Canada) The Hobbico NexStar deserves your consideration. Look for it at <www.towerhobbies.com>. One of my students has one that I've flown. It's a big airplane that flies well. You get a pre-assembled airplane with radio and a flight simulator program for your computer, all for $400. CR > If you don't mind electrics, GWS foam planes are great for beginners.. > e.g. GWS Slowstick, GWS E-starter [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> >> Kerry (Prince Albert, SK Canada) > I have been wanting an R/C plane since I was 14 (am now 38) and have finally > decided that now might be the time to look at buying. > I am leery of buying something I can not feel/touch/look at first so I don't > really want to buy something off the net. I guess I will have to go to "the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Kerry (Prince Albert, SK Canada) Athough the plane will probably fly OK, you're also left with a maginal radio that will not be usable in your next plane. A Slow Stick, Wingo, or a SoarStar might be a better first choice. With a cheap 4channel radio to allow for future better planes. I've picked up complete, new GWS 4CH radios for as cheap as $60 on eBay, and they're really not bad for Park Flyers. On the other hand, I've bought from Dragonfly Innovations before (no planes though) and have always been happy with their products and customer service. PCPhill Are you planning on joining a club and getting some flying instruction? If you are, get a Sig LT 40. Here is a link to the ARF version. http://www.sigmfg.com/cgi-bin/dpsmart.exe/ProductsV3.html?L+Sig+jhyq9161+_Ddp_5f Search1_02B_2dPlaneRC_26KadetLt40_01Search_02Index_01IMHO Here is a link to the kit version. http://www.sigmfg.com/cgi-bin/dpsmart.exe/ProductsV3.html?L+Sig+jhyq9161+_Ddp_5f Search1_02A_2dPlaneRCKadetLt40_01Search_02Index_01 It's the best trainer in the business. Once you are through training on it, you can remove the engine and radio components for use in you next (more maneuverable) plane. The problem is that it's too expensive for you go this route without an instructor to help you because you'll be crashing every so often trying to teach yourself. If you decide to teach yourself the Kavan Wingo from Hobby Lobby is a good choice. Here is a link to the Wingo. http://www.hobby-lobby.com/hlwingo.htm It's flight characteristics are gentle enough for a person to teach himself to fly and it's all foam construction makes it somewhat crash resistant.....In any case, the repairs that it will need will be fairly easy to make. Pros for LT 40. Great flying characteristics! Big plane (very easy to see in the air) Engine and radio transfers well into other planes Good jump off point if you are looking at flying bigger planes Cons for LT 40 It's a little expensive It's built up wood construction isn't crash resistant You'll need a big area (like a club) to fly it You probably won't be able to teach yourself on it Pros for Wingo It's fairly inexpensive It's nearly crash resistant It's easy to repair You can fly it in smallish (football field size) open areas You'll likely be able to teach yourself with it Cons for Wingo It's a cheap plane It's an ugly plane It's a slow plane When your done with it most stuff won't transfer into your next plane. That is....unless flying small electric planes is your goal. That's not a bad goal either. Lots of people enjoy this hobby flying small electric's exclusively. There are other similar planes to these two I've mentioned above. Personally, I think each of the planes I recommended represents the best in their respective categories. Don't be afraid to mail order from places like Tower Hobbies, Horizon or Hobby Lobby. These guys usually do a very good job of taking care or their customers. Personally, I recommend joining a club and getting the LT 40, but the other route isn't all bad.....especially if you live out where there isn't any clubs locally. I hope I've helped at least a little. Good Luck! Wiz > I have been wanting an R/C plane since I was 14 (am now 38) and have finally > decided that now might be the time to look at buying. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Kerry (Prince Albert, SK Canada) Hmmmm, Some ever interesting and sound advice. Thank-you to everyone that replied so far. Should I be concerned about balsa over foam for my first flyer? Balsa is harder to repair when I crash isn't it? Kerry > Are you planning on joining a club and getting some flying instruction? > > If you are, get a Sig LT 40. > Here is a link to the ARF version. http://www.sigmfg.com/cgi-bin/dpsmart.exe/ProductsV3.html?L+Sig+jhyq9161+_Ddp_5f Search1_02B_2dPlaneRC_26KadetLt40_01Search_02Index_01IMHO > Here is a link to the kit version. http://www.sigmfg.com/cgi-bin/dpsmart.exe/ProductsV3.html?L+Sig+jhyq9161+_Ddp_5f Search1_02A_2dPlaneRCKadetLt40_01Search_02Index_01 > It's the best trainer in the business. Once you are through training on > it, you can remove the engine and radio components for use in you next [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > > > Kerry (Prince Albert, SK Canada) Personally, I'm not a big fan of foam planes. That said I have an all foam profile plane on the building board as I type this. I think foam planes have a niche. They are good when you expect to be rough on them, which I expect with mine. Generally, foam planes are harder to build straight and true. Notice I said "generally". I have always found my balsa planes to be more substantial and bettery flying. Even my tiny balsa electric planes. I guess I just like balsa best. It's light, strong easy to work with and as long as the crashes aren't too bad a balsa plane can be repaired, just not as easily as a foam one can be. Wiz > Hmmmm, > [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] >>> >>>Kerry (Prince Albert, SK Canada) What you mention are "toys" and won't give you the satisfaction you're looking for in the hobby. I personally recommend building and then flying what you built, and not just flying (ARF's) because I have found that the building part of the hobby is even more enjoyable than the flying part. After all, just flying is nothing more than "playing" with toys while building your own gets you into the learning and technical aspects of the hobby. With the preaching out of the way, the absolutely two very best "first" beginner airplanes would be either the Hobby Lobby Senior Telemaster (my first choice) or the Sig Kadet Senior. If the Telemaster Senior is too large to fit into your car, take a look at the .40 size Telemaster. Either of those aircraft are notable in that they will teach you basic construction methods that will prove valuable to you later on in the hobby, and they both come with EXTENSIVE construction "manuals" that will walk you through the building process and hold your hand all the way. MJC > I have been wanting an R/C plane since I was 14 (am now 38) and have finally > decided that now might be the time to look at buying. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Kerry (Prince Albert, SK Canada) > What you mention are "toys" and won't give you the satisfaction you're > looking for in the hobby. All model planes are toys. Some fly faster and are heavier and make more noise that's all, and are more dangerous. You presumably know EXACTLY what will satisfy a potential modeller, and its EXACTLY what satisfies you, right? *shakes head in sorrow* Here's the thing, jackass. The RC hobby is a huge tent, and the new generation of ARF's are just toys in a very small corner of that tent, and they are no different than the old Cox PT-19 and Stuka plastic control line toys from years ago. If the guy wants to play with toys, then he can feel free to ignore my advice, but if he would like to enter the "serious" hobby of RC that stays with a person for a life time, he would be best served by starting out building. Just flying around gets really tiring really fast, and I can't count the number of guys who have entered the hobby by buying an ARF, joining our club, and then drop out of the club AND the hobby once they've bought and crashed 3 or 4 ARF's in a row. That's because people get tired of toys. By starting out in the hobby by building, he get's to experience more of what the hobby has to offer at the same time he gains confidence and satisfaction of doing something relatively difficult (at least, a lot more difficult than plunking down his AMEX card). If you don't understand these things, then you haven't gotten anywhere near to experiencing all the hobby has to offer. In the mean time, the hobby continues to decline because ARFs are changing the perception of the hobby from being a technically challenging hobby that encompasses several disciplines including aeronautical engineering into just "men playing with toys". Without any building experience and the enjoyment that comes with that, the ARF toy flyers have no idea what wing incidence and washout is (and why they are important), and they are usually clueless on how to repair their brand new shiny ARF when it gets dinged because they have no idea how they are put together. So you see, I'm trying to help this guy enter a hobby that will stay with him for a lifetime in the way that most of us experienced hobbiests understand, and not to just sell him a toy that he can play with for a couple of weekends and then move on to golfing or fly fishing. An airplane that you take out of a box, and (essentially just) fuel up and go fly, is a toy. An airplane that you spend many evenings of learning how to build, learning and applying aeronautical design principles, rigging, covering, painting, and then sweating over the potential loss of it more because of the time and effort you put into it rather than it's cost, is anything BUT a toy. But THAT's what adds to the long-term enjoyment of the hobby, and is the reason that I am suggesting to the guy to enter the hobby the way I did. If you like ARF toys, fine, but it's for YOU who I "shake my head in sorrow" if that's all the hobby means to you. You're missing a lot. MJC > > What you mention are "toys" and won't give you the satisfaction you're > > looking for in the hobby. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > *shakes head in sorrow* > Here's the thing, jackass. The RC hobby is a huge tent, and the new > generation of ARF's are just toys in a very small corner of that tent, and > they are no different than the old Cox PT-19 and Stuka plastic control line > toys from years ago. I learnt to fly C/L on a cox. I ended up on combat wings. I first rode a bicycle. Then I learnt to drive a car. Then I learnt to drive a sports car. > If the guy wants to play with toys, then he can feel free to ignore my > advice, but if he would like to enter the "serious" hobby of RC that stays > with a person for a life time, he would be best served by starting out > building. Total utter bilge. Very few pople buold models these days. (I am one of teh few that do). Most by ARTFS with big sucker glo engines up the front and spend an hour a week tuning them and ten minutes flying them. Thats called 'being serious' menahwile loads of people are having fun flying slow stiks etc for up to half an hour continuously. Guess who has more fun. Oh. Sorry. Toys are fun. Serious modelling is all about becoming an amrchair expert in tuning crude 2 stroke methanol engines right? > Just flying around gets really tiring really fast, Certainly does on a glo trainer. and I can't count the > number of guys who have entered the hobby by buying an ARF, joining our > club, and then drop out of the club AND the hobby once they've bought and > crashed 3 or 4 ARF's in a row. So why not but a cheaper electric ARTF that doesn't crash? That's because people get tired of toys. People get tired of lots of things. People get tired of a.sholes in usenet. <snip "Joy Of Craftsmanship"> I happen to like building a lot, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to derogate someone who just wants to fly a 'toy plane'. I've flown ARTF's and stuff that is totally my own design. There is something to be said for all of them, and different horses suit different courses. If someone has no interest in building, but wants to progress to competitive flying or aerobatics, and ARTF model will get themm flying a LOT faster that sitting down and smashing a balsa model that has taken them months to complete. Mr. MJC: As a newbie to the the hobby I have to side Mr. Natural Philosopher. Who are you to force me to like what you like? I've never gotten along with wood, balsa, pine or otherwise. I can build a 500HP V8 engine for my hot rod, but every time I try to hammer in a nail the wood splits or the nail bends. I do not give a rat's a.s how the model is designed or put together. I do not want to know what degree is the optimal dihedral for my wing. (shucks, I can't even spell it). All I care about is the thrill of getting my SIG LT40 ARF off the ground and then back down safely again. I enjoy my hobby. It's what I do when I'm not working. I have enough details to think about while I'm working. I'm an Environmental Chemist, keeping the environment safe for you and your children. What do you do? TomC RC Lurker > Here's the thing, jackass. The RC hobby is a huge tent, and the new > generation of ARF's are just toys in a very small corner of that tent, and [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> >>*shakes head in sorrow* Okay children, stop the fighting! You have all made very valid points. Mr. MJC, I would love to build from scratch a "real R/C creation", however I also know that if I invested even $200.00 on a plane kit that took most people a week or two to build I would need at least four months to build it and when done it would not fly. Lets say for the sake of it that it does fly and my first time out I turn it into toothpicks (highly possible as I have come to realize that it is not a case of if you crash, it is when you crash!) I can tell you that I would sell the radio and all parts and never attempt to fly again. Please do not take my comments as me criticizing you, because I am not. I just know that for my first plane, investing weeks or even months of work to risk throwing it away on my first flight is not for me. To me, time is more precious than money (not that I have a lot of either) I think that I would love to actually "build" one on my second or third plane (looking ahead). And as for Mr. Philosopher and Mr. Crabtree, although I do appreciate you standing up for your beliefs on the subject, resorting to name calling and ridicule does not help me want to join this hobby! We just got through a federal election here in Canada and I can tell you that the people that did all the name calling did not get my vote! Kerry > Mr. MJC: > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >> > >>*shakes head in sorrow* > Okay children, stop the fighting! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > precious than money (not that I have a lot of either) I think that I would > love to actually "build" one on my second or third plane (looking ahead). Fine. > And as for Mr. Philosopher and Mr. Crabtree, although I do appreciate you > standing up for your beliefs on the subject, resorting to name calling and > ridicule does not help me want to join this hobby! We just got through a > federal election here in Canada and I can tell you that the people that did > all the name calling did not get my vote! More beliefs about people in general, anyway, you have heard all sides., you have a brain. No more need be said. > Okay children, stop the fighting! > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Kerry Your best bet is go with a ARF, it teach you some basic skills.....latter on get a BIY kit or build from plans only while learning to fly. I started off with a RTF,ARF,BIY kit. Right now I am working on building one from plans only. Now if you looking for some plans latter on I have a ton of them.....gladly email you if you are interested. Mike P.S. The name calling is normal for 99.9% of unmoderated news groups. Kerry, I built my very first RC model from a kit (Andrews H-Ray). I "thought" flying was easy so I took it out to an empty parking lot, took it out, managed one sort of circle in the air, and then promptly buried it at full throttle into asphalt. And that was after working for 3 months to build the model. The only thing I can add to that is that the first thing I thought of (after the crash and total destruction of the plane and engine), was "Wow, this hobby is GREAT!". I ordered another kit the next day, but in the mean time, I joined a club and found someone to teach me how to fly. The point is, if you are the kind of person who would be discouraged and quit the hobby after crashing a plane you had built, then this hobby isn't meant for you. Perhaps you haven't been in the hobby long enough to hear the phrase: "Crashing; it's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when"". MJC > Okay children, stop the fighting! > [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > >> > > >>*shakes head in sorrow* > Kerry, > I built my very first RC model from a kit (Andrews H-Ray). I "thought" > flying was easy so I took it out to an empty parking lot, took it out, > managed one sort of circle in the air, and then promptly buried it at full > throttle into asphalt. And that was after working for 3 months to build the > model. It wasn't my first plane, but I loved the H-Ray. I think I built four of them when I was a teen, before my long departure from the hobby. Wish I could get hold of one now..... PCPhill I'm not "forcing" you to do anything. I'm attempting to lead you in a direction that will allow you much more enjoyment of the hobby, long term, than you will experience with just ARF's. If you think that the RC hobby is ONLY about flying, then go buy your ARF toys and go fly. Doesn't bother me a bit; YOU'RE the one who's missing out. MJC > Mr. MJC: > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >> > >>*shakes head in sorrow* > If you think that the RC hobby is ONLY about flying, then go buy your > ARF toys and go fly. Doesn't bother me a bit; YOU'RE the one who's missing > out. At the end of the day does it matter if I enjoy flying or building? You will find me at my airfield at every opportunity I have, under the understanding that my professional life comes first. That's why it's called a "HOBBY". hob·by1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hb) n. pl. hob·bies An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure. Get a life, make sure it's your own. TomC > > If you think that the RC hobby is ONLY about flying, then go buy your > > ARF toys and go fly. Doesn't bother me a bit; YOU'RE the one who's missing [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > TomC How true that is Tom.....very good point. Mike MJC....my advice to you.......please do not handle anything sharper then a pillow. Now why dont you ask Kerry what he would like.....NOT WHAT YOU LIKE. It is his FREEDOM and CHOICE to model what he likes. Glow, electric, glider, or whatever. BIY, ARF, RTF......its his choice. Right??? AMA/Club or no AMA/club.....his choice. *I shake my head and LOL and tell myself*....." MJC should have been a stain on the bedsheets" Mike > With the preaching out of the way, the absolutely two very best "first" > beginner airplanes would be either the Hobby Lobby Senior Telemaster (my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > finally > > decided that now might be the time to look at buying. Has anyone heard of or > > seen/used this plane? Would this be a good start or what should I look > for > > or stay away from? > > > > Kerry (Prince Albert, SK Canada) I recommended the Telemaster 40 to someone on the NG several years ago and got flamed because he couldn't understand the instructions. I'd be careful on the T-40 because I built a second kit when my original one flew away due to a radio failure and found they had discontinued the nice photo illustrated construction manual and several other niceities that were in the original. However, the Telemasters are great trainers and are still fun to me although I've long since "outgrown" trainers. Morris I think I have decided to go with the Hobbico NexStar Select RTF kit. It seems like a very upgradeable package and one that will grow with me in the sport. now the fun of finding the lowest price on the kit. I have started pricing them out and was surprised at the range of prices quoted all for the same system! 899.00 - 489.00! that is quite the spread! Kerry > > With the preaching out of the way, the absolutely two very best > "first" [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Morris I think I have decided to go with the Hobbico NexStar Select RTF kit. It seems like a very upgradeable package and one that will grow with me in the sport. now the fun of finding the lowest price on the kit. I have started pricing them out and was surprised at the range of prices quoted all for the same system! 899.00 - 489.00! that is quite the spread! Kerry ==================================================== Tower Hobbies sells it for $399.99 and it comes with a $15 Tower gift certificate. http://www.towerhobbies.com/products/hobbico/hcaa17.html Ad number 010M3 gets you a $30 discount through July 31. I don't know how this converts to Canadian dollars. I started with a Hobbico 60 size several years ago... If I was to do it today, it would be with a Sig Kadet Senior ARF. Big wing, ailerons, very easy to fly and above all, very easy to see..... about the best all around trainer I've seen.. http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXBDF0&P=ML . Arne, USA . I built a Kadet Senior to get my kids started flying. I had them on the buddy box for the first time last night. The senior is such a nice flying plane. Don't think you could go wrong with one. John VB > I started with a Hobbico 60 size several years ago... If I was to do it > today, it would be with a Sig Kadet Senior ARF. Big wing, ailerons, very [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Arne, USA > . The size of the senior is the problem! I own a small car, and live in a bachelor suite. I would have no way to get something that big moved let alone have anywhere to store it when not flying Kerry > I started with a Hobbico 60 size several years ago... If I was to do it > today, it would be with a Sig Kadet Senior ARF. Big wing, ailerons, very [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Arne, USA > . >The size of the senior is the problem! I own a small car, and live in a >bachelor suite Look at a Balsa USA Stick Plus 40. Ugly as possibly can be. Lots of good lessons for building and flying. Was our club trainer for a while. One tough ulgy bird. I had a great time with it and have been doing this 10 years or so now. Andy We can make a box of wood.....FLY!! > >The size of the senior is the problem! I own a small car, and live in a > >bachelor suite [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > We can make a box of wood.....FLY!! I'll second the Stick 40 Plus. Butt ugly, but good flying, tough and easily repairable. Morris 399.99 USD = 500.00 cnd & shipping and customs brokerage would = 600.00 cnd approx. I can get it cheaper buying in Canada Kerry > I think I have decided to go with the Hobbico NexStar Select RTF kit. It > seems like a very upgradeable package and one that will grow with me in the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I don't know how this converts to Canadian dollars. Well Kerry, you and others can flame me as you like, but here again, I have some better advice. Of the two trainers, (Nextar and Avistar), the Avistar is a LOT better of a flyer and makes a better first airplane. If you DO decide on the Nextar, be sure to disconnect the "auto crash" feature, otherwise known as the auto wing leveler. That little gem is much more of a hindrance to learning to fly than it is a help. I have quite a bit of experience teaching with both of those airplanes, and the Avistar is simply a better airplane overall. MJC > I think I have decided to go with the Hobbico NexStar Select RTF kit. It > seems like a very upgradeable package and one that will grow with me in the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > > > Morris Dear Sir, I do not think I have flamed you at all in this thread, and if you feel I have then I am sorry. I do appreciate your advice and will take it under very serious consideration. It is just that I can not build anything! When it comes to assembling something more completed than putting an electric toothbrush together I always mess it up and it doesn't work. I realize that I may miss out on a very important part of R/C modelling, but it this point I do not think it is something I have the talent to do. As for the advise on the NexStar vs. Avistar, I do thank-you. I will seriously look at the avistar and possibly save some money in the process. what are the groups opinions on buying used as opposed to new for a first time flyer? Kerry > Well Kerry, you and others can flame me as you like, but here again, I > have some better advice. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "Kerry Receveur" <zathis@shaw.ca> wrote in message I've owned two Avistars. It's a nice flying plane, however I don't think it makes a good first plane. Why not? Because it's too quick reacting for a complete newbie. I think first time pilots need a plane with more forgiving flight charateristics. Again, the Sig LT 40 ARF comes to mind. It really is a cut above the rest. When flying it you'll completely forget that it cost you a couple extra bucks. http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXFG19&P=0 Don't combo it with the LA 40 though. It's too low on power for a plane this size. A better bet would be the O.S. .46 AX, or my favorite engine in this catagory the Thunder Tiger .46 Pro. I've also used a GMS .47 with good results too. Still, I like the TT .46 best of all. And it's pretty cheap too. When you're through with this trainer, get yourself a Goldberg Tiger II. It's one of the very best confidence building planes out there.... and all the stuff out of your trainer will bolt right in. Wiz > Dear Sir, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >>"Kerry Receveur" <zathis@shaw.ca> wrote in message >Again, the Sig LT 40 ARF comes to mind. >It really is a cut above the rest. When flying it you'll completely >forget that it cost you a couple extra bucks. I've not flown every dang trainer but the LT40 is by far the best of the ones I've flown. >Don't combo it with the LA 40 though. It's too low on power for a plane >this size. My kit-built version (as per the July '95 R/C Report review) has been flown very satisfactorily by a Fox .25 on a 10x5 APC. I helped a guy with an overweight GP mid-size J3 cub, had an LA .40 on it, no problem. People need to learn to fly on the wing, not the engine. Texas Pete I originally flew my LT-40 with an FP 40, the LA 40's predecessor. Once airborne it was fine. My problem was taking off with it. I had to make very long takeoff runs. That isn't particularly easy for a beginner and can be a cause of added stress while learning. How well did you steer with your left hand when first learning? (I know, you're left handed, right? ;) ) After a couple of outings my instructor recommended I try a little bigger engine. I installed an ST G.51 and was much happier with the way it performed. Personally, I think beginners should have a trainer with a little extra power. Not because the extra power gets them out of trouble like I hear a lot of parrots saying, but because it lets them get up and off the ground in fairly short order. Short successful takeoffs build confidence. Long zig zaggy ones are stressful. Wiz Pete wrote: >>Don't combo it with the LA 40 though. It's too low on power for a plane >>this size. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Texas Pete >I originally flew my LT-40 with an FP 40, the LA 40's predecessor. Once >airborne it was fine. My problem was taking off with it. I had to make >very long takeoff runs. That isn't particularly easy for a beginner and >can be a cause of added stress while learning. How well did you steer >with your left hand when first learning? I was not a beginner when I tested the LT40, but with the two trainers it took for me to get the hang of it the secret was in the setup. I've helped newbies who had so much throw in the nose gear as to render their planes nearly uncontrollable on the ground. Set the nosegear to very low travel (innermost servo arm hole, outermost tiller hole), adjust it to run the plane dead straight and be very gentle on the rudder stick or load in the exponential if possible. A 150' x 3500' paved runway helps too. <g> A neat little trick with the LT-40 is because it is so lightly loaded you can take it off when it's moving only at a fast walk. The overpower fans usually freak when I do that one, which BTW I don't recommend for beginners because unless there is some headwind the plane is pretty near a stall going that slow. Texas Pete Tex: > I was not a beginner when I tested the LT40, but with the two > trainers it took for me to get the hang of it the secret was in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be very gentle on the rudder stick or load in the exponential if > possible. A 150' x 3500' paved runway helps too. <g> What an absolutely fantastic idea! I've had the occasion of nearly losing control when attempting take offs. Torque makes the airplane want to go left, and herding her back to a straight line has not always been as smooth as I would like. (I've made some rather *ugly* take off's). Luckily the .46 has enough power to pull it into the air fairly quickly, but there have been times when it was not going anywhere near straight down the runway when the wheels left the ground. I will make the changes tonight! Thanks! TomC RC Lurker Sometimes planes tend to wander on the takeoff run because the field is on the rough side. That was part of my problem way back when. Although at the time I might have benefited from your advice, no amount of taming down the nose wheel will correct for a rough field. I still stand by my opinion that for the somewhat large LT-40 a little more power than the FP .40 was a big improvement. I don't want to make this thread into another discussion about "What's wrong with the O.S. LA series". Let me just say that in the .40 size range I think there are better alternatives for the money and leave it at that. For what it's worth, here's an example of one I've used with great success.... http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXDXL5&P=0 Wiz >>I originally flew my LT-40 with an FP 40, the LA 40's predecessor. Once >>airborne it was fine. My problem was taking off with it. I had to make [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Texas Pete >Sometimes planes tend to wander on the takeoff run because the field is >on the rough side. That was part of my problem way back when. Although >at the time I might have benefited from your advice, no amount of taming >down the nose wheel will correct for a rough field. I still stand by my >opinion that for the somewhat large LT-40 a little more power than the >FP .40 was a big improvement. I don't disagree, Mike. My LT40 became the "club trainer" and, because it's so forgiving, a test bed for new and crashed radios, along with new and crashed engines. That's how I found out it flies fine on a Fox .25, which probably is *more* powerful than the .40 LA, but the original engine installed was a Fox plain-bearing .40 which is a lightweight powerhouse! It's a real shame that Fox went to an air bleed carb, which made it nearly impossible to tune, but with the original two-needle carb and an hour on the break-in stand... yee HAH! I don't understand why plain-bearing engines don't get more respect; they're more than powerful enough for sport flying, inexpensive to purchase and very low maintenance. The Thunder Tiger GP series comes to mind. >I don't want to make this thread into another discussion about "What's >wrong with the O.S. LA series". Let me just say that in the .40 size >range I think there are better alternatives for the money and leave it >at that. At this point there's good lower-priced alternatives to many O.S. engines of any series. Texas Pete <snipped> > My LT40 became the "club trainer" and, because it's so forgiving, a > test bed for new and crashed radios, along with new and crashed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > which made it nearly impossible to tune, but with the original > two-needle carb and an hour on the break-in stand... yee HAH! I didn't buy the LT-40 ARF. I built mine, but I have the feeling that the ARF retains much of the same forgiving flight characteristics that the kit version has. > I don't understand why plain-bearing engines don't get more respect; > they're more than powerful enough for sport flying, inexpensive to > purchase and very low maintenance. The Thunder Tiger GP series comes > to mind. I think most people have decided they NEED ball bearing engines for better performance. IMHO, the big advantage to ball bearings is less oil mess. These days, I usually buy ball bearing engines because that's the way all 4-cycle engines come. I've gotten to the point that 4-cycle is about all I'll buy anymore.....It's a sound thing ;) > At this point there's good lower-priced alternatives to many O.S. > engines of any series. Well, I really think the O.S. Surpass series are just about as good as they get from a user friendliness standpoint. I've seen my share of Magnum 4-cycles that didn't measure up. Saitos are good as well as Y.S., but there is not cost savings to be had with those brands. I've been toying with electric planes for several years now. I'm getting to a point where I may just sell off all the glow stuff. If Lipo batteries would get a little cheaper (say 40% less) I'd sell off all the glow stuff and never look back. I accidentally got exhaust residue all over my TX yesterday....yuck!!! Wiz >I didn't buy the LT-40 ARF. I built mine... Me too. Built it, flew it, wrote about it as per July '95 R/C Report, issue 108. A model building course in a box. I hope it still is. The young fella that helped me to build the review airplane has moved far beyond where I am, which is absolutely wonderful. That's really what any teacher really likes to see in a "student." >Well, I really think the O.S. Surpass series are just about as good as >they get from a user friendliness standpoint. I've seen my share of >Magnum 4-cycles that didn't measure up. There's a few happy folks in our group with the Magnum four-strokers, no problems but all low-time. > Saitos are good as well as Y.S., >but there is not cost savings to be had with those brands. My old reliable Saito .50 is a genuine treasure, however YS fliers seem to have problems... the kind that come along with any very high performance engine only they seem to be more "sophisticated" due to needless (IMO) complication. Texas Pete The nice thing about the YS engines is you get a much larger engine for the displacement. The .91AC will swing props that make many 1.20s breathe hard. And, I have not had any reliability problems with two of them in over 10 years of service. Also, they cost less than just about any 1.20 four stroke. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > >I didn't buy the LT-40 ARF. I built mine... > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Texas Pete >The nice thing about the YS engines is you get a much larger engine for the >displacement. The .91AC will swing props that make many 1.20s breathe hard. >And, I have not had any reliability problems with two of them in over 10 >years of service. Also, they cost less than just about any 1.20 four >stroke. Agreed on the power for sure, GOBS of power, but our two YS guys ( a .91 and a 1.20 who've since left the area) started having problems after not very much air time. The problems seemed to be related to the pressurized fuel system. You're a real engine man, Paul, so maybe they were just lacking the experience and finesse it takes to run a thoroughbred. Texas Pete >The problems seemed to be related to >the pressurized fuel system. The problem is usually a gummed-up diaphram. If dirty fuel gets in there, or it's allowed to sit for several days between runs, you got problems. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" We have a fella at our field running an out of production Y.S. .61 two cycle. It came with an old pattern plane he recently bought. It runs great! He said that other than changing the plug he's done nothing to it but fiddle a tiny bit with the needle. With the rubber coated tuned pipe on it, it's pretty darn quiet too. Too bad all engines don't run with such dependability..... Too bad Y.S. discontinued that engine. It seems like a real gem! Wiz >>The problems seemed to be related to >>the pressurized fuel system. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Dr.1 Driver > "There's a Hun in the sun!" Certainly is a shame as that was one very good running engine. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > We have a fella at our field running an out of production Y.S. .61 two > cycle. It came with an old pattern plane he recently bought. It runs [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Dr.1 Driver > > "There's a Hun in the sun!" I haven't seen that problem. But, maybe its because I use only YS blend fuels. If you use a fuel designed for the engine, you won't have the problems. Of course, some people "know" that their fuel is better. Problems with the diaphragm come from not using a filter and using improper after run oils. Any after run oil with petroleum components will damage the diaphragm in short order if it gets in there. Under normal circumstances, after run oils are not needed with YS engines as there is virtually no blowby gasses present in the crankcase. The crankcase is purged with fresh fuel every other stroke so no gasses have any tiem to build up. You should also consider the diaphragm as a maintenance item much as a glow plug. It has a definite lifespan and needs to be periodically replaced. Mine usually lasted well over a year but I replaced them every year as insurance. $4.00 a year on maintenance is a small price to pay for the performance. I also own an old OS .91 Surpass that has nearly 15 years of hard running with all kinds of nitro. The glow plug hole finally stripped due to a burr on a plug. Probably the best engine I have ever owned. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > >The problems seemed to be related to > >the pressurized fuel system. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Dr.1 Driver > "There's a Hun in the sun!" Even some synthetic after run oils will damage the diaphragm. Synthetic oils made to be compatible with petroleum products may have additives derived from petroleum products. ATF is a bad oil to use in YS engines! -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > I haven't seen that problem. But, maybe its because I use only YS blend > fuels. If you use a fuel designed for the engine, you won't have the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Dr.1 Driver > > "There's a Hun in the sun!" It really doesn't take that much finesse. Once they are set up, you shouldn't be messing with them. Most of the problems I have seen with YS engines are from people that know better than YS as to how to set them up. They are similar to Fox engines in that if you follow the correct procedure, you will have very little problems. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > >The nice thing about the YS engines is you get a much larger engine for the > >displacement. The .91AC will swing props that make many 1.20s breathe hard. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Texas Pete >For what it's worth, here's an example of one I've used with great >success.... http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXDXL5&P=0 A GMS .47, heh. Got one, love it! That's probably more powerful than an LA .61! Takes my 5+ pound GP SuperSportster MkII straight up out of sight! Texas Pete Kerry: I too suffer from "Fat Fingers, Broken Project" syndrome. ;-( I have a SIG LT40 with a OS MAX .46 engine. I absolutely love it. It's fairly simple to put together. I spent about 8 or 10 hours total during the entire construction phase with the assistance of my neighbor who's been flying RC planes for many years. He also lent me his computer simulator (Great Planes) software, which I've just recently went out and bought the latest version. I highly recommend that you buy, beg or borrow a flight simulator and practice, practice, practice. Simulated airplanes are much less expensive and not nearly as demoralizing when you "Auger one in". ;-) That was approximately 9 months ago. I soloed on my third or fourth trip to the airfield with the help of an absolutely fantastic instructor. Since then I've had some rough landings. Rough on the airplane and also on my ego. Luckily the SIG LT40 is a tough airplane, a little super glue or epoxy, some packing tape to seal up rips in the mono coat, and back into the air we go. You will find (as I did) that take-off's and flying tend to be quite easy to learn how to do. You will spend the rest of your life mastering the technique of bringing the airplane back safely to the ground in one piece. Someday fairly soon I plan to pick up an electric park flyer so that I can fly around in the parking lot of my laboratory at luchtime. I haven't decided on which one it will be just yet. As far as buying used stuff, be very careful. I would not buy my first airplane from a stranger. Go to your local airfield, join up, and start asking around. I'll be willing to bet that more than a few of the guys there have "Experienced" trainers gathering dust, that they would happily part with to a fellow club member. I'll wager they will be happy to help you get things put together and also set you up with an instructor. Happy flying! TomC RC Lurker > Dear Sir, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >>"Kerry Receveur" <zathis@shaw.ca> wrote in message |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.