paul devereux

That's why I'm asking. It's similar to my doubt about gyros. I want to learn to fly proficiently, but really learn, if you see what I mean. My concern about having "aids" is that they might actually prevent me from learning. I'm just trying to get advice from more experienced flyers.That's all.

Thanks. Is it this one: FMS F3A OLYMPUS 3D SPORT PLANE – Inwood Models ? I also found this thread on F3A: Yes, I'm definitely interested in such models. I shall see how I get on with my sports flying and consider investing in something more agile.

Good points, but, this is just speculation on my part- some pilots advocate the use of gyros, stabilizers, etc. Others advocate models specifically designed for aerobatics- light, huge flying and control surfaces, power-to-weight ratios far exceeding anything achievable in full-size aviation. Is this taking away some of the skill? To take it to it's (il)logical extreme, if you had a plane with a stabilizer and a ground proximity warning sensor, and pre-programmed mixes for knife edge flight and endless rolls, and you flew a faultless aerobatic schedule, would you have achieved more or less than someone with a sports plane with a basic radio? I'm just wondering if aids take away some of the skill. I'm only asking as not being a club flyer, I'm interested in the consensus. For me, at my stage, learning some basics like a stall turn, or an Immelmann turn is interesting precisely because it is hard.

I was walking my dog in our local rec today when I saw someone flying a 3-D plane: about 40 inch span, it wasn't profile (it had a thick fuselage), but it had comparatively huge flying surfaces and control surfaces, and vertical winglets on the ends of the main-plane and a small horizontal winglet on top of the fus. So it was custom-built for aerobatics. And he did a lot- consecutive rolls, rolls when climbing vertically, far tighter loops inside and outside than I could manage, and it all looked impressive. One dog-walker clapped and shouted "well done" when he landed and she wasn't being ironic. Now my question is, to people more knowledgeable than myself: he was obviously very skilled, and in perfect control of his plane at all times- but was he cheating by having a model custom-built to do these things? I'm trying to teach myself to do some basic aerobatics, using YouTube and this forum, but I'm not even sure if I had his skill that my little, battered Wot 4 would be capable of doing much like that. Or is it the case that, he probably learned on what I have, and that if I had his plane I would soon be in trouble, the same as my first flights on my sports plane used to get me in trouble then? I suppose this question might boil down to: would I find learning basic aerobatics easier on a 3-D plane or easier on my sports plane? I'm well aware that my age is against me (old dogs and new tricks, etc).

Thanks for this post! A great model! I've looked into steam engines a bit, and I think the engineering would be way beyond me. The model power plant kits I have seen for sale are for stationary engines or locomotives, and I couldn't build one from scratch . However, electric power would not be out of place in a pioneer plane. This article says electric cars were built before ic cars:First Electric Car: A Brief History of the EV, 1830 to Present (caranddriver.com) And this video has a bit more on the first electric cars. So a pre-1903 pioneer type plane could theoretically be electric powered:

You are spot on, Robin. But, and it is completely hypothetical, what if this image was available in 1900? The Wrights were developing the cutting edge of technology and more, as they were even building their own power plant, but I wonder how they would have reacted if a time-traveller dropped this image into their office? It may have been possible even using the materials they had at the time?

Thanks for your interesting post. Yes, the Aerodrome was a bit bonkers, but so was the Flyer with it's wing-warping and elevator at the front. I'll try to avoid the obvious (with hindsight) solution of tractor engine up front, main planes over the CG, and empennage at the back. Here's a NZ pioneer's efforts:

I bought a CO2 motor for a rubber-powered plane about 50 years ago. I played with it while I built the plane (either a Veron or KK). By the time the plane was finished, so was the motor. So it was rubber powered as designed, lol.

I'm thinking of building a steam-powered RC model. I know steam flight is possible (the Besler brothers built a full size plane and I'll put a link to a RC model below as well), but I'm going to try to build a plane that would have been theoretically possible before 1903. I'm planning to avoid modern materials (so no plastics) and using the technical knowledge available in the 19th Century, so it will probably look a bit like Langley's Aerodrome. About 4 or 5 foot span. Lots of structural bracing to save weight. Does anyone know of a lightweight steam powerplant that I could use? I done some internet searches but someone might have better ideas than I have come up with so far. I guess a light, high power steam engine would be a fly in the 'purist' ointment, as steam engines have been continuously developed and the original ones were heavy and inefficient, but I think I could explain that by the thought that steam engineering would have been more quickly achieved if the IC engine hadn't been discovered and developed. FLYING STEAM ENGINES 5 (steamcar.net)

Do you ride? We have two cobs, have access to other horses for exercise, but cobs are steadier. I recently rode an 18h ex-hunter who was bomb-proof until he saw a fox, when he became a madman, lol!

I'm with you on this, but I don't think it is the cost, really, I think it is the crash. If I want to try a roll just after take off because it looks cool, I'm not thinking of the cost, I'm thinking I'm not going to manage it! (My wife and I have come to an agreement on cost, since she keeps two horses which need farriers, vets, and feeding, even if I crashed a plane every month my hobby would be cheaper than hers. Though to be fair, we can share the horses, and taking a horse for a ride through woods and heathland is a pleasure not everyone has experienced, but it is so good. You can cover so much rough ground so quickly).

I'm with you on that. I like low and slow. Though I admit I'm drawn to pioneer aircraft, which were built with low-powered engines (I believe the Wright brothers had to design their own) and as light a possible. Everyone is different, but I have no interest in jet aircraft that fly just through the virtue of their engine power. To be honest, I don't really have a great deal of interest in my Wot 4, apart from it being a useful plane to learn on. After my first flight, when I crashed it in a few seconds, I bought a replacement fus (the wing rip was easily mended) and another complete Wot 4 Foam-E, thinking I would need it in a short while. It is still boxed in the loft, (but may well come in hand soon, lol!) I have this suspicion that it may be too easy to learn on, as it flies so slow, and just a bit of throttle gets it out of trouble. But that is probably newbie overconfidence and my back-up will soon be brought into play.

To be clear, I don't mean the aircraft and setup, I mean the manoeuvres. Because I'm learning by myself and teaching myself, and having only a small field to fly from, I keep my speed down (quite close to stall most of the time) and I like to fly tight turns and rolls. I have a feeling though that club flyers fly faster and cover more sky. I quite like feeling the loss of response when approaching a stall, because I can just put in some throttle and we are flying again. But I realise I'm probably getting bad habits that more experienced fliers don't have.

I know this pilot is very good, but does it take a long time to learn to fly something like this? It is the kind of flying I aspire to- I believe prop-hanging takes a special type of aircraft set up, but is this the general level of flying we can achieve after we have managed the basics?:

I know, it is just such a scaled up model it is amusing. He probably got the plans off Outerzone. Superb, though.

Not really of course, but this turned up on my feed and it is so like a RC model of what a plane should be, I just wanted to share it! For a moment, I thought it was a model:

This is so true. Once you have 'learnt to fly', you won't need more trainers of different sorts. It is the actual learning to fly that is the problem, not the plane. Took my Wot 4 out this morning- it was blustery- in fact my take off was vertical-put in down immediately just to keep it in the air- once it was up a few hundred feet I was able to fly it. Apart from a few judders, I could fly as normal. And in fact, landing in windy weather is quite interesting.

If I am only going to fly for 10 mins or so, why would need another battery?

To be honest, @toto I was reacting angrily at people who I think will rob this hobby of fun and enjoyment. That's where RCG differs- when you ask a technical question there, they will answer it, not ask if you are insured and if you are aware you can cause mass deaths. I will stand by this- if you have a -250gm plane, which is regarded by the CAA as a toy, you can fly it in a park, if the by-laws allow it. I would say a park is not the place to learn to fly, because by definition you have to be in control of it. As a learner, you are not in control. Many RC flyers fly in public places, or places the public have access to- slope soarers, rubber band flyers (yes they can be RC too), C/L flyers, thermal soarers, and the only people who will restrict us, are the kind of people in this forum who keep banging on about how dangerous it all is. And when they have got us all on their airfield, what are the slope soarers to do?

As a fellow beginner, but a bit further along the learning curve (only a bit, you will be astonished how quickly you will progress once you have learned not to knock your plane out of the sky with over-controlling it), I agree the wind has been dreadful this summer. I have been going out about 6am (I have to go out early to muck out our horses anyway) and trying to get a battery in (one flight- 7 minutes). If it is not windy its raining. I started a light-hearted thread about flying in rain, but got the usual pile-on about the BMFA Handbook and insurance and how life is a bitch and we all die anyway. That's why I gave you the link to RCG where people fly for fun. Lol!

I think muscle-memory is just another term for psychomotor skills and unconscious memory- it is not just knowledge, otherwise YouTube and reading would teach us. I think it is like learning to drive a car - at first you concentrate on clutch and gear changes and that can take your eye off the road. After a while the mechanics of driving become second nature and you are then able to concentrate on other traffic. I remember last summer, with my heart thumping, hoping I could get a few minutes flight in without hitting the ground unexpectedly. This summer, I am fairly certain that won't happen, and I am able to think about trying out different manoeuvres. I was very impressed with a video @Ron Gray posted on this forum, where he reached some height, half-rolled, then half looped and brought the plane back upright. I've been practising that (without any expertise of course) but it has been great fun!

You are right. All my flying is done within a 100m box. Going outside that would seem very strange.

I would like to join a club, but not be linked to a buddy box lead- the free flying bit is the fun for me. Also my long term interest is not club orientated- I'm interested in ultra-light, slow-flying, WW1 models.

Thanks John, I think I fall in the 'safe' category. I always look out for danger, and would never take off if there are people or animals around, and cut the throttle and land if someone hoved into view. At the end of the day, it is just a hobby activity, it's not a big deal to curtail it.

I think it comes down to common sense and reasonableness. My personal view is that people should never try to learn to fly in a public place, not even with a sub-250gm plane. Because learning implies you don't have control at all times (the criteria our local authority lays down). In fact, it is quite likely that on the first flight a newcomer attempts there is no control at all. And several subsequent attempts could hardly be described as 'controlled'. On the other hand, I would hate that flying is banned in public places other than club fields, as that would be end of slope soaring and lots of hobbiest flying. And people who can fly should be able to practise in local authority recs where it is allowed.