I have seen this type of thread before in the beginner flyer forum.

I would like to compile a list of foamies and the difficult to fly rating from 1-10

0 -- Safe to give to a young child
1 -- Young flyer can solo (maybe ages 4-8 with adult supervision?)
2 -- Beginner can solo
3 -- Beginner can solo with sim experience
4 -- Beginner can solo with flight instruction
5 -- Beginner can solo with extensive flight instruction/Easy 2nd plane
6 -- Good 2nd plane
7 -- Good 2nd plane with flight instruction/Sim
8 -- Good 3rd plane
9 -- Good 3rd plane with flight instruction/Sim
10 -- Requires expert flyer

0 Foam chuck gliders, balsa chuck gliders, "red propeller" rubber balsa planes
0 slo fly

1 Blu Baby
1 gpw's Trainer one

1.5 Foamfly Frog

2 Ultimate Bipe
2 GymBlu

3 full fuse war birds

5 Oshkosh Special with 38" KFm3 wing.

5 park jets

Rate 0:
Foam chuck gliders, balsa chuck gliders, "red propeller" rubber balsa planes


The problem with this is it only gives the poster's own personal views as to what each plane should fit in. The catagory I think Dekan's F-22 might fit into might be different to another's views, and may cause some hefty discussion. Opening up a can of worms, as they say.

I agree with Rusty because some people just simply pick up on controlling a radio much easier, better hand/eye coordination than other people.

me personally I don't think there is a plane made that I cant fly without sim experience provided the virtual model is accurate to the actual model and some kids with their gaming experience and fast control reactions can possibly pick it up even better than myself.

My personal opinion is that any top wing or biplane with a light wing loading or parasol wing will be easier to learn and control than a mid to low wing aircraft with fully symmetrical wings.

I understand the "idea" of this thread, and I take my hat off (tip my hat?) to going4speed. Lets hope it does work itself out though.

Guys it worked fine for the other thread.

Throw some numbers out and lets get this started.

ya Me too so I will try to contribute
0. slo fly
1 Blu Baby
2 Ultimate Bipe
3. full fuse war birds
4 to 5 park jets

1. Oshkosh Special 40"
2.
3.
4.Stevens Aero Mudbug
5.Oshkosh Special with 38" KFm3 wing.

1 - gpw's Trainer one
2 - GymBlu

1-2 - Foamfly Frog

The only way to prevent any sort of rating scheme from being subjective is to have actual data such as Pitch/Roll/Yaw rates, overall speed, stall spin characteristics, ect. What a monumental task that would be! Otherwise we get to watch this subjective, and most likely mis informed thread pop to the top every single day.

It's foam folks.....if it's to difficult to fly you're out a sheet of foam, it's not like reccomending a scale built up airframe worth 1000's of $ to a new R/C pilot. If you have to ask yourself if a design is too difficult for you to fly, then it probably is. If you think it is....Go for it anyway, sooner or later you'll get it. My opinion is that a rating scheme might keep a potential builder from improving their skills by pushing them to the limit.

Never let anyone hold you back.

Regards,
-Mike

Originally Posted by going4speed

Guys it worked fine for the other thread.

Throw some numbers out and lets get this started.

Post a link to the other thread.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=794884

Originally Posted by Boneswamped

The only way to prevent any sort of rating scheme from being subjective is to have actual data such as Pitch/Roll/Yaw rates, overall speed, stall spin characteristics, ect. What a monumental task that would be! Otherwise we get to watch this subjective, and most likely mis informed thread pop to the top every single day.

It's foam folks.....if it's to difficult to fly you're out a sheet of foam, it's not like reccomending a scale built up airframe worth 1000's of $ to a new R/C pilot. If you have to ask yourself if a design is too difficult for you to fly, then it probably is. If you think it is....Go for it anyway, sooner or later you'll get it. My opinion is that a rating scheme might keep a potential builder from improving their skills by pushing them to the limit.

Never let anyone hold you back.

Regards,
-Mike

truth
and well said, I agree 100%
if I had let some one talk me into thinking that certain planes were too difficult for me to build andto fly I probably would have never attempted to build many that I have successfully built and flown in the past.

Originally Posted by RogueTitan

truth
and well said, I agree 100%
if I had let some one talk me into thinking that certain planes were too difficult for me to build andto fly I probably would have never attempted to build many that I have successfully built and flown in the past.

I agree with this line of thought. My first plane was a Slow Stick which I successfully flew with no help other than the advice that was given to me here on rcgroups. My second plane, against everyones advice, was a Pocket Combat Wing (24 inches of wild fun!). I didn't understand that my elevons were reversed, and therefore beat that thing into the ground (good thing it was tough) before I figured it out. Once I got the elevons right, I was able to fly it with little trouble.

Having said that, I think it would be beneficial for people to know that a jet, or PCW, would not be the wise choice of a first plane (or maybe a second one). If they want to do it anyway, fine. It is just a list of planes according to difficulty level if I understand it right. That way, they can get an idea of why that new plane is in pieces after the first flight. They can know that they probably bit off a little bit more than they could chew. I am assumming that this list is for just the foamies that we build and fly here in the "scratchbuilt" section, and is not a list of all planes in general.

Daddy-O

BTW, I would say that the Divinity wing (4) would be a good first wing nowadays, and that a 24" David wing (6) would be a good second one.

YA THe D1 and DII would both be good first choice wings both simple to build and fly and look good too