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/nexsta.../features.html

Link to Top Gun Meet

http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm

Tom

"Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
> 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/nexsta.../features.html
>
> Link to Top Gun Meet
>
> http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm
>
> Tom


Here is the correct link for the trainer suggested by my brother.
>
>

"Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:CI5Xj.36947$Au2.26153@trnddc07...
>
> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
> news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
>> 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/nexsta.../features.html
>>
>> Link to Top Gun Meet
>>
>> http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm
>>
>> Tom
>
>
> 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

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.
> 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/nexsta.../features.html
>
> Link to Top Gun Meet
>
> http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm
>
> 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.

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!


"Robert Reynolds" <robbie@kcnet.com> wrote in message
news:PN-dnVgaWtz_Y7HVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@posted.kcnet...
>
>
> Ed Cregger wrote:
>> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>> news:CI5Xj.36947$Au2.26153@trnddc07...
>>> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
>>>> 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/nexsta.../features.html
>>>>
>>>> Link to Top Gun Meet
>>>>
>>>> http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
> 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.

"Robert Reynolds" <robbie@kcnet.com> wrote in message
news:PN-dnVgaWtz_Y7HVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@posted.kcnet...
>
>
> Ed Cregger wrote:
>> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>> news:CI5Xj.36947$Au2.26153@trnddc07...
>>> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
>>>> 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/nexsta.../features.html
>>>>
>>>> Link to Top Gun Meet
>>>>
>>>> http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
> 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.

----------

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

Ed Cregger wrote:
> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
> news:CI5Xj.36947$Au2.26153@trnddc07...
>> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>> news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
>>> 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/nexsta.../features.html
>>>
>>> Link to Top Gun Meet
>>>
>>> http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> 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
>


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.

"Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
> 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
>
> http://www.hobbiconexstar.com/nexsta.../features.html
>
> Link to Top Gun Meet
>
> 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.

"Ed Cregger" <ecregger@bellsouff.net> wrote in message
news:Qx6Xj.136682$Er2.95058@bignews6.bellsouth.net ...
>
> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
> news:CI5Xj.36947$Au2.26153@trnddc07...
>>
>> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>> news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
>>> 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/nexsta.../features.html
>>>
>>> Link to Top Gun Meet
>>>
>>> http://www.franktiano.com/TopGunFrameset.htm
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>>
>> 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.

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.

Ed Cregger wrote:
>
> 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.



--
Mike

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

"The Raven" <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote

>>> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
>>>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last
>>>> month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer.

>> ----------
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

***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.
>
> 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.

***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
>> 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.

***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
> 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.

***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
>> 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.


***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

"Ed Cregger" <ecregger@bellsouff.net> wrote in message
news:JanXj.142858$Er2.72220@bignews6.bellsouth.net ...
>
> "The Raven" <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>
>>>> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
>>>>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last
>>>>> month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer.
>
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> ***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.
>
>> 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.

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.
>>
>> 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.

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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> ***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
>>> 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.
>
> ***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.

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
> 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
>> 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.
>
> ***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
> 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
>>> 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.
>
>
> ***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.

Sure, some can do it but they are the minority. Most begineers aren't that
disciplined or co-ordinated to master that approach.

"The Raven" <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:482e1f0f$0$30466$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> "Ed Cregger" <ecregger@bellsouff.net> wrote in message
> news:JanXj.142858$Er2.72220@bignews6.bellsouth.net ...
>>
>> "The Raven" <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>
>>>>> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Iq4Xj.18569$%X1.17193@trnddc08...
>>>>>> After attending the TopGun RC plane meet in Lakeland, Florida last
>>>>>> month I've got to buy an ARF RC plane trainer.
>>
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> ***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.
>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.

***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.
>
> 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.

***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
>>> 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.

***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
> average plane.
>
>>
>>>> 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.
>
> 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.

***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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> ***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
>>>> 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.
>>
>> ***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.
>
> 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.

***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
>> 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
>>> 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.
>>
>> ***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.

***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
>> 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
>>>> field.

"Ed Cregger" <ecregger@bellsouff.net> wrote in message
news:0V7Xj.137916$Er2.38698@bignews6.bellsouth.net ...
>
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
> 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.
>
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