|
re .3
Incredibly boring to fly tho...
Over here we have a different bunch of planes,so you
wouldn't recognise any model names..... Most people in my club
learn to fly on a thing called a HI-BOY,or something very
similar.Briefly it is a 60" span high wing plane with lots of
dihedral.. The fuz is a slot together plywood affair,making it
fairly simple. It does result in a strong tho rather heavy fuz.
Hi-boys have a similar glide angle to a house brick.. The makers
reccomend a .25 to a .40 eng.I would go for the .40 as you can use
it in some great planes (wot-4,wedge,acro-wot),specially with a
pipe when you've got bored with the trainer
bob
|
| Mel,
First let me make the disclaimer that there are as many opinions as to what is
"best" as there are R/Cers [or at least instructors] and most of them are cor-
rect in one way or another. The remarks, comments and replies that follow are,
then, just my opinion(s)...they are based on approaches that have worked well
for me over upwards of 25-years in the hobby but others' opinions are likely to
be every bit as valid. The philosophies as to the best approach vary widely de-
pending on the regional area one lives in and, to an equal extent, on the rela-
tive apptitude(s) of the beginning builder/flyer.
> I am currently going the "Robust Trainer" route, but I wonder
> if this is the best policy?
* In my opinion, you simply cannot "crash-proof" an aircraft, trainer or any
other type. The penalty for beefing-up the airframe structure is increased
weight. So, while the ship "may" be physically stronger, it is also heavier
which means impact with the ground [or other obstacle] will be harder and the
resulting damage potentially more severe. Crash damage potential goes up in di-
rect proportion with released kinetic energy which increases exponentially with
weight! More simply put, the heavier the airframe, the more severe the damage
is likely to be. Every ounce added to the airframe beyond the minimum integrity
necessary to handle the expected flight loads merely increases the amount of da-
mage that will be sustained during a mishap. It's a real paradox that the weight
of the very structure intended to make the model more durable will, in actuali-
ty, cause crash damage to be more severe!
Based upon this reasoning, the ideal model [to me] is one which employs only as
much structure as is dictated by the flight loads expected in it's intended
flight regime, plus some reasonable [say 5%] safety factor. Beyond that, extra
or beefed structure [additional weight] has the very real potential to do more
harm than good!
A lightly built trainer with reasonable durability is by far the best approach
as it will fly better [by virtue of it's light weight], therefore having less
crash potential, and will be much more likely to survive the trials of a fledg-
ling pilot.
> Also should one go for motor/rudder/elevator or
> motor/rudder/elevator/aileron?
>
> ....I have just read an article, in RCM&E Flight
> Training Manual, that claim's that 4 channel is the best way
> to go.
I would agree, wholeheartedly, with the RCM&E article. Students who start off
with 3-channels, inevitably have to learn to fly "twice!" Using the rudder as
the primary bank control and placing that control on the aileron stick [right-
hand stick in the case of mode-II transmitters] forces the student to ignore the
left stick [throttle/rudder] almost entirely and when the inevitable transition
to ailerons is attempted, he finds he's totally [understandably] ignorant of
what the left stick is for and has to, essentially, learn all over again. It
could be likened to only teaching a driving student to steer in the beginning
and trying to teach him what the gear-shift, brakes, etc. are for later. It
"can" be done successfully but only while doubling the training process for both
the instructor and the student, not to mention lengthening the training time.
When asked how to get started, I always reccomend the following:
1. Line yourself up with an instructor right off the bat and follow his
advice/direction implicitly as to building/setting up the model prior
to actually flying it.
2. Buy "all" the radio [4-channels minimum] you can afford up front.
Today's radios last a loooong time and it's better to buy all the
channels you think you "might" ever want rather than winding up
wishing you had later.
3. Build a high or shoulder wing trainer with semi-symmetrical airfoil
like any of the numerous "Stik"-types, Great Planes Trainer .40/.60,
etc. as, once the basics are mastered, the student can move right
into advanced instruction and aerobatics without having to build a
new airplane.
4. Build a .60-size aircraft [certainly no smaller than .40-size] as the
larger airplane flies much better, is not "that" much more expensive
and you'll, most likely, want to move to a .60 powered model one day
anyhow.
5. Start building a second airplane as soon as the first one is flying,
just to have a head start in case the unspeakable should happen and
the first ship is lost. You simply cannot learn to fly unless you
have something "to" fly!
Adios, Al
|