HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by boingk, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old May 31, 2011, 02:34 AM
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
NSW, Australia
Joined Feb 2011
2,120 Posts
Sorry Hagerty, but I don't reckon those ratings reflect most peoples experiences. Your first flight with the Corsair, for example, is the most likely outcome for somone trying to fly this plane as a first-timer... and therefore its really more like a 6 (second plane).

The micro as well is a lot harder than a 3.5 - for example, I would not give it to anyone I know to fly with. In my experience many people just over-react, instead of taking it easy and seeing what small inputs do before trying larger ones. This is the primary newbie mistake IMO.

crashburn - I would definitely rate the Hellcat as a 6. Its quite stable and very floaty, and if set up properly will be a very good plane to fly. I can't emphasise the setup part enough - doesn't matter if its a difficulty of 2... if its set up badly it'll be hard to fly.

On the 'Walga', it looks similar to the HobbyKing J3 that I learnt on. Its wing area is a more realistic 13.7dm2 and I would recommend it to first time flyers with a bit of instruction from a more experienced RC pilot, or '4' in the ratings list. The Walga is more heavy, however, and therefore it'd probably be a good idea to see somone actually fly one before its rated.

Cheers - boingk
boingk is offline Find More Posts by boingk
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old May 31, 2011, 02:35 AM
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
NSW, Australia
Joined Feb 2011
2,120 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmike8 View Post
Correction: GWS Tigermoth 400 is listed twice. It's listed at 3.5 and 4.5
Does anyone have a good idea of what this plane should be rated? I'm tempted to just list it as a '4' but havent flown it myself.

Cheers - boingk
boingk is offline Find More Posts by boingk
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2011, 02:42 AM
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
NSW, Australia
Joined Feb 2011
2,120 Posts
Got a few ratings from the weekend:

RCFoamFighters.com 'FF-15' - 8 Rating given because of the models speed with a decent powertrain, and the fact that its a flat-plate airfoil with pusher prop gives it zero attitude correction. It is fairly stable in the air, though, most likely due to the shoulder-mounted wing.

RCFoamFighters.com 'FF-22' - 8 Rating given because, like the FF-15, its a fast model with flat-plate airfoil and pusher prop.

Cheers - boingk
boingk is offline Find More Posts by boingk
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2011, 06:00 AM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,496 Posts
I challenge that the Long-Ez is not a 10
its canard makes stalls very predicable, any stall will recover as soon as the nose drops since the canard will stop flying long be for the main wing also you can not deep stall it ether do to the elevator in front of the wing
and is an over all good flying plane with no real bad habits
id make it an 8 at most maybe closer to 6 for larger models with working rudders
lack of working rudders make smaller ones tricky to land in a cross wind other then that its not bad
could be a good 2nd plane with help
Elios000 is online now Find More Posts by Elios000
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2011, 07:17 AM
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
NSW, Australia
Joined Feb 2011
2,120 Posts
Sounds good Elios, can anyone second that? I'll change the rating of planes no worries, just so long as theres support for it.

- boingk
boingk is offline Find More Posts by boingk
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2011, 11:48 AM
Registered User
Haggerty00's Avatar
Canada, ON, North Bay
Joined Mar 2011
133 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by boingk View Post
Sorry Hagerty, but I don't reckon those ratings reflect most peoples experiences. Your first flight with the Corsair, for example, is the most likely outcome for somone trying to fly this plane as a first-timer... and therefore its really more like a 6 (second plane).
Yeah, I suppose everyone is different, which makes these type of ratings hard to do. The Corsair was my first plane and with no instruction or sim time I soloed just fine. The Ultra Micro was my 2nd plane and I find it to be a notch harder than the fullsize.
I see the UM T-28 is rated a 3.5 and agreed.

Now that I think about it I would say both are fine with flight instruction. Instructor takes it up, trims it out and hands it over.
Haggerty00 is offline Find More Posts by Haggerty00
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2011, 07:53 PM
raz
Sportin my new 'do'
raz's Avatar
USA, CA, Eureka
Joined Dec 2004
6,234 Posts
I just noticed there are two listing for the Electrifly Sopwith Camel. One is an 8 (I gave it) and the other a 9.5. That Camel and is not difficult to fly at all, in fact I only gave it an 8 because bipes slow down and can stall much quicker than most planes but I sure don't see it as a hard one to fly by any means but that's just MHO. I have the feeling the person giving it the 9.5 was a beginner and probably didn't have it set up correctly. Mine came with wash-in in both wings and had I flown it like that I'm sure I would given it a 9.5 or even a 10 but I added wash-out before flying it and it was very stable and a gentle flying, predictable plane.
raz is offline Find More Posts by raz
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 03:12 AM
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
NSW, Australia
Joined Feb 2011
2,120 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggerty00 View Post
Now that I think about it I would say both are fine with flight instruction. Instructor takes it up, trims it out and hands it over.
Sure thing, thats how I teach people to fly - put up a plane, get the trim right, flip the low rate switch and guide them over the basics.

That isn't what the system is aimed at, though. It defines 'flying' as being able to takeoff, fly basic maneuvers (climb, turn, descend) then land again without crashing... and by yourself. Few people could hope to do that with a plane like the ones you mentioned. Again, I believe your 14 second YouTube video showed that. That aside, your persistance and subsequent flights are truely admirable.

raz - Thanks for the correction, I'll change the listing to an 8. That is also another point I would like to raise:

Ensure all planes to be rated were flown stock, unmodified and properly trimmed.

Cheers - boingk
boingk is offline Find More Posts by boingk
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 06:55 AM
Registered User
Haggerty00's Avatar
Canada, ON, North Bay
Joined Mar 2011
133 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by boingk View Post
Again, I believe your 14 second YouTube video showed that.
Thats not a fair assesment of the planes difficulty when the pilot takes it up with servos reversed.
Haggerty00 is offline Find More Posts by Haggerty00
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 09:04 PM
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
NSW, Australia
Joined Feb 2011
2,120 Posts
Aaahhhh... thats what happened. Sorry mate, I must have missed the part where you wrote that. I didn't realise thats what happened. And don't worry, its happened to all of us - I find putting a post-it with control reversals etc in the battery compartment helps prevent that sort of thing. Computerised radios are brilliant in that regard.

On a more positive note, I'll throw in a rating for the Stevens Aero QuickOats 100. It's a very gentle flying plane with a bit of cartoon-ish charm about it, and is best suited for indoors or very calm zero-wind days.

The QuickOats runs off a Parkzone brick and 8mm brushed motor combo, giving 3ch RET control. Its almost inmpossible to stall and is very predictable in the air. With a runup you can perform loops, Immelmans and hard banked turns. Given its ease of flight I'd give it a 2, and not less because it can be tricky to land due to its large amount of lift.

So, the Stevens Aero QuickOats 100 gets a 2.

Cheers - boingk
boingk is offline Find More Posts by boingk
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 11:57 PM
Expo is built into my thumbs
Hance's Avatar
USA, ID, Niter
Joined Jul 2008
4,489 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by boingk View Post
Aaahhhh... thats what happened. Sorry mate, I must have missed the part where you wrote that. I didn't realise thats what happened. And don't worry, its happened to all of us - I find putting a post-it with control reversals etc in the battery compartment helps prevent that sort of thing. Computerised radios are brilliant in that regard.

On a more positive note, I'll throw in a rating for the Stevens Aero QuickOats 100. It's a very gentle flying plane with a bit of cartoon-ish charm about it, and is best suited for indoors or very calm zero-wind days.

The QuickOats runs off a Parkzone brick and 8mm brushed motor combo, giving 3ch RET control. Its almost inmpossible to stall and is very predictable in the air. With a runup you can perform loops, Immelmans and hard banked turns. Given its ease of flight I'd give it a 2, and not less because it can be tricky to land due to its large amount of lift.

So, the Stevens Aero QuickOats 100 gets a 2.

Cheers - boingk
Stevens Aero planes kick much ass. I flew the adrenaline rush at a fun fly last week I know for a fact adrenaline rush sales in the olympia Washington area are way up
Hance is offline Find More Posts by Hance
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2011, 09:44 PM
Looking4Grass in AZ
Afraidtoregister's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Feb 2011
1,357 Posts
You've got the Parkzone micros as easier to fly than the park flier sized Parkzone models. I don't follow the logic. Those UMs are hard, people give up on RC because of them. The guys at the local club don't fly the UM ones because they're too hard to fly, and don't fly the normal sized ones because they're "too slow" and just float around perfectly. I'd put the UM T28 up a couple numbers higher and the UM P51 up as like a 7 or 8. They fly you.
Afraidtoregister is offline Find More Posts by Afraidtoregister
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2011, 10:08 PM
I ♥ OpenTX
H2SO4's Avatar
Australia, New South Wales, Sydney
Joined Jan 2011
2,686 Posts
I'd rate the T-28UM as a 7. It's not a plane for absolute beginners.

Take the wheels off, and it becomes a bit easier - say 6 - because it'll "land" on grass without needing a large and unobstructed paved area to act as a runway.
H2SO4 is offline Find More Posts by H2SO4
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2011, 12:30 AM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,496 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afraidtoregister View Post
You've got the Parkzone micros as easier to fly than the park flier sized Parkzone models. I don't follow the logic. Those UMs are hard, people give up on RC because of them. The guys at the local club don't fly the UM ones because they're too hard to fly, and don't fly the normal sized ones because they're "too slow" and just float around perfectly. I'd put the UM T28 up a couple numbers higher and the UM P51 up as like a 7 or 8. They fly you.

shins
the UM T-28 is dead easy to fly in doors and out side in light to no wind
over 5mph and it gets "fun" more like flying a powered kite
Elios000 is online now Find More Posts by Elios000
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2011, 08:37 AM
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
NSW, Australia
Joined Feb 2011
2,120 Posts
I agree with the Ultra Micro PKZ P-51 as a 7 or 8... I had one for a while and it was 100% on the sticks or you'd lose it. The planes I fly now are for the most part much less demanding in that regard.

The UM PKZ T-28 I cannot comment on as I havent flown it, but have heard its easier than the P-51.

Cheers - boingk
boingk is offline Find More Posts by boingk
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Difficulty to Fly Rating System jpwkeeper Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 629 Feb 29, 2012 11:57 PM
Poll Difficulty to fly rating system going4speed Foamies (Scratchbuilt) 14 Feb 18, 2010 03:39 AM
Discussion Difficulty to Build Rating System jpwkeeper Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 2 Oct 06, 2009 06:40 AM
Discussion difficulty rating comanche100 Micro Helis 7 Dec 07, 2008 02:50 PM
Discussion Difficulty rating of a flying wing buurin Flying Wings 11 Apr 07, 2007 11:44 AM