Trainer comparison question (sorry)

[soulinvader]

Hi,

I'm about to fork out what is for me a large sum of money, and want to get this right. I've narrowed my search down to 2 IC trainers.

The Seagull Arising Star

The Irvine Tutor ii

Now, I'm sure this is an annoying question and the kind that crops up all too often. But if anyone knows the build quality, available parts, steady flight characteristics. I would surly appreciate advice on the favourable one to purchase

Many thanks!

Edited By soulinvader on 25/06/2013 22:20:04

[Masher]

Hi soulinvader

You should get loads of answers on this and although I haven't flown either of these models, I would bet that either of them will be fine since they are tried and tested trainers.

But.............

I would say any trainer is incomplete without an instructor to go with it! We were discussing this on the field today and once you have learnt the basics of flying, many planes would suit being called a trainer but for the absolute beginner, no plane is easy to fly (in my opinion). So best advice would be to join a club or get an experienced flyer to help you themn he/she will also advise on best plane to suit your ability/aspirations/flying site

[Ian Jones]

Well I'm pleased you've got it down to two before asking, a more open question would have left you no better off - just a long list of trainers to choose from.

The main difference between the two is the wing section.

The Arising Star wing is flat underneath giving a lot of lift and a lot of float. Glides forever & descends gently when landing. Absolute basic trainer and a good one. 40 size engine is ample. Made by Seagull and has been around for years - a tried and tested success. Visibility is very good.

The Tutor 2 has a Semi symetrical wing section - it's curved underneath but not as much as on top. It also has slightly tapered wings. This model is an excellent performer and can easily take you right through your B test if you want. It's a good trainer that you don't have to fight so much to get some aerobatic performance out of it too. performs well on a 40 size engine and very well with a 46. Another renowned trainer recently updated and still every bit as good as it always has been, yes another tried and tested successful trainer.

Rather than try to tell you which which is best and start a long thread debating opions as far as apart as the sun & the moon I'll leave it at that.

Hope that helps, Ian

Ah, crossed posted with Masher, as an instructor myself I would second his comments.

Edited By Ian Jones on 25/06/2013 22:58:20

[moorer]

Both of these Trainers are fine to learn with,they both fly well and are easy to handle (with practice of course!) but as Masher says,join a local club (if you havent already of course) and get the help of an instructor. ,hope this helps.

[Bearair]

As you will be flying at Portreath which is quite a windy site, I think you might find the semi symetrical section better penitrating in a wind.

Edited By Bearair on 26/06/2013 09:29:46

[Greybeard]

I can't answer your questions but must advocate you joining a club and getting flying training, it will save you a lot of money. So find a local club and take their advice; they may even have a trainer which you can use for your first flights.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

In the course of instructing duties I've flown both of these. I think Ian's summary is very fair and accurate. The differences between them - especially for a learner on a buddy lead - are very very small. They are both very good well established sucessful trainers.

If you have an instructor and buddy lead and you would decribe yourself as at least averagly confident (ie not actually terrified of it!) I think the Irvine has the edge. Its a little bit less stable and floaty - but with instructor back up you'll be fine with that. But what it does offer is a wider performance envelope - its a model you can grow with. In the hands of a good pilot the Irvine can be quite impressively aerobatic - for a what is basically a trainer.

If however you are the nervous type then the Arising Star is a more "sedate" sort of trainer. Very stable and very floaty. It will make you feel better at the very begining of your learning to fly. But the slight downside is that that very stability can become a slight limiting factor has your skills progress.

Now Ok - rolls and loops may seem a long way off right now - but you'd be surprised. If your instructor is worth his salt he'll start introducing you to very simple aerobatics as soon as he thinks your confidence and general control are up for it. Aerobatics are good training because they get you used to dealing with the model in unusual orientations and positions.

So - to sum up. If you want a "safe bet", if a little bit limited on growing room - go for the Arising Star. Great trainer lots of folks have sucessfully learnt on it.

If you have an instructor who can keep you out of trouble for the first half dozen flights and fancy something with a bit more "potential" - go for the Irvine Tutor.

One last word - whichever you buy you'll enjoy. This is a decision you can't really get "wrong"!

BEB

[Andrew McKelvey]

Rather than comment upon which is best I thought I would comment on the build quality of my Irvine Tutor II which I have been relearning with since April, I have returned to flying after a 23 year lay off. Fairly early into my learning and I was landing again, in a fashion and more an arrival, combined with a very stiff nose leg and not so much glue on the F1 bulkhead I broke it in two pieces. The steerable nose leg bracket came away with the bulkhead.Judicious epoxying triangular stock reinforcement and an slightly less stiff non steerable nose leg has seen me through to recent weeks when I have gone back to how the plane was supplied, my landings have improved. There is considerable hanger rash I probably have had 30 flights or more now, the covering does seem a tad fragile but over all a very robust trainer and does what it says on the tin. It still looks fairly good and flies very well and I have been off the buddy lead for weeks now and haven't yet put it in. You can buy component parts but they add up to more than the original kit so if I total it I will spend £63 and buy a new one and in the knowledge that it went together without any hassle in a week of evenings. I reckon at a push I could have one sorted in a weekend. I fly mine on an Irvine 40 and it has never seemed under powered. ps this is my first post here, how do you get a carrage return in the text???

[soulinvader]

Huge thanks,

I have ordered a irvine tutor 2 and am awaiting delivery.

best wishes

[Ian Jones]

Posted by soulinvader on 08/07/2013 20:24:17:

Huge thanks,

I have ordered a irvine tutor 2 and am awaiting delivery.

best wishes

I'm sure you will be glad you did.

What I didn't mention is that I learned on the original Tutor 40 which I last flew about a month ago - that would be roughly on the tenth anniversary of it's maiden flight. The engine finally gave up this year but the airframe is still sound though and I may well recover it later this year. It's difficult to be sure how many hours I've had it in flight but think in 100s !