 |
 | 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 / March 2009Need Recommendations for ARF RC Model Airplane
After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. When I was a kid I did pretty good with U control model planes. Remember them? My brother sent me a link for a trainer but I want to get the best, ideally one that'll grow beyond a trainer. I'm willing to spend several hundred bucks maybe more. link to trainer recommended by my brother http://www.hobbiconexstar.com/nexstar-select/features.html Link to Top Gun Meet http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm Tom > After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last month > I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Tom Here is the correct link for the trainer suggested by my brother. >> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last month >> I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Here is the correct link for the trainer suggested by my brother. ---------- If you have average hand/eye coordination and correctable vision, go buy the GP Big Stick in the .40 size. This plane will take you past basic training and well into advanced aerobatics. Power it with any of the popular .46 to .52 sized available engines from OS, Thunder Tiger or Magnum. Buy a radio system on 2.4 GHz with at least eight channels and ball bearing standard servos. May as well pick up a flight simulator program while you are at it. The most difficult thing to find is an instructor that is competent with a model that does NOT have a flat bottomed wing. Those models are intended for folks who have poor vision and atrocious hand/eye coordination. Most of the intended target audience for this type of model will never get past the flat bottomed wing stage. If you are "normal", you'll get past that stage in ten flights or less. Finding an instructor thusly qualified will be rough. It appears that not having the "flying gene" is a marker for attracting those folks to wanting to be full time instructors. Make a deal that if your instructor crashes your plane, they have to replace it with a brand new plane, radio and engine. If they refuse to comply, find someone else to teach you to fly. Or, better yet. Teach yourself how to fly using the computer simulator. Then all you'll need is a check-out flight when you get to your flying field. Ed Cregger >>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last month >>> I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Ed Cregger There's nothing wrong with a flat bottom wing. I've been flying since 1990, and I still enjoy flat bottom wings along with planes that are supposedly more "advanced". I like three channel planes, too. It's too bad some guys think of flat bottom wings as something that you grow out of. They're missing a lot of fun. Try putting a Kadet through the contest pattern some time, and then tell me how good of a pilot you are. Come to think of it, lots of people enjoy the Telemaster, even if they've been flying for years. The question was how to get started for "several hundred dollars", which I take to mean significantly less than $500. Most of the ARF trainers from the major vendors are good enough for you to learn with. Isn't the Nexstar the one with fancy gyro driven autopilot crap in it? If so, just get a regular plane instead and learn to fly it. About the radio, just get a regular 4 channel 72MHz radio for less than $150. These will be around for a long time to come, and if you stick with the hobby you'll always find a use for a basic 4 channel radio. I have 4 or 5 of them, plus a 6 and a 7 channel that I use for specialty projects, although not very often. Most guys go for decades without ever flying anything with more than 4 channels. I can count on one hand the number of planes I've built with bomb doors, flaps, or other accessories. (I always wanted to build a glider tug with a tow release....) At any rate, any 4 channel unit from JR, Airtronics, Futaba, or Hitec will do just fine. Your main concern will be that if somebody is nice enough to teach you to fly, you may want to get the same brand they have and hook up with a trainer cord. There's a lot of good stuff on the market today. You can't go too far wrong. Get the Nextstar but don't use the gyro! It comes with a computer simulator where you can 'learn' to fly the airplane before ever going to the flying field. This helps tremendously. the engine and radio comes already installed. The Nextstar is not a bad flying airplane beyond the trainer stage because you can remove the air dams/spoilers, etc. JUST DON"T USE THE GYRO! >>>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last >>>> month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > There's a lot of good stuff on the market today. You can't go too far > wrong. > Get the Nextstar but don't use the gyro! It comes with a computer > simulator where you can 'learn' to fly the airplane before ever going to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Nextstar is not a bad flying airplane beyond the trainer stage because > you can remove the air dams/spoilers, etc. JUST DON"T USE THE GYRO! OK, a vote for NextStar. I just got back from the Hobby TownUSA shop in Glen Burnie, MD. They told me the NextStrar models are very good trainers. What's up with the gyro? Tom >>>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last >>>> month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > There's a lot of good stuff on the market today. You can't go too far > wrong. ---------- Radio control models started out/began using converted free flight models. Models that used flat bottomed wings. As long as everyone was using the radio control to merely interrupt the flight of the free flight model, flat bottomed wings worked fine. When more control channels became available, things changed significantly. You can see this by looking at deBolt and Goldberg models of the early sixties. They began using semi-symmetrical airfoils. It wasn't long until the deBolt Jenny and the Goldberg Falcon 56 became the defacto trainers of the era. Neither possessed a flat-bottomed wing. So what IS wrong with a flat-bottomed wing? They "zoom". That is, the model can be trimmed to fly straight and level at one speed, but if you point the nose downward, the model will build up speed and will end up in a zoom (climb). If severe enough, the model will then stall, drop the nose and proceed to build up speed again, only to zoom and stall again. This can be very disconcerting for the new pilot, who has enough to learn without trying to figure out why the model is doing what it is doing. To further add insult to injury, most of the trainers designed and sold as ARFs today have been designed by folks with little flying experience. Trimming is as much of a mystery to them as it is to the new student pilot that bought one of their ARF models. Not only do these models come with wings that are guaranteed to zoom, but the design many times sees fit to add a couple of degrees of positive incidence, further dooming the model to zoom. Models that have odd trim arrangements are more affected by winds and gusts. Models that are set up to be symmetrical wing equipped trainers generally fly with little or no positive incidence, making them less prone to changing course when encountering a crosswind or turbulence. One's advancement in flying skill is directly related to how many flights one obtains in as short of an amount as possible. Windy days occur much more often than perfectly calm days. The student pilot needs a model that can fly well even on windy days. In the early Seventies, most designers of training aircraft had moved away from using flat-bottomed airfoil equipped trainers for just the reasons that I have stated. The emphasis was placed upon accumulating as much flying time as possible with a model that did not fly itself. What can you learn when the model flies itself? Not much. Besides, most of what you can learn with a model that flies itself can be learned while flying a computer simulator. If money is precious, don't tie it up in a flat-bottomed wing trainer that can only fly satisfactorily on calm days. Get that Big Stik or Avistar and get out there as often as you can. These models are not difficult to fly when set up properly. The difficulty is in finding an "instructor" that is skilled enough to set it up for you. To me, flat-bottomed winged aircraft fall into the same class as cheap Asian engines. Both can be a hoot to own and fly. Neither should be bought and used by a rank beginner. Buy OS for your first engine and do buy a .46 ball bearing, non ring equipped engine. Asian engines (Chinese mostly) are not plug-n-play for the most part, at least not yet, and the beginner lacks the skills needed to break them in and operate them successfully. I've been flying R/C since 1966 and control line long before 1966. Not a single day goes by that I don't learn at least one new thing about model airplanes. Good luck with yours. Ed Cregger SNIP . > So what IS wrong with a flat-bottomed wing? They "zoom". That is, the > model can be trimmed to fly straight and level at one speed, but if you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can be very disconcerting for the new pilot, who has enough to learn > without trying to figure out why the model is doing what it is doing. SNIP > Ed Cregger Sorry Ed, but I disagree pretty strongly with several of your statements. The instructors JOB is to teach all aspects of flying, from safety to different flight conditions. That means the very first thing *I* teach is where I do not want the student flying with an explanation of why and what is at risk concluded with a statement of what my actions will be should those parameters of the flight be violated. Hopefully the airframe will survive the students attempt at outfoxing the instructor, but they have been known to find new and different ways to plant balsa no matter how hard you watch them. The second thing I teach new candidates is how to safely prepare the aircraft. CG checks, battery checks, control direction checks on the primary radio and buddy box and how to fix them as necessary. We also check the control neutral trims, wing centered and straight (for rubber banded wings), and control throws. It is difficult to teach someone how to fly if the CG is whacked up or the controls reversed on one box or the other, or the batteries don't have an adequate charge and generally that also means it is unsafe. During this phase we also address the issue of long idles and fuel feed at full throttle. As per many of conversations with George Aldrich, I aim for 5 minutes at idle and no stumbles when slammed to WOT. I teach them how that is accomplished so they can do it themselves on the second engine. There are adjustments to standards that can be made but those are determined on a case by case basis with the airframe/power plant presented. The third thing I teach new pilots is how to trim an aircraft up so that it flies hands free straight and level at some selected airspeed. Part of that lesson is selecting the speed to trim the aircraft for which does vary according to the tasks they wish to accomplish with the given airframe (which have been known to change) When they are on their own and get their second or third plane SOMEONE has to do it and MY job as an instructor is to make them capable of that task. The hidden agenda here is that if the airplane is not trimmed at the speed we are going to be working at, they cannot learn what or who is making it go where it is going nor can they have an expectation of a definite result when they make specific changes to control or power settings. The fourth thing I teach new pilots is how the aircraft responds to changes in the power setting. This is the one place where the flat bottomed wing demonstrates what I am trying to show better than the other wing types. The other thing the typical flat bottomed wing presents the new pilot that I like is a significantly higher tendency to allow them to effect unusual attitude recoveries without too much of my physical input. They learn more from instruction by doing and less from watching when I have control. Of course since I had a student with long arms dive a bird it, I only teach with buddy box so I get deeper into the realm of airframe breaking than box passers. Ed none of this said a thing about the residual value of the airframe using a flat bottomed wing. Someone else already grazed on that subject but I will tell you that many of us enjoy playing with all sorts of aircraft and don't really have a snobbish approach to an airframe just because it has an XYZ airfoil. If flies and I like flying, and I promise you I can find a way to have fun with it. Ever try some serious touch and goes in a good cross wind with a flat bottomed three channel bird? Now THERE is a challenge to define what kind of a pilot you are. Oh, I forgot to add that to my 'lesson plans'. I fly students when I am there and the student is there with the ONLY stipulation being we don't buddy box in the rain. Wind is always with us so I teach in the wind. Sorry sir, and no offense intended, but I think you took a look through the wrong end of that set of binoculars. Jim Branaum AMA 1428 > SNIP > . [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > Jim Branaum > AMA 1428 ---------- If you reread my post(s), you'll find that we do not disagree on a single, solitary point, Jim. I made exception for flat bottomed airfoiled wings by stating that they are more suitable for experienced pilots than for rank beginners. I compared them to Asian engines in that they required more skill and thought to fully appreciate them. The student pilot is not ready for this kind of behavior (zooming) from a model yet. If one flies a heavily wing loaded trainer with a flat bottom airfoiled wing, one will immediately notice the zooming that I have mentioned previously. Most bargain trainers fall into this category. Zooming is a PITA for the student pilot and the instructor. If one flies a lightly wing loaded trainer with a flat bottom airfoiled wing, they are then at the mercy of the wind and they would be wise to wait for calm days to fly. The symmetrically airfoiled wing, with a minimum of dihedral, does not have either problem and they can be set up to fly every bit as gently as a flat bottom airfoiled wing, but with a slightly faster, but far broader and gentler stall. I have a garage full of Telemasters, R/C assist old timers, etc., with flat bottom airfoiled wings, so I'm not against this type of airfoil. I just don't think it is the best choice for trainers. Ed Cregger > SNIP > . [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > Jim Branaum > AMA 1428 I live in the Lutherville, baltimore, MAryland area. Do you know of some clubs that might have instructors avialble? What about buying used equipment? Is that a no no? Tom > Radio control models started out/began using converted free flight models. > Models that used flat bottomed wings. As long as everyone was using the [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Ed Cregger Very thought provoking reply. What do you think of four cycle engines? I'm thinking I'd like a four cycle engine. (When I was kid I did a lot of control line flying. My favorite planes was a model of a Pitts Special biplane. Very tough to fly that little sucker. At one point I had a Madewell one cubic inch engine which, I think, was four cycle. I never used it just picked up from a friend of my father.) I'm beginning to form a picture of what I need. Tom > Very thought provoking reply. > What do you think of four cycle engines? 4 cycle engines are more to fiddle with, heavier per unit power than a 2 stroke. More expensive, usually. They do swing a larger prop, and sound cool. > I'm thinking I'd like a four cycle engine. (When I was kid I did a lot of > control line flying. My favorite planes was a model of a Pitts Special [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm beginning to form a picture of what I need. While ball bearing OS engines will last longer, and make a little more power, the non ball bearing OS engines are still fine running engines. My experience is, that with fresh fuel, an a good initial carb set up, any of the OS's will run without fiddling. It is rare that I tweak the mixture more than 2 clicks (about 1/32 of a turn) on my plain bearing .15, and then just run it. I have a .40 Fox ball bearing ABC, and it has a two needle carb. One guy gave me his, because he could not get it to run without it quitting mid flight. Fox has some special instructions about sanding the shape of the high speed needle to a profile that will make consistent runs over the whole RPM range. I took the time to understand it, and fiddle with it, and finally got it right. It now runs very well. My point is that there are some brands of engines that will need an experienced hand to make run consistently. OS does not need to be fiddled with. My opinion about the right equipment is to go with relatively cheap stuff. The engine does need to be easy to set up and run. You may well break some of the servos and other stuff in the first year or two, or you may lose interest and quit. If you stay involved, and get some skill, you will know what kind of good stuff you want to buy to move up.  SignatureJim in NC >> Very thought provoking reply. >> What do you think of four cycle engines? > > 4 cycle engines are more to fiddle with, heavier per unit power than a 2 > stroke. More expensive, usually. That's a fair comment. However they rarely need fiddling with, will idle for extended periods without problem, transition immediately to power, have lower fuel consumption (for a comparitively sized 2 stroke), and sound better (subjective but applicable to scale aircraft). > They do swing a larger prop, and sound cool. They sound way cool. Of course, some planes just demand a screaming two stroke. >> I'm thinking I'd like a four cycle engine. (When I was kid I did a lot of >> control line flying. My favorite planes was a model of a Pitts Special [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > While ball bearing OS engines will last longer, and make a little more > power, the non ball bearing OS engines are still fine running engines. Nothing wrong with plain bearings other than they'll eventually have some oil seepage from the front of the engine. Of course, it takes quite a few flying hours to get one that worn. If an OS 2 stroke is your choice, simply determine whether you want a low cost, medium powered, engine that will last forever (say a 46LA) or a higher cost, high output, ball bearing engine (say a 46AX). There's not much price difference between the two now but the 46AX may be better if you wanted to move that into sport planes later on. > My experience is, that with fresh fuel, an a good initial carb set up, any > of the OS's will run without fiddling. It is rare that I tweak the > mixture more than 2 clicks (about 1/32 of a turn) on my plain bearing .15, > and then just run it. I've had similar experience although brand new 46AXs did tend to have a flat spot during transition from low to high. If you lived with that for a while it would eventually go away as the engine ran in. > I have a .40 Fox ball bearing ABC, and it has a two needle carb. One guy > gave me his, because he could not get it to run without it quitting mid [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > experienced hand to make run consistently. OS does not need to be fiddled > with. Take GMS engines, a lot of people hate them but I've found them very powerful, cheap, long lasting (my 47 outlasted a 46AX), and they ran well (at speed). They aren't an engine designed for puttering around the sky, they like throttle. > My opinion about the right equipment is to go with relatively cheap stuff. > The engine does need to be easy to set up and run. You may well break > some of the servos and other stuff in the first year or two, or you may > lose interest and quit. If you stay involved, and get some skill, you > will know what kind of good stuff you want to buy to move up. > That's a fair comment. However they rarely need fiddling with, will idle > for extended periods without problem, Sorry, I was unclear. The "fiddling with" I was talking about this time was things like adjusting valve clearance. SignatureJim in NC | There's nothing wrong with a flat bottom wing. They don't go fast efficiently. As your speed goes up (and you put your angle of attack down to keep the plane from rising), the drag goes up even more than it would with many other airfoils, because you have to fly at a negative angle of attack. Not a big problem for a powered plane, especially one that's meant to be a trainer, but for a glider it's a big drawback, especially if there's any wind, because it makes it hard to get your speed up between thermals. I'm not saying that flat bottom wings are bad, but there is at least one thing `wrong' with them :) | I've been flying since 1990, and I still enjoy flat bottom wings | along with planes that are supposedly more "advanced". I like three | channel planes, too. I concur ... | About the radio, just get a regular 4 channel 72MHz radio for less | than $150. Even better, if you have a friend who knows R/C gear and can help you shop, pick up something used from somebody who's going spread spectrum, and buy your low end 72 MHz radio for less. You could probably find something for $50 that works well, and for $150 you could probably get a nice computer radio that you probably won't ever outgrow. If you're going to spend $150 for low end 72 MHz gear, you might as well spend a little more ($220 or so?) and get spread spectrum gear with a low end computer radio. A Spektrum DX6i or Futaba 6EX comes to mind. | Your main concern will be that if somebody is nice enough to teach | you to fly, you may want to get the same brand they have and hook up | with a trainer cord. You can get converter cables to go between most vendors, but it's certainly simpler if you stick to the same vendor. As for what plane to get, Tom might also want to consider an electric plane line a Slow Stick. Small, very slow (so not much good in wind), much more forgiving of mistakes (but if you have an instructor, there should be no mistakes.) Not much noise or glow smell (even though I mostly fly gliders and a few electrics now, I still love the smell of glow. Don't love the mess, however.) SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us "I had a fortune cookie the other day and it said: 'Outlook not so good'. I said: 'Sure, but Microsoft ships it anyway'." > | There's nothing wrong with a flat bottom wing. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > mostly fly gliders and a few electrics now, I still love the smell of > glow. Don't love the mess, however.) All good points but I don't believe electric is the way to go where i live where there is usually a breeze unless it's the dog days of August. A club is defintely the way to go for me. > All good points but I don't believe electric is the way to go where i live > where there is usually a breeze unless it's the dog days of August. A club > is defintely the way to go for me. Eletric CAN be as fast as glow or faster..but if you have a good club and link up with good people you feel comfortable with, go with whatever THEY are willing to help you get airborne with. Round here, that would be electric; the same is not universally true however. >>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last month >>> I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the GP Big Stick in the .40 size. This plane will take you past basic > training and well into advanced aerobatics. I fully agree with you! I have a GP Big Stick with a 4 stroke and love it. I've commented to many instructors at our club how forgiving it is YET you can wring it out for aerobatics. Far better low speed behaviour which is ideal for students. > Power it with any of the popular .46 to .52 sized available engines from > OS, Thunder Tiger or Magnum. I'd suggest a four stroke instead. Two strokes aren't good for low speed learning. Dead sticks resulting from extended low speed running, dead sticks from emergency recoveries (throw the throttle open and it dies....or wait a few seconds for it to catch up). A four stroke instantly responds, has plenty of torque for recovery maneouvers, and will happily run for extended periods at low throttle. This is what a student needs, not the latest 'race' ported 2 stroke that fuels up and dies during low rpm trainer flying. > Buy a radio system on 2.4 GHz with at least eight channels and ball > bearing standard servos. Frequency is your choice. Don't be fooled into 2.4Ghz as being the saviour of all glitches and lock outs. Many 2.4Ghz pilots are discovering it's not the panacea for radio issues, with some worrying trends that defy the marketing. You don't need 8 channels, very few planes require more than 5 or 6. Go to a club and take a look at the planes there, 90%+ will be no more than 5 channels. Ball bearings, not necessary until you move up to significantly advanced aircraft (speed, power, size etc). It's like fitting 200mph tires to a VW beetle. > May as well pick up a flight simulator program while you are at it. Get FMS, it's free off the web. Buy a suitable trainer cord. If you want to splash out on the better sims go for it but they won't teach you the basics any better. > The most difficult thing to find is an instructor that is competent with a > model that does NOT have a flat bottomed wing. I'd recommend semi-symetrical as well BUT most students wouldn't be able to tell the difference, nor would a experienced instructor who'd unconciously deal with anything a flat bottom wing throws at you. > Those models are intended for folks who have poor vision and atrocious > hand/eye coordination. Most of the intended target audience for this type > of model will never get past the flat bottomed wing stage. > > If you are "normal", you'll get past that stage in ten flights or less. Some pilots will get their solo in a few flights spread over maybe two months of Sunday flying, others may take years. Once solo'd and with some experience, you'd be hard picked to tell who took longer with the majority of pilots. > Finding an instructor thusly qualified will be rough. It appears that not > having the "flying gene" is a marker for attracting those folks to wanting > to be full time instructors. Yep, most instructors take on the job reluctantly. However, in some parts of the world instructors are awarded recognised certifications. It doesn't mean they are a excellent instructor but it means they are competent. We find most students will try several of the club instructors and then find one that best suits them. Matching an instructor to the student is very important. > Make a deal that if your instructor crashes your plane, they have to > replace it with a brand new plane, radio and engine. If they refuse to > comply, find someone else to teach you to fly. Sorry, but I totally disagree. An instructor will do everything he can to prevent a students plane from crashing but expecting them to take full responsibility is arrogant. The same thing applies for those who'll happily ask someone to test fly their plane and then expect the pilot to take responsibility if it crashes. If you can't trust the instructor, then find another. If you can't find one, you know who's got the unrealistic expectations. > Or, better yet. Teach yourself how to fly using the computer simulator. > Then all you'll need is a check-out flight when you get to your flying > field. If you believe that you're one of the 0.02 percent that magically teach themselves how to fly without crashing one (or a dozen) planes. Teaching yourself to fly without insurance, as highly recommended or required in most parts of the world, is fraught with risk. >>>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last >>>> month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. >> ---------- >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > This is what a student needs, not the latest 'race' ported 2 stroke that > fuels up and dies during low rpm trainer flying. ***Two-strokes do not die during low rpm trainer flying, when the instructors knows how to tune the engine. There is nothing wrong with using a four-stroke engine for training, if the student pilot can stand the financial hit of it being destroyed. >> Buy a radio system on 2.4 GHz with at least eight channels and ball >> bearing standard servos. > Frequency is your choice. Don't be fooled into 2.4Ghz as being the saviour > of all glitches and lock outs. Many 2.4Ghz pilots are discovering it's not > the panacea for radio issues, with some worrying trends that defy the > marketing. ***What some folks are discovering is that even a very modern 2.4 GHz SS radio has some quirks to learn and avoid, such as unshielded spark ignition systems, etc. 2.4 GHz SS is vastly superior to the old technologies we used to use. If you must buy 72 MHz gear, buy it used at ridiculously low prices. I prefer fresh new gear, myself. > You don't need 8 channels, very few planes require more than 5 or 6. Go to > a club and take a look at the planes there, 90%+ will be no more than 5 > channels. ***His original post said that he was into scale flying. He will need at least eight channels, if not more. Why waste money on an el cheapo radio when buying what he needs right up front will save him hundreds of dollars later on? > Ball bearings, not necessary until you move up to significantly advanced > aircraft (speed, power, size etc). It's like fitting 200mph tires to a VW > beetle. ***Yes, ball bearings are necessary. The training phase will not last more than a few weeks, but the ball bearing servos can last for decades. >> May as well pick up a flight simulator program while you are at it. > > Get FMS, it's free off the web. Buy a suitable trainer cord. If you want > to splash out on the better sims go for it but they won't teach you the > basics any better. ***FMS is garbage. It's not worth what you pay for it and it is free. >> The most difficult thing to find is an instructor that is competent with >> a model that does NOT have a flat bottomed wing. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > experience, you'd be hard picked to tell who took longer with the majority > of pilots. ***I wouldn't have any problem telling who was a natural and who wasn't. In this hobby, you get out of it what you put into it regarding work and serious training. If one is happy making divets in the flying field while yucking it up with the club's other yokels, well, then maybe your approach is acceptable. In my paradigm, those that take longer than several months to qualify to fly solo will never be what I call a pilot. We have Type A and Type B personalities in this world. Guess which group I fall into. >> Finding an instructor thusly qualified will be rough. It appears that not >> having the "flying gene" is a marker for attracting those folks to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of the world instructors are awarded recognised certifications. It doesn't > mean they are a excellent instructor but it means they are competent. ***You missed my point entirely. Perhaps that was my fault for not writing it as clearly as I should have. The vast majority of times (in my experience), the fellows strutting around the field with their chests puffed out and with various labels and stickers on their clothes proclaiming that they are instructors - are not. Normally, these are the guys to avoid. Take a survey and see who packs up their planes in one piece at the end of the day. These are the guys that you want to instruct you. > We find most students will try several of the club instructors and then > find one that best suits them. Matching an instructor to the student is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > happily ask someone to test fly their plane and then expect the pilot to > take responsibility if it crashes. ***Anyone worth his salt will give the student pilot's model a thorough inspection and range check. Both powered and unpowered. Of course the instructor shouldn't be held responsible if the student pilot used inadequate glue in the wing center joint, or forgot to glue the hinges in place. But other than that, they should be held responsible if they screw up and fly a perfectly good airplane into the ground. After all, they took on the job for the sole reason of avoiding crashing/ruining the student pilot's aircraft. It's real easy to be cavalier about wiping out a beginner's set up when you are not held financially responsible. I've seen it happen too many times in my life. > If you can't trust the instructor, then find another. If you can't find > one, you know who's got the unrealistic expectations. ***I've never met a beginner that needed help to trash his training set up. Have you? >> Or, better yet. Teach yourself how to fly using the computer simulator. >> Then all you'll need is a check-out flight when you get to your flying [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yourself to fly without insurance, as highly recommended or required in > most parts of the world, is fraught with risk. ***In fact, I did teach myself how to fly by myself without crashing. It just proves that if you are really interested in the hobby and do your homework, you can accomplish nearly anything - but only if you're willing to work. Ed Cregger >>>>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last >>>>> month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > ***Two-strokes do not die during low rpm trainer flying, when the > instructors knows how to tune the engine. Come on, a student with a barely run in sports 46 engine (eg. 46AX) will invariably run into numerous engine stalls on the runway and dead sticks when trying to fly at a moderate pace. Sure, good tuning will help with that but it won't go away. The student doesn't need to be worrying that the engine can stall, he needs to focus on flying. > There is nothing wrong with using a four-stroke engine for training, if > the student pilot can stand the financial hit of it being destroyed. Not sure what your local engine prices are like but the difference between a decent 46 2 stroke and a 52 4 stroke are less than $50. Less than the cost of the trainer. >>> Buy a radio system on 2.4 GHz with at least eight channels and ball >>> bearing standard servos. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > radio has some quirks to learn and avoid, such as unshielded spark > ignition systems, etc. We've specifically noted at least 2 2.4Ghz radios interfering with each other, yet both tested fine with a technician. We've also seen radios go off the air for no reason plus, some possible intereference from electric setups. These aren't excuses for low batteries and other human factors but demonstrated failures with many people watching. > 2.4 GHz SS is vastly superior to the old technologies we used to use. I don't doubt it's good but people are putting full faith in a technology because it's new. It's not perfect, better perhaps but not perfect. > If you must buy 72 MHz gear, buy it used at ridiculously low prices. I > prefer fresh new gear, myself. I like new gear to, particularly when it comes to servos. However, a well checked out piece of equipment rarely causes a problem. >> You don't need 8 channels, very few planes require more than 5 or 6. Go >> to a club and take a look at the planes there, 90%+ will be no more than >> 5 channels. > > ***His original post said that he was into scale flying. He will need at > least eight channels, if not more. I'm into scale flying and not once have I used more than 6 channels. Sure, if he goes the whole hog with flaps, retracts, bomb releases etc he may get up there but I know I could do that all with less than 8 channels. > Why waste money on an el cheapo radio when buying what he needs right up > front will save him hundreds of dollars later on? Because many beginners tend to spend extra to have something to grow into but then find it's not what they want 12 months later. Various reasons exist for this but it would be more cost effective to buy a decent 4-6 channel radio and then re-evaluate later on. The old radio will inevitably come in useful. >> Ball bearings, not necessary until you move up to significantly advanced >> aircraft (speed, power, size etc). It's like fitting 200mph tires to a VW >> beetle. > > ***Yes, ball bearings are necessary. The training phase will not last more > than a few weeks, but the ball bearing servos can last for decades. I know of non-ball bearing servos 25 years old that work fine. Hitec sell more 322 and 422 non-bearing servos than anything else yet, I've never heard of one failing except through a crash. They aren't necessary, but a nicety! Very few pilots can tell the difference (in the air) between a BB and non-BB servo fitted to the average plane. >>> May as well pick up a flight simulator program while you are at it. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ***FMS is garbage. It's not worth what you pay for it and it is free. FMS teaches eye hand co-ordination and control familiarisation, two of the most important things to master during training. If you can't do that, you'll never fly. FMS is good for that. >>> The most difficult thing to find is an instructor that is competent with >>> a model that does NOT have a flat bottomed wing. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > puffed out and with various labels and stickers on their clothes > proclaiming that they are instructors - are not. Fully agree on that point. That's why it should be up to the club committee to determine who is not only a competent flyer but also capable of teaching. In our club no-one with the attitude you describe would be given instructor status. > Normally, these are the guys to avoid. Take a survey and see who packs up > their planes in one piece at the end of the day. These are the guys that [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ***Anyone worth his salt will give the student pilot's model a thorough > inspection and range check. Both powered and unpowered. Agreed. > Of course the instructor shouldn't be held responsible if the student > pilot used inadequate glue in the wing center joint, or forgot to glue the > hinges in place. Agreed > But other than that, they should be held responsible if they screw up and > fly a perfectly good airplane into the ground. OK. If an instructor makes a stuff up that crashes the plane then most should be open enough to admit their fault. This is different to an instructor trying to recover a plane the student has lost control of (noting buddy cords aren't commonly used in my area). An instructor should avoid letting the student get into trouble but in some cases even the best will be hard pressed to recover the situation. > After all, they took on the job for the sole reason of avoiding > crashing/ruining the student pilot's aircraft. It's real easy to be [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > homework, you can accomplish nearly anything - but only if you're willing > to work. Sure, some can do it but they are the minority. Most begineers aren't that disciplined or co-ordinated to master that approach. >>>>>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last >>>>>> month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> ***Two-strokes do not die during low rpm trainer flying, ***"WHEN THE INSTRUCTOR KNOWS HOW TO TUNE THE ENGINE". My two-stroke engines seldom, if ever "die" in the air, unless I run out of fuel. Find an instructor worthy of the name and your two-strokes can run as well as your four-strokes. > Come on, a student with a barely run in sports 46 engine (eg. 46AX) will > invariably run into numerous engine stalls on the runway and dead sticks > when trying to fly at a moderate pace. Sure, good tuning will help with > that but it won't go away. The student doesn't need to be worrying that > the engine can stall, he needs to focus on flying. ***Any IC engine can stall, when improperly adjusted, two or four-stroke. Four-strokes can be more forgiving in this regard, but if the two-strokes are properly adjusted, fueled, propped and plugged, there is little difference once properly tuned. I flew pattern. Not once did I land without the prop turning over. Back then all we flew were piped two-strokes. >> There is nothing wrong with using a four-stroke engine for training, if >> the student pilot can stand the financial hit of it being destroyed. > > Not sure what your local engine prices are like but the difference between > a decent 46 2 stroke and a 52 4 stroke are less than $50. Less than the > cost of the trainer. ***Only someone without experience would think that a .52 two-stroke could be replaced by a .52 four-stroke. You'll need at least a .70, if not larger, four-stroke, to replace the .52 two-stroke powerwise. Now recalculate the difference in prices. Surprise! >>>> Buy a radio system on 2.4 GHz with at least eight channels and ball >>>> bearing standard servos. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > setups. These aren't excuses for low batteries and other human factors but > demonstrated failures with many people watching. ***I said it was vastly superior, not perfect. Big difference. >> 2.4 GHz SS is vastly superior to the old technologies we used to use. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > channel radio and then re-evaluate later on. The old radio will inevitably > come in useful. ***This is purely subjective. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. >>> Ball bearings, not necessary until you move up to significantly advanced >>> aircraft (speed, power, size etc). It's like fitting 200mph tires to a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > more 322 and 422 non-bearing servos than anything else yet, I've never > heard of one failing except through a crash. ***Non ball bearing servos were "good enough" back when oilite bearings were cast into the servo case top. When they went to pure plastic they had to loosen the fit to the point where the average model could develop surface oscillation with the average installation. This is unacceptable. Buy the ball bearings up front and get a discount. > They aren't necessary, but a nicety! Very few pilots can tell the > difference (in the air) between a BB and non-BB servo fitted to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > most important things to master during training. If you can't do that, > you'll never fly. FMS is good for that. ***I reiterate, FMS is garbage. Buy a decent simulator and you can eliminate most of the need for an instructor. Hell, I taught myself how to fly by reading lots and lots of full scale aviation material and then applying it to models. PCs did not exist back then (1969), much less computer flight simulators. >>>> The most difficult thing to find is an instructor that is competent >>>> with a model that does NOT have a flat bottomed wing. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > of teaching. In our club no-one with the attitude you describe would be > given instructor status. ***If a club is around long enough, I promise you that it will go the way I have described. It will also evolve out of that into another pattern that may be worse or may be better. Having been flying model airplanes of one sort or another for over forty years, I've seen quite a lot of water pass under the bridge. I organized and ran such a committee in my last NJ club. When one of the requirements for landing right to left was that you had to enter the landing from a right hand turn, half of the alleged instructors quit. I loved it. Now they would have to pay for their own crashes, instead of their student pilots. The club survived and prospered. >> Normally, these are the guys to avoid. Take a survey and see who packs up >> their planes in one piece at the end of the day. These are the guys that [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > An instructor should avoid letting the student get into trouble but in > some cases even the best will be hard pressed to recover the situation. ***Agreed. >> After all, they took on the job for the sole reason of avoiding >> crashing/ruining the student pilot's aircraft. It's real easy to be [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Sure, some can do it but they are the minority. Most begineers aren't that > disciplined or co-ordinated to master that approach. ***The reason that I am dead set against having too many questionable instructors is that it makes it impossible for the club to ensure that each student is given proper "ground school". Familiarization with the club rules (no flying over the pits) and stuff will not happen if all we have are a bunch of unorganized yo-yo's whose ego demands that "they" be the student's instructor. I have seen this so many times in my years of flying models that it almost causes a gag response at the mere thought of it. We can actually shorten the amount of time that a student pilot needs to commit to spending in order to become a competent R/C flyer by organizing the material. Offering study guides and actually teaching them how to start their engines by making them start their engines with instruction and explanation. I'm not such a grouchy old ogre. I just like it when things are done thoroughly and efficiently. After all, I joined the club to fly my models, not to inflate my ego by making dozens of folks dependent upon my knowledge in order to fly. Ed Cregger >>>>>>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last >>>>>>> month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > an instructor worthy of the name and your two-strokes can run as well as > your four-strokes. That's your opinion but I disagree when it comes to low speed running. >> Come on, a student with a barely run in sports 46 engine (eg. 46AX) will >> invariably run into numerous engine stalls on the runway and dead sticks [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ***Only someone without experience would think that a .52 two-stroke could > be replaced by a .52 four-stroke. Did I say that? I said 46 compared to 52. > You'll need at least a .70, if not larger, Not true for the sizes I mentioned. > four-stroke, to replace the .52 two-stroke powerwise. Now recalculate the > difference in prices. Surprise! You don't need a 70 4 stroke to replace a 46 2 stroke on most aircraft. >>>>> Buy a radio system on 2.4 GHz with at least eight channels and ball >>>>> bearing standard servos. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ***I said it was vastly superior, not perfect. Big difference. Not disputing that but there is a trend to accept all the marketing hype, people are buying 2.4Ghz systems because they think they are bullet proof and will fix all their problem (the ones they often attribute to their radio rather than their piloting skills). >>> 2.4 GHz SS is vastly superior to the old technologies we used to use. >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > ***This is purely subjective. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. You can quantify it by surveying the planes at your local club. For scale and warbird type stuff (including upper end scratch build projects) most are surviving quite happily with less than 8 channels. I repsect that you are entitled to your opinion but the advice you've given is misleading to a beginner. >>>> Ball bearings, not necessary until you move up to significantly >>>> advanced aircraft (speed, power, size etc). It's like fitting 200mph [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > surface oscillation with the average installation. This is unacceptable. > Buy the ball bearings up front and get a discount. I don't see any value in BB servos for those learning to fly, no matter how quickly they think they'll advance to the types of aircraft where they may show some real benefit. >> They aren't necessary, but a nicety! Very few pilots can tell the >> difference (in the air) between a BB and non-BB servo fitted to the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ***I reiterate, FMS is garbage. Buy a decent simulator and you can > eliminate most of the need for an instructor. I'll have to disagree with you on that. > Hell, I taught myself how to fly by reading lots and lots of full scale > aviation material and then applying it to models. PCs did not exist back > then (1969), much less computer flight simulators. What worked for you is not what works for most people. You'll notice the majority of pilots always advise beginners to use an instructor, often stating that most self-taught pilots start with 30 second crashes. >>>>> The most difficult thing to find is an instructor that is competent >>>>> with a model that does NOT have a flat bottomed wing. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > ***If a club is around long enough, I promise you that it will go the way > I have described. How long is that in your experience? > It will also evolve out of that into another pattern that may be worse or > may be better. Having been flying model airplanes of one sort or another [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > landing from a right hand turn, half of the alleged instructors quit. I > loved it. If an instructor can't land from any direction, within reason, they shouldn't be instructing. I know the type of pilot you're alluding to, we have some 'left turn only' pilots who we are trying to break out of the habit. > Now they would have to pay for their own crashes, instead of their student > pilots. The club survived and prospered. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > instructors is that it makes it impossible for the club to ensure that > each student is given proper "ground school". Hence we limit the number of instructors in the club and encourage them to seek the 'instructor' certification offered by our state and federal bodies (Australia). Not everyone who can fly, no matter how good, is capable of teaching. I'm a club instructor but recognise my limitations to the point I only act as an assistant instructor for students who are progressing well but need stick time (eg. instructor is busy with many students). I don't proclaim to be anything special when it comes to flying but I will be taking the state run instructor course later this year, if only to improve my own skills in both flying and/or teaching. > Familiarization with the club rules (no flying over the pits) and stuff > will not happen if all we have are a bunch of unorganized yo-yo's whose > ego demands that "they" be the student's instructor. In our club the executive committee decides who is an instructor, the student is recommended an instructor to begin with but welcome to try others. We find that some students progress better with certain instructors, it's just a case of finding the right match. > I have seen this so many times in my years of flying models that it almost > causes a gag response at the mere thought of it. Any instructor who forces themselves on students is going to be a problem. > We can actually shorten the amount of time that a student pilot needs to > commit to spending in order to become a competent R/C flyer by organizing > the material. Offering study guides and actually teaching them how to > start their engines by making them start their engines with instruction > and explanation. Agreed, and our club is slowly working towards a more consistent curriculum for students. Luckily we have some very skilled full size pilots who are able to transition some of their training experiences into scale instruction. > I'm not such a grouchy old ogre. I just like it when things are done > thoroughly and efficiently. After all, I joined the club to fly my models, > not to inflate my ego by making dozens of folks dependent upon my > knowledge in order to fly. We're there to fly and enjoy the hobby. Safety is important, ego's aren't. <long tales of woe and arguments about tuining IC engines, instructors, clubs and the like> the answer is simple 1/. Go electric. 2/. Go 2.4Ghz 3/. Get a GOOD sim and practice like hell 4/. Find a place with either some sympathetic fliers, or just plain empty, get a slow stick, and fly it. IF then you feel any need to migrate to IC engines, flying in a line with a safety officer telling you what for, then fine, However you don't HAVE to START that way, and frankly its a bad way to start. > <long tales of woe and arguments about tuining IC engines, > instructors, clubs and the like> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > However you don't HAVE to START that way, and frankly its a bad way to > start. What, don't play well with others? Kicked out of a club? A little jaded are 'ya? In any event I doubt it was the whine of electrics at Top Gun 2008 that attracted the OP to the hobby. SignatureMike >> <long tales of woe and arguments about tuining IC engines, >> instructors, clubs and the like> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What, don't play well with others? Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Kicked out of a club? A little jaded are > 'ya? Nope. Never been kicked out. It was just a bit expensive to drive 15 miles and stand around and wait for a peg when I needed lots of stick time. An electric in the fields at the back + a sim got me that. Plus when I broke it, I just walked back inside and fixed it. Electrics may not be where you want to end up, but its a helluva simpler place to start.. > In any event I doubt it was the whine of electrics at Top Gun 2008 that > attracted the OP to the hobby. I saw an EDF Hawk go straight up at 100mph plus last weekend. Better than many a turbine can do. And at considerably less money. Now I am moving onto bigger stuff and can land properly, a grass strip and the club is more appealing: when I started 3 ft high crops and a cheap electric was a far better place and model to land ;-) >>> <long tales of woe and arguments about tuining IC engines, >>> instructors, clubs and the like> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > the club is more appealing: when I started 3 ft high crops and a cheap > electric was a far better place and model to land ;-) What bigger stuff you looking at TNP? You thinking IC is in your future? mk >>>> <long tales of woe and arguments about tuining IC engines, >>>> instructors, clubs and the like> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > What bigger stuff you looking at TNP? You thinking IC is in your future? > mk Well probably still electric,as every time the model size I want goes up the electric prices come down ;-) Biggest so far is 60" with 55" in scale stuff..but 1/4 scale is loomimg one day. I know, its not HUGE, but its getting a shade beyond 'rough field flying'. Probably do a 96" vintage thing soon.. >>> <long tales of woe and arguments about tuining IC engines, >>> instructors, clubs and the like> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I saw an EDF Hawk go straight up at 100mph plus last weekend. What's an EDF hawk? Tom > "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message >> I saw an EDF Hawk go straight up at 100mph plus last weekend. > > What's an EDF hawk? Electric Ducted Fan model of the BAE Hawk. > Tom >> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Electric Ducted Fan model of the BAE Hawk.OK, it's adifferent scene out > there now than when I was a kid. > In any event I doubt it was the whine of electrics at Top Gun 2008 that > attracted the OP to the hobby. Those jet engines sure sound sexy. :-) I really like the slow flying four cycle engine powered biplanes. If I can afford I'm going to get a four cycle engine. During the late eighties I got as collateral for a loan a assembled P47. Don't remember the kit maker. I've got a box with the unused engine and parts. The plane just needs servos and I think it's ready to go but it's not a trainer by any stretch. tom >> In any event I doubt it was the whine of electrics at Top Gun 2008 that >> attracted the OP to the hobby. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > tom I just dug it all out. It's a Top Flight 1976 he 7 Thunderbot w/ a K&B .61 RC engine w/ muffler. It was built by the resident professional photographer at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Bob Meyers. But it's no trainer. Mayber after a year of two of flying trainers. Is there a market out there for thirty year old planes in mint condition? Bob was a careful guy with every thing he did. tom >>> In any event I doubt it was the whine of electrics at Top Gun 2008 that >>> attracted the OP to the hobby. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I just dug it all out. It's a Top Flight 1976 he 7 Thunderbot w/ a K&B > .61 RC engine w/ muffler. >>It's a Top Flight 1976 P47 Thunderbot w/ a K&B .61 RC engine w/ muffler. > It was built by the resident professional photographer at Johns Hopkins > Hospital, Bob Meyers. But it's no trainer. Mayber after a year of two of > flying trainers. Is there a market out there for thirty year old planes in > mint condition? Bob was a careful guy with every thing he did. > > tom > ... Is there a market out there for thirty year old planes in >mint condition? ... You never can tell in the abstract. To test the waters, you might list it on Ebay with a prudent reserve. Or take it to a local RC auction. Or show it to folks in a local club and see if you can find a buyer. Or build up your skills until you think you can handle it. I wouldn't make it your second plane. Maybe third or fourth. I would also recommend all new servos for it. And get someone with some warbird experience to do the first flight for you. Check your CG carefully. Make sure you understand wing loading, tip stalls, and the downwind illusion very well before trying to fly it yourself. FWIW, I have a checklist for preflighting a new plane: http://moleski.net/rc/cheklist.htm Marty SignatureBig-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups. >> ... Is there a market out there for thirty year old planes in >>mint condition? ... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://moleski.net/rc/cheklist.htm I decided to keep the plane and engine. Electronic were never installed inn the plane. Tom > In any event I doubt it was the whine of electrics at Top Gun 2008 that > attracted the OP to the hobby. This is correct. > the answer is simple > 1/. Go electric. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > However you don't HAVE to START that way, and frankly its a bad way to > start. What are IC engines? Definitely getting a SIM. tom > What are IC engines? Definitely getting a SIM. Internal Combustion SignatureJim in NC >> What are IC engines? Definitely getting a SIM. > > Internal Combustion Thanks, I figured that one out after posting the question. >>>> ***Two-strokes do not die during low rpm trainer flying, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's your opinion but I disagree when it comes to low speed running. Then I guess that you don't know how to properly tune a two stroke engine. >>>>> ***Two-strokes do not die during low rpm trainer flying, >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Then I guess that you don't know how to properly tune a two stroke engine. For what it's worth I do know how to tune a 2 stroke but with todays power race these engines are becoming less tolerant of extended low speed running. Next time you may want to contribute something meaningful to the discussion. >>>>>> ***Two-strokes do not die during low rpm trainer flying, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Next time you may want to contribute something meaningful to the > discussion. I'm really perplexed about 2 cycles not idling. A Thunder Tiger .46 PRO is a really good engine. Now they do quit running when you hit the prop on the runway. Does a 4 stroke not do that? :) mk >>>>>> ***Two-strokes do not die during low rpm trainer flying, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > race these engines are becoming less tolerant of extended low speed > running. Doesn't sound like it. > Next time you may want to contribute something meaningful to the > discussion. Like your comments which are paramount to a love-in with 4 strokes. SignatureRon P If we are what we eat then: I'm fast, cheap and easy and past my best before date > I organized and ran such a committee in my last NJ club. When one of the > requirements for landing right to left was that you had to enter the > landing from a right hand turn, half of the alleged instructors quit. I > loved it. Now they would have to pay for their own crashes, instead of > their student pilots. The club survived and prospered. In the clubs that I belonged to, you couldn't get your wings unless you could take off in both directions without standing behind the model. You had to be able to land left to right using a left hand circuit (left turns only) and right to left using the right hand circuit (right turns only). The circuits had to be rectangular. This exercise had to be demonstrated in cross winds also. Stall and spin recovery were also part of the training and had to be mastered. It was intensive and the student pilot really sweated it out. The instructors in the clubs were chosen from the best pilots in the club by the members of the executive committee. No one was allowed to instruct unless approved by the committee. > The instructors in the clubs were chosen from the best pilots in the > club by the members of the executive committee. No one was allowed to > instruct unless approved by the committee. I applaud the club's thoroughness, but I have to say that, in my experience, the best pilots often aren't the best instructors. - Mark > "Ed Cregger" <ecregger@bellsouff.net> wrote in message Sure, some can do > it but they are the minority. Most begineers aren't that disciplined or > co-ordinated to master that approach. I'm thinking instructor, club route is the way to go for me. Tom > Make a deal that if your instructor crashes your plane, they have to > replace it with a brand new plane, radio and engine. If they refuse > to comply, find someone else to teach you to fly. Or, better yet. > Teach yourself how to fly using the computer simulator. Then all > you'll need is a check-out flight when you get to your flying field. IMNSHO this is horrible advice. Do not expect an instructor, doing it for free--and with the added burden of being susceptible to lawsuits--to replace your plane should it crash. And don't expect to completely learn to fly on a sim, and then run down to your local field for a quick "check-out" flight (izzat guy supposed to replace the plane if it crashes too? LOL). Sims are great but cannot replace actual air time. I would suggest going to a field that has a few club planes that can be used to give demo flights, via a buddy box. They will take the plane up to 2 or 3 mistakes high and then let you take over. If you find it easy to fly you can go for a more advanced trainer. But if you find it difficult or nearly overwhelming you can start with something easier to fly, such as an LT-40 (which isn't bad in the wind, at least compared to the smaller/lighter NextStar). Also look for a used setup at local clubs. Many people outgrow their trainers and then sell them. You should be able to pickup a complete RTF (ready to fly) plane, with transmitter, for a few hundred dollars easily. Ask around. SignatureMike I think the Hobbico Avistar ARF looks like a great way to start. I see nothing wrong with flat bottom wings, I learned on a Tower Hobbies "TOWER" trainer with an Evolution engine. I do think investing in a 2.4GHz radio is the right way to go and as mentioned, 5-6 channels is plenty unless you plan to move on to scale models where the extra channels will handle bomb drops, etc. And the best advice is find a club with a trainer you can start on. That's both a human trainer or instructor and a training plane that's set up for just that purpose. Lot's of luck Tom, I'm sure you'll have a blast! Richard >I think the Hobbico Avistar ARF looks like a great way to start. I see > nothing wrong with flat bottom wings, I learned on a Tower Hobbies [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Richard Thanks Richard. What's the advantage(s) of a 2,4GHZ raidio? Tom >>I think the Hobbico Avistar ARF looks like a great way to start. I see >> nothing wrong with flat bottom wings, I learned on a Tower Hobbies [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Tom Some 2.4 GHz radios are almost bullet proof. That means you don't have to worry about someone else turning on a radio on your frequency while you are in the air. All manufacturers now have 2.4 stuff on the market, but there ARE problems in some of the systems. The hard part is that sometimes it is difficult to identify if the problem is the equipment, the user, or the installation of the equipment as they all have positive and negative impacts on the final result. Do some research carefully. Good luck and look carefully for an instructor. Here is a suggestion of how to find what might be a good one for you. Go to the local hobby shop (nearest if you have no local shop) and ask for club flying field locations. If more than one, plan on spending a nice Sunday afternoon at each just watching and not volunteering that you are looking for a good instructor. That avoids the egos that do exist in all hobbies. Once you have seen a 'community' that interests you, go back and ask about instructors. Try to spend another day just watching those 'candidates' because if one yells too much it may contribute to longer time on the buddy box while another may fit your personality just right. That cannot be decided at first meeting and probably not until second or third flight. @Ed: We do disagree about the flat bottomed airfoil trainers. What I was trying to say is that they do make the student work harder, but they also learn more from them. Remember I think we are trying to teach folks how to plan where the plane is going to go and understanding the change in flight characteristics is a large part of that and I think flat bottomed airfoils get right to that particular lesson first off rather than later. Sooner is always better than later.Other airfoils are nice, but I have found it to be more difficult to teach the changing characteristics with symmetrical or semi symmetrical wings. Jim Branaum AMA 1428 > Some 2.4 GHz radios are almost bullet proof. That means you don't have to > worry about someone else turning on a radio on your frequency while you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > user, or the installation of the equipment as they all have positive and > negative impacts on the final result. Do some research carefully. I've got an E-Flite LP5DSM 5 channel radio. Is it any good? Can I at least use it w/ a flight simulator? Are flight simulators picky when it comes to radios? Tom >> Some 2.4 GHz radios are almost bullet proof. That means you don't have >> to worry about someone else turning on a radio on your frequency while [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tom Sorry, I haven't a clue about that particular radio. The DSM on the end suggests that it might be part of the Hitec DSM line of 2.4 GHz radios. The only requirement I know of with flight simulators and radios is that the radio has to have a port, usually the trainer port, for the computer to plug into. However my knowledge on this part of the subject is not very thorough since I just changed brands and have not investigated all flight simulators. > I've got an E-Flite LP5DSM 5 channel radio. Is it any good? Can I at > least use it w/ a flight simulator? > Are flight simulators picky when it comes to radios? It can't be used w/ a FS according to Horizon. "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote >> Lot's of luck Tom, I'm sure you'll have a blast! >> Richard > > Thanks Richard. What's the advantage(s) of a 2,4GHZ raidio? You do not need to get a channel cleared for your use only. Most clubs do it by having each channel marked on a clothespin, and before you can turn on your radio to fly, you must have the clothespin, which means nobody else will be on the channel and cause your plane to crash. 2.4 GHZ radios have no set frequency, but instead, look for a clear area within the 2.4 GHZ band, and skip around often enough that nobody else can influence the control of the transmitter long enough to cause a crash. This feature is found on expensive units, and to many people, it is a question of whether it is a needed expense. If you are too impatient to wait for your turn to fly, it is a very good thing. :-) SignatureJim in NC . > Also look for a used setup at local clubs. Many people outgrow their > trainers and then sell them. You should be able to pickup a complete RTF > (ready to fly) plane, with transmitter, for a few hundred dollars easily. > Ask around. Yes, reading these posts I'm thinking, if I get lucky, I might be able to find a suitable setup for a reasonale price and meet some helpful people at a club. tom > . >> Also look for a used setup at local clubs. Many people outgrow their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > find a suitable setup for a reasonale price > and meet some helpful people at a club. IF you have good peple at a good club at a good distance, thats great, and the most friendly way to go. If the people suck, the club strip sucks or they are just too far to get too, pay heed: you CAN do it alone, with patience. Also remember that a 40 powered glo models can and has killed: You should NOT fly these unsupervised around people. The same is not true of a slow stik. Bar inmind that at least 75% of the posters here don't know diddly squat about aerodynamics or anything. Hint: planes that 'balloon' have CGs wrong..its not a case of a 'flat bottomed airfoil' or anything like that.. > tom > Bar inmind that at least 75% of the posters here don't know diddly squat > about aerodynamics or anything. Hint: planes that 'balloon' have CGs > wrong..its not a case of a 'flat bottomed airfoil' or anything like that.. And sometimes it can be cured by reducing the incidence, a favourite method is a wooden choc ice stick between the fuse and rear of wing Trefor >> Bar inmind that at least 75% of the posters here don't know diddly squat >> about aerodynamics or anything. Hint: planes that 'balloon' have CGs [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Trefor ------------- And how many times have I posted the cure for "zooming" in this newsgroup over the last twelve to thirteen years do you suppose? Problem is, when you "cured" the zooming, you also removed all of the auto stabilizing characteristics that many of you bleeding hearts insist is necessary for proper training. I'm not an aerodynamicist, that's true. Never claimed to be. But, on the other hand, I have been trimming models for a half a decade with a fair amount of success. Including free flight, which is the true test of one's ability to trim. A large part of the problem in argueing the advantages/disadvantages of various airfoil types in a modeling forum is that many folks are not aware of all of the little things that we modelers do just to keep our models within range to control them properly. This is one of the reasons why many folks fly with just ailerons and elevator. It has nothing to do with being lazy. It has everything to do that most of the time that we are flying, we are turning. And we are turning at steeper bank angles that full size aircraft turn. One more thing. Let's try to make it one day without personal insults or name calling, okay? If one can't win their arguement without resorting to insults and name calling, then they didn't have a winnable arguement anyway. I'm playing Devil's Advocate in this thread, in case no one has caught on yet. While what I'm saying is true, I'm picking on a certain type of instructor in order to get a response from them. So far, no one has taken the bait. For that I am thankful. I didn't think that any of my rec.models.rc.air friends was one of THOSE guys. <G> Ed Cregger ***I'm fighting the latest version of the common cold. This thing is a bear. I hope no one else on the group contracts this nasty critter. In the third paragraph, replace decade with century. Doh! I'm going back to bed. Ed Cregger ------------ >>> Bar inmind that at least 75% of the posters here don't know diddly squat >>> about aerodynamics or anything. Hint: planes that 'balloon' have CGs [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > ***I'm fighting the latest version of the common cold. This thing is a > bear. I hope no one else on the group contracts this nasty critter. >> Yes, reading these posts I'm thinking, if I get lucky, I might be able to >> find a suitable setup for a reasonale price [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > about aerodynamics or anything. Hint: planes that 'balloon' have CGs > wrong..its not a case of a 'flat bottomed airfoil' or anything like that.. When I was kid only two places, one in NYC and the other in Baltimore, offered an airframe and engine course that upon graduation the students were certified A&E mechanics. Employers were waiting in the wings to hire you if you already hadn't accepted one of the many unsolicited offers of employment the good students received prior to graduation. My plan was after graduating join the Air Force then become a candidate for OCS then become a pilot. Because of family reasons I had to move to Texas which put a real damper on my career plans. Meanwhile I was flying U-control planes of which my favorites were StuntMAster (symmetrical wing airfoil) and the Pitts Special biplane. Also, I crewed on sailboats, including race boats. I mention all of this only to say I'm very familar w/ CG, how wings work, airplane model safety. Someone mentioned a shareware or freeware FS. Where can I d/l it? Which FS come with the NextStar Select? http://n.ethz.ch/student/mmoeller/fms/index_e.html >>> Yes, reading these posts I'm thinking, if I get lucky, I might be able >>> to find a suitable setup for a reasonale price [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Someone mentioned a shareware or freeware FS. Where can I d/l it? Which > FS come with the NextStar Select? Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not so great) words of knowledge: > After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last month > I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Tom The Nexstar is a nice trainer, however, my personal opinion is that it is overpriced for what you get. 1. Do not try to teach yourself how to fly. The normal 1st flight of someone trying to teach themselves how to fly is typically less than 30 seconds and usually results in damage to the plane (about 1/2 the time the plane is a total). Get an instructor. Clubs provide members an instructor at no charge. 2. Find a local club. Your local hobby shop can help you find one. 3. Talk to the people at the club AND talk to an instructor. See what the instructor suggests for a trainer. 4. Join the AMA and your local club. Back to the plane. You can D/L FMS for free and you can either make a cord that goes from your transmitter to the computer or buy one off of Ebay for around $20 - $25. FMS is a decent sim. It doesn't have the "bells and whistles" of G4 or Aerofly, but it will allow you to practice what your instructor teaches you. The AFS on the Nexstar is, in my opinion, useless since it teaches you the wrong things. MOST instructors have the student turn it off and learn the CORRECT way. The wing droops are nice, however many students remove them by the 3rd lesson (or sooner). The Nexstar comes with a 4 channel radio. There is nothing wrong with a 4 channel radio, however most students will be wanting/needing more channels by their 3rd plane. I suggest the following: Since most trainers fly pretty much the same, get a basic ARF trainer such as the Hobbico SuperStar or Avistar. With an ARF you do not have the emotional involvment that normally comes if you build the plane from a kit. Remember, a trainer is to learn on. Expect it to get dings, tears and some damage. It goes along with learning. Get a BALL BEARING 46 engine. OS, Thunder Tiger and Evolution are 3 brands I can recommend. They are "user friendly" engines. By user friendly I mean that 99%+ are going to run decently right out of the box. They will require minimal break in, have good power and not require a lot of "fiddling with" to run properly and keep running properly. For a radio I suggest a 6 channel (or more ) COMPUTER radio. Initially, you will not be using the additional channels, however many students want flaps and/or retractable landing gear by their 3rd plane. Getting the 6 channel (or more) radio initially saves you from buying another radio later. I also suggest getting the radio in 2.4 mhz rather than 72 mhz. With some careful shopping you can NORMALLY beat the price of a Nexstar. If you happen to catch some sales, you can beat the price by a substantial amount. Remember, do not try to teach yourself how to fly. Get an instructor. Hope this is of some help. > After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last month > I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. > When I was a kid I did pretty good with U control model planes. Remember > them? > My brother sent me a link for a trainer but I want to get the best, > ideally one that'll grow beyond a trainer. Most trainers are capable of far more than people ever use them for. My Seagull Boomerang 40 has 300hours of flying and is looking really sad, yet it will still do things most pilots would never think it capable of surviving. I've overpowered it, dived it well beyond flutter, pulled massive 'wing breaking' G, landed it inverted, flown through trees, discovered it's absolute maximum speed (just won't go faster no matter how big an engine), hovered it etc etc. > I'm willing to spend several hundred bucks maybe more. You're wasting money and getting no benefit for it. Try a cheap trainer, assemble it well, and (once you get used to it) flog the death out of it. About the only thing they don't like is knife edges, which some judicious modifications will solve. > link to trainer recommended by my brother > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm Don't get cocky or push it too quick. Seen plenty of 'Top Gun' learners who simply rush things too much and end up getting nowhere but frustrated and/or broke. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXWH71&P=0 This is one of the best planes ever. I built the smaller version of this from scratch a few years ago and put hundreds of hours on it. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXMU53**&P=0 This is another one of the greats. Comes with everything, and it saves a hundred bucks off the price of the Nexstar, which would be wasted money if you ask me. Just get a plane and learn to fly it, and don't fool with the fancy gizmos on the Nexstar. Incidentally, neither of these planes has a flat bottom airfoil, in case you're interested. But they both will fly slow so you can learn to handle an airplane, like you do in a full scale Cessna 150. Some other really good ARF trainers: http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXCXF4**&P=0 http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXGHD4**&P=0 Comes with 6 channel radio and ball bearing servos. I knew a guy who had one of these, (after I had been a competent pilot for several years) and we used to have a ball flying it. It's a really good trainer. You could also get any of these planes with no engine and buy a 4 stroke instead if you want to. It's just a matter of budget. Here are some thoughts to keep in mind. Most guys who don't quit right away end up with lots of different planes, radios and engines after a few years. If you stick with it you'll have extras of everything, so don't think you have to get exactly the right gear the first time out. Keep in mind that you may already be planning your next three planes, but three planes from now your plans will likely have changed. I've been doing this for almost 20 years and taught about a dozen people to fly. It's really not as hard as some people would like you to believe. If you want to do it, you can. Regarding equipment, I have a collection of cheap radios, a box of servos and receivers of various sizes, and dozens of engines that get installed on different planes as they come and go. The basic four channel airplane is what most people fly 90% of the time, and it doesn't hurt my feelings a bit to install cheap four channel radios in them. Maybe you'll build some really cool scale project some day with flaps and retracts and use a six channel radio. While you're building it you'll probably be flying various four channel airplanes that don't require anything more than a cheap four channel radio. I noticed that you mentioned biplanes, which is something that I've always loved, too. I guarantee you don't need anything fancy for a biplane, and unless it's a high speed precision aerobatics type, you won't be able to tell the difference between plastic bushings and ball bearings in your servos. I'm not trying to twist your arm or anything. You don't have to do things my way, but remember that you don't have to go out and spend $850 for all the best gear your first time out either. Have fun. Robbie I like Robert's answer a bunch and wholeheartedly second his opinions. I think any of the planes he points out are good choices for someone who wants to get into the hobby. I especially like the Hobbistar 60, because its bigger an easier to see. It also will allow you to "play" with its capabilities a bunch, but the Avistar will allow that, too. Harlan > http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXWH71&P=0 This is one > of the best planes ever. I built the smaller version of this from scratch [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Robbie >I like Robert's answer a bunch and wholeheartedly second his opinions. I >think any of the planes he points out are good choices for someone who [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >> >> Robbie ------------ My mission is accomplished. I got some folks to write that probably wouldn't have responded to this article. That was my goal. You have to be a little controversial in order to drag some of these folks out of their dark closets. No, you don't need a fancy radio to begin flight training. But you would save money in the long run if you bought a nice computer radio to begin with. After all, the transmitter stays on the ground, so regardless of the number of crashes that your model experiences, your TX is going to remain in good condition, barring any hanger rash type of accidents. Do you have to have ball bearing servos? Of course not. But if you spent the extra money and bought the cheapest ball bearing servos, I guarantee that you would enjoy your model more than if you had bought the plastic bushing servos that are bottom of the line. An excellent transmitter, coupled with an adequate flight pack is a good way to go. I'd buy a used 72 MHz transmitter that is computer based and with at least eight or nine channel capability. Then I would buy a cheap flight pack that matches the transmitter's frequency and shift. Most computer transmitters can be converted to 2.4 GHz with the replacement of the Tx module at a later date. I run 72 MHz, 50 MHz and 2.4 MHz with my old JR X347 Tx, my JR 8103 and my JR 9303 transmitters. You have that capability when you get a computer based transmitter because they use Tx modules to determine the band and frequency. It's been fun. Ed Cregger > ------------ > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ed Cregger Yeah, Ed, I think your logic is sound. Its just that if a guy is in the position where he HAS to save a few bucks on his initial equipment, a four channel Tx and cheaper servos aren't all that bad. I try to have that kind of stuff on hand for those just starting out in the hobby. If I see a good used outfit that I can pick up for a good price and pass along the saving to a person who is interested in entry level equipment, I can usually get him into the plane, Tx, Rx and servos for less than $200 and sometimes less. Of course some of the other stuff is extra, but I usually have those things available fairly inexpensively, too. I probably have too much stuff at the moment, but I just love it when a new person shows up at the field with equipment that I sold him for a very good price. Usually its a new flyer, a new club member and another smiling face. As for the modules, I find that its a great way to get into 2.4 GHz equipment. I bought my 9CAP and Hitec Eclipse fairly cheaply when their previous owners decided to go dedicated 2.4GHz rather than go with the module. I have the capability to fly on any channel that is open or 2.4Ghz with the 9CAP and any channel with the Eclipse. I'll shortly be getting a 2.4 GHz module for that one, too. Then my other radios will be sold. (I got those modules from all those Priority Club points I accumulated over 20 years of traveling on business, so they really didn't cost me anything.) Harlan > Yeah, Ed, I think your logic is sound. Its just that if a guy is in the > position where he HAS to save a few bucks on his initial equipment, I wonder if my never used 25 or 30 year old K&B R/C .61 engine w/ muffler is still usable? a four > channel Tx and cheaper servos aren't all that bad. I try to have that > kind of stuff on hand for those just starting out in the hobby. If I see a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Harlan >> Yeah, Ed, I think your logic is sound. Its just that if a guy is in the >> position where he HAS to save a few bucks on his initial equipment, > > I wonder if my never used 25 or 30 year old K&B R/C .61 engine w/ muffler > is still usable? Heck yeah. mk >>> Yeah, Ed, I think your logic is sound. Its just that if a guy is in the >>> position where he HAS to save a few bucks on his initial equipment, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Heck yeah. Great I'll try to get the motor mount out of the P47 > I wonder if my never used 25 or 30 year old K&B R/C .61 engine w/ muffler > is still usable? ----------- Of course it is. I've been buying up just those engines on eBay for use in my classic pattern models. They run as sweet as ever and parts are available from MECOA. Ed Cregger >> Yeah, Ed, I think your logic is sound. Its just that if a guy is in the >> position where he HAS to save a few bucks on his initial equipment, > > I wonder if my never used 25 or 30 year old K&B R/C .61 engine w/ muffler is > still usable? That's a very usable engine. My brother in law had one about 15 years ago and it was really easy to handle. >>> Yeah, Ed, I think your logic is sound. Its just that if a guy is in the >>> position where he HAS to save a few bucks on his initial equipment, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's a very usable engine. My brother in law had one about 15 years ago > and it was really easy to handle. tHANks, decided to keep it. Tom > No, you don't need a fancy radio to begin flight training. But you would > save money in the long run if you bought a nice computer radio to begin > with. After all, the transmitter stays on the ground, so regardless of the > number of crashes that your model experiences, your TX is going to remain in > good condition, barring any hanger rash type of accidents. The reason I responded to this thread is that I'm expressing a point of view that doesn't get a lot of play for some reason. It seems that a disproportionate number of people on this group assume that everybody wants the fanciest gear on the market and that we will all end up there by choice some day. This is not true. Not only do I not have a computer radio, but in 20 years of flying models I have never wanted one. I have never built a plane with 6 channels. I've built several with 5, but not more than half a dozen or so. Sometimes the extra channel is flaps and sometimes it's a bomb door. Some of us are just simple and don't like all the fancy electronic crap. The only reason I find that fact worth mentioning is that in spite of the "you'll want it later" advice seen here so frequently, most of the guys I've ever seen at the flying field were flying basic 4 channel sport planes and using basic 4 channel radios. Only about 20% have had computer radios of any kind, and this was at a very popular public field. Apparently the 2.4 GHz stuff is getting more popular now, but I've been out of the loop since I moved to the country a year ago... > Do you have to have ball bearing servos? Of course not. But if you spent the > extra money and bought the cheapest ball bearing servos, I guarantee that > you would enjoy your model more than if you had bought the plastic bushing > servos that are bottom of the line. I hate to come across as disagreeable, but I disagree with that statement. Until just a few years ago I never owned a ball bearing servo, and I enjoyed my planes just as much as the next guy. Now that I have a few of them I sometimes can tell the difference, but sometimes I can't. And I guarantee that I don't enjoy the cheap stuff less. I don't want to argue, I'm just pointing out that it is a fallacy to assume that everybody else will follow the same path that you took. This is a very common fallacy, probably the most common in the human experience. Tom, whatever you buy, may you learn to fly before you learn the fine art of crash repair. >> No, you don't need a fancy radio to begin flight training. But you would >> save money in the long run if you bought a nice computer radio to begin [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Tom, whatever you buy, may you learn to fly before you learn the fine art > of crash repair. ---------- Each of us judges the world and others by our own experiences. I don't argue with folks. I just state my viewpoint and then move on. I've been flying R/C and model airplanes in general for a long, long time. I have decades of experiences. Does that make me correct? Not at all. I've seen some real goof balls that had decades of experience and I've had to argue with them back when I was in club politics and either club president or on the board of directors. Their reasoning was often flawed, costing their student pilots money that truly did not need to be spent. Many times their suggestions for rules were absolutely ridiculous to most folks. But they had the right to be heard and their suggestions taken seriously. Others dismissed such folks out of hand. They never had their say, which I thought was wrong. Ever run into folks that will only fly plain bearing engines? I have. Or folks that will not own a computer radio? I have. How about folks that will never buy anything that is new? If they could find a way to buy used fuel, they would! <G> It takes all kinds to make a world. I have always fought for folks to have the right to be different, as long as they were reasonably safe. I'm not putting anyone down now for their behavior of choice. I kind of visit different areas of interest and different modeling philosophies quite often. One side of me loves classic pattern. Another side of me is an ardent Telemaster fan. I even own a few helicopters and RTF electric models. I'm on a giant scale kick at the moment. Who knows what I'll be into next week? I don't. The fact that you disagree with me is fine. I do appreciate you presenting your point of view, even when it disagrees with mine. We put the info, our opinions, out there for the readers to evaluate. That is as it should be. Ed Cregger . > Tom, whatever you buy, may you learn to fly before you learn the fine art > of crash repair. Good one Robert. In another life I had a Stunt airplane that was almost unrecognizable due to all of the repairs. I suspect I'll have to learn the latest repair techniques. tom > My mission is accomplished. I got some folks to write that probably > wouldn't have responded to this article. That was my goal. You have to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > number of crashes that your model experiences, your TX is going to remain > in good condition, barring any hanger rash type of accidents. This thread is a wealth of knowledge for me, and I assume some others, I wondering what a computewr based raido is and why it's desirable? > Do you have to have ball bearing servos? Of course not. But if you spent > the extra money and bought the cheapest ball bearing servos, I guarantee [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ed Cregger | This thread is a wealth of knowledge for me, and I assume some others, I | wondering what a computewr based raido is and why it's desirable? When you get your basic radio without any mixing functions, when you move one stick one servo on the plane moves. Well, you can plug two servos into one channel if you want and move two servos that way, but there's no more functionality than that. With computer radios, you can put in mixers. They're a bit hard to explain, so let me give you some examples -- When you use the ailerons to turn the plane, for a coordinated turn you also should use some rudder. You can set up a mixer to do this for you. When you're moving your elevator, you can set the plane to also move your flaps (or flaperons) to help the elevator do it's thing. If your plane has elevons, when you pull back on the stick, both elevons go up. When you move the stick left, one elevon goes up and one goes down. This is done with a mixer. You can put one servo on each aileron, and have a mixer control them, and have them move differently (aileron differential) or have them also give you flaperons for slowing down for landing. etc. You can also change the endpoints of a servo in the transmitter. You need to adjust your thottle so it doesn't go so low as to kill the engine unless you flick a switch? Most computer radios can do that. You can program a TX for several models and simply change between them with a few simple commands. Some non-computer radios have some of these functions, but most don't. Computer radios give you all these functions and more. And nowadays they don't really cost much more. It's true, they can be hard to program, but if you don't need the programming, don't use it and then they're easy. In general, I'd suggest that anybody buying gear get a computer radio. Doesn't have to be high end, but even the simpler ones will give them a lot more room for growth. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us "Wherever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn people." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson > | This thread is a wealth of knowledge for me, and I assume some others, I > | wondering what a computewr based raido is and why it's desirable? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Doesn't have to be high end, but even the simpler ones will give them > a lot more room for growth. Thanks for clear explanation. I'm adding up the expense of radio, servos, FS, plane, motor, etc. And frankly it's looking like used equipment from a club member or an ARF kit w/ the works. It may cost a few more bucks more but it'll save the hassle of putting everything together. I work with computers but gave up building them when I realized I can buy good one cheaper than I can build one w/o the hassle. tom >> | This thread is a wealth of knowledge for me, and I assume some others, >> I [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > tom ----------- Regarding your last sentence - me too. I buy refurbed computers from Tiger Direct. Yep, the technology is a couple of years old sometimes, but I'm just an ordinary end user. I don't need a super screaming state-of-the-art machine any longer, but I do like fast machines. The thing about refurbs is you have to put it through a rigorous testing regime when you get it, because you only have a short while in which to exchange it. Nope, no returns for refund. I've paid as little as $250 for 2.8 GHz P4 processor equipped machines. Or $350 for a Pentium D dual channel 2.8 GHz machine. Or $260 each for several 3.06 GHz P4 machines. Why so many? I frequently give them to family and friends that need a computer. I'd rather build models anyway. Ed Cregger > I buy refurbed computers from Tiger Direct. Yep, the technology is a > couple of years old sometimes, but I'm just an ordinary end user. I don't > need a super screaming state-of-the-art machine any longer, but I do like > fast machines. I hear you I'm a dell guy myself. > The thing about refurbs is you have to put it through a rigorous testing > regime when you get it, because you only have a short while in which to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ed Cregger > | This thread is a wealth of knowledge for me, and I assume some others, I > | wondering what a computewr based raido is and why it's desirable? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Doesn't have to be high end, but even the simpler ones will give them > a lot more room for growth. Before computer radios came along, all of these functions were part of building and flying the airplane yourself. I remember when the big thing was the "snap roll" button. You hit the button and your plane does a snap roll. And this is desirable for what reason? How about simply moving your control sticks? The same goes for rudder mixing. Why wouldn't you want to learn to perform coordinated turns yourself? For some of us, that's part of the fun of flying. For other people, apparently a big part of the hobby is acquiring fancy gadgets that do everything for you. This type of equipment turns model airplane flying into different hobbies for different personalities, and that's OK. Just ask yourself which group you identify with more. I'm not going to tell you not to get an excessively complicated radio. Apparently a lot of people are really into it. You just can't assume that everybody likes the same thing. | Before computer radios came along, all of these functions were part of | building and flying the airplane yourself. To a degree. You can do an elevon plane without a computer-radio mixer -- you have a servo (elevator) that moves another servo that slides on a tray (ailerons) that actually controls the surfaces. It works, but it's big, heavy and fragile and limits where the servos can be. Using a servo that controls each surface seperately and using a mixer is a much better solution. | I remember when the big thing was the "snap roll" button. You hit | the button and your plane does a snap roll. And this is desirable | for what reason? Got me. Never cared much for an `instant crash' button myself :) | How about simply moving your control sticks? The same goes for | rudder mixing. Why wouldn't you want to learn to perform | coordinated turns yourself? It was an example of what you could do, something easily understood, not something you _should_ do. I don't see much need for a computer radio in a 3 or 4 channel plane. With a 5 channel plane with seperate aileron servos, then a computer radio can get you aileron differential and flaperons, if you want them. You can build aileron diffential into to the plane by being clever, but it's easier to do it in the radio. Elevator -> Flaperon mixing can help maneuvers be a bit crisper, but it's strictly optional, as are spoilerons or flaperons. For a six channel full house glider, you really do want a computer radio. Full span ailerons, aileron diffential, crow, different flight modes -- it would be pretty much impossible to do all these things without a computer radio, and they do help the plane launch higher, stay up longer, and land more precisely when the time comes. You can live without full span ailerons and aileron differential easily enough. But you can't really do flight modes at all without a computer radio, and crow would be pretty much impossible as well (though you could build in spoilers instead.) | For some of us, that's part of the fun of flying. For other people, | apparently a big part of the hobby is acquiring fancy gadgets that do | everything for you. Yes, that's what computer radios are for, `acquiring fancy gadgets that do everything for you.' [eyeroll] | You just can't assume that everybody likes the same thing. You don't have to use all the functions if you don't want to. And you can start using them one at a time, decide if you like them. In any event, merely having a radio that allows you to keep several different models in memory, along with the servo reversals, endpoints and trims -- that alone is worth having a computer radio. They're quite useful even if you don't use any of the mixes. Sure, you could design every plane so that the servo reversals were always the same, that the trims were exactly the same -- but would you rather spend your time opening up servos to reverse them and adjusting your linkages to make all your planes match -- or spend it flying? Gluing sticks together is fun. Fine tuning linkages, not so much. Reversing servos, not so much. Programming radios, not so much either -- but fortunately the simple stuff is usually really quick. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear. > I don't see much need for a computer radio in a 3 or 4 channel plane. > With a 5 channel plane with seperate aileron servos, then a computer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mixing can help maneuvers be a bit crisper, but it's strictly > optional, as are spoilerons or flaperons. Don't you hate it when you have to be clever? Aileron differential is easy. Y connectors are still the best way to put two servos on the same function as far as I'm concerned. > | For some of us, that's part of the fun of flying. For other people, > | apparently a big part of the hobby is acquiring fancy gadgets that do > | everything for you. > > Yes, that's what computer radios are for, `acquiring fancy gadgets > that do everything for you.' [eyeroll] Did you do that with the eye roll button on your radio? >> I don't see much need for a computer radio in a 3 or 4 channel plane. >> With a 5 channel plane with seperate aileron servos, then a computer [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Did you do that with the eye roll button on your radio? However my reason for a computer rradio was different. 4 models one with elevons and all with different servo directions, and one, too small and light to have adjustable clevises. I don't use rates much, hardly ever use expo and mixers these days, but I sure do like elevon mixing and model and trim memories. > However my reason for a computer rradio was different. 4 models one > with elevons and all with different servo directions, and one, too > small and light to have adjustable clevises. > > I don't use rates much, hardly ever use expo and mixers these days, but > I sure do like elevon mixing and model and trim memories. These are all very good points. You can certainly do a lot of things with today's radios that were impossible 20 years ago. I noticed in this thread that only a few guys were able to come up with a good reason to use a computer radio besides multiple model memory. I wonder if it's fair to conclude that most people don't use the features on the radio. >> However my reason for a computer rradio was different. 4 models one >> with elevons and all with different servo directions, and one, too [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wonder if it's fair to conclude that most people don't use the features > on the radio. Elevon mixing and memories was what kicked me into one. I did find it was handy to use the ixers to compensate for poor sidethrust/downthrust, but yes, at my level of flying, more is not necessary.I did use exp a lot when my skills were poor too. The glider guiders and chopper shoppers do need more I grant you. Things like crow braking can't easily be done without one. Ditto engine power and collective type couplings, of which I understand just enough to know I dont understand it really at all ;-) > I noticed in this thread that only a few guys were able to come up with > a good reason to use a computer radio besides multiple model memory. I think that more than a fair number of people are just down on new technology. After all it is human nature to resist it to some degree. Plus those doing so tend to be more vocal about it too. Their are a multitude of reasons making the new technology desirable. Those people still using a buggy and buggy whips can feel free to continue to do so. The new technology doesn't hurt them and in fact, will help them because it reduces channel contention. > I > wonder if it's fair to conclude that most people don't use the features > on the radio. I don't think it's fair to do so. A lot of people retro fitting the new technology radios into older planes already have sorted out all or most of the details so they might not take advantage of them. Newer models being built that might not be the case so much. Plus you really need to factor in the learning curve with the radio. That kind of power comes with complexity and it might take a while to become comfortable with all aspects of programming the new radios. One thing I think is certain, I don't expect to see anyone becoming comfortable with a computer radio going back to old technology. But I don't have or use kerosene lighting and I have indoor plumbing in my house <g> Regards Bill > One thing I think is certain, I don't expect to see anyone becoming > comfortable with a computer radio going back to old technology. > > But I don't have or use kerosene lighting and I have indoor plumbing in > my house <g> That's an interesting comment, because I'm a fan of indoor plumbing. I think that's my favorite thing about technology. But I'm not interested in those automatically flushing toilets. >> One thing I think is certain, I don't expect to see anyone becoming >> comfortable with a computer radio going back to old technology. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > think that's my favorite thing about technology. But I'm not interested > in those automatically flushing toilets. --------- Come on, Bob. You're not really a Luddite, are you? I'll use whatever technology that I have available and is useful. I enjoy being able to slave various outputs in the appropriate proportions for some models. Granted, some models are the most fun for me when flown straight up without mixing, etc., but there are many models that I fly which are nearly impossible to fly correctly without at least some mixing. Is this cheating? To me it is no more cheating than flying an full size F-16 with its fly-by-wire system. Without it, the F-16 is just a useless heap of metal and composite materials. We modelers are on the cusp of needing full time flight control systems with some designs. Imagine trying to fly a model that lacks a vertical fin (or equivalent) without a computerized flight control system. It would be nearly impossible. To me, our fanciest computerized R/C systems are a long way from the technology that is employed in our fighter aircraft that protects our nation. This is not to say that I do not enjoy flying WWI biplanes with just basic control functions, but even with those models, it is nice to have reversing, volume, etc. Oh, and I would love an automatic flushing toilet or two in the house. Ed Cregger >>> One thing I think is certain, I don't expect to see anyone becoming >>> comfortable with a computer radio going back to old technology. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Come on, Bob. You're not really a Luddite, are you? No, I'm not a Luddite. I'm more of a philosopher. Every phenomenon has extremes, and there are always devotees of either extreme. The funny thing is that the extremists are usually convinced that they fall in the middle. So, when somebody "guarantees" that fancy gear is definitely the best option for the new guy, anybody who suggests investigating all options including the less fancy ones is seen as an extremist in the other direction. Robbie (not Bob) > So, when somebody "guarantees" that fancy gear is definitely the best > option for the new guy, anybody who suggests investigating all options > including the less fancy ones is seen as an extremist in the other > direction. Robbie, I don't recall anyone saying that. But I would counter that the reverse is equally bad. Suggesting that someone buy a "cheap" radio might not be good advice either. There are far too many variables that the respondent can not possibly know including their spending habits. I am annoyed that I bought a 72 Mhz radio after being so advised, and replaced it very quickly with a 2.4 Ghz radio within 1 month. Bill >> So, when somebody "guarantees" that fancy gear is definitely the best >> option for the new guy, anybody who suggests investigating all options [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bill To be fair, I was introducing the other option, as well as relating my own preferences. I was careful to tell Tom not to believe me, but to consider his own way of doing things. Ed guaranteed that Tom would get more satisfaction out of ball bearing servos, and he definitively stated that fancy gear would be on the "to buy" list at a later time. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just pointing out that there are more ways to look at the same situation. Maybe Tom will love fancy radios, but nobody bothered to ask him. Most people have a tendency to simply give advice based on their own preferences. And I'm not picking on Ed. I'm just using his post as an example. (Sorry, Ed.) >> Ed guaranteed that Tom would get more satisfaction out of ball bearing > servos, and he definitively stated that fancy gear would be on the "to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > preferences. And I'm not picking on Ed. I'm just using his post as an > example. (Sorry, Ed.) I'm going to get an ARF kit including FS and 2.4ghz radio unless I can find a good deal from club member in my aRea. | I noticed in this thread that only a few guys were able to come up with | a good reason to use a computer radio besides multiple model memory. The purpose of the thread wasn't to come up with reasons to use a computer radio. And besides, lots of reasons were given -- you may not think they're good, but others certainly do. And multiple model memory is a good enough reason to use a computer radio, _all by itself_. Especially considering that the cost premium for a computer radio is pretty small nowadays. For example, two four channel radios -- http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXEFJ4**&P=0 http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXKJD8**&P=0 One not computer, one computer. Same manufacturer, $20 difference in price. | I wonder if it's fair to conclude that most people don't use the | features on the radio. Certainly, it's not fair to come to this conclusion based on this thread. Let's list some of the features found mostly only on computer radios. (Some of these features are available on some of the older high-end non-computer radios, but usually aren't) -- -- multiple model memories -- mixes (elevon, flaperon, aileron differential, crow, etc.) -- digital voltage display -- audible alarm when the battery goes too low -- endpoint adjustments (or ATV) -- dual rates -- exponential -- digital trims, remembered with the model -- throttle/pitch curves/servo calibration -- servo tester/exerciser mode -- servo position display (to be fair, not really needed if you don't have mixers) -- frequency scanner/refusal to start if your channel is in use -- timers -- flight modes (I'm not really going to get into the 2.4 GHz specific stuff, because as far as I know, there are no general purpose non-computer 2.4 GHz radios available.) I'm guessing that most people with more than one plane use multiple model memories. The digital voltage display tells you more than the analog ones most non-computer radios have (needle in the middle? What does that mean?) The alarm has probably saved lots of planes. (Have you ever seen a non computer radio with an audible low battery alarm?) ATV, dual rates and exponential could be found on a few of the higher end non computer radios, but not terribly often. Some love these features, some hate them. Not all computer radios have digital trims (and not everybody likes them) but it is nice when they're stored with the model, and it's nice that you don't have to re-trim your plane every time you fly (unless it's a foamie, and then you have to anyways.) No bumping that adjustment either! Servo calibration is found only in a few high end radios, and I'm guessing most don't really use it. Throttle and pitch curves are very commonly used by helicopter pilots and probably those doing precision aerobatics (to make their throttle more linear.) Servo tester/exerciser and position displays are found only in high end radios and can be quite useful, but I'm guessing most people don't use them. Scanners are found only in certain radios and generally cost extra, but they can save your plane if used. 2.4 GHz sort of makes them moot, of course. Timers are nice, though sticking a watch on the front of your plane works too. But it's nice to have a timer tied to your throttle for example -- `I've been flying (my glider) for an hour, but have only been throttled up for 10 minutes -- 5 more, then I land.' Flight modes are probably only used by sailplane or maybe pattern pilots. And helicopter pilots. Mixers, some love 'em, some hate 'em. Elevon and flaperon mixes are probably the most commonly used. I'm guessing that very few people use all these features -- I certainly don't -- but that most people who have a computer radio for a little while use a few of them. Many of these features can be made moot by building your plane in a certain way -- the best place to work out your control surface travel is in your linkages, for example. But it's often faster and easier to do it in the radio. I'm not saying that everybody needs a computer radio, but they are nice, and they no longer cost a bunch more. And if there's a feature you don't want, don't use it -- no computer radio forces you to use all it's features. One thing I will say though -- if you do want a non-computer radio, buy it new -- buy it used. People are practically giving them away lately. They're great for buddy boxes, but beyond that they're not really any better. Actually, that's not quite fair. Non-computer radios do have some advantages -- -- lower cost -- lower power consumption, so your battery lasts longer. (Note that in most cases, the difference is small, and if it's not, the radio usually comes with a larger battery.) -- easier to use. No menus to go through to reverse a channel -- just flip the switch. -- no software bugs (a few computer radios have had bugs, usually some rarely used mixer type that doesn't work properly under some conditions) -- no danger of the radio being messed up by a cell phone or microwave. (granted, this is a very unusual problem.) -- analog trims are quick and easy to use. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Save the whales! Collect the whole set! model memory. > The purpose of the thread wasn't to come up with reasons to use a > computer radio. And besides, lots of reasons were given -- you may [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > (granted, this is a very unusual problem.) > -- analog trims are quick and easy to use. > | I noticed in this thread that only a few guys were able to come up with > | a good reason to use a computer radio besides multiple model memory. [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > (granted, this is a very unusual problem.) > -- analog trims are quick and easy to use. After reading this message a computer radio is in my future but maybe not for the first one. Tom ... | > One thing I will say though -- if you do want a non-computer radio, | > buy it new -- buy it used. People are practically giving them away | > lately. I screwed that up a bit ... If you do want a non-computer radio, buy it used. Don't buy it new. People are pretty much giving them away. (Seriously. If you were in Austin, I'd give you one. I hate shipping though :) I don't recall if you said you wanted to go 72 MHz or 2.4 GHz. If you do 72 MHz, get stuff used -- you'll save a lot. If you go 2.4 GHz, then you're stuck with a computer radio, and you'll probably have to get it new -- used 2.4 GHz stuff isn't discounted much yet, except for the DX6 which isn't appropriate for a plane of any significant size. | After reading this message a computer radio is in my future but maybe not | for the first one. Unless you get your first radio for free/almost free, you might do better to get the right radio the first time. Though having a seperate radio does help if you want to sell your first plane, ready to fly ... SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive? > ... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > seperate radio does help if you want to sell your first plane, ready > to fly ... Is there a forum or something where used equipment is sold? Several years ago, I bought three Vandersteen speakers new and couple weeks later saw the same model speakers on a audio forum for much lees than I paidf for them. Tom | Is there a forum or something where used equipment is sold? | Several years ago, I bought three Vandersteen speakers new Wgat | and couple weeks later saw the same model speakers on a audio forum | for much lees than I paidf for them. You can buy and sell stuff here, though you'll probably have better luck at a site with more users like rcgroups.com. The local Craigslist (austin.craigslist.org here, perhaps your city has one) is probably where I buy most of my stuff -- there's not so much R/C gear, but there's generally no shipping, which is nice. austin.forsale used to be good, but now most of it's traffic has moved to Craigslist. Check your local R/C clubs -- often they have forums or mailing lists or cork boards at the field where people buy and sell stuff. This is probably your best bet. You could just show up at the field and ask if anybody has any basic radio gear to sell -- won't hurt to ask. Ebay is an option, though I've found that R/C stuff is rarely a bargain there. If the local R/C clubs do any swap meets -- go! That's probably the best place to find bargains if you know what you're looking at/for (or bring a friend who does.) Only problem is that they tend to do them only once a year. (Around here, the Georgetown swap meet in Janurary is the best, and well worth a 60 mile trip!) SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us It's like the story of David and Goliath, except this time David won. --Homer Simpson > | Is there a forum or something where used equipment is sold? > | Several years ago, I bought three Vandersteen speakers new [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > only once a year. (Around here, the Georgetown swap meet in Janurary > is the best, and well worth a 60 mile trip!) Will do, Thanks. >> | This thread is a wealth of knowledge for me, and I assume some others, >> I | wondering what a computewr based raido is and why it's desirable? [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > complicated radio. Apparently a lot of people are really into it. You > just can't assume that everybody likes the same thing. ------------ Sometimes, it is just fun to play with stuff, Bob. I'd rather have a capability and not use it, than to need a capability and not have it. But even so, I enjoy flying straight radios now and then too. That's all we had when we started out years ago. Those of us with an interest in electronics liked to add those snap roll buttons, just because we could and because no one else had them. I'm with you on flying the models through the maneuvers manually. I even stopped using dual rates because of that philosophy. Besides, you didn't have time to be constantly flicking switches anyway. I seldom use exponential because of its creepy feeling, at least to me. However, I do use the spoilerons/flaperon features quite often on my models. Can't do that without a computerized Tx. Ed Cregger > Sometimes, it is just fun to play with stuff, Bob. How old are you, Ed? Up until I was in my 20s, I would introduce myself as Robbie and everybody wanted to call me Bob, as in "Hi, I'm Robbie" "Nice to meet you, Bob". Now that I'm 39 I noticed just recently that nobody calls me Bob any more, apparently because it's a generational thing. I think the "Bob Generation" is going the way of the dodo bird. No offense intended of course, Ed. > I seldom use exponential because > of its creepy feeling, at least to me. I hate exponential. It reminds me of carrying a wide, shallow tray of liquid. As soon as it gets a tiny bit off balance to one side, it starts to accelerate in that direction until you freak out and spill it. > However, I do use the spoilerons/flaperon features quite often on my models. > Can't do that without a computerized Tx. I've built planes with flaps a few times, but I always build separate flaps and ailerons. Flaperons just don't appeal to me for some reason. >> Sometimes, it is just fun to play with stuff, Bob. > > How old are you, Ed? Up until I was in my 20s, I would introduce myself > as Robbie and everybody wanted to call me Bob, as in "Hi, I'm Robbie" > "Nice to meet you, Bob". > Now that I'm 39 I noticed just recently that nobody calls me Bob any more, > apparently because it's a generational thing. I think the "Bob > Generation" is going the way of the dodo bird. No offense intended of > course, Ed. ***I'm 61 for another month and a few days, Bob. Yeah, I noticed that the kids today tend to call everyone by their full name. I remember doing things differently just to be different from my parents. What I can't stand are the tattoos and the piercings. They look like a bunch of carnies to me. When I was a kid, being thought of as a carny was not a compliment. >> I seldom use exponential because of its creepy feeling, at least to me. > > I hate exponential. It reminds me of carrying a wide, shallow tray of > liquid. As soon as it gets a tiny bit off balance to one side, it starts > to accelerate in that direction until you freak out and spill it. >> However, I do use the spoilerons/flaperon features quite often on my >> models. Can't do that without a computerized Tx. > > I've built planes with flaps a few times, but I always build separate > flaps and ailerons. Flaperons just don't appeal to me for some reason. ***I guess it depends upon the kind/type of flying that you want to do. I enjoyed competition fun flying for a while, so huge one piece ailerons/flaperons/spoilerons are kind of a habit for me. Ed Cregger > I hate exponential. It reminds me of carrying a wide, shallow tray of > liquid. As soon as it gets a tiny bit off balance to one side, it starts > to accelerate in that direction until you freak out and spill it. That is about as good a description of my feelings about that subject as I have seen. Thanks for sharing the thought, it seems accurate. <G> >I like Robert's answer a bunch and wholeheartedly second his opinions. I >think any of the planes he points out are good choices for someone who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Harlan I agree. I'll check w/ my brother because I just realized he wants me to buy the same thing he's buying. \ To0m >> I like Robert's answer a bunch and wholeheartedly second his opinions. I >> think any of the planes he points out are good choices for someone who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > \ > To0m That's not a bad idea. If you crash two Avistars, sometimes you can build one good one from the remains! A friend of mine went through an Avistar phase a few years ago. He had bought about ten of them in various states of disrepair, and ended up with about 3 in flying (but very ugly) condition. It was a lot of fun. You could do this with just about any plane, but it works better with a more common model. >I like Robert's answer a bunch and wholeheartedly second his opinions. I >think any of the planes he points out are good choices for someone who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Harlan ------------ They are practically the same model, when viewed in profile. But you knew that. Ed Cregger > http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXWH71&P=0 This is one > of the best planes ever. I built the smaller version of this from scratch > a few years ago and put hundreds of hours on it. Does the Hobbico Avistar 40 Select 4-Channel RTF 59" come w/ flight simulator? > http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXMU53**&P=0 This is > another one of the greats. Comes with everything, and it saves a hundred > bucks off the price of the Nexstar, which would be wasted money if you ask > me. Just get a plane and learn to fly it, and don't fool with the fancy > gizmos on the Nexstar. Another one w/ no FS? > Incidentally, neither of these planes has a flat bottom airfoil, in case > you're interested. But they both will fly slow so you can learn to handle [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > mind that you may already be planning your next three planes, but three > planes from now your plans will likely have changed. Right, I just want to learn/practice on a FS and worry about other equipment > I've been doing this for almost 20 years and taught about a dozen people > to fly. It's really not as hard as some people would like you to believe. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > my way, but remember that you don't have to go out and spend $850 for all > the best gear your first time out either. Have fun. It looks like the NextStar is slightly less than $400.00, including FS. Tom > Robbie Tom: If you are near Chicago, get back to me. Harlan >> http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXWH71&P=0 This is one >> of the best planes ever. I built the smaller version of this from [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >> >> Robbie > Tom: > > If you are near Chicago, get back to me. > > Harlan Thanks harlan but I'm midatlantic. Tom >>> http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXWH71&P=0 This is one >>> of the best planes ever. I built the smaller version of this from [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >>> >>> Robbie Tom: Send me your email address using my personal email address below. Remember to remove the "REMOVE". I have an idea you may like.. Harlan >> Tom: >> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >>>> >>>> Robbie > After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last month > I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm I want to thank everybody for their input. I learned alot and enjoyed most everybodies post. An ARF kit is in my future. Tom YOU CANT BEAT A SIG KADET OR SENIOR. I HAVE TRAINED OVER 200 BEGINERS AND ALLWAYS KEEP ONE ARROUND. IT IS A PILOT MAKER. OLD MODELER >After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last month >I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Tom |
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
|
©2012 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.