Discussion Difficulty to Fly Rating System

[jaylay72]

While this scale is very subjective, where differing opinions can vary widely, I still think it is a good idea to be more specific than the scale the major magazines use. According to the magazines, all planes are "intermediate to advanced". Gee thanks.

That being said:

E-flite Mini Pulse XT is a 6
MS Composite Swift II is a 7

Not having flown one, but from what I have seen, a mini telemaster with ailerons should be about a 3 or 4. I find 4 channel planes easier to fly than rudder/elevator only planes.

[jpwkeeper]

Originally Posted by jaylay72

E-flite Mini Pulse XT is a 6
MS Composite Swift II is a 7

Really, the Swift II is a 7? I wouldn't have guessed reading some of the other threads.

[MNMadman]

'...all planes are "intermediate to advanced".'

Most intermediates can be made into advanced with enough power and lots of carbon fiber My favorite sleeper so far was a 4s 650 watt Eflite P-47, the look I got from this father and son when I passed their stock F-27c Stryker was priceless.

[jpwkeeper]

Originally Posted by MNMadman

Most intermediates can be made into advanced with enough power and lots of carbon fiber

Yeah, but that's a slippery slope in this case. Let's just stick to rating recommended/reasonable configurations rather than intentionally overpowered ones, and then you can say to yourself "yeah, but if I add another 200W it's difficulty will ratchet up 3 points" based on its base score. Without a good base score we really can't do that.

[MNMadman]

Good point JPW, I agree for this thread all ratings should be based on stock/recommended set-ups and for that reason I had omited a couple of my planes from my earlier ratings post because simply some of my planes have never seen stock powerplants and thus I have no idea how they would fly stock to give them a rating.

[jpwkeeper]

Originally Posted by MNMadman

Good point JPW, I agree for this thread all ratings should be based on stock/recommended set-ups and for that reason I had omited a couple of my planes from my earlier ratings post because simply some of my planes have never seen stock powerplants and thus I have no idea how they would fly stock to give them a rating.

So take them out, don't go above half-throttle, and see how they feel.

[kelstertx]

I'm curious about the Brio 10. I have the kit ready to build this weekend, but it would be my 3rd plane, and I'm afraid I may have bitten off more than I can chew (both in the build and in flight). I started with the Parkzone micro Cessna and now have the ParkZone T-28 Trojan which I can handle fine -- even a little upside down flying. I've spent lots of time on the simulator too. With the Brio, I don't plan to do pattern stuff too much, nor 3D -- just something quicker and more nimble than the Trojan for a little fun. Setup is to be the lowest stock suggestion -- 480 park, 11x5.5e prop, 2100mah Lipo. It sounds like the Brio needs constant speed or it will fall out of the sky. Many crashes reported on maiden flights, especially slowing down for landing.

Should I shelf it to be my 4th plane and go for some other PNP kit for #3 instead?

-Kelly

[MNMadman]

Hi Kelly, I have the Brio and not to say you couldn't handle it but it's a pretty big jump from the T-28 and not the most durable plane out there either. Have you considered going to a true warbird or even a Stryker next?

[kelstertx]

Originally Posted by MNMadman

Hi Kelly, I have the Brio and not to say you couldn't handle it but it's a pretty big jump from the T-28 and not the most durable plane out there either. Have you considered going to a true warbird or even a Stryker next?

The Stryker was mentioned at the store once, but I prefer warbirds more. If the Stryker was the logical next plane, I wouldn't be opposed to it, though. What do you mean by "true warbird"? Was there a particular model that's wonderful and not much assembly? BTW, there's a lot of warbirds I like -- Corsairs, Spits, P-47, Mustangs I guess (kinda overdone tho).

[MNMadman]

Some trainers did see combat such as the T-28 and AT-6 so they are technically a warbird so all I meant by true warbird was planes typically associated with combat service such as the ones you mentioned. I personally have not flown one and the landing gear are that terrible gws junk but Venom makes a Mustang and a Zero that are ready to go out of the box with servos, speed controller, and brushless motor already installed. You used to be able to get it for 99 but I think the price has jumped to 189 now. I have 36 different models of planes currently, mostly warbirds and jets, and the Stryker C model is still one of my all time favorites. The great thing about that plane is how versatile it is, you can do slow laps around the field a foot off the ground zig zagging around and then rocket up 400 or so feet and just play in the thermals and then come screaming down in an 80 mile an hour dive.

[jpwkeeper]

Not to be a nag, but could you guys actually rate the planes you're talking about to get things back on topic?

[MNMadman]

E-Flite Brio 9
PKZ T-28 4

[raz]

PKZ Trojan T-28.....4

[MNMadman]

Originally Posted by raz

Thanks MNMadman. I'm thinking of getting it one day.

I take it you bought the T-28 Raz?

[Balr14]

E-Flite Jenny - 4
Pico SS-F - 3.5
Cox Christen Eagle / Art Tech Pitts Special - 7