How easy is 'easy to fly'?

[The Wright Stuff]

Hi all,

I appreciate that this is a rather arbitrary question that perhaps won’t appeal to all, but I am interested in how we can quantify ‘easy to fly’ when comparing models. I guess this would be useful both for beginner/intermediate fliers when choosing ‘their next model up the learning ladder’, but also perhaps useful for reviewers when assessing new products. There is a lot of debate and questions on this forum and on others about whether a particular model is ‘easy to fly’ or whether model A or B is more appropriate, as a second, third model etc.

The problem is it’s all so subjective: an easy to fly model for an expert might be a handful for a beginner, and some people might prefer different styles, and stability versus responsiveness. Some might be more difficult because they are faster, some might be more difficult because they are less stable, and some might be more difficult because they are harder to see the orientation, but there ought to be a way of encapsulating a fair description of the models’ behaviour on a single numerical scale. I guess there are several factors we could potentially feed into an overall calculation: wing loading being an obvious important one. Stall speed in level flight perhaps another.

I guess my stimulus for this question is witnessing model shop employees selling rather advanced models to relative beginners on the promise of “it’s very easy to fly”. Or my favourite, the rather disparaging: “of course it’s easy, it’s a foamie!” Has anyone else thought about this, or is it just me?

[Masher]

Interesting question which I won't attempt to answer because I also don't know how long is a piece of string!

What I would say is that, in my experience, just TOTALLY ignore the sales guff presented by MS employees. I'm sure there are some genuine ones out there who explain the difficulties but I haven't come across them.

[Plummet]

Interesting. I am glad you mentioned the stability/responsiveness question. I personally found it hard to learn on a very stable rudder/elevator model. As you were learning the correct control stick movements for different orientations the slow response of the model did not tell me that I had done the right thing. I found a more responsive model - other club members called it a bit of a handful - a Prangster, was much easier to learn on.

Plummet

[john melia 1]

Anything that has a degree of self stability built in , light , and can be floated in for a landing rather than having to be kept under power , no aggressive tip stall tendencies would also make it easy or easier to fly , I only say this because my spacewalker has all the above and is a very easy aircraft to fly , whereas the small bipe I have is pretty aggressive when it come to landing , and tip stalling , my jodel d120 also needs to be handled with care on landing .

[IanR]

A very good idea if it can be realised. I would add "cability in windy conditions" - though, again, how to quantify?

[Josip Vrandecic -Mes]

Dear TWS ,in your post I found all the answers, including the witty and brilliant:'' It's foamie'' ...
But for me, it's like this: For beginners to use and always just high wings trainer (either i.c. or leccy, and of any kind of material) ... And everything else is difficult and takes time to exercise.
There is a misconception in the'' new'' world of modeling and flying... and that is that today more easily and quickly learns to fly (simulators and a large variety of models in stores) ... but I would argue that only the man has not changed and remained the same ... slow in adopting them were new sustema and learning ... I personally do not believe in evolution of human race, because that is so, then all at once successfully landed Spitfire .... With all respect ,
Jo

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 24/04/2014 12:00:39

[Ernie]

Hi, I reckon that there are just too many variables to give an accurate answer!

For example, most of us would agree that a largish high wing trainer is easiest to fly, though some would argue that a slow flying electric glider is even easier. And to add to the confusion, a hot funfly with reduced throws, and a forwardish balance point, is also not too difficult

Add to that mix, build quality, weather conditions, etc. then, it's all just too difficult to quantify

ernie

[Braddock, VC]

The only way you are going to sort this is to ask one of the professional instructors.

Before I joined a club I was looking at getting a paid instructor, he quoted me 10 hours to get to solo with his high wing 4 function plane, I asked if I could bring my own model and he said yes. On learning it was a junior 60 he said he'd get me to solo in an afternoon.

I don't think he was far wrong and, when I eventually got the hang of flying my J60 I must have spent about three hours on the sticks.

The transition to aileron equipped models took about another 3 hours cumulative stick time.

So a junior 60 is easy so is a thunder tiger trainer, just takes more getting used to but the lessons learned with the rudder on the left hand stick on the J60 were invaluable.

[IanR]

Ernie, you appear to be suggesting that the largish high wing trainer, the slow flying electric glider and the hot funfly with reduced throws would all belong in different categories. I wonder if, in fact, they might all belong in the same category. In other words they could all be as easy/difficult to fly as each other.

Most reviewers and/or manufacturers often state whether a model is suitable for novice, intermediate or advanced fliers but a bit more information might make it easier to determine if a model will be suitable for you, or not. I think that this is where TWS's thoughts might be valuable.

Ian

[The Wright Stuff]

Thanks Ian,

I think the key here is "intermediate". A 'beginner' is fairly easy to define, and recommend appropriate first planes. Similarly, in my view, an 'expert' is someone who can pretty much fly anything within reason. But 'intermediate' spans such a large range that a better breakdown would be really useful. I find 'suitable for intermediate pilots' to be among the most unhelpful phrases there are.

While advancing too quickly can result in many broken models, I find I have the opposite problem: I'm far too cautious with my purchases, and consequently, find that each successive plane isn't enough of an extra challenge, which arguably limits my learning rate. But it also works the other way: knowing how easy or difficult a plane is to fly helps me assess my own ability. Do I manage a textbook flight because I am skilled, or merely because it's an easy plane to fly?

[Ernie]

Hi, What I'm trying to say is that all the above could be seen as trainers, but also, they could be something else, so it's too complicated to try to quantify

ernie

[Andy48]

Posted by Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 24/04/2014 11:32:11:

... but I would argue that only the man has not changed and remained the same ... slow in adopting them were new sustema and learning ... I personally do not believe in evolution of racehuman, because that is so, then all at once successfully landed Spitfire .... With all respect ,
Jo

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 24/04/2014 12:00:39

Actually Josip you are incorrect. Intelligence is increasing across the western world. It's known as the Flynn effect. Add to that/coupled with that today's environment for a young child is far more stimulating. You ought to see the way my 15 month old grandson is able to control an iPad. His finger control is very precise, and he is developing just those hand/eye co-ordination skills necessary for some aspects of model flying. The human race continues to evolve both physically and mentally.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Depending on the individual and the weather there's loads of answers.

Stable and forgiving are just 2 of them

Foamies have brought lots of folk into the hobby, what's to disparage ?

Lots of them are easier to fly, is that a bad thing ?

Have I knocked them in the past ? Yes, and there are dozens at our club, paying £50 club fees and enjoying themselves.

Lesson learnt

[The Wright Stuff]

Cheers for the input, John. Certainly nothing wrong with foamies, I've got a couple. Was just pointing out that the logic "it's a foamie, therefore it's easy to fly" is flawed, since not all foamies are easy to fly.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 24/04/2014 15:06:47:

Cheers for the input, John. Certainly nothing wrong with foamies, I've got a couple. Was just pointing out that the logic "it's a foamie, therefore it's easy to fly" is flawed, since not all foamies are easy to fly.

Not aimed at you mate, just a confession and a vote in favour of them

[IanR]

Martin, without wishing to thread hi-jack, I'm not so sure about your 15 month old grandson with an iPad thing. I learnt hand to eye co-ordination playing with wooden building bricks, jig-saws, toy soldiers and that kind of thing. If anything, I would suggest reducing your grandsons iPad time and getting him to play with more "old fashioned" type of educational toys. I think one of the worst things about iPads, computers and televisions, for kiddies, that is, is that they might stifle their imaginations. I think that there's plenty enough stimulation for kids without these things. Just a thought.

I know nowt about the Flynn effect but would guess that, if western intelligence is on the increase then this is probably simply due to the fact that we're all eating better, and more, and getting bigger. And also getting bigger is our head size. Bigger bonce - bigger brain.   As you say, we're evolving.

Ian (with a desktop, a laptop, 2 x iPads and a telly with 500 channels)

Edited By IanR on 24/04/2014 16:47:39

[ken anderson.]

over the years I've seen a few model's/kit's that should have been advertised as impossible to fly..never mind easy to fly! ...

ken Anderson..... ne..1 ...... quality control dept.

[Shane Sunday]

Its a good question. The problem is we all want to fly the coolest jet or warbird from the onset. Most new RC'ers these days (including myself) dont listen to the old timers as much as we should. I should have learnt on a high wing trainer by a qualified teacher with a buddy box until I was able to fly on my own. I know it's not the answer to your question but it's a huge part of the equation isn't it? So if youre an absolute beginner how hard is said model to fly?

Perhaps companies could should get beginners to fly their models before rating them.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I agree with the comment that its very difficult to make these characterisations - and the material the model is made of certainly isn't a basis you are dead right TWS - I have a couple of foamies very few beginners could cope with!

I suppose there are models at either end of the spectrum you could identify. At the "easy" end; a classical trainer or the type typified by the EasyStar and the Bixler etc. At the harder end; anything with marginal stability, a shortish tail (or small tailplane) and a heavy wingloading - examples would include aerobatic bipes and many warplanes.

What to look for? Well as a general rule of thumb models that are likely to be easier to fly tend to have some (or all!) of the following characteristics:

1. Low wing loading

2. At least some dihedral

3. A pretty well constant chord wing

4. A long-ish tail - i.e. distance between the wings and the tailplane

5. A larger tail-plane area

6. Flat bottomed (or least asymmetrical) wing section

7 A high wing

8. Tricycle undercarriage.

9. A widely spaced main U/C - ie a large track.

The more of these features a model has the easier it tends to be to fly. The fewer of them it has the harder it tends to be! But it can only really be a guide - there will always be exceptions.

As a final point - the answer to this question also depends on what you mean by "easier to fly". The guidelines above will produce models that vary between very stable (to the degree that they would almost fly themselves!) and quite stable.

However if you look at where the classical aerobat (say an Sbach) fits on that scale - low wing loading, no dihedral, tapered wing, the length and size of the tail is "short to medium", symmetrical wing section, mid-wing, tail-dragger. So its not exactly ticking all the boxes is it?

So is it hard to fly? Well in one sense, yes. It has very little stability - it most definitely will not fly itself! But on the plus side - it does go exactly where you point it - and stay there! So as long as you point it in the right direction its very well behaved.

Some, even quite inexperienced, fliers really take to this. Its a bit like Plummet was saying above. They find that the "self correcting" "very stable" model is confusing - they seem to be almost fighting with it to make it turn! But they take to the aerobat really easily - because it so neutral in its handling. Beginners that find this tend to be younger I've found.

Now I am most definitely not suggesting that all beginners should start learning on an Sbach or an Extra. But I am saying that (with a buddy box and the rates toned down) it does suit some newer pilots. And I am illustrating that the question "is it easy to fly?" is much harder to answer than you might believe!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 24/04/2014 17:26:53

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by ken anderson. on 24/04/2014 16:58:21:

over the years I've seen a few model's/kit's that should have been advertised as impossible to fly..never mind easy to fly! ...

ken Anderson..... ne..1 ...... quality control dept.

yeap - I've owned one or two of them as well!

BEB

[Dave Bran]

Posted by Shane Sunday on 24/04/2014 17:03:36:

Perhaps companies could should get beginners to fly their models before rating them.

Perhaps quite a few companies should get someone................anyone............to fly it first.............................

[Josip Vrandecic -Mes]

''Actually Josip you are incorrect. Intelligence is increasing across the western world. It's known as the Flynn effect. Add to that/coupled with that today's environment for a young child is far more stimulating. You ought to see the way my 15 month old grandson is able to control an iPad. His finger control is very precise, and he is developing just those hand/eye co-ordination skills necessary for some aspects of model flying. The human race continues to evolve both physically and mentally. ' ' Martin Phillips.

@Hi Martin ,With all respect.....should not replace thesis on the human race evolution and present the technical merits of our granddaughter....and there is not only the Western world.....but that's just my humble opinion..

Regards

Jo

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 24/04/2014 19:13:40

[The Wright Stuff]

To get back to the original question, thanks BEB for your detailed input as always. I guess there will always be deviations from the expectation based on your criteria. Some will be harder to fly than might be expected. Some may be easier. The PZ Spit ought to be quite a difficult beast looking at your list, but in fact, it's quite docile (although clearly not for a complete beginner). What would be great, then, is a skill level rating that could be attributed to individual models. When you are happy flying a '4', you can progress to a '5' or '6'.

I'm unsure of the etiquette of links to rival forums, but there is an attempt to do exactly what I've described here.

As you can see, the discussion gets quite messy in a forum post sequence, so there's probably a much better way of doing it. It doesn't really work as a poll. Any suggestions? Is this even a useful concept to anyone but me?

Cheers!

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 25/04/2014 15:20:30

[IanR]

Useful to me, mate. I would have thought it was useful to all but the most advanced fliers who feel they can fly anything vaguely resembling a model aeroplane. The rest of us might feel grateful for a pointer towards the next step up the ladder or finding out if a fancied model is within their capabilities.

Ian

[Jerry Zito]

I am between a beginner and intermediate pilot. It seems to me that one way of describing an airplane that is easy to fly, is the amount of help it gives you. I have a Katana that does exactly what you tell it to do, and it assist you in doing it. Some planes like war birds will not help you and seem to want to commit suicide. I think the best way to determine if a plane is easy to fly, is by word of mouth like on this forum. For example, the Apprentice (not SAFE Technology) seems to love to fly. Now that I'm on the subject, I thought the Apprentice (With SAFE technology) was easy to fly, and it was. But I soon discovered that the SAFE aspect was causing me to bang the sticks around to get it to turn. So I removed the SAFE receiver, and put in a standard one. Anyway, you probably won't know if it's easy to fly until you have purchased it. So I could be wrong, but I have purchased my planes from word of mouth from my fellow club members, and peoiple on this great forum.