Conference vmszoo::rc

<    	What plane is aerodynamically easier to fly and why.
    
<    	A, Std Flat bottomed trainer

Very stable but always in fighting mode. (eg. you want it to turn but it tries
to level out and go its own way.) 
    
<    	B, Symmetrical  winged pattern bird

Stays where you put it in a bank however things sometimes happen a little quick
for a beginner, otherwise easy to fly.
    
<    	C, Semi symmetrical sport bird
         
Good compromise between (A) and (B) for a trainer.

        D, What about Old Timers. Some local "older" beginners find them very 
easy to learn on as they are slow and stable. Any comments.

I think the easiest models to fly are the fastest, they stay where they are put 
and do what they are told immediately. The only problem is keeping up to 
them.????
    
<    	There may not be a profound answer that is all correct but
<    people's responses may bring light into others opinions.
<    	Please no arguments. Only opinions.

Tom, you would have to be kidding, real fuel for a fight in this one.

Go for it guys; let the punches fly.

John.    
    

    Speaking as a relative novice, I learned on a flat bottom high wing
    trainer (Sig Kadet). This plane is very rugged (although I managed to have
    one major mishap that would have made toothpicks of any plane).
    I found that the flat bottom trainer was easy to learn how to fly,
    takeoff, and land. I didn't try any other type of ship, but watching
    other guys in our club leads me to believe that you can't lose with
    a flat bottom for your first trainer. The disadvantage is that it's
    not aerobatic at all, other than inside loops. I managed to learn
    how to barrel roll the thing, and even fly it inverted (sort of)
    but it's designed for extreme stability and it likes to be straight
    and level - just what a new flyer needs. I am now working on a 
    semi-symetrical shoulder wing plane for my aileron trainer. 
    
    Dave

    I guess it all depends on what kind of mood I am in. Lately
    I have been feeling pretty laid back and just enjoy watching
    my Kadet Sr fly all by it self. But previously I was flying
    a pattern ship. I personally never really went for shoulder
    wing sport birds.
    Wayne

    Wing span for the Kadet Sr is about 72" with a wing area of around
    1200 sq". I am not sure about the fuse length, but I think it is
    in the 50-60" range. I have an OS .40 four stroke in mine, and it
    seems to just about ideal. Unless you have a fairly roomy car it
    might be a bit of a pain to transport, I have a pickup with a cap
    so this is not a problem for me. I flew it for the first time a
    couple of weeks ago and it went really great. I would not hesitate
    to recommend it to anyone for either a trainer or something thats
    just plain relaxing to fly.
    Wayne
    

    	I learned on a `First Step', a high-wing flat-bottom wing tail
    dragger.  Nice and slow with an FS40, great plane to learn on. 
    Next I switched to a 40FSR and the plane perked up a bit (nice,
    short 3" rolls before takeoff).
    
    	My second powered plane is a Scout .15.  Also flat-bottom, but
    low wing.  Took a hell of a long time to adjust to the quickness
    of response.  Ailerons are a blast on that thing.
    
    	While I've been happy with both planes, I'm looking forward
    to either my Sportser .40 or my Tracer .40 (one or the other will
    be flying soon).  My biggest complaint about these flat-bottom planes
    is that they fly with the wind and not in spite of it.  Handling
    the little Scout (48" wingspan) in gusty wind is a real pain.
    
    	I bet if you asked, however, you would find nice flying planes
    are larger than not-nice flying planes, regardless of airfoil section.
    My only advice for a novice is BUY BIG.  Spend the extra bucks and
    get a plane that will fly and that you can see.
    
    	Enjoy.  Fire alarm is going off.  Wonder why?
    

I agree with .2, I was looking at the question as to which is the easiest for
me to fly rather than a beginner. I did make the comment that our "older
members" found the Old Timer models very good for learning on, has anybody out
RC Notes world tried one as a trainer?. 

For the beginner the flat bottom wing has an advantage in that it is generally
speaking easier to build particularly with build up wings. It is more
convenient to build on a flat surface than on jig's and end up with a straight
wing. I do not think the flying characteristics are significantly more docile
than the semi symmetrical wing section, but I will agree they generally fly
slower. 

John. 

PS. C'mon Tom tell us what you think.

	My thoughts on Wing and aircraft types.
    
    Looking back on my experiences and flying development arround powered
    aircraft ...
    	After starting off with gliding I had a period with those messy
    internal combustion powered things. It started with a flat bottomed,
    high wing, dihedral ( rudder, elevator, no ailerons) model which
    was stable and easy to handle with not too much power available.
    Next moved on to a shoulder wing aileron machine which had a semisemetrical
    wing and more power but not quite enough for vertical manouvers.
    Then a low wing almost fully sem'et with lots of power, and finally
    a STOL which had slats, flaps, ailerons, Bomb doors and the other
    usual engine, rudder elevator.
    	Observations....
    		Each seemed the correct wing/model  for that part of my 
    development and each would still provide enjoyment today it depends
    on what mood you feel in and what you want to achieve. 
    		I have not tried flat bottom section with ailerons but
    would think that if your ready for ailerons then your ready for
    a semi semetric section.
    		As far as size of aircraft is concerned my advice is
    go for as big a trainer as you can afford (The Tellemaster's look
    O.K.), The smaller the aircraft the quicker it manouvers and the
    faster it gets to a size when your not sure which way its going.
    Even as you advance the larger aircraft will help keep the manouvers
    smooth.
    		One final point is that of Colour, my low wing machine
    was finished in Go Faster... Black ( looked realy good) but it was
    a real *%%##!! to orientate, one moment of indecision could easily
    mean disaster if your trying to be clever at low altitude. Anyway
    some large patches of contrasting colour on the wings made a great
    improvement.
    			Trev

First planes are like first editors.  You don't love it at first but
as time goes on everything gets compared to the first one.

That's why so many people still use TECO when they don't know how to
do something in there latest editor.  

My first was the Carl Goldberg Falcon 56.
I recommend it because:

  1.  It takes a .40 and you will find that more planes specify 40s than
      any other size.  If a person was to own only one engine an OS .40
      would be the one to have.

  2.  More people have learned to fly on a Falcon 56 than any other plane.
      Well that's what it says on the box!

  3.  It can survive poor landings.
      My first landing was an accident.  I got disoriented and came out of
      a dive just as the wheels touched the ground.  No damage.
      Twice I lost my elevator linkage and it came down while I was giving
      full up!  Once with throttle back, once at full throttle - no damage.
      It landed in trees several times, once with no damage at all, several
      other times with minor damage.

  4.  Ailerons are optional (I put them on).

  5.  It never had a tip stall.  I have had lots of them in subsequent planes.

  6.  The directions and kit quality were excellent.  I've been cursing 
      directions on every kit since the Falcon.

  7.  It's large enough to see and the wing (56") fits in most trunks.

P.S.  I suggest whatever plane is your first that at least 1/2 of the wing
      be bright yellow!

              _!_
Bye        ----O----
Kay R. Fisher / \
 
==============================================================

    
    
    	I need some help picking out a model(airplane)....This past weekend, I
    had my two nephews, 14 and 16, over for the weekend.  Naturally, I took
    them out flying.  Over the years, they've seen me fly my R/C gliders and 
    more recently, my electrics.  Anyway, after awhile, a couple of guys show 
    up at my "private" high school flying field with these GAS ENGINE 
    POWERED models.
    
    	"Uncle Bob, what are those"
    
    	"They're gas pwered airplanes....it's called the easy way to fly...
    	....if the airplane is too heavy to fly, they just put in a bigger
         engine"..........."Look at that kids...they have to pump gas into 
    	them, futz around with the engine to get them going and boy are they 
    	noisy".
    
    	 "Yeah Uncle Bob but they sure are fast...and nice....wow!.. Look
        at that....Boy! they turn sure can turn and climb and........"
    
    	 "Uncle Bob...do you know how to make one like that???"
     
    	Well, it seems like the nephews have the model airplane bug.  They're
    not real interested in Sailplanes or electrics but instead want a gas
    powered trainer.  Of course, I'll "help" with the building(tools, work
    space, interpet the directions if they ask etc.), Buying the kit,
    engine, props etc......What the heck isn't that what Uncles are for??
    
    	Here's the problem guys.  I looked thru the notes trying to determine
    what size/kit I should get for them and really don't know.  Tom and 
    Dave are rank beginners at modeling and I haven't built a gas powered kit 
    in 15 years.  I've like to keep the expenses down and thought a 20 size
    model would do.  After reading a bunch of these notes, I guess a 40
    size would be better...My current thinking is something like the PT40,
    Mid-West Aerostar, Sig Kadet, C.G Falcon 56 etc.
    
    	Any preference about engines...should I get an OS or Fox or Enya or
    something else?   Actually, I should get that Astro-cobalt geared 40 I want
    and just lie to them....).
    
    	In the magazine adds, I've seen references to OS 40 surpass(4 cycle),
    40 FS, 40 FRS etc.  Whats the differences between them and what would
    be a good choice? What make/model engine would be best for them 
    considering the type model I'm interested in.
    
    						  regards
    			
    							Bob

>    size would be better...My current thinking is something like the PT40,
>    Mid-West Aerostar, Sig Kadet, C.G Falcon 56 etc.

All good choices.  I favor the Falcon 56.  Never seen anyone fail with
a Kadet.  DECRCM Video club has a "How to build and fly a PT40".
    
>    	Any preference about engines...should I get an OS or Fox or Enya or
>    something else?   Actually, I should get that Astro-cobalt geared 40 I want
>    and just lie to them....).

Get the OS .40 FP
It will be the cheapest and most reliable.
    
>    	In the magazine adds, I've seen references to OS 40 surpass(4 cycle),
>    40 FS, 40 FRS etc.  Whats the differences between them and what would
>    be a good choice? What make/model engine would be best for them 
>    considering the type model I'm interested in.

FS means Four Stroke (more money, less horse power, more weight
                      more fiddling, than a 2 stroke)
FS Surpass = a more state of the air four stroke (more money yet,
                      power approaches a two stroke, more fiddling)
FP = plane bearing inexpensive 2 stroke.  The plain (not ball) bearing
                      is an advantage in that it is more forgiving about
                      over heating and not religiously using after run
                      oil.  
FSR = Ball bearing version of FP (No longer made in .40 size,
                      more power, more cost).
SF = A Long stroke version of the FSR (More power available at low RPM,
                      more cost, present state of the art 2 stroke design
                      in sport engines)

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

I own a Falcon 56 and a .20 powered H-Ray. I find that it is easier to 
"hand-off" the Falcon since it is larger, steadier, and more wind tolerant.
I'm trying to teach my 12 and 10 year olds and have had better luck with the
larger plane. Easier to maintain orientation on the larger plane and you can
fly straight and level for farther before having to turn. I liked small planes
due to field sizes but I've found that the wind buffeting makes it harder to
train in typical "less than ideal" conditions. (my kids are always bugging me
and don't understand about "too windy" when I'm already in the air ;^)

Carl Goldberg makes a nice, buildable kit.

Engines: I fly Enya, Webra, and Super Tigre because that's what my hobby store
stocked when I was buying them. OS makes a nice reliable engine (from what I've
seen at the field)

  I have a Kadet Sr., and although it is a breeze to fly, the building is a 
lot of work.  The kit features a stick construction fuselage which requires
the precise cutting of dozens of 1/4 inch sticks to various angles.  If
the kids don't want to spend a lot of time cutting sticks (which also makes 
fuse. rather breakable in the uncovered condition) then I would not advise
this kit.

		Jim

    The PT40 is easy to build (build it 4 channel, not 3) and rugged. I was
    very happy with mine until I reached the point of not needing a
    trainer. The directions are well documented and a lot of people start
    out with them. As for engines, a cheap OS FP .40 is a good bet. I for
    one bought the OS .40 SF. It was twice the price, put out a lot more
    power, always ran very reliably, and that in itself is worth the extra
    $$$ to me. I still use the engine in my sport planes and never
    regretted the extra $50.00 it cost through Tower.
    
    
    
    							Dave
    

      
    Do the PT-40. It has less building time and pain than the others.
    Less parts, etc. etc. I use a royal (don't laugh) 45 ABC in it.
    looks good it the air. Hauls nice.
    
    Ditto on 4 channel. (go for it)
    -Mike Z.

    I'll add my 3rd(4th) re: the PT40.  The parts are excellent, the
    documentation very good and the plane flies great as a trainer. I'll
    admit that if I were to build it again, I would change a few things,
    but, really, not much. Maiden flight only required minor trim
    adjustments.  I also agree, build it with airlerons!
    
    Chuck
    

    There are a couple of other good 40 sized trainers out there.  One is
    the Eagle II by Goldberg.  It is an excellent kit with good
    instructions and it comes out lighter than a PT-40.  The Midwest
    Aerostar?? is also an excellent trainer.  I've flown all of them and I
    would vote for the Eagle II as the better flyer, but you can't go wrong
    with any of these three for a first airplane.  I would power it with
    an OS40 FP.  This is the least expensive reliable engine available.  It
    is also the simplest to operate.  Stay away from 4-strokes until you
    have some experience unless you really have a way with engines.  The
    name of the game when you are learning to fly is stick time.  The more
    reliable your setup is, the more time you will spend in the air instead
    of in the pits fiddling with your engine.
    
    Charlie
    

Just another second of what you've already heard. I personally like the
Aerostar 40/OS 40FP combination. I've been flying it since June and love it.
I started out with a Great Planes Trainer 40 (its *NOT* a trainer) and I
switched to the Aerostar after a rather sever crash. IF you want a lot more
power swap a Fox 40BB for the OS and you'll have a really fun plane that is
still a great trainer. The Fox costs about the same as the OS, but will turn
a 10/6 Master Airscrew 2500 RPM faster. (Yes thats right 2500, side by side
comparison of two well broken in engines, new props, same fuel...
your mileage may vary)

The Aerostar builds very fast, I had my in the air in about 20 hours. It has
machine cut ribs and a lite-ply fuse that goes together square and true in no
time at all. There is a whole note in here somewhere dedicated to the plane if
you want further info on this particular model.

Good luck,
Randy