Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by boingk, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old May 10, 2012, 07:44 PM
CF105 is offline
Find More Posts by CF105
Arrowhead
The PZ T-28 is on the list at 4.5, which I'd say is in the ballpark when I compare my experiences with it, the HZ Super Cub (2.25), PZ Wildcat (4.5) and E-Flite T-34 (6).

That said, there is a certain level of subjectiveness (?) in the rankings. What one person rates as a 4 may be a 2 or a 9 to someone else.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old May 11, 2012, 12:08 AM
boingk is offline
Find More Posts by boingk
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
Theres definitely subjectiveness in there - and you do lose perspective once you gain experience.

Thats part of the reason I ask for a second opinion or somone else to confirm the number. If people disagree then I just average it out.

I'm glad this compilation is still of help to people

Cheers - boingk
Old May 11, 2012, 12:18 AM
Hance is offline
Find More Posts by Hance
Expo is built into my thumbs
Hance's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4 View Post
@BoingK: I noticed that the list contains a bunch of balsa 3D planes, like a PA Extra 260 rated 5, and a few 3DHS and Extreme Flight models. IMHO, that is absolute sandbagging, and every single one of those planes should be a 10 - "requires expert pilot". They are far, far too maneuverable to be used as trainers, and far too fragile to survive more than a lucky flight or two in the hands of somebody to whom it might be a second or third plane.

Whoever added those ratings to the old list had a sense of humor
I would put them all in the 8 range personally. If you have made a bunch of good clean flights with a lesser rated plane then a 3D plane shouldn't be an issue. Granted you're not going to be flying them the way they are intended to be flown but getting up and down shouldn't be an issue.
Old May 11, 2012, 12:44 AM
boingk is offline
Find More Posts by boingk
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
Fair enough guys, good call. I haven't got experience with them but also was thinking they might need a higher rating. I'll try and move them all this evening, or failing that when I'm between shifts on Tuesday.

Cheers - boingk
Old May 11, 2012, 02:43 PM
ArneHu is offline
Find More Posts by ArneHu
Balsa Builder. With some foam.
ArneHu's Avatar
A bigger Balsa plane is often more "easy" to fly, than the smaller lighter foamy's. I build a Sig Riser 100 sailplane. and mounted a Graupner motor, with 11x6 propeller in the nose.
In the beginning I was a bit shaky, but it's a pleasure to fly. Steady, with lot of power. And I can fly it on windy days, quiet days are rare this time of year. But the most imported part of any model is the trim. Correct CG? No warps? etc. I will give this classic a 4. I like the authority the heavyer models fly with. And the nice sound it makes in a low pass.
Old May 11, 2012, 05:10 PM
CF105 is offline
Find More Posts by CF105
Arrowhead
Some administrative items...

- There is a Parkzone P-51 BL rated as a 5, and a Parkzone P-51 Gunfighter at 6.5, and another Parkzone P-51 at a 7. Are these the same plane?

- GWS Formosa is listed as a 7 and a 7.5

- Two Alfa F-86 entries as 7's, one right after the other.

Just trying to help tidy things up
Old May 14, 2012, 03:22 AM
boingk is offline
Find More Posts by boingk
Registered User
boingk's Avatar
Righteo guys, most of the recommendations have been updated.

One thing though... I'm seeing a few things in the '5' category (good 2nd plane after sim/tuition) that I wouldn't put there. Stuff like the ParkZone Corsair, P-47 and P-51 and Stryker.

The warbirds are fastish aileron-equipped low-wingers and the Stryker is a speedy delta... personally I'd be inclined to put them all as a 6 or 7 (3rd plane). What do you guys reckon?

Cheers - boingk
Old May 14, 2012, 09:58 PM
Endlesslag is offline
Find More Posts by Endlesslag
Fly it like you STOL it!
Endlesslag's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by boingk View Post
Righteo guys, most of the recommendations have been updated.

One thing though... I'm seeing a few things in the '5' category (good 2nd plane after sim/tuition) that I wouldn't put there. Stuff like the ParkZone Corsair, P-47 and P-51 and Stryker.

The warbirds are fastish aileron-equipped low-wingers and the Stryker is a speedy delta... personally I'd be inclined to put them all as a 6 or 7 (3rd plane). What do you guys reckon?

Cheers - boingk
Nah, maybe the stryker. the PZ birds are easy, they fly like trainers.
Old May 17, 2012, 05:27 AM
Event_Horizon is offline
Find More Posts by Event_Horizon
Registered User
Event_Horizon's Avatar
Thanks for the conformation ArneHu and the CG tip. As all of YOU already know, plane setup (trim, cg, alignment) is most important. I did see a Hawksky on your list at a 3 And I would agree with that number. It IS a tough plane sustaining several crashes with little more than some CA and a few carbon rods...

Although I can fly the Champ by now....

Mark
Last edited by Event_Horizon; May 17, 2012 at 05:31 AM. Reason: typo
Old May 19, 2012, 04:14 PM
dkrhardy is offline
Find More Posts by dkrhardy
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hance View Post
I would put them all in the 8 range personally. If you have made a bunch of good clean flights with a lesser rated plane then a 3D plane shouldn't be an issue. Granted you're not going to be flying them the way they are intended to be flown but getting up and down shouldn't be an issue.
I have a 55" 3DHS Extra 300, a 48" Extreme Flight Yak54, and a 50" GP Edge 540. I would rate them as something lower than an 8 even! I am a 62 yr old that has been flying a total of 18 months. I would not rate myself any higher than a decent intermediate flier. The thing about bigger planes that are rated as 3D is the intimidation factor. They are a lot easier to fly than most planes that I have or had. They fly like they are on rails. Nothing weird happens, point them and they go there. If a long time flier rates them, I am suspect because they may have forgotten how it was for them (as a newer flier) a few years ago. BUT, I am still pretty new, I still have my Champ! And I rate them as a low/medium rating. My $.02
Don
Old May 20, 2012, 07:57 AM
H2SO4 is online now
Find More Posts by H2SO4
christian theme park operator
H2SO4's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkrhardy View Post
I have a 55" 3DHS Extra 300, a 48" Extreme Flight Yak54, and a 50" GP Edge 540. I would rate them as something lower than an 8 even! I am a 62 yr old that has been flying a total of 18 months. I would not rate myself any higher than a decent intermediate flier. The thing about bigger planes that are rated as 3D is the intimidation factor. They are a lot easier to fly than most planes that I have or had. They fly like they are on rails. Nothing weird happens, point them and they go there. If a long time flier rates them, I am suspect because they may have forgotten how it was for them (as a newer flier) a few years ago. BUT, I am still pretty new, I still have my Champ! And I rate them as a low/medium rating. My $.02
Don
Ah, but would you recommend a balsa 3D machine as the obvious next step after the obligatory Champ and T-28? After all, that's what the '8' rating means on this scale - "good third plane".

The aim here, as I see it, is to help beginners determine the advisability of purchasing a particular airframe as their first/second/third plane, or to steer them away from something by designating it as suitable for experts only (10). If you say that a 48" balsa 3D plane is an 8, or even lower (), someone somewhere will buy that thing straight after their first aileron trainer ... and take home a bag of balsa/ply toothpicks after they discover that they just don't yet have the reactions and the orientation to deal with something which is just as happy flying upside down or sideways, or upside down and sideways.

3D balsa = 10. Just a personal opinion. If you're a beginner aiming for 3D, there's a bunch of 3D-capable foam you should be flogging to death first, before plonking down for that precision balsa plane.
Old May 20, 2012, 08:19 AM
Madratter is offline
Find More Posts by Madratter
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4 View Post
Ah, but would you recommend a balsa 3D machine as the obvious next step after the obligatory Champ and T-28? After all, that's what the '8' rating means on this scale - "good third plane".

The aim here, as I see it, is to help beginners determine the advisability of purchasing a particular airframe as their first/second/third plane, or to steer them away from something by designating it as suitable for experts only (10). If you say that a 48" balsa 3D plane is an 8, or even lower (), someone somewhere will buy that thing straight after their first aileron trainer ... and take home a bag of balsa/ply toothpicks after they discover that they just don't yet have the reactions and the orientation to deal with something which is just as happy flying upside down or sideways, or upside down and sideways.

3D balsa = 10. Just a personal opinion. If you're a beginner aiming for 3D, there's a bunch of 3D-capable foam you should be flogging to death first, before plonking down for that precision balsa plane.
I totally agree if they fly it 3D style. Some people buy them as very well behaved sports planes, setup with lower throws and a slightly more forward CG than normal. 3D planes flown that way are excellent because they have no bad tendencies. But for the most part, that is not how people are going to use them, so for the purposes of this chart, I agree a 10 is the proper rating.
Last edited by Madratter; May 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM.
Old May 21, 2012, 03:15 PM
shahram72 is offline
Find More Posts by shahram72
Registered User
Just found this thread, great info for beginners. I have been flying helis, I can barely fly collective pitch, but getting better every weekend. I did fly my first plane last weekend. It's a Hobby King blue J-3 cub. 3 channel bird. Was very easy to fly, even in a little wind. I am currently building an AXN floater which is a 4 channel powered glider. Looking at the list, looks like my next step would be a high wing faster model, like a Decathelon. There are three models I have questions about. At what point will I be ready for low wing aerobatic models (I won't be doing stunts)? I really like the Gee Bee, both the scale like the Great Planes and the R3 from Hobbyking. And I have 2 other planes in kits that I know I am not ready for but I got one in a trade and the other was $50 new. Both are NIB in storage right now. I have a Multiplex Twin Jet and a Multiplex Twister EDF. From observations of others flying and flying on the sim, I feel like I could tackle the Twin Jet after I fly competently on the 4 channel plane I am building now, since it is able to fly slow with it's large wing area. The Twister will stay in the box for now. I would like to get started on the Twin Jet build, but first I have to finish builind the glider and then a 450 heli that is almost done. Too many aircraft!!!!
I did check the list and see the Decathalon and the Twister, but not the Twin Jet. And where would my AXN floater and 3 channel HK piper cub rank? That cub was $50 PNF and the club members were impressed with it for the price so maybe we can add it to the list. Great beginner plane, but I'm a little above a complete newbie with my sim and helicopter experience.
Old May 21, 2012, 05:38 PM
gulio is offline
Find More Posts by gulio
That's a funny word
6 Nextar EP Mini without the speed brakes and airfoils.
6 Fly Zone Cessna 182
5 Hobbico Flyzone Piper J-3 Cub
6 Flyzone Switch
2 Flyzone piper mini cub
2 Fltyzone Playmate
2 Cox skyranger
4 Flyzone Sensei
6 Flyzone Corvalis 350
Old May 21, 2012, 10:48 PM
bobly is offline
Find More Posts by bobly
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkrhardy View Post
I have a 55" 3DHS Extra 300, a 48" Extreme Flight Yak54, and a 50" GP Edge 540. I would rate them as something lower than an 8 even! I am a 62 yr old that has been flying a total of 18 months. I would not rate myself any higher than a decent intermediate flier. The thing about bigger planes that are rated as 3D is the intimidation factor. They are a lot easier to fly than most planes that I have or had. They fly like they are on rails. Nothing weird happens, point them and they go there. If a long time flier rates them, I am suspect because they may have forgotten how it was for them (as a newer flier) a few years ago. BUT, I am still pretty new, I still have my Champ! And I rate them as a low/medium rating. My $.02
Don
I tend to agree. I don't have the collection that this poster has, but have a carbon z yak, mini funtana x, twist 3d, and a hacker super zoom. I'll be 69 next birthday, been flying a little over a year and find the 3d type planes the easiest to fly of all. I do not do 3d stuff, but fly them like a normal aerobatic plane with throws dumbed down. They are the most predictable, have enough response to get you out of trouble and will still respond at a lot lower speeds when compared to warbirds for instance. They don't try to do things like right themselves on their own, as the previous poster stated, they just fly where you tell them to. They are extremely well mannered. They actually are just as easy if not easier to fly than my T28 for instance. Don't let the 3d thing in the name stop you. I did for some time and wasted money on other planes I don't like nearly as well. I consider myself sort of an advanced beginner. Flying 3d is hard, but flying 3d planes is not.


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Difficulty to Build Rating System jpwkeeper Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 7 Oct 19, 2014 02:10 AM
Discussion Difficulty to Fly Rating System jpwkeeper Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 629 Mar 01, 2012 12:57 AM
Poll Difficulty to fly rating system going4speed Foamies (Scratchbuilt) 14 Feb 18, 2010 04:39 AM
Discussion difficulty rating comanche100 Micro Helis 7 Dec 07, 2008 03:50 PM
Discussion Difficulty rating of a flying wing buurin Flying Wings 11 Apr 07, 2007 12:44 PM