Second Plane
Jerry Festa
I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane
suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW
discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt - maybe
the appropriate question should have been "What WAS your second plane and
would you recommend it to (us) me?" After we "master" flying, seem to
forget what it is like for someone who can only handle a high wing
trainer. Some have suggested a GP SuperSportster 40 as a second
plane...do you really think a novice - and they still are if they can
only fly a High Winged Trainer - can handle a plane like that? YOU and I
may be able to handle it - but put yourself in a novice's shoes...a
trainer gives you time to recover, a SS40 can get into a whole lot of
trouble quicker than a blink of an eye to someone without experience. And
the SS40 is not the only one that has been suggested. I love the SS40,
NOW, but when I was cutting my teeth in R/C, it would have been way over
my head!!!! What about you guys - What WAS that second plane anyway? Mine
was a Falcon 56 (I'm ashamed to admit a STERLING Tri Pacer was my first!)
Anyway, do you guys really think a Kaos is a good SECOND plane???? What
about GP Sticks? Remember your advice should be tempered with perhaps
some 'instructor' time with the new bird? What about control throws?
Engine selection???? Totaling a 'second' plane might be a good way to
throw a bucket of cold water on a potential "Hot" pilot!!!!
No flames please:-)
******************************************************************************
Jerry Festa Grace Lutheran School, Huntsville Alabama.
E-Mail to: fes...@aspire.cs.uah.edu
Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
******************************************************************************
Dave Martin
>I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second'
>plane suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who
>have NOW discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good
>second plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt
>- maybe the appropriate question should have been "What WAS your
[other great words snipped]
My first plane was the Electra, a perfect trainer. Next was a Goldberg
Cub, a bit of a step for someone who never had to take off or land on a
runway (the Electra is hand-launched and landed in big, soft fields).
My next step probably should have been another Cub, one that didn't
have all those 'learning scars'. I went to a low-wing Bingo instead.
You are right, I wasn't near ready to handle the 'non-correcting'
flying style of a low wing. I crashed alot (again), but finally got
the hang of it. I would still like to have a Cub laying around for
those days when I just wan't to take it easy.
So in my case, a low-wing wasn't really appropriate even for a third
plane. I must admit, though, I don't fly more than about 4 hours a
week in the summer, and much less in the winter.
Dave Martin
St. Cloud, MN
Jerry Festa
On 10 May 1996, Dave Martin wrote:
> So in my case, a low-wing wasn't really appropriate even for a third
> plane. I must admit, though, I don't fly more than about 4 hours a
> week in the summer, and much less in the winter.
>
> Dave Martin
> St. Cloud, MN
Wimp, Wimp, Wimp....whatthematter -20 wind chill too much for ya? Tired
of looking up at gray skies? Snow "falling" HORIZIONAL? Shape up or we
will FORCE you to fly 4 hours a week during January and February<G>...
James Copeland
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960509140557.20743C-100000@oreo>, Jerry Festa
<festaj@oreo> writes:
>
> I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane
> suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW
> discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
> plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt - maybe
> the appropriate question should have been "What WAS your second plane and
> would you recommend it to (us) me?"
..snip..
> Anyway, do you guys really think a Kaos is a good SECOND plane???? What
> about GP Sticks? Remember your advice should be tempered with perhaps
> some 'instructor' time with the new bird? What about control throws?
> Engine selection???? Totaling a 'second' plane might be a good way to
> throw a bucket of cold water on a potential "Hot" pilot!!!!
>
> No flames please:-)
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> Jerry Festa Grace Lutheran School, Huntsville Alabama.
> E-Mail to: fes...@aspire.cs.uah.edu
> Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
Hey Jerry
I agree with you here about the "hind-sight" second plane thoughts. However, I
used the Kaos as my third plane.
Here's my experience and the planes (with your requested info...)
1st plane - Great Planes PT-40 with and OS FP .40
Comments- Great Trainer-- I only needed two or three instructor aided flights
before my first landing.
2nd plane Great Planes Trainer 40 with OS Fp .40 then changed to Fox .46 ABC
Comments- The OS FP .40 was enough engine for this plane during transition
from PT-40 to Trn 40. The Trainer 40 was good as a second plane because of its
semetrical (sp?) wing foil. This allowed for more aerobatics and was a bit
quicker during rolls etc... The change to the .46 made this a pretty quick
plane.
3rd plane Kaos .61 Great plane. This plane is a low wing sport plane. The
hardest part of the transition was getting used to the sight of the wing being
on the bottom. (Kept thinking I was upside down.) This plane handles very
smoothly when throttled down and it sits very steady at landings. No nasty
stalls etc... Throttle it up and it behaves like a sport plane. I can't
say enough about it. Second Plane??? Hard to say. With an instructor to
get it up and trimmed that first time, maybe. But, I don't think the novice
would want to go solo that first flight. But definitely a great third plane/
first low wing.
4th plane GP P-51 Flown twice so far. Its been windy (25mph +) for the last 2
months so only a couple flights so far, but I haven't had too much trouble yet.
5th plane Super Aeromaster Haven't finished building it yet... I'll let you
know.
--
James Copeland
--
James Copeland
Jerry Festa
On 10 May 1996, James Copeland wrote:
> 4th plane GP P-51 Flown twice so far. Its been windy (25mph +) for the last 2
> months so only a couple flights so far, but I haven't had too much trouble yet.
>
the last two months:):)
parklane
Jerry Festa wrote:
>
> I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane
> suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW
> discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
> plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt - maybe
> the appropriate question should have been "What WAS your second plane and
> forget what it is like for someone who can only handle a high wing
> trainer. Some have suggested a GP SuperSportster 40 as a second
> plane...do you really think a novice - and they still are if they can
> only fly a High Winged Trainer - can handle a plane like that? YOU and I
> may be able to handle it - but put yourself in a novice's shoes...a
> trainer gives you time to recover, a SS40 can get into a whole lot of
> trouble quicker than a blink of an eye to someone without experience. And
> the SS40 is not the only one that has been suggested. I love the SS40,
> NOW, but when I was cutting my teeth in R/C, it would have been way over
> my head!!!! What about you guys - What WAS that second plane anyway? Mine
> was a Falcon 56 (I'm ashamed to admit a STERLING Tri Pacer was my first!)
>
> about GP Sticks? Remember your advice should be tempered with perhaps
> some 'instructor' time with the new bird? What about control throws?
> Engine selection???? Totaling a 'second' plane might be a good way to
> throw a bucket of cold water on a potential "Hot" pilot!!!!
>
> No flames please:-)
>
>
> Jerry Festa Grace Lutheran School, Huntsville Alabama.
> E-Mail to: fes...@aspire.cs.uah.edu
> Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
>
> ******************************************************************************
DC Kaos was my first low winger, it was not a second plane. I asked
myself if I would give the trasmitter of this 6 1/4 lb, Webra Speed 61
equipped plane to a pilot who had just moved from a trainer. No quick
answer came to mind. It would depend of course on which pilot. I think
probably there would be few that I would give it to so I guess that
means no. Long time instructors can give the best advice here.
Anyway that's one opion, FWIW.
John Hawkins
Pete Kerez
Jerry Festa <festaj@oreo> wrote:
> ...maybe
>the appropriate question should have been "What WAS your second plane and
>would you recommend it to (us) me?"...
My first _successful_ R/C was a Goldberg Electra with which I taught
myself to fly what amounts to a free-flight airplane. Beating the
buzzards into a thermal was fun and I learned enough to know that in going
to a "full-house" ship getting help would save time and money. The _un_
successful tries helped plenty on that count also, but at least I had
stubbornly "learned to fly" on my own.
So, my "second" plane was a Royal Air 40T ARF, which lasted long enough
for me to qualify to solo, not too long after which I promptly kitted it,
since you can't "re-kit" an ARF.
So, my third plane was a Right Flyer 40T, which I built with about half
the "normal" dihedral. I literally flew the covering off of it. The
cheesy ARF-O-KOTE used to cover ARFs tore at all the aft fuselage cutouts
so I patched 'em, and I had to tighten up the wing covering so many times
that it shrunk down to the size of a hanky. While re-covering the wing
with Monokote I took the opportunity to put on 1-1/2" wide ailerons (I
think the originals were 1/2" or 5/8"), and used some of the leftover
aileron stock to enlarge the elevator as well. Now the airplane had a
little more "pizazz", enough to keep me entertained a bit longer while I
was building the perfect "second" plane, an RCM Funster 40 from Hobby
Lobby.
At the present time, the Funster 40 remains unfinished while I bash
around the sky precisely with a small collection of sport aerobatic
airplanes and relax occasionally with my "club" trainer in between giving
flying lessons. My abilities had outgrown the Funster before I could
finish it!
If you've come this far, I'm finally getting to the point. Before you
select _any_ second airplane, you should have gotten the most out of your
trainer that you can possibly get. You should be able to perform every
manuever that the airplane is capable of doing. You should be able to fly
it inverted under full control indefinitely, and you should be able to
land at will on the very first pass from almost any position above your
flying field.
Once you have accumulated these skills you're ready to select a second
airplane that has a light enough wing loading that it will fly nearly as
slow as your trainer at low speed but a bit faster at high speed. Most of
us seem to want a second plane that can do more stunts than a trainer, and
you will be amazed at how easy it is to fly such a craft inverted,
compared to the flat-bottom wing trainer. One more thing, your second
plane should be just about as strong and repairable as your trainer. If
you use your head and don't overreach yourself you won't total it but
you'll probably be doing some fixin'.
Have fun.
Pete Kerezman (pete...@aol.com)
Kingsville, Texas AMA #59376
ALaska2053
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960509140557.20743C-100000@oreo>, Jerry Festa
<festaj@oreo> writes:
>Anyway, do you guys really think a Kaos is a good SECOND plane???? What
>about GP Sticks? Remember your advice should be tempered with perhaps
>some 'instructor' time with the new bird? What about control throws?
>Engine selection???? Totaling a 'second' plane might be a good way to
>throw a bucket of cold water on a potential "Hot" pilot!!!!
>
>No flames please:-)
My second plane was srill my trainer and so was my third and my fourth, I
think. You can't go wrong sugesting an old stand by like a goldberg falcon
56, sig kavilier, or a stick as a second plane, it does help to know
what the fledgling pilot is capable of when advising them on a' second'
plane. My 'second' plane was an Airtronics Jetfire that had a very bad
warp in the wing and had a tendence to roll at low speeds. It didn't last
long because of the warp and it had the one and only bad radio I have ever
bought in it. I had been building a Northeast Areodynamics Sportair .40, a
low wing cherokee looking craft, and flew that next and for about six
years. I recommend the N.E sportair as a second plane because even though
it doesn't fit the profile of a clasic second plane, I know its
characteristics. The look of a low wing craft also satisfies the new
pilots desire to progress to a hotter ship than he is capable of handling.
I think we all need to keep an eye on new pilots even if they have
progressed passed the training stage.That doesn't mean sitting on the
bench and watching him/her stuff their plane into the parking lot, then
telling him/her what they did wrong. Often egos get in the way of asking
for help , so help needs to be given whether is asked for or not. You
can't force feed help to someone that doesn't want it so just stand
behind them and watch. an experienced pilot will know the person is in
trouble long before they will and your assistence will be a welcome
relief when you save his p&j.
Andy
Greenwich,CT. USA
Jonathan Siegel
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960509140557.20743C-100000@oreo>,
Jerry Festa <festaj@oreo> wrote:
>
>I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane
>suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW
>discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
>plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt - maybe
>forget what it is like for someone who can only handle a high wing
>trainer. Some have suggested a GP SuperSportster 40 as a second
My first plane was the ARF Ugly Stik from Long Tai Shin; my second was a
Scat Cat Q-500, with a .20 in the nose instead of a .40. I think the
proper choice of first plane is the pre-eminent factor in the appropriate
choice of a second; had I begun with a "self-correcting" trainer, I'm
quite sure I'd never have been able to handle the Scat Cat as a second ship.
I might very well get flamed for this, but I think the "self-correcting"
trainers might not be so great a choice of first plane for someone who has
an instructor close at his or her side. My instructor grabbed the box
from me many times during my first "sorties" with the Ugly Stik, but when
I finally did learn to fly the thing I had learned to fly an airplane that
performed like the majority of aileron-equipped ships I would later want
to fly.
I think you're right; there's too big a gap between a high-wing trainer
and a Super Sportster. But is it better to restrict the choice of "second"
plane, or to start a newbie out instead with a "first" plane that flies a
little more like the neutrally-stable ships he'll eventually be guiding?
As long as the beginner has a competent instructor -- or, better yet, a
buddy-box setup *with* a competent instructor at the other end of the
cable -- it seems to me that his chances of crashing the Ugly Stik are not
much greater than his changes of doing in a more traditional "cabin-style"
trainer. If he has some simulator time, his odds are even better.
The Scat Cat and other Q-500 ships, btw, are _delightful_ planes to fly as
first low-wingers, _provided_ you've started out on something a bit more
"honest" in its flight characteristics than a trainer with 8 degrees of
dihedral and a single-digit wing loading. They land slower than an Ugly
Stik (<20 mph), and are very "honest" airplanes. For a beginner who
started with something like an Ugly Stik, and who flies that kind of ship
competently, I'd have _no_ hesitation in recommending a .20-powered
Hobbico Viper as a second plane. It's easy to build, easy to cover, easily
repaired, and lands like a "floater."
Heck, under the right circumstances I can see _starting_ a beginner on an
SS40....
Cheers!
Jonathan [preparing to be broiled!]
parklane
Pete Kerez wrote:
>
> Jerry Festa <festaj@oreo> wrote:
>
> > ...maybe
>
>
>
> If you've come this far, I'm finally getting to the point. Before you
> select _any_ second airplane, you should have gotten the most out of your
> trainer that you can possibly get. You should be able to perform every
> manuever that the airplane is capable of doing. You should be able to fly
> it inverted under full control indefinitely, and you should be able to
> land at will on the very first pass from almost any position above your
> flying field.
>
>
several decades into flying and teaching say a major problem many pilots have
is jumping to a second plane when their skills with the first are not fully
mastered. Witness the many crashes with second planes. Perhaps there is too much
emphasis on performance and the new flyers feel they won't be accepted unless
they are going ballistic. It is true that some trainers are dogs once you learn
to fly but with a different wing, and in some cases more power, their capabilities
can be greatly expanded.
John Hawkins
Duane MacInnis
Jerry Festa wrote:
>
> I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane
> suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW
> discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
> plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt - maybe
> would you recommend it to (us) me?"
====== Huge snip ======
You're right. It's sad watching someone who should still be flying trainers bash
up a short-coupled rig. We (young son & I) went from cgm Eagle 2 to a Tiger 2.
Then built a Sig Kavalier. The Kav is still a bit hot for me to be comfortable
with, but son David loves it. The Tiger 60 is Dad's rig. The two Tigers will be
better than I am for some time.
My $0.02, see y'all
Duane
Ray Bates
Jerry Festa wrote:
>
> I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane
> suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW
> discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
> plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt - maybe
> the appropriate question should have been "What WAS your second plane and
> would you recommend it to (us) me?"
Just a thought from someone who is NOT a "Hot Pilot" and has only been in the
hobby a short while. I agree that the question should be answered as "my
second plane was .... and its characteristics were ..." That would be helpful,
when supplemented by constructive comments from your instructor and the others
with whom you fly.
For my second plane, I selected the SIG Mid-Star 40, even though the "favorite"
second plane at our field is the SIG 4-Star 40. For me, I wanted some
experience on a mid-wing plane before I moved completely to a low-wing model.
I am becoming more familiar with the Mid-Star and enjoy it. It is MUCH more
sensitive to control movements and is more versatile than the trainer. (I
probably put 80 - 100 solo flights on the trainer, flying both in calm-sunny
weather and windy/snowy weather [I liked flying with the skiis].) Rolls and
inverted flight are there when you think they ought to be. Because it will fly
slowly, I have to be cautious not to let it stall and get real "tail squirrely"
close to the ground (my only mishap with it so far -- ever notice that no
matter how clear an area is, if there is ANYTHING which can act as an obstacle
it will "MAGNETICALLY" draw a crippled aircraft to it -- took two inches out of
the leading edge when it came down on a light stand). I have taken it up 3-4
"mistakes high" and practiced to try to prevent this in the future.
I don't regret building the Mid-Star and I'm enjoying it equally as much as the
other fliers with their 4-Stars. Now when I get my flying skills really
improved, I'm going to take that SIG Fazer (which is on the building bench,
about 1/3 completed) up and really have some fun. Maybe another 100 hours or
so?!
Good thought, Jerry. (Sorry to be so "long-winded" in the reply, but ... the
weather in Michigan is conducive to writing, not flying [I had to mention
that!].
----
Ray Bates
Caro, MI
rjb...@centuryinter.net
David A. Gell
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960509140557.20743C-100000@oreo>, Jerry Festa
<festaj@oreo> wrote:
# I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane
# suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW
# discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
# plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt - maybe
# the appropriate question should have been "What WAS your second plane and
# would you recommend it to (us) me?" After we "master" flying, seem to
# forget what it is like for someone who can only handle a high wing
# trainer. Some have suggested a GP SuperSportster 40 as a second
# plane...do you really think a novice - and they still are if they can
# only fly a High Winged Trainer - can handle a plane like that? YOU and I
# may be able to handle it - but put yourself in a novice's shoes...a
# trainer gives you time to recover, a SS40 can get into a whole lot of
# trouble quicker than a blink of an eye to someone without experience. And
# the SS40 is not the only one that has been suggested. I love the SS40,
# NOW, but when I was cutting my teeth in R/C, it would have been way over
# my head!!!! What about you guys - What WAS that second plane anyway? Mine
# was a Falcon 56 (I'm ashamed to admit a STERLING Tri Pacer was my first!)
#
# Anyway, do you guys really think a Kaos is a good SECOND plane???? What
# about GP Sticks? Remember your advice should be tempered with perhaps
# some 'instructor' time with the new bird? What about control throws?
# Engine selection???? Totaling a 'second' plane might be a good way to
# throw a bucket of cold water on a potential "Hot" pilot!!!!
#
# No flames please:-)
#
# ******************************************************************************
#
# Jerry Festa Grace Lutheran School, Huntsville Alabama.
# E-Mail to: fes...@aspire.cs.uah.edu
# Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
#
# ******************************************************************************
My second (and first) planes are recent enough in memory that I can (I
think) give honest critiques of them from a beginners point of view.
First plane (1991): Midwest Aerostar 40. The construction manual is an
introductory course in airplane building. Every question I had was
anticipated. It flew well, dispite a couple of crashes during the
learning phase. It met it's end when I strained it through a tree that I
was sure was further out.
Second plane(1991-present): Goldberg Cub (a gift from my wife).
Construction was relatively simple, but I would have been confused about a
number of details had I not built the Aerostar first. Flys (in clipped
wing version) well. Ground handling is poor. I decided that I needed a
tailwheel trainer before I flew the Cub to oblivion. It must have worked,
because I still fly it, although it is now called Patches. When I build
another one, I will replace the supplied wire landing gear with one of the
Shattleroe (I think that's how his name is spelled) landing gear sets. My
main problem with this plane now is that the landing gear have different
toe-in and camber after each landing.
Third plane: Sig Midstar 40(1992-1993). I choose this plane as an
intermediate between the Aerostar and low wing planes. I built it as a
tail dragger to build experiance so that I could fly the Cub better.
(BTW, although the Cub still flys, the Midstar suffered from dumb thumbs
as I was learning rolls.) It fulfilled the goals I had for it, to learn
tailwheel ground handling and to permit some basic aerobatic experiance.
This model had good instructions, lots of jigs and templates for
installing the wing attach dowels and so on, and good material.
Fourth plane: Ace Bingo(1993-1995). My first low wing. Flew well.
Construction was straight forward with the experiance I've gained with
numbers 1,2 and 3. I found the larger (.60 size) airplanes easier for my
40+ year old eyes to see. I became more agressive in my flying, until
while inverted, I pulled when I should have pushed.
Fifth plane (built 1995): Ultra-sport 60. Not yet flown, after crashing
the Bingo last summer, I decided that it might be too much for me.
Sixth Plane (build 1996): Another Ace Bingo, just about finished, should
be flying in the next couple of weeks, work schedule and weather
permitting. I will use it to rebuild my confidence and prepare to fly the
Ultra-sport.
Misc Planes: I've built two foam core flying wing planes, similar to the
Gremlin in 1993 and 1994. They met their demise in trees (again). I used
them to gain confidence in inverted flying and faster, more maneuverable
flight.
I think the most important thing to do when choosing a second model (or
any model for that matter) is to decide what you want to get out of it.
Each airplane I've built, I've built for a purpose. The Midwest Aerostar
to learn flying, the Midstar to gain experiance with a more maneuverable
model, the Bingos to gain low wing experiance, the Ultra-Sport to learn
aerobatics.
--
David A. Gell |
University of Michigan |
Space Physics Research Lab |
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gellda
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Festa
On Sun, 12 May 1996, Ray Bates wrote:
><snip on some good experiences with 2nd plane>
> Good thought, Jerry. (Sorry to be so "long-winded" in the reply, but ... the
> weather in Michigan is conducive to writing, not flying [I had to mention
> that!].
> ----
>
> Ray Bates
> Caro, MI
> rjb...@centuryinter.net
Weather, bad weather...what's that:):) You mean you have a Building
season? Must be nice:):) I'd prefer to run around with some light jacket
rather than put my building time "at risk" shoveling snow :-)
******************************************************************************
Jerry Festa Grace Lutheran School, Huntsville Alabama.
E-Mail to: fes...@aspire.cs.uah.edu
Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
******************************************************************************
Ray Bates
We now have two seasons in Michigan: Winter and too nasty to fly!
Pedro Quaresma de Almeida
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960509140557.20743C-100000@oreo> Jerry Festa <festaj@oreo> writes:
> I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane
> suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW
> discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
> plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt - maybe
> the appropriate question should have been "What WAS your second plane and
> would you recommend it to (us) me?" After we "master" flying, seem to
> forget what it is like for someone who can only handle a high wing
> trainer. Some have suggested a GP SuperSportster 40 as a second
> plane...do you really think a novice - and they still are if they can
> only fly a High Winged Trainer - can handle a plane like that?
I agree with you
1st plane - Thunder Tiger, Eagle 15t with an OS26FP (high-wing with lots
of dihedral and without ailerons).
2nd plane - Hobbico Extra 300s with an Royal 46BB (acrobatic plane).
I bought the Extra 300 has a "great seling oportunity". It was not the second
plane I was wishing but as we say in Portugal "it is better to have a pigeon
on our hands that two pigeons flying".
I trained alot with the trainer before going to the Extra 300 and I manage not
to crash the Extra 300. Nevertheless in my opinio it was the wrong step.
Now I have built (from srcratch) a low-wing (trainer) plane. Large wing,
almost flat-bottom (Clark-Y ?) with a bit of dihedral. This will be
may true 2nd plane. The Extra 300 will wait until I am ready for it.
--
At\'e breve
===========
+---------------------------------------------+
| Pedro Quaresma de Almeida |
| Departamento de Matem\'atica |
| Faculdade de Ci\^encias e Tecnologia |
| Universidade de Coimbra |
| P-3000 COIMBRA --- PORTUGAL |
| e-mail: pe...@mat.uc.pt |
| url: http://www.mat.uc.pt/~pedro/pedro.html |
+---------------------------------------------+
Sam and Sonja Sorem
My first plane was a Tower Trainer .40. My second and third were
Hobbistar .60's. I needed the second and third trainers because I was
impatient and went out by myself after my first solo and because I
tried to show off before I was ready.
My real "second plane" was a Sig Astro Hog with a Saito .80.
Once I got the landing gear changed to a fuselage - mounted Klett
gear, it has been the greatest! ( Although Sig says that I am the
ONLY one who has ever had a problem with the landing gear (weak,
nosing over) . I recently buddy-boxed my brother for about a half
hour of stick time. He had very little problem with it. I have read
that some would use this plane as a primar trainer. I'm not sure I
would recommend THAT, but I would give it a thumbs up as a good second
plane.
Sam Sorem
Jerry Festa
On Tue, 14 May 1996, Sam and Sonja Sorem wrote:
> My real "second plane" was a Sig Astro Hog with a Saito .80.
> that some would use this plane as a primar trainer. I'm not sure I
> would recommend THAT, but I would give it a thumbs up as a good second
> plane.
> Sam Sorem
I would tend to agree with you Sam on that one....but I did see one
painted up like a PT-19 and THAT sure looked like a primary trainer:):)
Also saw one in a camouflaged paint scheme at the Toledo Auction and it
was sold pretty quick! Looked like an RAF-type plane of the early 40's -
sort of "sport" (un)scale!!! Couldof fooled me:-)
LARRY PETERS
From:>larry....@compudata.com
Subj:>First Bi Plane
-> Newsgroups: rec.models.rc.air
DAVID A GELL and ALL
-> # I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane #
-> suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW #
-> discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
LP> HI I have collected many of the original four stroke size engines
OS .40 FS , Saito .50 , OS Surpass .70 , older FS .61
I have flowm them buit never built a good BI PLANE -I was thinking of
the Ace four fourty- as the long tail. I have a Pilot Bi Plane
Pitts-ah- cute but could wrap up- so anyone suggest any tame BI plane
even though i can fly a "Fun Fly" like a Stick It I have had one Bi Plane
and ya the offthe ground thing got it the first time! Awhile back
a HONKER BIPE- honk honk crash!
Terry Partington
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960509140557.20743C-100000@oreo> Jerry Festa <festaj@oreo> writes:
>> I'm a bit worried about some of the advice concerning the 'second' plane
>> suggestions....Most of the advice has come from those of us who have NOW
>> discovered a particular plane that we THINK MIGHT make a good second
>> plane. That advice perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt - maybe
>> the appropriate question should have been "What WAS your second plane and
>> would you recommend it to (us) me?" After we "master" flying, seem to
>> forget what it is like for someone who can only handle a high wing
>> trainer. Some have suggested a GP SuperSportster 40 as a second
>> plane...do you really think a novice - and they still are if they can
>> only fly a High Winged Trainer - can handle a plane like that?
My first plane was a used Aerostar Electric that I put a .25FP on. I had
gotten a jump start by flying my father's PT a little and other planes
before I started with it.
My second plane was GP SuperSportster 20 that I put the same .25FP from my
trainer. I did have my instructor fly it to trim it in for me before I
flew it. I would *highly* reccomend this. I was soon comfortable with
it and upgraded it with a Super Tigre .29, what a rush!
I don't think the 20 Sportster would be a good second plane for most
flyers, the 40 size would definately be a better choice. But it depends
on how far you advanced with your trainer. I was able to retire my
trainer (to get parts for the Sportster) and I am still flying the
Sportster.
My third plane is a Not-For-Sale. Lots of fun. Would make a better
second plane than my Sportster.
My fourth plane that I am currently building is a GP Aeromaster. Yay!
I'm finally ready for a bipe!
Food for thought: I've noticed a definate generation gap among flyers.
Many of the newer young pilots have developed outstanding hand-eye
coordination thanks to video games and very quickly grasp R/Cs. My
father, on the otherhand, has been flying 6 years (2 years longer than
me) and is still having problems with low wing trainers.
Has anyone else noticed that difference with the new Nintendo generation?
Terry Partington
tpar...@winternet.com
"It is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air,
Than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground."
Dave Tatosian
In article <tparting....@winternet.com>,
tpar...@subzero.winternet.com (Terry Partington) wrote:
[snip]
>Food for thought: I've noticed a definate generation gap among flyers.
>Many of the newer young pilots have developed outstanding hand-eye
>coordination thanks to video games and very quickly grasp R/Cs. My
>father, on the otherhand, has been flying 6 years (2 years longer than
>me) and is still having problems with low wing trainers.
>
>Has anyone else noticed that difference with the new Nintendo generation?
Much to the distress of many elders, you're absolutely correct, and I have the
15 year old son to prove it. He is already nailing touch-and-go's after only
three afternoons of flying (and all three days were accompanied by major winds
that kept most veterans indoors). Control reversal during landing
approaches and inverted flight? No problem. He's so adroit it's almost
scary...
So something productive came about after all those years of vegging out with
those #%@&! video games! ;^)
Cheers!
/dave
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> Dave Tatosian tato...@eng.pko.dec.com <>
<> Digital Equipment Corp. Alpha Server Engineering <>
<> "What doesn't kill you...will hurt like heck!" <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><> AMA 548313 <><><><><><><><><><><><>
gerry.g
>
>Much to the distress of many elders, you're absolutely correct, and I have the
>15 year old son to prove it. He is already nailing touch-and-go's after only
>three afternoons of flying (and all three days were accompanied by major winds
>that kept most veterans indoors). Control reversal during landing
>approaches and inverted flight? No problem. He's so adroit it's almost
>scary...
>
>So something productive came about after all those years of vegging out with
>those #%@&! video games! ;^)
>
Yup - our club has fairly strict training, My youngest (when 16)
graduated in 1.5 hours. The instructer had to call over a few saftey
officers to demonstrate that there was little he could teach my son.
His first take off was perfect, his first landing was slightly long
but still on the runway. It isn't an easy field to land at either -
need to drop below the tree line and make a 180 turn 200 feet from the
runway.
gerry