Basic trainers

[Peter Christy]

A few recent things have set me thinking about the total absence of models that I would classify as “basic trainers” on the market. The thread about “Aerobatic Loops” and the ensuing discussion has made me realise that many of the models currently sold as “basic trainers”, would actually have been considered as lively aerobatic jobs not too many years ago!

About four years ago, just before I retired to sunny (ha!) Devon, I was flying up at my (then) local club, when an elderly member arrived and assembled his “basic trainer”. It certainly looked the part – high wing, a bit of dihedral and a modest engine for its size – but he was clearly having difficulty flying it, and after a short period I had to grab the transmitter off him to save the model!

It was at that point that I realised that this “basic trainer” was actually a lead-sled, with control responses that wouldn’t have been out of place in a contest aerobatic machine!

The pilot in question had been coached by a club instructor and passed as fit to fly solo – which he was, until either he got disorientated or a gust took him by surprise. At this point the model displayed little or no inherent stability and required positive recovery action – which I had to provide.

In the “Aerobatic Loops” thread BEB no less tells us that he has regularly bunted models sold as “basic trainers”!

Now I fully appreciate that back when I learned to fly RC models, most of the trainers were essentially free-flight models with occasional radio interference! However, this did mean that – provided you were careful – you could go out on your own and teach yourself to fly, with a bare minimum of coaching from anyone else. If you got into trouble, you simply let go of the controls, and the model would usually sort itself out. Even the most badly built Veron “Robot” (my personal favourite!) or Super 60 (a bit floaty for my taste) would fly well, with just enough control to keep the model within reasonable distance of the pilot, but not so much that you could get into trouble. They also provided a good confidence-building platform, so that if you did accidentally apply the wrong rudder when flying towards you, they were slow enough for you to think about and correct your mistake! These are not the attributes associated with many current “trainers”!

The current thinking seems to be that a trainer should be lively and aerobatic, and that a “buddy-box” should be used to keep things safe. However, my experience has always been that allowing pilots to make their own mistakes with a forgiving model, leads to much swifter progress.

Its a bit like teaching your kids to ride a bike – once they get used to having the stabiliser wheels at the back, its very difficult to wean them off them! So it is with buddy-box tuition! Once you get used to having someone to rescue you, it is very easy to get in to trouble when they are not there!

I would love to see models like the Veron Robot or Mini-Super back in production. These were proper training aircraft, and unlike many ARTF trainers, robust enough for British weather and flying sites!

Or am I just getting old?

--

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Colin Carpenter]

Just a thought but haven't gyros , SAFE , AS3X etc made it easier for beginners to get in the air ? All the newbies my way use them and get flying by themselves very quickly , sometimes with no buddy box help ! Colin

[Engine Doctor]

I agree with Peter about some of today's trainers but they can be tamed if properly set up. You mentioned that the pilot you helped had been passed to go solo by a club instructor. Had the model or radio been set up as a trainer ? If it had  then he would probably have been fine.Also don't forget the fiddler who tampers with settings and trims without any knowledge of the effect until its too late. I have spoken to many so called " instructors" who teach novices with models that have controls set to maximum ! All fine when on buddy lead but an accident or broken model waiting to happen as soon as they go solo. Clubs need to get all instructors together and agree a teaching policy. As for the Junior 60 or super 60 as trainers then it has to be the super 60 in preference to the Junior but only as a three channel model. fit ailerons on a Super 60 and it's not a very good JMO .The ARTF trainers can be set up to fly very well and shouldn't be! lead sleds if kept reasonably light. Again the set up and positioning of equipment fitted can make them heavy and fast .Some of the foam electric jobs are excellent as trainers if the throws are reduced in particular the Max Thrust Riot . In the hands of an experienced pilot it can be very aerobatic . The Veronica Robot and Super Robot were brilliant trainers and are certainly missed but very few newcomers can or want to build even if the kits were available ? As for buddy box training I find that the majority of students learn quite quickly and after a few lessons need little if any intervention if the model is set up correctly, but there are those that I'm afraid will never go solo .

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Basic 4 channel trainer of today is pretty good at it's job, buddy box changed the game re teaching, allows more leeway to let learner recover own mistakes and progression n confidence comes with that as Peter says, some folk would benefit from a rudder only wing though in my experience, no matter how much you tame it some still find em a little slippery.

Are you getting old ? yep

John

[Ian Jones]

I sit somewhere in the middle of the, what shall we call 'em, old time trainers and some of the recent so called 'trainers'.

I learned on and have trained many on ARTF's of the Tutor 40, Boomerang, etc type and of course the Flair Kite if you want o build something really tough. These are perfectly adequate with a decent instructor, with or without a buddy lead. Even so, these are often not first choice now because of the ready to crash out the box/will only fly in less than 10mph wind types that are around, which unfortunately limit the new pilots opportunities to progress.

So far as I'm concerned a good trainer is reasonabley robust, not too difficult to learn the basics on but is also capable of basic aerobatics.

Some aerobatic performance and experience is a neccessity prior to going solo, otherwise a premature termination in a flight is likely to follow fairly soon, due to not being familair with dealing a model when it gets into an unintended attitude. The aerobatics don't have to be pretty (plenty of time for that later) just good enough to get out of trouble.

So yes I agree regarding some of today's models but I don't care for the Junior 60 and such like either.

Edited By Ian Jones on 22/08/2016 16:17:03

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Some models sold as trainers are the exact opposite of Peter's lead sled - and in my opinion, also flawed for the job. They are too easy to land, for example. Someone who has learnt on a very lightweight model (in the 1 - 2 kg range, so admissible for the A test) will not have any appreciation of energy management and having learnt on models where height can be dived off too easily without the penalty of an extended float, will struggle with more advanced models. Something like the old Ripmax Trainer with a 40 or 46 LA, for example, gave a decent balance between low enough wing loading to be fairly forgiving and enough to need a properly managed approach and seemed to be an effective training machine. It was also capable of basic aerobatics and operating in less than ideal conditions.

Mind you, back in the mid 70s I learnt on a nylon covered Enya .09 powered 48" Lumpers which was designed as a rough terrain single channel trainer and constructed like the proverbial small brick building. In fact, there's a distinct possibility that Peter may have been one of the Watford Wayfarers members who recommended it to me! Can you imagine anyone contemplating powering such a model with an .09 (that's 1.5cc) or the electric equivalent these days? It certainly climbed adequately and was tough enough to survive numerous terminal velocity dives when Brian Cooper was unable to wrestle the transmitter from my rigid panicking grasp!

Edited By Martin Harris on 22/08/2016 16:25:49

[Trevor]

Nowadays, in our club at least, the role of basic trainer is usually fulfilled by an electric glider. We also try to encourage raw beginners to get to the slopes as well as the flat field since this gets them a lot more stick time and widens the range of flyable weather.

Those taking the flat field route more often than not then move on to something like the Multiplex Fun Cub. It's just heavy enough to take an A test, is pretty rugged and repairable, has some inherent stability yet is reasonably aerobatic. And yes, BEB, it will bunt!

[David Davis]

Posted by Percy Verance on 22/08/2016 15:17:33:

Hi Peter

The Super 60 might well be a *bit floaty*, but I prefer it's flying characteristics and handling over the Junior 60 any day of the week. In my opinion the J60 has to be one of the worst models ever you could use to learn to fly. No directional stabilty whatsoever. Wallows and pitches all over the place.

I'd certainly agree re: many of today's so called trainers. As you point out Peter, they're not specifically designed or intended to ease someone into model flying.

Er... I learned to fly on a Junior 60! .

Seriously though I have found that most elderly beginners are better off with the automatic stability of a three-channel vintage model to start with, but then someone has to build one of those. On the other hand, I know pilots who can crash a Radio Queen! .

[Cuban8]

Sorry chaps, forget all the Junior Sixties et al from our youth, but (and it's only my opinion of course) the foamy Wot 4 leccy is the one to go for in 2016. I've lost count of the number of new flyers in my clubs that have had great success with this model, either youngsters or the not so young!

No messing about with engines, no dead sticks, no cleaning down, guaranteed performance in most conditions other than in a gale, and if it gets pranged they can usually be patched up without too much trouble or £££s/building time down the drain and the possibility of a tyro giving it all up.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Of the current crop of foamy electric trainers, I'd prefer the Riot. The Wot4 is maybe a little too slippery...

[Denis Watkins]

Instructing is not for everyone, as it involves giving away hours of your own flying time, and not everyone has the patience as an instructor to remember " page one". The boys thank me all time, as test pilot and instructor, but I thank them for allowing this old man some active "brain training" for my longevity. This allows me to comment now.

2 scenarios, true and recent, on the same day I swear, and can corroberate with testament from the novices, both in this case on the "buddy lead"

Pilot 1 arrives with a trainer and 2 lipos. 2 flights anticipated, one minute lost for me take off get to a safe height, and I want a further minute to get the model back and land on less than a flat battery. Result, pilot 1 gets 2 x 3 minute flights of instruction.

I do appreciate he could buy more batteries. If he buys 4 more lipos with his set up he will get another 12 minutes in the air.

Pilot 2, has a Tutor 40, with an old SC 40 for power, that runs as sweet as silk, as all the IC that I tune

One minute to get up to a safe circuit, and 15 minutes later, I have to wean the model back into my control, as the student wants to carry on, though I insist they rest.

The whole point is that all models, all power systems, have a place in our hobby. Poor running with IC is poor tuning.

Correctly maintained equipment will perform.

[ChrisB]

You cannot beat a good old fashioned 4 channel trainer, something like a Tutor 40 or boomerang. IC powered 46 size, good old fashioned set-up. The model will fly for 10-15 minutes with no issue, unlike lipos.

I've taught people to fly on the above, plus apprentice type models, gliders and wot 4 models of the foam and wooden variety.

Most of the above models will be suitable. Ultimately it comes down to the instructor but most of all the student. They have to want to do it. They have to understand the basics and take in the information and they need to stick at it on a regular basis, rather than the usual..."i'm fitting a bathroom, walking the dog and washing the car so can't come flying"

The assisted flight models are ok and get people in the air but don't teach them how to get out of trouble.

Buddy boxes are superb...but the down side is that the student A. expects the instructor to work miracles a foot from the ground and B it lulls them into a false sense of security.

Cheers

CB

[fly boy3]

I agree with Chris and Denis above. Nothing against electric foamies at all. After learning on a electric foamy and perhaps passing their A certs. they may decide to try their hands at flying ic. This is now a very different kettle of fish which has been well debated on here and I do not want to open that thread again as it will be well well off topic. Cheers

[Martin McIntosh]

Whilst I agree with most of the above, as an examiner I cringe a bit when someone takes an `A` with a just legal foamie, even more so when the so called trainer is powered by a 46 which is usually way over the top for the model size. Most `Tutor` style ones should fly on a 25 easily. Many pupils have to be dug out of the mire by their instructor because these things are way overpowered.

I started on single channel and basically had to teach myself. Some did it the hard way then and if they could afford it went `full house` straight away.

In my mind there is no better way to learn than rudder only since it teaches you to trim a model and really take care of every move you make. The model should be able to right and fly itself for a while whilst you compose yourself.

Maybe a tad old fashioned but it worked for me (former F3A British champion if you will forgive me for saying).

[Eifion Herbert]

With regard to flying time, I learnt on an E-flite Alpha 450. It would do ten minutes very comfortably at pottering around circuits and shooting touch and gos on a 2200 mAh lipo, and with a couple of minutes in reserve for the inevitable go-arounds. I'd typically land with 35% to 40% power left.

I had a pair of these lipos, and charged at 2C at the field. By the time I'd landed from the second flight, retrieved the model, made it safe, walked back to the pits, had a debrief with my instructor, the battery from the first flight was charged and ready to go again. I found what was limiting my flying time was my own concentration rather than running out of charge.

And yes, it would bunt!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Oh Dear, this thread sounds like the converstion on the bench down at the strip on a Tuesday afternoon . Wasn't sweet rationing great eh?

Guys - in terms of equipment there has never been a better time to be a beginner in our hobby. Modern models are aerodynamically superior, made from better materials and guided with better electronics. They generally have lower wing loadings, fly better and repair more easily. On top of that we have stabilisation technologies and systems such as SAFE which mean the lone learner - without access to an instructor - has a better chance of sucess than they have ever had. And if you do have access to an instructor you have the largest choice of models ever available that will serve you through basic instruction right up to your first adventures in aerobatics. Also modern radios will allow your instructor to give you selected channels and it's often wireless as well. And, as if all that wasn't enough, you can get it all cheaper than ever before and anything you want in 48 hours via the internet!! God in heaven - what more do you want???? Oh, yeah, single channel,....nuff said!

Go back to the "good old days" of underpowered and over weight trainers? Or worse still to thinly disguised free-flighters that balloon around the sky like a couple pf blousey bints on Clapham High Street - and are (I am informed) so aerodynamically flawed that full down elevator results in just a dive!!! Wonderful! Nah, you can go back to Mrs Dale's Diary, Vesta Curry and balaclavas knitted by your Mum if you want, I'll enjoy all the Mod Cons and look forward eagerly to what's coming next!

So in my view tha answer to your final question Peter is - "Yes" I'm afraid!

BEB

PS Well said Eifion! If you can't get 10mins clear mixed flying out of your electric model then your set up is badly designed. And I agree, the vast majority of beginners find 10mins flying more than enough given the levels of concentration they have to put in.

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 23/08/2016 10:26:13

[Mike Etheridge 1]

Clapham High Street, blousey bints, I don't remember any of those when I did my Saturday job there in 1963 / 65.

We did have the railway museum and still have I assume the boat modellers on Clapham pond. During a game of Korfball in the 1990's we had IC powered model planes flying over us on Clapham Common just off the High Street ,but I doubt whether that is still allowed?

The property prices are sky high in Clapham so now there might be some posh blousey bints ?

As for trainers my Weston Cougar will do the lot for the beginner or expert but will ground loop on take off. My Tutor plane will penetrate well but has a long take-off run. Last week I tested a Ripmax Extreme Lite recovered from a local tip. It does not ground loop on take off and flies very much the same as the Cougar. I still have a soft spot for my 54 year old Junior 60 which is a delight to fly, but last week on the Downs a new club member arrived and stated he had just finished a Flair Junior after 14 years but was told it would be no use for an A certificate test, and he should get a Tutor!.

[Colin Carpenter]

I don't remember any bints on Clapham High St in 1969 carrying my Aerokits Swordsman to the Long Pond . Just a lot of dogs ! Agree with BEBS comments. Colin

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Interesting comments BEB and I agree with most of them although I'll have to take your word on the merits of the blousy bints of Clapham (although I did once know a girl from Streatham). My concern is that easy flying models don't present a great enough challenge to stimulate continuing interest or train pilots in some of the traits of more advanced models. I've seen many enthusiastic beginners who have learnt on such models and found the transition to "something more interesting" too much of a jump. They have then been disheartened and in several cases have seemed to lose interest despite encouragement. A more substantial trainer may extend the learning process, but it is easier to instill good practices into pilots during this time.

[Andy48]

I too agree with everything BEB says. (That must be a first for me!)

With regard to electric, it amuses me to see instructors fussing over a newby's trainer ic engine for ages to get it running right, but when presented with an electric trainer they always take it "as is". Ever see an instructor take out a wattmeter to check it out first for instance?

I know from E-Pioneer days that 10-12 minutes flight is readily attainable with a 4S 3000 battery, and with such a set-up one barely needs to go above half throttle. With electric there is little evidence of how fast a plane is flying, and an instructor rarely has time to watch the pupil's throttle stick. With ic one can hear the engine noise to know it is full throttle. As others have said, 10 minutes flying time was more than long enough for me whilst learning, and still is.

[Peter Christy]

Well, this thread has certainly created an interesting discussion, and as I
started it, I guess I'd better wrap it up with my feelings on the subject!

Basically, the contributors seem to fall in to two groups - "Old Hands", like
myself, who learned in the days when radio was expensive and of questionable
reliability, and the younger generation, who have never known anything other
than digital proportional systems.

Certainly, modern radio is much more reliable than it was "back in the day",
and this has largely eliminated one of the major pitfalls of RC flying for
beginners. Unfortunately, many of the functions of a modern, computerised radio
have lead to some very sloppy trimming techniques amongst the newer
generations. It never ceases to amaze me, on the few occasions when I am asked
to help out a beginner, how often I pick up the transmitter of a model
supposedly trimmed out by an instructor, to find the trim settings all over the
place, asymmetric throws, etc, etc. And all because the pilot who set it up did
so by fiddling with the transmitter settings, rather than doing the job
properly, by adjusting the clevises where required!

Similarly, auto-stabilisation systems should not be necessary in a properly
designed model. I accept that they can make a scale or tiny model that would
otherwise be hideously unstable, flyable. But they should not be necessary in a
properly designed trainer. They also add another area of potential failure. I
have a small B'n'F park flyer which decided to reverse the elevator function
all on its own between one flight and the next! Another club member has
recently purchased a power-assist glider, designed specially for beginners,
which has now crashed four times in the hands of different pilots, when the
ailerons have gone hard over and everything has locked out part way through a
flight when the throttle was opened! The more bits you put in there, the more
there is to go wrong!

(cont)

[Peter Christy]

So lets consider some of the models that have been mentioned in passing in this
thread as suitable basic trainers, starting with the oldest.

Junior 60: Hmm! Not in my book! An interesting vintage model, but with some odd
handling characteristics typical of an adapted free-flight model. Too wallowy
and lightly loaded.

Super 60: Nice and stable, slow flying and generally benign handling. Gives a
novice pilot plenty of "thinking time", and will recover itself from awkward
attitudes if the pilot lets go of the sticks. The undercarriage permits
take-offs and landings from the roughest of strips! On the downside, its big
and cumbersome and perhaps slightly too lightly loaded for current climate
conditions. They are mildly aerobatic and can be looped and rolled, given
the right technique. (As an aside, WHY do people insist on fitting them with
ailerons? They don't improve the handling one bit - in fact they turn and roll
better on rudder!)

Veron Robot / KK Mini-Super: I'm lumping these together as their characteristics
are pretty similar. Both are robust and stable, able to take a few knocks and
operate from rough strips. Not sure about the tricycle undercarriage on the
original Mini-Super - nose wheels tend not to last long on moorland strips! But
it is easy to modify to tail-dragger configuration. Moderate wing-loading,
which makes them much easier to handle in a breeze and easier to judge the
landings than a "floater". Positive stability in all axis, gives the novice
pilot plenty of thinking time.

Irvine Tutor: Not flown one, so can't really comment, but I've always found
Irvine products to be good and honest, so probably a good buy - if you can
still find one!

DB Mascot: Perhaps more suitable as an advanced, rather than basic trainer, but
another robust design. Not as much positive stability as the Robot or
Mini-Super, but generally pleasant flying characteristics.

Wot4-E Foamie: You have to be joking! Over-powered, and divergent in pitch and
roll! Don't get me wrong, as an advanced trainer, sports model, general hack,
its great, but it is totally unsuitable as a basic trainer! The controls are
far too responsive for a beginner, and need to be because of its inherent
instability. The wing loading is so low that in anything above a mild breeze,
it gets bounced all over the sky and has a stalling speed less than the wind
speed on most days! This means it has to be flown on to the ground rather than
landed in a properly stalled attitude - a tricky manoeuvre for experienced
pilots given the way it gets bounced around by turbulence, let alone a
beginner. Fine for a reasonable competent pilot, but most certainly NOT for a
beginner!

Most current ARTFs: Mostly too lightly loaded for the British climate, making
them tricky to land in anything more than a gentle breeze, and get bounced
around by gusts. This then requires positive correction from the pilot, not
necessarily something a novice will manage. Also, why is it that nearly all
ARTFs have such weak undercarriage mountings? Not just the trainers, all of
'em? The undercarriages have no spring in them and are often attached with
metal screws! The wheels are rock hard, which means that unless you can manage
an absolute greaser of a landing on a perfectly smooth surface, the mounting
plate, which usually appears to have been attached with spit and dope rather
than glue,instantly detaches as soon as the wheels touch the ground!

We've all complained about the flying weather for the last few years. This
summer has been one of the worst I can remember. Yesterday was the first time
the wind here has dropped below 15 knots for weeks. Had I been relying on any
of the current crop of trainers to build flying experience, I don't suppose I
would have got more than an hour a month of flying time. This is not
conducive to a good learning experience.

We need some decent, robust training aircraft suitable for the current climatic
conditions, and the rough fields from which many have to operate. We could do
worse than hark back to the Robot or Mini-Super, which were, in my view, almost
perfect training aircraft. The current generation just don't cut it.

--

Pete

[Dai Fledermaus]

Thanks for that interesting and well considered appraisal Peter.

[GONZO]

Robust, NOT lightly loaded(heavy), very easy to build and did I say 'as tough as old boots'. Its a big 'Airfix' kit that stands up really well to the wet and muddy fields most of us use. I commend the 'Ready 2/3' to the house. It has a high wing loading and does not get thrown around by the weather too much. But, with the high wing loading comes its main drawback - it does need to fly faster than most trainers.