Conference vmszoo::rc

    Bob,
    
    I'd vote for nearly any of the "STIK" kits as an intermediate trainer.
    They're simple in configuration, will take a lot of abuse and fly
    like crazy.  Additionally, they'll take you right on into basic
    and advanced aerobatics when you're ready...you won't have to build
    yet another airplane in order to move up.
    
    I'd recommend you build it flat winged (no dihedral) if not already
    that way and put it on conventional gear (taildragger) to get maximum
    bang fer' yer' R/C buck, trainer-wise.  As to who kits the best
    one.....the original Jensen kit was one of the finest R/C kits I've
    ever seen but, unfortunately, it is no longer available.  HOWEVER,
    listen closely....the cavalry may be coming: word is that Circus
    Hobbies is now producing the original Ugly-Stik and, if they've
    maintained the original design and quality, I'd recommend it in
    a heartbeat.
    
    Once you've got the STIK "in yer' pocket", the best advanced trainer,
    sport aerobatic ship going is the Great Planes AeroMaster.  Try
    one......you'll LOVE it!
    
    Al
  

    
    The `who makes the best kit' discussion is already in note 118.
    As for what next, I'd recommend something like the Sig Kavalier,
    a good high-winged aileron trainer, followed by a Great Planes
    Super Sportster .20 or .40 (depending on your size preference).
    I've been flying an SS20 for two years now and LOVE IT.  It's
    a good kit too.  But I wouldn't go straight from a PT20 to an SS20.
    Of course this all depends on the kind of flying you want to do
    too.  Enjoy -
    
    Bill
    

    
    	I also recommend the Sig Kavalier. It was my first aileron plane.
    This plane could fly so slow on landings then when I opened up the
    40 I had in it, it was like a rocket. Very stable and any Sig kit
    speaks for its self as far as strength and easy building directions.
    
    	Tom @marlboro

    Just have to put in my word for the Kavalier too. It's built-in
    washout makes it almost hover without snapping, so it's good as
    a trainer. As far as rugged - mine's survived a mid-air (Bill
    will be telling you more about that someday), and a tangle with
    a tree (for you cowboys, a tree is a tall green thing that stands
    under the approach path and occasionally reaches up and grabs a
    plane right out of the sky. Usually eats it whole, but I got lucky).
    
    Dave

RE: -1: Aw, come on now, you don't expect to get away with that,
do you?  :-)

Actually, though I have a Goldberg Eaglet, I've been admiring the
SIG Kadet quite a bit.  There are several Kadet Seniors up here;
the owners seem to have a good time flying them in the high
altitude and winds we have.  One, in particular, soloed with his
Kadet just this last week (then promptly splattered it good).  I
especially like the slow, almost hovering landing approach of the
ship.  Since I'm not partial to the larger planes, I've been
thinking of the Kadet MK II with a .40 as a fall-way-back
alternative to the Eaglet. 

The only objection I can see to the Kadet is its ability to
re-kit itself...so why don't you like it?   

    re: -.2
    No, we can't let you get away with this. I learned on a Kadet
    which I built myself with no problems. The kit was fine, good
    detailed instructions. After demolishing the wing I was able
    to build a new one from scratch in a couple days (I kept the
    die-cut punchings for the ribs and traced them right onto new
    stock).
    
    So, you're going to have to defend yourself on this one or I'll
    say you're full of hot air and I don't like insulting people that
    way!

  I'm in the middle of building a Kadet Sr. and have no problems
with the material quality or the instructions.  RCM had a write up
about the plane and said it was VERY GOOD in ALL respects!
  So...what's your beef with them???????????

    When you are done being trained with your first airplane!!! you
    may want to move on to something that you can progress with.  Don't
    think trainer anymore, think Great Planes Super Kaos .60.  This
    airplane has been used as a trainer and also for pattern competition
    before the new breed of pattern.  This plane has a very thick wind
    that allows it to land very slow for a plane in its' class.  When
    you are ready it can perform any pattern/stunt you wish.  Just move
    the CG aft a bit and you are ready to go.  Form wings are available
    if you would like to build a second wing to install retracts.  The
    bird is very flexible and you are familiar with the manufacturer
    kit techniques.
    
    regards,
    NCMWVX::VOSS

    I have a Super Koas 60 and expect to convert it to retracts this
    winter.  Buying a foam wing sounds like half my problems would be
    solved.  Any opions on who to buy the foam kit from?  What do you
    get when buying a foam wing other than a slab of foam?

    The name of the foam wing company is Wing Manufacturing.  They sell
    just wings for many of the current popular kits.  The wings include
    all sheeting, tips, and control surfaces.  I'm not sure on how to
    contact them.  See the advertizers index of current RCMs or older
    RCMs.
    
    regards,
    NCMWVX::VOSS

    Has anyone seen, built, or flown any of the Telemaster series sold
    by Hobby Lobby ?  These are fairly large, high-wing planes advertised
    as trainers, though some of them can be built with flaps, etc. 
    They advertise the kits are made for them by Great Planes - seems
    to be an older design, possibly German.
    
    Telemaster 66	66" span
    Telemaster 40	70"+ span, 40-series engine, 4-5 channel
    Telemaster Senior	around 8' span (I think)
    Telemaster 2000	2 meter span, partly "factory assembled"
    
    The '40 looks neat, and appears to have all the attributes of a
    good trainer....
    
    Dave

    Dave,
    
    A guy at our field has a senior telemaster and the 40.  The senior
    is big and has no flaps, a saito 90 twin and in a 10-15 mph wind
    it will just hang there.  He flies the heck out of it and it is
    incredibly slow at half throttle.   Use plenty of motor!
    
    The .40 was built with flaps, but he does'nt use them.  It flew
    similar to the Senior, but faster.   The Senior is just remarkable,
    it breaks ground in about 6-8 feet, Honest!
    
    Chris

	Not too sure about how good the kits/plans/instructions are for
	these kits as GP tends to use the original kit mfg's paperwork
	and retool when they aquire production rights to a design.

	As for the flight characteristics of the plane, these do fly
	extremely slow and stable and the larger sizes are easy to see
	in flight.  Probably a good choice for a first plane even though
	they are usually taildraggers.  The airfoil section of the stab
	lifts the tail with just propwash and you really never perceive
	any taildragger habits.
	

    Interesting.  So the Telemaster has a "pedigree."
    
    How is the fuselage constructed ??  The photos in the Hobby Lobby
    catalog show plywood pieces for the Telemaster 66 - two long side
    pieces (right and left) mostly solid in front, with holes in the
    back to lighten the structure.  The photos of the Senior Telemaster
    seem to show the fuselage built-up of stringers, covered with plastic
    coating (just happens to be semi-clear in this instance).  The one
    I'm interested in is the Telemaster 40 (.40 size engine, wing about
    78") - and there is no indication of construction method.
    
    Are people generally happy with Hobby Lobby ??

    Dave

    I got the AQUILLA kit yesterday. This is the original all balsa
    kit manufactured by COX Hobbies. Now this is what I call Q*U*A*L*I*T*Y.
    
    All pieces are cut and bagged. The ribs are all stacked together
    neatly and are all the same. None of this quickie die cut stuff
    you have to diddle with. You'd think that this was a full block
    of wood. 
    
    This is a kit for the finicky builder. I'm looking forward to it
    after I get done with the CUB.
    
    md

    I bought the Telemaster 40.  Called Hobby Lobby on Friday - the
    kit was on my doorstep (UPS) the following Thursday.  I spent
    about a week just reading the plans, trying to figure out what I
    was going to need in additional materials, tools, etc.
    
    I now have one wing structure about 80% done - spars, ribs, leading
    and trailing edges, sheer webs, and a few sheeting pieces.  The
    wing ends up being about 50% covered with balsa.
    
    Initial impressions are mixed.  Most of the kit is balsa.  The only
    ply are the firewall, aileron bell crank mounting plates, and
    reinforcements for the landing gear and wing dowels.
    
    The balsa is probably "good" - some is softer (and fuzzier) than
    others.  A few pieces will need steam to restraighten.  The ribs
    are die-cut.  Excellent, clean cutting (parts fell out with no
    pressure), but they are not equal size !  (Ribs come 4 to a sheet,
    7 sheets - it leaves 2 extra ribs.  Two ribs on each sheet are slightly
    larger than the other two....)  There was considerable trimming
    required.
    
    The front of the fuse is 3/8 balsa, butt-glued together.  I hope
    there are some reinforcements....  The pieces must have been machined,
    very crisp, and excellent grain.  The back half is a bunch of stringers
    tied together with some bulkheads (I think).
    
    The instructions are pretty dismal.  There are several pictures
    on each page, and nearly every "step" has an associated picture.
    However, the photos are so small and so blurry as to be very little
    help.  Also, there are a few discrepancies between the instructions
    and the stock.  I had to go over the list of materials carefully
    in order to determine what was what.  In most cases, the discrepancies
    were improvements - less trimming required.  The biggest problem
    is that the dimensional accuracy of the plans is marginal.
    Case-in-point, the sheer webbing is to be cut from some 3" wide
    sheet.  There was no 3" sheet in the kit, but there was an extra
    piece of 2+7/8 sheet.  I held the 2+7/8 up to the plans, and it
    looked good - but I only checked one bay.  As I started building,
    the ribs began getting noticably "off" relative to the plans (what
    I could see of the plans...there is a lot of balsa wing-covering
    already pinned down per instructions).  If I had continued that
    way, the wing would have been about 1" too short - so I grabbed
    some spare balsa I had and cut some new shear webbing.  There is
    one comment in the book that "...the plans are guidelines, the parts
    are factory-cut to the highest accuracy...."
    
    (BTW - you ARE supposed to glue the shear webbing to the adjacent
    ribs, aren't you ??  There should not be gaps ??)
    
    Hardware is interesting.  I did not order the "accessory kit" because
    I wanted to study the plans first, then decide whether to take the
    kit or buy individual pieces.  The plans include the bill-of-materials
    for the accessory kit, which is about another $50.  The packages
    saves about $11-$12 over the individual prices in the Hobby Lobby
    catalog, but when I started checking the airplane kit against its
    own b-o-m, I found I had a lot of stuff left over- sure enough,
    about half of the $50 hardware package is already included !  Several
    clevises (clevii ?), threaded rod, bell-cranks, wheel collars, aileron
    horns, flap horns, etc., etc., etc.  Hinges are DuBro w/metal pins.
    
    Lest I give the impression I am disappointed, I'm not.  It's just
    a curious mixture.  The instructions could be better, but patience
    (and access to friends who know better than I) will no doubt win
    out.  I didn't know you could have this much fun in Massachusetts!
    
    Oh - the box says in VERY big letters - produced by Great Planes.
    
    Dave

>    (BTW - you ARE supposed to glue the shear webbing to the adjacent
>    ribs, aren't you ??  There should not be gaps ??)

* A B S O L U T E L Y !!
    
>    ........Hinges are DuBro w/metal pins.

* Are you sure you don't mean "Robart" (hinge-points) w/ metal pins?

Good luck...built correctly this plane flies like a homesick angel...yer' gonna'
love it!

Adios,	Al

        Re:< Note 248.37 by GHANI::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8)" >

>    ........Hinges are DuBro w/metal pins.

                The ONLY  hinges  I  will  use from now are the ones that
        look like a  small  rectangle of fiberglass matting.  You install
        them by putting one  slit  in  the  two  surfaces AFTER covering,
        slide the hinges in, push  the surfaces together so that you have
        a minimal gap and then drip  one  drop  of  thin  CA on the hinge
        surface   visible.    Advantages  are:    minimal    gap,    easy
        installation,  never  had  a  failure  by  breaking  or  becoming
        unglued.  All other hinges have a problem in  one  of those areas
        or in that you can accidentally get glue in the hinge joint.  SIG
        is one of the manufacturers of these hinges.
        
        Anker

    re:.37
    
    Thanks, Al, for the words of encouragement (and wisdom !).  The
    instructions were quite emphatic about the grain being vertical,
    but they never said anything about attaching (gluing) the webbing
    to the ribs...it seemed logical at the time, but when I wrote the
    previous note I had the sinking feeling maybe there was something
    I did not comprehend.
    
    re:.38
    
    I looked for those hinges Sunday, after you mentioned them to me.
    I did not find them in the SIG catalog, but I'll look again.
    
    Dave

    I just finished building the top wing for my aeromaster, and the
    same issue of shear webs came up in this kit.  They provide 3 inch
    wide balsa for shear webs, but the rib spacing is more than 3 inches.
    The webs only glue to the spars and to one of the ribs.
    	While I'm at it, I will comment on the quality of the Super
    Aeromaster kit from Great Planes.  I have examined or used all of
    the materials that come with the kit and the overall quality is
    excellent.  (all other GP kits that I have built have been the same)
    I did have to replace a couple of pieces of balsa and I will have
    to replace some more before I am done.  The worst pieces were the
    ones that have to be bent around the framework.  The stuff in the
    kit was rock hard and HEAVY.  Especially bad was the piece for sheeting
    around the vertical stab fillet.  Ply quality was excellent and
    everything fits fairly well.  This is a well designed, but somewhat
    complicated kit.  Building the swept wing was more time consuming
    than other wings I have built due to the cutting and careful splicing
    of the spars.
    	One thing that took me a couple of kits to learn is to replace
    any marginal materials with top quality ones.  I spent hours trying
    to fix warps built in by using crooked spars.  Advice for anyone
    who has not learned this the hard way - replace any wood that is
    not top quality.  You will save weight, time, and aggrivation, and
    the cost will be minimal.  I have never yet built a kit that did
    not have some bad wood in it.
    
    Charlie
    

If its any help, what you're doing with the shear webbing is
forming an I-beam between the top and bottom spars.  The
combination of this I-beam and leading edge sheeting forms the
classic D-section for wing strength.  The section of the wing
between the I-beam and the trailing edge is simply there to keep
the airflow happy; it provides only minimal strength to the wing,
even when sheeted, as compared to the leading edge D-section.

    re: -.1
    
    Yup, it's strong, alright.  Last night I unpinned one of the wings
    from the Telemaster.  It's probably strong enough to hammer in the
    pins for the other wing....
    
    Is it common for the shear webbing stock to be too small (relative
    to the rib spacing on the plan) ?  A fellow brought his Eagle into
    a club meeting one night - his first kit, most of the wood assembled,
    but no covering.  All of his shear webbing was smaller than the
    inter-rib spacing - none of the webs were glued to the ribs on either
    side, they did not even MEET the ribs on either side !  His wing
    had very little torsional strength; someone picked it up, gave a
    twist, and shrugged.  I could not tell if that was normal, or if
    no one wanted to hurt his feelings.
    
    Dave

    Many wings are not very stiff torsionally until they are covered.
    The covering really helps this (and can cause warps if you're not
    careful).  I think that many kits cut the shear webs undersize to
    keep people from having to cut them to fit between the ribs and
    possibly to prevent them from mislocating the ribs to fit in the
    oversize webs.  The main purpose of the webs is to prevent the spars
    from deflecting with respect to each other when the wing flexes,
    thus adding considerable strength and stiffness up and down.
    
    CHarlie
    

    I am currently learning to fly an Eagle 2, and have had 5 lessons.  In
    the near future I want to start building airplane #2, and am looking
    for suggestions on what to choose.  From previous replys in this note,
    people seem to favor the SIG Kavalier.  My current list of possible
    chioces is as follows:
    
    	-SIG Kavalier
    	-SIG Konamder Mk II
    	-CG Sky Tiger
    	-Pica Touche
    	-Ace Bingo
    	-Ace Sport T-34
    	-SIG Astro Hog
    	-Top Flight Contender 60
    	-Coverite Black Baron Special
    
    I would be interested in comments from other noters in this conference
    about the pros and cons of these planes.  Two other possibilities may
    be the GP super Kaos or the GP Super Sportster 60, but these seem to be
    more for advanced pilots.
    
    Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks.
    
    -Joe
    
    	-SIG Astro Hog

   Joe,
    
    I flew my CG Sky Tiger yesterday for the first time.  Flys like a dream.  
    Construction of the plane is a little more difficult than the Eagle but 
    similar.  I would do the Sky Tiger again with no hesitation.
    
    However, you probably will not be ready to fly it till the very end of
    this season, or early next season.  If you have the urge to build
    something I would recommend building a spare wing for the Eagle.  The
    kit is about $25, and considering all the obstacle's around our field,
    is likely to see service before your next plane.
    
    Loren

    	-SIG Kavalier
    	-SIG Konamder Mk II
    	-CG Sky Tiger
    	-Pica Touche
    	-Ace Bingo
    	-Ace Sport T-34					!Tip stalls very bad
    	-SIG Astro Hog					!Heard a lot of good things about this
    	-Top Flight Contender 60
    	-Coverite Black Baron Special	!I had one and loved it

Can only comment on a few from your list.  It seems like there is always
some article about the SIG Astro Hog.  It has been around for years
and people love them.

I think the ACE Sport T-34 is the T-34 that Kevin Ladd had.  If so I
would stay away from it.  I can't put my finger on it but I think it
has too high a wing loading and wants to tip stall like a CAP-21.
A real handful.  If you start leaning towards that one send mail to
Kevin at Rock::Kladd first.

I had a Black Baron Special.  It flew great and is one tuff bird.
I crashed it several times - never it's own fault - always pilot error.

I am not familiar with most of the others.  Of the three I talked about
I would personally pick the Hog - but follow your heart.

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

    I can't comment on many of those that you listed, but I can recommend
    the GP Trainer-40 or -60.  These have (semi?)symetrical airfoils and
    fly much more like an aerobatic plane than a trainer.  They fly well
    inverted too!
    
    I think the SS-40/-60 is pretty hot for a second plane, but many people
    have successfully made the transition.  
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    One of my recommendations would be the Northeast Aerodynamics
    Train-Air 40. It is a high wing, trike gear plane with about a
    58" wing span and semi semetrical airfoil.
    
    I was running an OS46SF in mine and it had all the speed I wanted
    yet had good slow flight handling. I would recommend that whatever
    plane you decide to go with, you stay with a high wing, trike gear
    configuration and move up to a semi semetrical section. This will
    allow you to begin to learn most every aerobatic maneuver you'd
    be interested in at this point. 

    Go for the SkyTiger.  It with a .46 size engine is a great intermediate
    trainer.  When you get bored with that, just switch engines to a .61 and
    increase your aileron throws and look out.  I've had lots of fun with
    mine.
    
    Enjoy
    
    John

    How about the SIG Four star 40 for an intermediate low-wing trainer?
    
    I've been puttering around with high wings on and off for 10 years now
    and finally decided to get fancy.  After watching a beginner, I mean
    true beginner, in our club successfully taxi, take off, and fly around
    with one of these birds, it inspired me to give it a try.  For a low
    winger, this plane is very forgiving and flies nicely.  I've flown
    everything from ARFs like Lanier, Hobbico Avistar, to PT20s and 40s to
    Dura-planes and have yet to have as nice as time flying as I did with
    this kit.  One exception was the Telemaster 2000 with flaps.  You
    extend flaps on that thing and it almost turns into a helicopter with
    any type of headwind.   But $59 v $199  I think $59 is more reasonable
    for a bird that I will eventually be able to do more with.
    
    Does anybody have any other suggestions for a person looking for a good
    first low wing plane to learn on, or any comments/suggestions on the 
    4star 40.
    
    Robert

	For what it's worth, I love the Scooter II, and it's real cheap. The
	CRRC club kitted it for $20. The commercial kit is probably around
	$30 or so. It's a small, simple plane, but it flies just great! Flying
	the Scooter after the Kadet is like driving an MG after a school
	bus.

	It's a low wing design, and the wing is made of foam. The plane has
	its own idiosyncrasies, like difficult ground handling, but once in
	the air I found it a very refreshing alternative to the Kadet. With
	the K&B .20 it moves right along although vertical performance isn't
	too hot (all presuming, of course, you can get the damn K&B to run!).
	I've been told that with a .40 it really screams and I believe it. 
	Matter of fact, with a .40 in it you essentially have a Quickie 500
	plane.

	Dave

    We've learned that the company who used to make the "First Step" line
    of kits is back in business.  The line had been sold by the designer
    to a second company. This second company had gone out of sight with
    their manufactureing.  A fellow modeler searched his older mags.
    looking for the adds and found the company.  A call to R.I. ensued
    to find that they are in business.  They are presently making up some
    of their sport low wing kits for us.  It's called a "Sport Fly". Used
    to be called the "Next Step.  It uses a first step wing with the
    airfoil modified adding thickless to make it a semi airfoil.  Really
    a great flier.  Would be an excellent low wing aileron trainer
    for the newer fliers...
    
    
    Tom