Learning to fly on a large trainer

[Paul Mills 1]

I know that conventional wisdom dictates that you should learn to fly using a high wing trainer and instructor with buddy lead to guide you through the process of learning.

This all makes good solid common sense to me.

My question is could the standard size trainer from the usual providers be replaced by something larger?

The something larger in this case being the SKY 120 trainer designed by Tony Nijhuis. It has a wingspan of 97inches and is powered by a 38cc gas engine.

Apart from its size it appears to fit all of the criteria required of a trainer and may well be slightly more durable when things don't go quite according to plan!!

The reason for asking is that once I have hopefully become a more confident pilot I would like to fly large gas engined planes, not 3D, just normal flight and simple aerobatics so why not start to learn with a large plane as well?

I look forward to hearing what you guys think.

Paul

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jon H]

With an instructor teaching you the sky120 would be fine. If your desire is to mostly fly large models then small foamy jobs wont teach you anything. Just be aware that it might be more difficult to find an instructor with large model experience and that old saying about 'the bigger they come' is accurate as it will not bounce very well.

If on the other hand you intend to go it alone then its not recommended you go for a big model and a small foamy is a better bet.

[EarlyBird]

I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong but don't you need a B Cert to fly over 7 kg?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Many clubs will require a B but there's no law to require one. However, there's a lot more kinetic energy compared to the average club model along with more legal responsibilities.

Having said that, in general large models fly better than small ones and I've found that pupils can get on well with something like the Super Frontier - around 80" span - and learning to manage the extra mass will instill good habits that aren't necessarily learnt on small foam models.

Edited By Martin Harris on 27/08/2020 20:48:46

[Bruce Collinson]

I learnt on a fairly large trainer, c. 6’ span with a 90 4 stroke and it was very satisfactory. In a fit of nostalgia I then bought a Maxford Mentor, 84” span with a 26cc petrol and it needs a lot of space to land. I don’t think it would have been as good as a primary trainer. Flies nicely though, but not for some time now.

BTC

[Allan Bennett]

As a general rule larger models are more stable than small ones of similar layout. But they're more expensive when they crash, can do more damage when they crash, and need larger area to fly, take off, and land.

One of the major hurdles in learning to fly is the hand-eye co-ordination, in particular the difference between flying away from you and coming towards you, and this can be learned just as easily on a common foamy trainer such as the Durafly Tundra which, incidentally, costs less than just the 38cc petrol engine you're thinking of.

So I would say start with something smaller and foamy, which will be easier to fix when you crash it. Guys at our field generally use a hot-glue gun!

[Geoff S]

This trainer is big but so light it flies well on either electric or a .60 glow.

Ugly as sin, though

Geoff

[Brian Cooper]

When learning to fly, many novices get through a fair number of propellers. . . Bear in mind that props for a 38cc petrol engine are not cheap.

Bigger models fly more smoothly than smaller ones. The really small ones can be quite "twitchy". . However, larger models don't get away with crashing as easily as the smaller ones do. . Crash it, and it's going to break.

Other than that, have fun.

B. C.

[J D 8]

I remember the Paper Aviation Ezee Pzee as being one of the nicest trainers to learn on provided it was pretty calm.

[Frank Skilbeck]

It is very rare for a beginner to go through training with out having a crash or two, the lighter foamies tend to bounce better than the heavier wooden planes, and the bigger they are, generally the more expensive the repairs. But if your end aim is larger sport/scale models then a traditional 40 size trainer isn't a bad starting point.

[Jonathan M]

In the last week I've been flying a 61" Boomerang trainer with a 46 two-stroke, all purchased and put together for use as a club trainer with buddy-box- what a great, stable, easy to fly machine! - I wish I'd been fully trained on one myself instead of a few introductory lessons then a lot of self-learning flights with a 48" foamie!

[Denis Watkins]

The lads will remember these Paul, and I had both models after the free flight phase when learning to fly proportional control.

Both models identical apart from their size, the Precedent T180, and the Precedent T240, which is exactly your proposition now.

The T180 was a 71" span 40 class trainer and flew great.

The T240 was a 94" span 30 - 40cc Class model but a Whole different ball game to fly.

You can still build and own a large model, but follow advice given and start in the air with a trainer.

A Trainer will give you time to make the inevitable mistakes in the air

But large model Inertia is very unforgiving if you are not On top of your game.

[Chris Walby]

Paul,

IMHO you can use what you want, small foamies have advantages (easy to repair, low cost, but are low mass) or larger models if that's your thing. What I would say is that the learning process takes time based on your ability to learn and risk you are prepared to take (I am not talking unsafe flying).

I have instructed various people one (11 year old) did rc cars and the PC sim and has never looked like getting close to crashing. He has very good model position awareness in any orientation where as another trainee may never get off the buddy lead, but that's life.

For me learning was in two major stages, instruction and assistance as you practice to keep the model in the air up to say passing your A in ability, then the second stage...lower and more complex flying where brain fade/dumb thumbs doesn't give you much time to keep it in the air. When I say more complex flying I don't just mean aerobatics, could just be flying in windier conditions, poorer light or further away, anything that pushes you out of what you have experienced before.

IMO again it will be inversely proportional for improving if you fly a model and only stick with circuits for fear of crashing and time spent. Repairs to a foamie are much easier and quicker and get you back on the sticks as opposed to major balsa repairs.

I still fly a high wing foamie as its easy to fly, gives me a chance to dial my thumbs back on the sticks and I can try new things as it didn't cost me anything (as SWMBO bought it!), but you can make it very challenging if wanted.

[Ben B]

38cc engines are also pretty unforgiving.

If I'd tried to learn to fly with such a big engine I certainly wouldn't be able to touch type.

It's never good to plan to be kissed by a prop. Equally mistakes happen paricularly when learning. A big plane with a gas engine for a newbie? That's a lot of prop, a lot of mass. I wouldn't want to be at the field!

[Peter Christy]

Lots of very valid points above, to which I would add:

If you learn on a big, stable machine, you will find the transition to smaller (sometimes twitchier, but not always!) models difficult. If you start with a small model, you'll find big ones much easier to fly!

--

Pete

[David Davis]

Little story about the Sky-120. When I lived in England there were two brothers in my club. The elder one was an experienced builder and flyer who had built, inter alia, a 1/3rd scale Stampe biplane powered by a Zenoah 62. The younger one was a novice. He had just passed his A Certificate when both brothers decided to build the Sky-120. The older brother was fine with his, the younger one crashed his soon after building it.

To be fair to the Sky-120 it is intended as an introduction to large model flying. To me this implies that those who build this model are already competent fliers of smaller model aircraft.

So Paul Mills, what would I recommend? That depends upon your ability. Various foamies like the Bixler have been recommended and they have a good reputation, being easy to fly and to repair. Once you've managed that something like a Seagull Boomerang as Jonathan M has recommended.

Do you want to build your own model? The Boomerang is available as a builder's kit but is more expensive than the ARTF! **LINK** The Chris Foss UnoWot was my second r/c model. I wish I'd never sold it now **LINK**

I used to import the Telemaster range and the Telemaster 40 was a fine trainer. Mine was fitted with an electric motor but a 40 size two stroke would suit it well. There are no kits readily available in the UK at the moment but you can download the plan from The Outerzone **LINK**

The larger Senior Telemaster which has an eight-foot wingspan is great fun but less forgiving. I find that you really need to take firm control of it and plan all of your manouevres in advance.

There are lots of beginners in my current club in France, mostly retirees, so I do a fair bit of instructing. I start them off on a four-channel foamy called a We Can Fly then move them onto the Boomerang. Currently the Boomerang is fitted with a Super Tigre 40 while I fit new bearings to my Enya 50 but a 40 is ample for a beginner in this model. Jonathan M's has an OS 46 in his which would also be a fine match giving you the option of quite advanced aerobatics later on.

I have one gentleman who finds even the We Can Fly impossible to control. For trainees like him I keep a three channel vintage model which virtually flies itself.

In summary learn to fly on something smaller, more disposable, more easily repairable and about 5-6 feet in the span before you go on to fly the Sky-120. You can learn to fly while you're building it.

Edited By David Davis on 28/08/2020 09:46:56

[Ben B]

Perhaps I'm strange but when I was learning to fly I found the club Junior 60 the most difficult thing to "pilot". Perhaps it was just the one that I flew (perhaps fitted with a small FF rudder!!) but I found the lack of authority perturbing. It felt like the plane was busy flying itself and wasn't going to listen to the person twiddling the sticks. As a result even though slow flying you had to plan massively ahead like trying to turn a cruise-liner. Less R/C, more Ouija board. Perhaps the tutor had forgotten to give me control on the buddy box

[Peter Christy]

BenB: I agree! The full size Tiger Moth was considered an excellent trainer because whilst it was easy to fly, it was difficult to fly well!

A trainer can be too stable!

To my mind, the best trainers of the "Golden Age" were the Veron Robot and the Frog Jackdaw. The Robot was fairly compact, and stable, but not too stable! Similarly, the Jackdaw - similar in size and appearance to a Super 60, but a lot less "floaty" and again, not too stable. Both these models were pretty robust when covered with nylon, and would take a lot of abuse.

Plans for the Jackdaw are available on Outerzone. Although designed as a single channel contest machine, the plans also show optional elevators and ailerons.

In my humble opinion, it was (and still is!) a much better flying machine than the Super 60!

--

Pete

[David Davis]

Posted by Ben B on 28/08/2020 11:00:11:

Perhaps I'm strange but when I was learning to fly I found the club Junior 60 the most difficult thing to "pilot". Perhaps it was just the one that I flew (perhaps fitted with a small FF rudder!!) but I found the lack of authority perturbing. It felt like the plane was busy flying itself and wasn't going to listen to the person twiddling the sticks. As a result even though slow flying you had to plan massively ahead like trying to turn a cruise-liner. Less R/C, more Ouija board. Perhaps the tutor had forgotten to give me control on the buddy box

Well perhaps I'm biased because I learned to fly on the very Junior 60 which you can see in the picture above. I found that if I got into trouble I only had to cut the throttle and take my thumbs off the other stick and given enough height the old girl would sort herself out. Mind you my Sanwa Conquest did not have a buddy box fitting so it was grab the transmitter or bust. Usually bust!

Two of my current trainees both in their Sixties prefer the Junior 60 to the We Can Fly. I'll let them gain a little more stick time on it before moving them on to ailerons.

I think that we all agree that a Sky-120 is not a suitable model for a raw beginner don't we?

[Chris Walby]

Just being argumentative I don't agree....If I presented the Sky-120 to the 11 year old with a few laps on the buddy lead I am fairly sure they would have been doing nice circuits with only a bit of verbal intervention

Really depends on the student and budget

PS - I agree for the more mature (in years on planet) student something else is more suitable like foam and cheap to fix.

[Paul Mills 1]

Gentlemen

Thankk you all for your replies and advice.

With the consensus of opinion being start small learn how ti fly well and then progress to larger planes. In all honesty these were the sort of answers I was expecting and I do have an Arrows Bigfoot foamie and a Wot trainer that fit the bill.

Interesting comments about a lot of older guys, I myself am nearing 60 and after having been away from the hobby for well over 40 years playing with cars I am loving getting back into it.

My passion is good old fashioned building so I can still carry on building the bigger planes and just wait until such time that I and knowledgeable people around feel that I'm proficient enough to take the step up.

Many thanks again for all your help.

Paul

[Guest]

I'm told some clubs use the Precedent T240 (SLEC kit) and the latest Carbon-Z Cub SS 2.1m as trainers, cos they fly sloooowly and are easy to handle (forgiving of mishtooks). Have to admit, the more over 60 ya's gets the slower the model you need to fly.

I tried a Seagull Boomerang a while back. Horrible twitchy thing that needed to fly way too quickly for me. Hated it.

I'll stick with the E-Flite Turbo Timber Basic BNF 1.555m and has AS3X.  Can turn SAFE mode on and off. Will fly at walking pace, takes off and lands within about a metre or less (very STOL). When it's used for practicing for (and taking) the 'A Test', just pop in a  non-AS3X Rx.

Edited By David H on 29/08/2020 06:25:57

[Frank Skilbeck]

Paul, we had a member returning to fly after 30 years last year, he picked it up again really quickly, well after a few minor arrivals, so I'd fly your foamies a few times and then make a decision on your next model.

[Pete Collins]

Hi Paul,

The conventional wisdom is that a smaller model involves less investment of time and cash, so it's less of a disaster if you demolish it. There's also the question of running costs, transport etc - generally the practicalities! Also, a larger model carries more mass and therefore if you do have an 'incident' it's likely to do itself more damage than a lighter model. However, set against this is the fact that a larger model is unquestionably easier to fly, assuming that it is lightly loaded. It flies at a lower speed relative to its size and things happen less suddenly giving the pilot more time to react. Also as it gets away from the pilot, it doesn't get difficult to see as quickly, particularly in terms of maintaining orientation. So basically, if you are prepared for the practicalities, then its a case of personal preference. Certainly, if you intend to get into flying larger models, then there is a good argument for using a larger trainer, certainly once you are past the ab-inito stage.