November 2012 Editorial

[Dave Bran]

A Thread STARTED by me, now THAT is a rarity.

Just read Grahams editorial, and need to comment on his apparent conclusion that EP is not practical for training.

I run a school based club, and far from Grahams problem of training two people in the same session, I usually have at least TEN, yet I easily manage this using EP.

There is a range of simple EPP foam Chuck Gliders called "Fik", from 400mm span to 2000mm. They don't look inspiring, but the designers knew what they were doing with regard aerofoils, etc.

I use the 800mm span version, but with a 1000mm wing, simple carbon spar added, balsa control surfaces. A small brushless motor, powered from a 12A ESC and a 800mAh 2S will keep one of these aloft for in excess of 30 minutes PLUS, with power to climb out quickly near vertically (kids are not patient!), stooge around in training mode for ages on next to no throttle, and yet still loop from level flight and fly inverted at the end of it. My record is 43 minutes flying on one 800mAh LiPo, ending with three consecutive loops from level flight.

Later on, one of these modified for shoulder or low no dihedral tipped wing and ailerons with a slightly bigger motor and a 1000mAh 3S will fly the full gamut, again for ages. Banded on wide wire undercarriage does the ROG function.

Turn up, turn on, long duration training. VERY cheap, too. And with no fuss clean electric power, who'd have thought it!!

Incidentally, Some of the kids have made their own versions as bungee launched gliders. They are so safe, light and tough that they quickly are able to fly without constant 1:1 supervision.

[bouncebounce crunch]

I haven't seen or read the editorial yet but I reckon the parkzone radian would make an ideal trainer not expensive not fast can loop,fly inverted if you like, power on it moves along quick enough for a novice, slow and big enough to really get to grips with orientation. So i don't know the context in which he has mentioned EP as no good as a trainer, but my opinion is different.

[Greybeard]

Dave, you have misquoted him, he did not write that electric is no good, he stated that for his purposes he was happier to use an I.C. powered trainer.

Having read the article again (and as one who has used both power types) I can confirm that I agree with his conclusion.

[Dave Bran]

Posted by Greybeard on 26/10/2012 08:02:07:

Dave, you have misquoted him, he did not write that electric is no good, he stated that for his purposes he was happier to use an I.C. powered trainer.

Having read the article again (and as one who has used both power types) I can confirm that I agree with his conclusion.

And you have misread my post, As I did not say he was indicating that EP was "no good"!!!

[bouncebounce crunch]

Sorry Dave it was me that mentioned "no good" instead of not practical. but i stand by the idea of said motor glider as a good trainer.

[Dave Bran]

Posted by bouncebouncecrunch on 26/10/2012 08:44:11:

i stand by the idea of said motor glider as a good trainer.

In principle I agree, though ROG might be an issue without some thought . The prime tasks for an Instructor are to instil confidence by getting beyond the pupils orientation and spacial awareness issues as fast as possible. There are many ways to skin a cat but counting out EP on the grounds of alleged poor flight duration and lack of wind ability is incorrect. OK, its a personal opinion, but stated as it is in an Editorial, it carries inherent added weight that isn't fully justified in this case. And no, I'm not an EP "nutjob", I have glow and petrol as well, plenty of it, fixed and rotary wing..

BTW, I have been running the school club for over five years now. It is a 1600 pupil boys school. That is a LOT of hands on, so I do speak from experience!!

Sadly we are currently grounded as the playing fields were taken for a new build. (something about improving education possibilities, misdirected if you ask me.....a tarmac runway is far more important....... (JOKE). The old school is now well on the way to being demolished to regain playing fields, whereupon the adjacent and usually otherwise unused at that time of day sports club area we fly from will return to being accessible.

[bouncebounce crunch]

Sorry to read this Dave, if the school yard Rc flying space is being reclaimed, I have two words for you -Control Line.

The lads can learn building and finishing skills, aerodynamics and flight characteristics, not to mention the myriad of other subjects (math, science, electronics and technology, meteorology) that can accompany and complement the learning process. I am sure whatever you have taught them about this hobby it will be in their fondest memories of school life. They will get bitten by the rc bug in retirement and they don't even know it. hahaha ha.

good luck.

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Hi Dave
I tend to agree with your opening post. I read the editorial and actually wondered if it was written to provoke discussion?

There are so many ways to skin the training cat these days that I see the conclusion as just a little blinkered. But hey ho, more and more of us know that electrics aren't confined to just the off the shelf electric offerings of the mainstream manufacturers, and that training doesn't necessarily have to be done with a heavy (to cope with the vibration) I/C style old fashioned trainer.

There are plenty of fast charge batteries available too these days, so take a trolley with a reasonable sized lead acid and a couple of chargers and you're only taking a field kit which is similar in size and weight to all the I/C paraphernalia.

What I actually think we're seeing these days is a chink in the confidence of the I/C die-hards

What the majority of us have realised however, is that the power source really doesn't matter, we've moved on now from the old divisive chestnut and either run both regularly or just get on alongside each other absolutely fine.

OK more importantly, these models of yours sound very interesting. Can you give us some more details?

[Ian Jones]

Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 27/10/2012 10:52:31:

<snip>

What I actually think we're seeing these days is a chink in the confidence of the I/C die-hards

What the majority of us have realised however, is that the power source really doesn't matter, we've moved on now from the old divisive chestnut and either run both regularly or just get on alongside each other absolutely fine.

<snip>

There are just as many electric die-hards too and now that there are more electric powered models than ever before the chinks in the confidence that electric is the answer to everything are becoming more apparent here too. There are plenty of examples in this forum that electric flight is not hassle free nor is it without it's own problems; the editorial simply comments on one of them.

I think what is really happening is that the realisation that all power systems have their advantages & disadvantages (including rubber band, Co2 and no power i.e. gliders) and I agree that standing on one side of the fence throwing stones is really not a very practical or realistic stance to take.

So far as I'm concerned a more balanced view is that it's a case of using the appropriate power source for the intended purpose and there is no one type that suits all.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I wholly agree with Chris on this. As someone who was until relatively recently a dyed-in-the-wool IC man my mind was changed by watching someone fly an 80"plus Extra on electric - he had power in abundance and decent duration. At that point I decided it was time to take a close look at this electric stuff!

Now, as Chris says I fly both side-by-side. Enjoying both. I suppose I'm lucky in being in a club were there never has been a "divide" - we've always got on with it and what you want to fly is up to you and most people do fly both power sources - not at the same time!

I think electric trainers are perfectly practical now - 3 batteries and you can fly all day - there's always someone that will give you charge if you don't have a leisure battery yet. Economically it adds up as well - no batteries are not cheap - but then neither is glow fuel! And a set of 3s 2200's will last well into your second and subsequent models.

BEB

[Andy Symons]

I haven't read the editorial but thought I would comment from my own experiences both from my learning experiences ages ago and many many hours instructing others.

Personally I think you never stop learning to fly so perhaps before discussing whats best for learning to fly it's best to define what your end goal is going to be, be it comfortably stooging around the sky or perhaps getting to A cert and beyond. I learnt to fly in the club situation and most of the instructing I have done was in club situations. Over the years I have also introduced structured training programs and training days/evenings at a couple of clubs. So im going to be considering the scenario of getting to "BMFA Fixed Wing power A cert and beyond".

Every learner is different so by neccessity I'm going to have to be fairly general in what I say.

Before even getting to power source choice you need to consider a model suitable for the task in hand, so as we're looking for something that will get us to A cert and beyond, as a minimum, it needs an undercarriage and to weigh more than 1kg. Ideally it needs to handle on the ground reasonably easily and taxi and track reasonably straight on the ground. In the air it needs to be responsive enough to respond to stick inputs in a reasonable time but be reasonably stable too. It's helpful if its capable of handling a bit of a breeze too.

So I would recommend, bearing in mind the stated aim of A cert and beyond, your fairly standard 56" ish span high wing aeileron trainer with a trike undercarriage, nosewheel fixed or with only very small movement.

As for RC gear, 2.4Ghz, any manufacturer if you have 2 tx's and a buddy lead, or whatever manufacturer your instructors have got.

So we can now consider power source, well it doesnt matter, it needs 2 qualities though, be reliable and easily refuelled in a reasonably short period of time.

Stick time is what is important, and reasonably regular stick time too, I would suggest if a learner wants to progress reasonably quickly to "A cert and beyond" training sessions where you could get say 6 x 10 minute flights in say a 2 hour period would be just about perfect.

Electric power and only 1 or 2 flight packs isn't good enough, neither is an unreliable IC engine.

Electric power and 4 - 6 packs, or a reliable IC engine is the way to go. Fly land, flight debrief, few minutes rest, refuel and repeat!! 6 x 10 minute flights once or twice a week and in general the learner will be at "A cert and beyond" level reasonably quickly.

When instructing over the last few years the learners, in general, that have progressed the best have been those flying models as above, usually but not exclusively IC power. So at the moment I would still recommend a standard trainer, IC powered.

Please note these are my personal thoughts and should not be considered the official position of any body or association!!

[Ian Jones]

Posted by Andy Symons on 27/10/2012 13:44:45:
<Snip>

Please note these are my personal thoughts and should not be considered the official position of any body or association!!

I too am an instructor and recognise the situations you have elluded to, so I tend to agree with your conclusions.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I too instruct. Andy you're spot on. For A cert standard the 40 trainer with a trike undercarraige is probably unbeatable, and in a club field situation, for a learner, stick time is the key.

This is why I cited 3 batteries - using the fast charge facility of most charger these days that's: one in the air, one on charge and one ready to go. You can fly all day.

The only two problems I have with electric power and learners are these:

1. I think they have a higher tendancy to turn up with something unsuitable from a model perspective - often a very small foamie which frankly is little more than a toy. I'm not saying they all do that - but it is more common. If the day is dead still you can give them a couple of flights - on any other day they are grounded.
2. They often turn up woefully under-suplied on the battery/charger front - often with one single charged battery. If people are going to learn to A standard using electric power then they have to understand exactly the point you make above - and they must be prepared to layout the cash on the essentail 3 batteries. As I said, yes its expensive - initially. But I usually advise that in the long run it seems to work out about the same cost as fuel - its just that with batteries you are buying all your fuel "up front" as it were!

But, in my opinion, provided they take those two points on board it is a perfectly practical proposition to learn to A standard just as quickly and competantly using electric as it is using IC power.

One point I do feel though is this. I think there are more "issues" around using IC. I believe it takes more knowledge and skill to get an IC model performing well compared to electric - this is based on a reasonable experience of uisng both sources of power. So I sometimes think there is an argument for learning all these IC skills at the outset.

In short, I believe its a lot easier for an established ic'er to convert to electric power than it is the other way around. We recently had the experience of a youngster who learnt entirely on an electric trainer, next thing he turned up with was a petrol engined MX2! Now, leaving aside the wisdom of the airframe choice, he had a lot of problems and so far to my knowledge still hasn't had a trouble-free flight with this model - he's getting plenty of practice at deadstick landings though.

BEB

[Concorde Speedbird]

I thought it was completely fair, but I don't see the point in debating when we could be building or flying, now it's cold the air is more dense, so we have more lift, more thrust and more drag for easier (from my experiences) landings! Don't just stand there, get one up!

CS

PS Lipos aren't so good in colder weather, sorry leccy guys! Unless you heat them before flight of course, no excuses!

[Concorde Speedbird]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 27/10/2012 14:32:37:

One point I do feel though is this. I think there are more "issues" around using IC. I believe it takes more knowledge and skill to get an IC model performing well compared to electric - this is based on a reasonable experience of uisng both sources of power. So I sometimes think there is an argument for learning all these IC skills at the outset.

In short, I believe its a lot easier for an established ic'er to convert to electric power than it is the other way around. We recently had the experience of a youngster who learnt entirely on an electric trainer, next thing he turned up with was a petrol engined MX2! Now, leaving aside the wisdom of the airframe choice, he had a lot of problems and so far to my knowledge still hasn't had a trouble-free flight with this model - he's getting plenty of practice at deadstick landings though.

BEB

Ok, a little debating, I personally do not think that is true at all. Seeing all the watts and amps and P=IV (Power=Current x Voltage-Physics lessons!) etc etc to get the right motors, ESCs, props etc for electric, it is like the enigma code.

But ignoring that and going on to operating the power sources, similar to learning to fly in the first place, it is all about the right equipment. If you get a cheap Chinese copy it could be much harder, as with multi cylinder engines, big petrols (arguably) and also (arguably), four strokes. Get a, lets say, OS 25AX or 46AX (something along those lines) and progress with something like that, then it will be reliable and not too difficult to learn the basics, and then you can progress, much like getting a basic trainer airframe and progressing.

And for us, operating electric has not been the reliability that I have seen people claim. We had an electric plane fall out of the sky (happily not too high so it was survived to fly) and it was not radio signal problem. We have had a battery very nearly fall out the plane, connection problems between the battery and ESC, sometimes a motor has not worked at all meaning no flights. We have had just as many "issues" with electric as IC, and we take the greatest care setting everything up properly.

That is just from my experience, there are many advantages with electric flight and we have utilised these. But if you take in everything, then both power sources come out pretty equal. To be honest, I think to get the most out of the hobby then you have to use both, like you and I do.

Right, no more debating, more flying and sanding!

CS

[Alwyn Gee]

As a totally electric flyer of approx. 4 years now and often not slow to have a jibe at some of the IC boys both at club level and on this forum, all totally tongue in cheek I might add, I would agree to some extent with BEB but would say that it is probably mostly not their fault. There are many more outlets to obtain these unsuitable models that are not in a position to offer any advice even if they wanted to but are only interested in selling "toys". Even some proper model shops are slow to point newcomers in the right direction rather than make an instant sale.

I was fortunate to find this forum and do a lot of reading before making my decisions but despite this my first purchase was not perfect. The Foamy E-Flight Apprentice was a great trainer for anything upto a 10mph wind but more than that and I started to lose stick time. I then purchaed the Seagull E-Pioneer which is a blasa 40 sized trainer and well able to cope with anything an equivelent IC could handle. BEB makes the point that you have to have a supply of batteries to keep flying all day and that these are expensive but there are savings to be made in the cost of electric motors compared to equivelent IC engine so the difference in costs of initial set-up are not that great as might be thought. Another consideration is that batteries are getting cheaper whilst IC fuel is becomming more expensive.

As others have said it's all down to choice and circumstances, I've spent my working life around IC engines both in airborn and landbased vehicles and had I had the blessing of a garage or other secure outdoor storage facility when I started this hobby I would like as not be flying IC now. As it is I have no regrets, except when those infernal noisy things are running up and I can't hear the sweet pure of my electric motor.

[Wasaforumite]

The good old twinstar takes some beating as something to learn on.Can do most tricks even ROG with brushless power and is almost infinitely repairable. Its good for spot landing, toffee bombing and timed glide competitions too!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

CSB - I'm not flying cos its blowing a gale here! All right for some!

In the spirit of the debate - the stuff about power train slection is a red herring in this context I feel. No beginner flying a trainer is going to have to spec their own power train - it will all be spec'ed for them. Just the same as they don't have to decide what size IC engine to put in their IC trainer - they are told what to use. So I don't think that's a factor in the decisions.

Regarding reliability I think you are very rare in having serious reliability problems with electric CSB - in my own experience, and that of the vast majority I have heard from - electric is inherently far more reliable. And I say that as a "flag carrier" for neither side - as I say I like both - but for sheer reliability I'd give it to electric every time. And that too is a major plus for electric for beginners I feel - the virtual gaurentee of a flight is even more important for them. The other weekend there were only a relatively small number of us down at the field - I happened to have three electric models with me - just the way it worked out, what I happened to feel like flying. I watched as every single IC flier had problems, two or three never managed a flight all day. One had repeated dead sticks etc. I had 8 trotally trouble free flights. As i say, I'm no "electric champion" but it does make you think.

I love my IC engines and will always fly them - but I'm also savy enough to know which side my bread is buttered on and see the advantages of other routes as well!

BEB

[Concorde Speedbird]

Interesting. My Funfly with an MDS 38 is now perfectly reliable, more reliable than the electric planes alongside that we fly and the flights are longer. I have found that if you use IC engines more frequently, then they will run perfectly every time (although our old Saito 45 will run any time, it is AMAZING!).

Engine problems is something we have only come across when engines are not used frequently, the MDS was running badly initially after a long break but then after an hour or 2 in the air and some changes in setup (Funfly has a limited fuel tank space which caused the tank to be too low, we had to put a new one in) and now it is wonderful, and also nice and quiet. What will be a good test is when I get my Domino up, with the basically new, unflown Saito 62a and I an set it up the best I can in that and I am 99% sure that will run brilliantly as well once it is settled in.

It took me 8 flights to get an hour in the air on a Foam-E Wot 4 doing aerobatics, in 4 sessions. I did that amount in 4 flights with the Funfly, in one session, same flying style, and I find it a lot more satisfying. But then again the convenience of the Foam-E Wot is very handy, but once again the Domino comes in, that will also fit in the car one piece and I will use that as my convenient plane, and that Saito is very quiet (really, it is!) so I will see how that compares as a convenient 'hack' (I put that in inverted commas because I look after all my planes equally, until they are hurtling to the ground!).

But in the context, I think it is great for learners to get their hands on an IC trainer, even if just flying a club one or someone elses. If people learn to expect perfect reliability, then when there is a problem (which do happen) they will not know what to do. I am not saying that having worse reliability is better, but knowing that something could happen when flying either power source and knowing what to do in the event is a great asset to have as a pilot, and can save models in the future.

I like electric, particularly for making jets more accessible for the wider market with EDF (and thinking ahead to RC Concorde project!) but nothing will beat flying a plane with a four stroke, the satisfaction is immense for me. But once again, I think to make the most of the hobby flying both works best, since you get benefits from both. I would urge electric flyers to try out a four stroke, and give IC flyers a go with electric (which I have done with my Grandad- but he still prefers IC!).

CS

[bouncebounce crunch]

Check this out Dave

oh well it didn't work so back to the drawing board. It was supposed to show the standard radian with a parachute drop but the owner has added landing gear as well.  on youtube the uploader is LakatosFilms and is called parachute drop from radian 1-31-12.

Edited By bouncebouncecrunch on 31/10/2012 09:41:37

Edited By bouncebouncecrunch on 31/10/2012 09:49:07

[Lee Smalley]

funny that beb, last weekend i was out all day flying my jet, burning a lot of kero, and my mate col was flying the pants of his saito powered acro wot, the other lot were in the caravan charging most of the time, only to make the odd apearence for a flight or two, i teach a few pupils on both powersets, and i have to say i prefer the pupil to have IC, as long as it is a good motor, irvine or OS when set up they fire every time and run faultlessly, my bug bear with electric is as the power drops off the pupil has to continually increase the throttle throughout the flight to sustain height, no biggie for me but for a newbie concentrating hard to keep the damn thing level, it can be too much, also as the power from the battery drops totally the lack of noise can be hard to detect and more than once the model has been caught a long way downwind with no power at all, and flight times are a bit poo at the minute compare to the other learners using ic, and the pupil has had to buy four packs to keep up with the flights i demand he does. either power source is suitable, i just prefer ic for my pupils...but hey!! whatever!!

[Tim Hooper]

Horses for courses.

I've taught several people to fly on both ic and electric models, and there's pros and cons for both.

However the main bugbear for me was to be presented with lightweight electric model, fitted with a weeny 3S 2200 pack, which resulted in a duration of 5 or 6 minutes at best. Not good.

Far better is an electric '.40 sized' trainer (Kyosho Calmato in this instance) which takes a hefty 3S 4500 pack, giving a duration well in excess of 10 minutes. Three packs, each field-charged as we go along, keeps us flying pretty much continually (alllowing for chats and coffee of course!)

tim

[Lee Smalley]

chats and coffee !!!!! i wish!!!!!!! with 2 pupils and my own aircraft to fly that means 6 flights an hour............i dont get time to chat and coffee, thankfully some nice people brew up for me and bring the brew to the flight line while i am instructing and another kind soul refuels my jet !! lol

[FunnyFlyer]

Yup - I use a brushless Twin Star with a 3S 5000 pack that gives over 20 minutes of typical training performance flight.

I find this is more than enough for most beginners - their nerves/concentration is normally shot after 10 mins or so.

[Lee Smalley]

there is only so much a twinstar, can learn someone though eventually a proper trainer will be required, electric trainers are absolutely fine, but my preference for teaching on is the standard ic 40 powered trainer, that is all the editor was saying, that is just is personal point of view and i applaud him for saying it !

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 01/11/2012 13:55:38