Thread Tools
Jan 10, 2016, 03:36 AM
Eternal beginner
Rollmops67's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalguy
Good to hear about the successful maiden! I need to revisit mine, and because the propeller shafts never came, I may install a different motor, or come up with another prop shaft to use.
Hello Metalguy.

Did you see that :
Trainstar Tough Trainer EPO 1400. PART 1: D4023 Motor Replacement. (2 min 36 sec)


Regards, Roland
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jan 10, 2016, 01:18 PM
Registered User
shonmac's Avatar
I'm starting to dislike this site!! As soon as i think i have all the planes i want lined up; another plane shows up that I want to fly

I dont need a trainer but I am intrigued by the fuselage . I would most likely upgrade the power system . Looks like a decent flier.
Jan 26, 2016, 04:35 PM
Eternal beginner
Rollmops67's Avatar
So, my Trainstar has now 12 flights, and I'm very happy with it.

I ended up with the CoG 1 cm (about 0.4 inches) more toward the leading edge than the marks on the wing, the plane felt tail heavy before.

I'm using Hobbyking Zippy compact 3S 35C 2450 mAh batteries (208 gr > 0.46 lbs), and they are pushed forward almost against the "firewall".
I also added two washers behind the upper mounting holes of the motor holder (more downthrust) and now the plane behaves almost neutral regardless of the throttle applied.
Without the washers, I had to apply down elevator each time I throttled up, to maintain the desired climb rate.
Also I'm wondering how well it glides with no throttle, I had to resume some landings because I came to high and expected a quicker descent !
I didn't add flaps, the plane can be flown slow enough witout them for landings.
The plane weights about 1400 gr (about 3.1 lbs) without the battery and about 1600 g (about 3.5 lbs) with.
It can be slowed down without brutal stalls, and seems very forgiving in this aspect (that's normal for a trainer)
The motor could be a little more powerfull, not that the plane wont climb, but when doing loops, don't leave the plane too long with the nose to the sky, or it will loose too much speed.
Flying inverted is possible too, all in one it's a nice plane, relaxing with some possibilities for light aerobatics (loops, rolls, stall turns...).
With the 2450 mAh battery the flight time are between 12 and 14 minutes before the cell voltage drops under 3.50 volts (under load).
No ESC or motor problem for now, but I think I will replace the stock servos, not knowing if they are reliable in the long term.

Roland
Last edited by Rollmops67; Jan 26, 2016 at 05:08 PM.
Feb 08, 2016, 01:44 AM
always something to learn...
metalguy's Avatar
I'm not crazy about those bell motors with the looooong shafts. They tend to bend easily. As accident prone as I am, I know I will bend those. my motor seems to have good power, so I will deal with the prop shaft problem a different way, either by modding the motor end so the Durafly prop shaft will just bolt on, or make a shim to take up the gap. ------Metalguy
Feb 08, 2016, 09:22 AM
Chaplain
Major Geek's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalguy
I'm not crazy about those bell motors with the looooong shafts. They tend to bend easily. As accident prone as I am, I know I will bend those. my motor seems to have good power, so I will deal with the prop shaft problem a different way, either by modding the motor end so the Durafly prop shaft will just bolt on, or make a shim to take up the gap. ------Metalguy
Metalguy, Please keep me up dated on your prop shaft mod, I'm also accident prone...
Feb 08, 2016, 09:39 AM
Registered User
JohnFM's Avatar
You have to come in pretty hard to bend that shaft.
Hard enough that you'd probably do a lot of other damage too.
Feb 09, 2016, 03:31 PM
Rum River watershed
CanoeBeyond's Avatar
Since this is a "good for beginners thread", is the 1400mm TrainStar Tough a better plane for beginners or is the newer 1100mm TrainStar Exchange with 2 sets of wings (3 channel and 4 channel)? Any other pluses or minuses? Thoughts in general? Appreciate any advice.
Feb 10, 2016, 02:43 AM
Eternal beginner
Rollmops67's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanoeBeyond
Since this is a "good for beginners thread", is the 1400mm TrainStar Tough a better plane for beginners or is the newer 1100mm TrainStar Exchange with 2 sets of wings (3 channel and 4 channel)? Any other pluses or minuses? Thoughts in general? Appreciate any advice.
I've not flown the Exchange model with interchangeable wings, but I think the 1400 mm Trainstar is in between.
It has ailerons, but it also has (lots of) dihedral so it can be flown with just rudder and elevator, the ailerons being a nice plus for more "aerobatic" flight (rolls, inverted).
After about 20 flights, I'm now wishing there would be no dihedral, or at least less, because it's too much self-stabilizing now that I'm at a better flight level.
Will try to find wings (no success so far, if anyone here knows a source...) and assemble them without dihedral.

Roland
Feb 20, 2016, 11:35 PM
always something to learn...
metalguy's Avatar
When I got mine used, the prop shaft was broken. Not much material holding the base to the shaft, as it is machined very close to it. ------Metalguy
Feb 21, 2016, 03:02 AM
Khellio
khellio's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanoeBeyond
Since this is a "good for beginners thread", is the 1400mm TrainStar Tough a better plane for beginners or is the newer 1100mm TrainStar Exchange with 2 sets of wings (3 channel and 4 channel)? Any other pluses or minuses? Thoughts in general? Appreciate any advice.
The Trainstar Exchange is a total different model. It's much smaller and has considerable less power.
While the Trainstar Tough has no problems taking off a grass surface, it's smaller and less powerful counterpart probably won't unless bigger wheels are fitted.
I mistakenly ordered the smaller one, flew it once and stuck it on top of a cupboard where it still sits after buying the bigger one.
Feb 21, 2016, 03:14 AM
Khellio
khellio's Avatar
I crashed mine early one morning when I inadvertently flew into the sun and was blinded.
It came into a playing field nose first at half throttle and did considerable damage when the wings separated after pulling the plastic screw keepers out and twisted and bent the internal wing spar as well as smashing the plastic cowl.

Totally my own fault for first flying it into the sun and then panicking and not following the golden rule of throttling back and leveling out. Had I done that, it would have flown into sight again.
However, I did get it flying again but could never get the aluminum internal wing spar exactly right again so it now flies with a small piece of packing under one wing to bring it inline with the rear stab and has a little less dihedral.

I was able to buy a replacement cowl but not the wing spar.
Feb 29, 2016, 12:25 PM
Eternal beginner
Rollmops67's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollmops67
After about 20 flights, I'm now wishing there would be no dihedral, or at least less, because it's too much self-stabilizing now that I'm at a better flight level.
Well, a few flights more since my last post, and I changed indeed my wing to one without dihedral.
My stock half-wings were glued togheter, so it was impossible to take the aluminium spar out and straighten it.
So I simply bought another Trainstar.
I didn't know if it it would be possible to straighten the stock spar without fragilize it.
But no better way to know than trying it !
I put a drill in each side of the spar (diameter of the drill about inner diameter of the spar so a vice or the hammer can't flatten it) and put one side of the spar in a vice, and then straigntened it gently with a hammer.
No problem at all.
Just to be sure I pushed a 2 inch long steel rod (same diameter as the spar's inner diameter) into the middle of the spar where the bent was.
I had also to cut a little EPO layer on the top of the wings, at the place the plastic joiner comes.
And voilà, it was not more difficult than that.

And how behaves the plane without dihedral ?
The first thing : take offs are very more "straightforward" now.
With the dihedral when at take off the plane deviated say left the right wing lifted, increasing the phenomenon, and it was hard to counteract.
Now, not only the plane deviates less, but it lifts off with both wings at the same time (OK there is still a little rudder needed sometimes, but not so much)
Flying is practically as simple as with dihedral, the plane is inherently stable with the high wing. Of course, more aileron input is needed now to initiate turns (and a little opposite aileron to end turns), with a little rudder of course to made the turn nice.
Rolls are also easier without the dihedral.

And last but not least, I find the plane looks better !
Have nice flights and smooth landings.

Roland
Feb 29, 2016, 05:38 PM
Khellio
khellio's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollmops67
Well, a few flights more since my last post, and I changed indeed my wing to one without dihedral.
My stock half-wings were glued togheter, so it was impossible to take the aluminium spar out and straighten it.
So I simply bought another Trainstar.
I didn't know if it it would be possible to straighten the stock spar without fragilize it.
But no better way to know than trying it !
I put a drill in each side of the spar (diameter of the drill about inner diameter of the spar so a vice or the hammer can't flatten it) and put one side of the spar in a vice, and then straigntened it gently with a hammer.
No problem at all.
Just to be sure I pushed a 2 inch long steel rod (same diameter as the spar's inner diameter) into the middle of the spar where the bent was.
I had also to cut a little EPO layer on the top of the wings, at the place the plastic joiner comes.
And voilà, it was not more difficult than that.

And how behaves the plane without dihedral ?
The first thing : take offs are very more "straightforward" now.
With the dihedral when at take off the plane deviated say left the right wing lifted, increasing the phenomenon, and it was hard to counteract.
Now, not only the plane deviates less, but it lifts off with both wings at the same time (OK there is still a little rudder needed sometimes, but not so much)
Flying is practically as simple as with dihedral, the plane is inherently stable with the high wing. Of course, more aileron input is needed now to initiate turns (and a little opposite aileron to end turns), with a little rudder of course to made the turn nice.
Rolls are also easier without the dihedral.

And last but not least, I find the plane looks better !
Have nice flights and smooth landings.

Roland
Not a bad idea and a helpful one.
I bent and twisted the alloy wing spar on mine after coming in hard nose first when I lost site of my plane in the sun (silly me) and was never able to get it exactly right again despite my efforts with heat, vices, round steel bars and frustration.
As a result, although I got it in the air again, I had to pach one side of the wing up to make it align with the rear horizontal stabilizer but it was never the same when flying.
Your idea would probably fix that and like you, I have a lot more stick time behind me now.

As an afterthought, why use the alloy spar at all?
Why not just replace it with a carbon fiber rod or tube with a piece of rod through the guts?
Last edited by khellio; Feb 29, 2016 at 05:51 PM.
Feb 29, 2016, 05:45 PM
Khellio
khellio's Avatar

Trainstar tough as pylon racers?


I recently has an email from our club president regarding introducing less experienced pilots to pylon racing.
It's been decided that all interested can only use a stock standard Trainstar Tough in order to make it fair on everyone.
Not the ideal for a pylon racer but it's ease of flying and toughness should prove to be a lot of fun for those wanting to expand their skills and interests.
Feb 29, 2016, 05:54 PM
Chaplain
Major Geek's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by khellio
I recently has an email from our club president regarding introducing less experienced pilots to pylon racing.
It's been decided that all interested can only use a stock standard Trainstar Tough in order to make it fair on everyone.
Not the ideal for a pylon racer but it's ease of flying and toughness should prove to be a lot of fun for those wanting to expand their skills and interests.
I want to see video of this, I wish I lived close by!!!


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Build Log Cloud Weaver: A slow flying trainer for beginners Lee3429 Foamies (Scratchbuilt) 4 Dec 20, 2016 09:46 PM
Discussion Looking for a good .10 size trainer dmbaerry 1/2A Planes 77 Mar 20, 2014 09:39 PM
Question What is a good RC plane for a beginner? IFlyPlanez Electric Plane Talk 16 Dec 01, 2013 05:45 PM
Discussion What's a good beginner's Electronic RC Car and beginner's Gas RC car? tpearson4750 Car Talk 7 Mar 25, 2013 03:12 PM
Discussion Good tough 3 channel plane for beginner? jhughes81 Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 7 Mar 27, 2007 10:19 PM