paul devereux

Oh, I agree, this is a very helpful forum, but there are a few 'committee' jobsworths who probably don't actually fly but sit on their folding chairs telling newcomers a chuck glider or a rubber-powered model can take your eye out if you try it. Lol. Not doing the hobby any good imo.

I agree 100%. I did approach a club once, and was told I needed a restraint- for an electric model. I don't see the sense in that,as it is only live when I connect the battery, and then it is in my hands. I'm not going to run up or tweak the engine. Also that I needed to learn to programme an ESC- I don't get that either, if it doesn't work I'll fault find, but if it works why fix it? That's why I find clubs off-putting.

When you mentioned toilets with regard to RC flying, I thought perhaps you had some difficulties. Portacabins aren't expensive,perhaps your club can get you one, lol!

It is well known that people rarely give positive feedback as they are mostly motivated when they feel they have been short-changed, but I just wanted it to be on the record saying that this forum has been so very helpful. Model flying has only been a recent interest of mine (work, horses and PC gaming are my main interests) but I took up RC flying a year ago. I've used various forums (RCG, YT, etc) but this has been the most helpful one. Real life flying is the main learner of course, but this forum has taught me to programme a radio and trim a model. I just thought I'd mention that, some of my threads have got a bit heated, but to me, that's all learning.

Like most of us, we are all getting older, things aren't getting better for us personally are they?

Well, yes, facts often get in the way of opinions. It's true that when I rode regularly it was more fun going out with other people. I remember once cantering close to a gallop with a mixed group of us (a New Forest Pony, an ex-hunter, and three cobs) on the Downs near the coast, SS Waverly was steaming along towards Weymouth, it was a lovely evening, absolute magic! People have said some kind and encouraging things since I mentioned a club in this thread but I have a couple of reservations: One is that it may be a sense of failure- I set out to learn to fly, I can now do it without crashing, in fact I can whizz about without worrying about crashing and I study YouTube tutorials to learn how to do stall turns,etc. Joining a club would feel a little bit like I failed to make it on my own. But the major thing is, like @toto as a beginner in a club I'd be dependent on someone available to tutor me- I'd never pass Part A, I have no interest in learning how to programme an ESC, for example. So I'd drive 75 mins to a club hoping someone could tutor me, and they may not turn up or be too busy. While I can just use my own field in complete safety away from everyone. Not to say I neglect safety- I make sure the throttle stops on loss of signal and that I do the range check. And I am insured with the BMFA and done the CAA test. But flying in 2 acres, in the middle of 10 acres, is pretty safe.

I don't think a club would suit me, or them. I find the fun of flying is just taking off, having a slow trundle around, then opening the throttle and blatting about with a few rolls, loops, and trying to learn stuff I've learnt on YouTube, then landing close to my feet. Club flying is all about rules and safety. It would bore me and annoy them.

I'm wondering about this too. Lots of electrical items explode or cause fires. I read that toasters are responsible for most house fires. TVs can start a fire even when not on. Reports about e-cigs exploding in pockets, etc. I'd like to see some stats on the dangers of Lipos compared with other commonly used products. That's not to say they aren't dangerous, but then everything is, even driving. I'll probably stop carrying a spare Lipo in my jacket pocket though, Barbours are expensive.

Well, I don't belong to a club; and as other posters have said, laptops, e-scooters and mobile phones have been known to spontaneously ignite, but it doesn't stop people charging them in their living rooms (or even bedrooms when it comes to mobile phones). Come 2030 when we are all driving e-cars, there will be charging cables draped over pavements and all sorts of things like that when people without their own driveways need to charge their cars. I'm lucky in living in a detached house in the sticks, but when all the flat-dwellers and terrace-house people start using EVs it is going to be mayhem!

That does sound nice! Definite WW2 warbird vibes!

Since starting the hobby a year ago, I've accumulated a few Lipos- 3s 2200s ( I disposed of one in a battery recycling bank as it got a bit too large and puffy to be used) and a few smaller ones for self-build projects (1 and 2 cells). I usually recharge on a coffee table, and store them wherever (usually one charged in my plane ready to take out the next morning. None of them are puffy or damaged, though I have learnt on this forum I have probably damaged their longevity by running them for 10 plus minutes per flight. A work colleague has said Lipos are prone to spontaneously combust, and are a fire hazard? I find this hard to believe, as they can be delivered through the post without special precautions and there aren't warnings about this. What is the consensus- are Lipos safe or unsafe?

I just looked up a 10s battery- several hundred pounds! Can that be right?

Lol! I agree, you have to be careful here!

Looking at various YouTube videos etc, it seems most EP planes are smallish foamies, and most larger planes (like 5 or 6 foot span warbirds) are IC. Is this a general rule- that small sports planes are electric, but you need IC for more exacting planes? Apart from my interest in pioneer planes, which would happily trundle along on minimum power, I do admire the shape of some of the German WW2 warbirds- the Stuka of course, but the Flying Pencil and the HE111 as well. I can imagine these designs don't work well unless they are fairly large span- but that would entail IC power? I'm guessing once you move up from the standard 2200 3C there are more expenses, but adopting all the paraphernalia of IC seems a very big step, one which I'll probably avoid.

This is a classic model. Based on a full-size homebuilt, so it translates perfectly to a R/C model:Bowers Fly Baby - Wikipedia

I 100% agree with this. That is my concern: if a computer or specialized design is doing the work, why not just watch a video of someone else flying? The point about flying is the challenge, imo. (Of course, as a learner, just about everything is a challenge anyway, lol). Anyway, I'm not trying to stoke controversy, I'm just trying to understand the hobby. And every contribution to this thread has been useful to me. So thanks to you all.

Of course not. Modern military and civilian planes are incredibly complex and use all sorts of fly by wire aids. As you say, my question was more about whether such aids or designs are useful or not useful in learning aerobatic skills.

I use find the BBC and Met Office sites change their forecasts overnight quite significantly. The best way to judge the weather is looking out the window before you head to the field.

This is where my knowledge is deficient. I don't know the difference between these things. I tried SAFE setting 3 (novice) on a HZ Champ 4 channel (100gm park flyer), and although I now know it had a seriously rear CG, I found it uncontrollable. It was just about controllable with SAFE off. The idea that the plane would fight me every time I tried to roll or loop confused me more as a beginner, I think. The next time we have some calm weather, I'll try it out (setting 3) and see what it is like, now the plane has some nose weight. Maybe learning on a tail-heavy plane actually helped develop my skills.

I'm so pleased to see this post -I think! I started learning a year ago with a second hand (but reliable) Futaba radio and a 4 channel foamie (Wot 4). On my first flight, despite studying numerous YouTube videos, I lost control within a few seconds, the plane flew over my head and behind me, I couldn't recover it and it trashed the prop, fuselage and tore the wing in half. With a new fus, repaired wing and new-found experience, I re-started learning by making small hops, then larger hops, then circuits and figure eights. Then I joined this forum, learned how to programme a radio and trim a plane, and put in dual rates. I put in 50% less movement, so that I could judge if it was effective, hoping flying would be easier. I made several mistakes with this- 50% was too much, and I had forgotten which switches I had assigned D/R to. The result was just after take off I thought I had lost radio signal, as the plane didn't respond. I got down safely, and cancelled out the D/R, to fly again, and the plane flew normally. (I will say, it is so useful getting other peoples views as I don't belong to a club.)

Thanks for the interesting post, Ron. In a sense I think it is a bit like the model equivalent of "fly-by-wire". My personal view, which may well be a minority view, is that I want to try to learn with a model that is a reasonable facsimile of a full-size GA plane without aids. We all have our own preferences, I suppose.

Ah, now I understand! Thanks!

This is new to me! Thanks for mentioning it! I shall do some research.

I accept that you have more knowledge and experience, but I don't agree with this argument point at all. An untrimmed plane is a liability, no matter what you want to do with it- whether a model or full-size. You are making a false conflation between trimming and having a stabilizer (if you mean gyro). In fact, I think a stabilizer may mean you don't realise you need to trim your plane- it will keep correcting errors.

No of course not, but I am lucky in having some private land to fly. The rules for the rec are under 250gm and "under control at all times", so that precludes learning. (Occasionally people fly helis and drones and the odd larger park-fly foamies, but that is their responsibility. I'm not their mum). So, this is all learning for me, the Olympus-type planes are not 3-D? As I say, the plane I saw was about 40" span, thickish (i.e. not profile) fus and had large flying surfaces. It could fly very precise manoeuvres. It's the kind of flying I aspire to, and I'd like to learn to fly like that, but with a plane that looks at least vaguely like a full-size one, and doesn't have built-in aids to make flying easier. I accept the 400mm 100gm Eachine warbirds need gyros, they are gimmicky toys that flit around like insects, they would be uncontrollable without them, but to me that isn't really RC flying.