Newbie questions - start with an electric RTF?

[Wally]

I suppose it's my turn to ask the newbie questions...

I'm interesting in trying out model flying and, in the main, want to find
out about what would be a good plane to start with. I'm aware that I should
join a club, get insurance (via membership of the BMFA?) and undertake my
first flights with an instructor, possibly with buddied radios.

I haven't flown models (or real planes) before, and haven't spent much time
playing with computer flight simulators, but I think I get the general idea
that wiggling the sticks on the Tx move the control surfaces on the plane
and thus make it move about in the air. I'm technically adept - have a
reasonable understanding of radios, physics, engines, electricity, and have
the skills and facilities to fabricate almost anything.

I could conceivably buy a kit, or plans, and spend ages building something
very nice and expensive, and promptly trash it on its maiden flight. I don't
think I want to go down that route - I could build something, and that may
well be an option for the future, but I think I'd like to get the basics of
flying sorted out first. If the interest sustains beyond that, then I'll see
about building my own.

So, for a first plane, I'm looking to strike a balance between cost, effort,
and flyability, and I think that means one of the RTF offerings. One that
caught my eye was the Top Gun Super Cub outfit. The main attractions of this
for me are...

Seems that everything needed to get started is in the box.
Not expensive at 100 quid.
High wing plane for better stability.
Computer simulator using Tx USB connection.
Very little assembly required.
Convenience of leccytrical power.

More details here...

http://www.marionvillemodels.com/radio-controlled-models/aircraft/beginner-pilots/Top-Gun-Park-Flite-Super-Cub-PA18-RC-radio-control-plane---inc-flight-sim/product.aspx

Would this be a sensible choice for a first plane? I should point out that,
should I get into the hobby more seriously, I wouldn't neccessarily be
looking to keep any of the bits for a future plane (happy to replace radio
stuff, etc, if need be).

Is electric a viable choice? How much flight time can I expect with
something like this? How long does the battery take to recharge, and can I
charge from the car? How much are spare batteries?

Anything else I should know? Any other options I should consider?

Thanks in advance,

[Kevin]

Post by Wally
I suppose it's my turn to ask the newbie questions...
I'm interesting in trying out model flying and, in the main, want to find
out about what would be a good plane to start with. I'm aware that I should
join a club, get insurance (via membership of the BMFA?) and undertake my
first flights with an instructor, possibly with buddied radios.
I haven't flown models (or real planes) before, and haven't spent much time
playing with computer flight simulators, but I think I get the general idea
that wiggling the sticks on the Tx move the control surfaces on the plane
and thus make it move about in the air. I'm technically adept - have a
reasonable understanding of radios, physics, engines, electricity, and have
the skills and facilities to fabricate almost anything.
I could conceivably buy a kit, or plans, and spend ages building something
very nice and expensive, and promptly trash it on its maiden flight. I don't
think I want to go down that route - I could build something, and that may
well be an option for the future, but I think I'd like to get the basics of
flying sorted out first. If the interest sustains beyond that, then I'll see
about building my own.
So, for a first plane, I'm looking to strike a balance between cost, effort,
and flyability, and I think that means one of the RTF offerings. One that
caught my eye was the Top Gun Super Cub outfit. The main attractions of this
for me are...
Seems that everything needed to get started is in the box.
Not expensive at 100 quid.
High wing plane for better stability.
Computer simulator using Tx USB connection.
Very little assembly required.
Convenience of leccytrical power.
More details here...
http://www.marionvillemodels.com/radio-controlled-models/aircraft/beginner-pilots/Top-Gun-Park-Flite-Super-Cub-PA18-RC-radio-control-plane---inc-flight-sim/product.aspx
Would this be a sensible choice for a first plane? I should point out that,
should I get into the hobby more seriously, I wouldn't neccessarily be
looking to keep any of the bits for a future plane (happy to replace radio
stuff, etc, if need be).
Is electric a viable choice? How much flight time can I expect with
something like this? How long does the battery take to recharge, and can I
charge from the car? How much are spare batteries?
Anything else I should know? Any other options I should consider?
Thanks in advance,

not sure about performance of this particular kit but electrics out
number fuel powered planes in our club
batteries 1 hour(or less) to charge
charge at home or in the car (depends on the charger power supply)
price depends on type of battery range from £10 to £200
duration depends on type of plane/battery & how you fly it 6 mins to 1
hour typically


have a look at this for a fuel powered plane its also our clubs
favourite trainer, it has more duration than electric as you can refuel
and take off again with out charging any batteries
http://www.kmfc.co.uk/downloads/trainerpackage.pdf

the cub is more of a toy than a serious trainer, join a club or at least
find a fellow flier and have fun

[TTman]

Post by Wally
So, for a first plane, I'm looking to strike a balance between cost, effort,
and flyability, and I think that means one of the RTF offerings. One that
caught my eye was the Top Gun Super Cub outfit. The main attractions of this
for me are...
Seems that everything needed to get started is in the box.
Not expensive at 100 quid.
High wing plane for better stability.
Computer simulator using Tx USB connection.
Very little assembly required.
Convenience of leccytrical power.
More details here...
http://www.marionvillemodels.com/radio-controlled-models/aircraft/beginner-pilots/Top-Gun-Park-Flite-Super-Cub-PA18-RC-radio-control-plane---inc-flight-sim/product.aspx
Would this be a sensible choice for a first plane? I should point out that,
should I get into the hobby more seriously, I wouldn't neccessarily be
looking to keep any of the bits for a future plane (happy to replace radio
stuff, etc, if need be).
Is electric a viable choice? How much flight time can I expect with
something like this? How long does the battery take to recharge, and can I
charge from the car? How much are spare batteries?
Anything else I should know? Any other options I should consider?
Thanks in advance,
--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for dinner.

Looks good, I gave up training on an IC trainer and switched to a Multiplex
Mentor. Best thing I ever did.........

[news.madasafish]

It seems a reasonable choice, although, I couldn't see a transmitter
included, it says sim interface FROM YOUR TX TO SIM.

So, factor in another £50 or so for TX.

Another battery would be useful, say, around £12 or so
It doesn't say whether the charger is mains or 12v, prolly mains, so need to
buy a 12 voltlipo charger, around £35 or so.
Then, best to have a 12volt gel battery, 7AH around £15 or so + gel charger
, maybe £12, don't use normal car battery charger unless can reduce current
to around 1 amp

The only slight snag with this setup is that the plane will really only be
suitable for light winds, you can't beat a heavier IC trainer, say .46 cu"
for flying in winds up to about 10 knots

Many model shops do a "package deal" eg arising star trainer, SC46 engine,
radio set for £162 from Pegusus Norwich

http://www.pegasusmodels.co.uk/detail.asp?id=992640&main=Aircraft&sub1=Seagull%20Models
To this you would need to add 12v starter, £20, glow plug driver £10, fuel,
£12/gallon 12v gel battery+charger£30



Just my 'umble opinion

Trefor

Post by Wally
Is electric a viable choice? How much flight time can I expect with
something like this? How long does the battery take to recharge, and can I
charge from the car? How much are spare batteries?
Anything else I should know? Any other options I should consider?
Thanks in advance,
--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for dinner.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by news.madasafish
It seems a reasonable choice, although, I couldn't see a transmitter
included, it says sim interface FROM YOUR TX TO SIM.
So, factor in another £50 or so for TX.
Another battery would be useful, say, around £12 or so
It doesn't say whether the charger is mains or 12v, prolly mains, so
need to buy a 12 voltlipo charger, around £35 or so.
Then, best to have a 12volt gel battery, 7AH around £15 or so + gel
charger , maybe £12, don't use normal car battery charger unless can
reduce current to around 1 amp
The only slight snag with this setup is that the plane will really only
be suitable for light winds, you can't beat a heavier IC trainer, say
.46 cu" for flying in winds up to about 10 knots

Well, that depends.

IF u have a club, and IF you join it and IF you take out insurance and
IF you want to spend another 70 quid on fuel, starter motor, fuel pump,
and glo clip and starter battery and something to keep it all
charged..and IF someone at the club is happy to train you and IF the
club is near enough you can get to it on a regular basis, and IF you
manage to understand the vagaries of tuning an IC engine..then sure, its
a good way to learn to fly...


Except that even light winds are hard for new pilots to understand.

frankly something you can chuck in the air at minimal cost, that doesn't
really need insurance, or a club, just a bit of open ground without kids
on it, is a lot easier and cheaper.

THEN if the bug bites, and you fancy the company of fellow pilots, join
the club, and get the insurance. And go IC if you must.


A foamie cub is about as easy to fly as it gets. Even if you are
restricted to flat calm air. Sure you will crash it and break it.
Several times probably. But at lest you wont kill someone with it.

Post by news.madasafish
Many model shops do a "package deal" eg arising star trainer, SC46
engine, radio set for £162 from Pegusus Norwich
http://www.pegasusmodels.co.uk/detail.asp?id=992640&main=Aircraft&sub1=Seagull%20Models
To this you would need to add 12v starter, £20, glow plug driver £10,
fuel, £12/gallon 12v gel battery+charger£30

Exactly...'to this you would need to add...'

add in BMFA insurance, and a a club membership fee. I would NEVER fly a
.40 plane outside of a well run field with a safety nazi in control. Or
without insurance. I did once and it was simply too scary as a newbie.

I went electric, and never looked back. I no DO fly at club sites, and
big electrics too, but there is still the field at the back, or the
local recreation ground for the sub 8oz lightweights with barely enough
power to fly..;-)

Don't get me wrong, everything you say about an IC plane is true. But IC
is serious investment for committed modellers. If you want to toe dip,.
electric is the way.

[Trefor]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
frankly something you can chuck in the air at minimal cost, that doesn't
really need insurance, or a club, just a bit of open ground without kids
on it, is a lot easier and cheaper.

Yes, if you go this way, you don't really need field charging eqipment as
previously mentioned
Just have one or two extra fully charged batteries.
Usually expect, maybe up to 10 minutes per flight if you ease up on the
throttle, once at a reasonable height.

There's a free flight sim available on the web, FMS; all you need is a
joystick

http://n.ethz.ch/~mmoeller/fms/index_e.html.

Most newbies have trouble with controlling the plane coming towards them as
the ailerons and rudder are reversed

The usual advice I give novices is "put a stick under the wing that is down"
ie if the left wing is down move the aileron stick to the left

Trefor

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Trefor

Post by The Natural Philosopher
frankly something you can chuck in the air at minimal cost, that
doesn't really need insurance, or a club, just a bit of open ground
without kids on it, is a lot easier and cheaper.

Yes, if you go this way, you don't really need field charging eqipment
as previously mentioned
Just have one or two extra fully charged batteries.
Usually expect, maybe up to 10 minutes per flight if you ease up on the
throttle, once at a reasonable height.
There's a free flight sim available on the web, FMS; all you need is a
joystick
http://n.ethz.ch/~mmoeller/fms/index_e.html.
Most newbies have trouble with controlling the plane coming towards them
as the ailerons and rudder are reversed
The usual advice I give novices is "put a stick under the wing that is
down" ie if the left wing is down move the aileron stick to the left
Trefor

Exactly. Generally a couple of outings with a cheap foamie leads to
'well this isn't much fun' and give the thing away or 'this would be a
lot more fun with a better plane' at which point serious kit is
something you start accumulating.

Judging by my chats with the local model shop, its about 2:1 in favour
of the first.

[Trefor]

"Trefor" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message > The usual advice I give
novices is "put a stick under the wing that is down"

Post by Trefor
ie if the left wing is down move the aileron stick to the left

Err.. let me clarify that.
I am referring to the wing on the pilot's left, with the plane coming
towards him, which is actually the starboard (right) wing on the plane...

Trefor

[Dave (Sgt. Pepper)]

Post by Trefor
novices is "put a stick under the wing that is down"

Post by Trefor
ie if the left wing is down move the aileron stick to the left

Err.. let me clarify that.
I am referring to the wing on the pilot's left, with the plane coming
towards him, which is actually the starboard (right) wing on the plane...
Trefor

Some further clarification needed. Does this still apply ? .......

1.) In summer, when wearing short trousers.

2.) If the pilot is a right-wing voter.

3.) When there is a full moon.

4.) When the novice is actually a nun and is not allowed to curse profusely.

Also, is there any advantage to be gained from standing with your left foot
in a bucket of cold water?

[Wally]

Thanks for the comments so far, folks (please keep them coming).

A "toe dip" is about right for my level of interest at present, and I'm
naturally reticent to spend more than I need to for the sake of having a go.
The (balsa?) IC trainer package for 162 quid looks like a good deal compared
to the foamy Cub - until the additional 70 quid or so for accessories is
factored in. I'm sure it's a lot more plane, but 2.5 times the cost leads
one to think a bit more before buying.

I bought the 20-quid RC PlaneMaster sim, which comes with a dummy Tx that
plugs into the computer's USB port. I felt this was a better option for a
sim, since it allows my fingers to get the hang of using the same controls
I'd find on a real Tx (unlike a computer joystick).

A 'proper' balsa plane with an IC motor certainly has an attraction, more so
when I went to the local model shop for another look around. I saw some
built foamies, and they didn't impress me as models (scale or otherwise).
It's just a couple of bits of expanded polystyrene with plastic bits glued
on. I realise most of the money is in the electrics (Trefor, I think the Tx
is included), so the airframe is neccessarily a small part of the cost - but
it still looked a bit cheap and 'toyish', and that kinda put me off a bit.

On the other hand, there is scope to reuse the electrics from a foamy in
another RC project at a later date. Although I'm posting here as a resut of
interest in flying model planes, I have a more general interest in radio
control (wheeled vehicles, sailboats, motor boats), so it's not beyond the
realms of possibility that the electrical gubbins could be used in something
else (home-brewed, most likely). On a related note, is there any reason to
not reuse the foamy's Tx, Rx, and servos in an IC trainer?

Hmm. On balance, I think the foamy is in the lead, in spite of my feeling
that it looks cheap (well, it is cheap). And, when I think about it, maybe
the whole kit isn't neccessarily throw-away should I want to go to an IC
plane later (even if the bits are reused in an unrelated project).

The shop also had a Cessna foamy (same maker) which looked equivalent, price
and construction-wise, to the Cub. The difference was that it's a tricycle
undercarriage, rather than a tail-dragger. Would the Cessna be a better
choice?

[TTman]

Post by Wally
Hmm. On balance, I think the foamy is in the lead, in spite of my feeling
that it looks cheap (well, it is cheap). And, when I think about it, maybe
the whole kit isn't neccessarily throw-away should I want to go to an IC
plane later (even if the bits are reused in an unrelated project).
The shop also had a Cessna foamy (same maker) which looked equivalent, price
and construction-wise, to the Cub. The difference was that it's a tricycle
undercarriage, rather than a tail-dragger. Would the Cessna be a better
choice?
--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Big PLUS point.... and this is inevitable... when you crash a foamy will be
a really easy repair. A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there
done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = easy easy route and
much less painful.

[Wally]

Post by TTman
Big PLUS point.... and this is inevitable... when you crash a foamy
will be a really easy repair. A balsa model will likely be a write
off. been there done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy =
easy easy route and much less painful.

How are repairs done? Are new sections glued in, or is it a case of
replacing a whole part like wings or fuselage?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally

Post by TTman
Big PLUS point.... and this is inevitable... when you crash a foamy
will be a really easy repair. A balsa model will likely be a write
off. been there done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy =
easy easy route and much less painful.

How are repairs done? Are new sections glued in, or is it a case of
replacing a whole part like wings or fuselage?

either. Most people use hot glue and parcel tape :-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by TTman

Post by Wally
Hmm. On balance, I think the foamy is in the lead, in spite of my feeling
that it looks cheap (well, it is cheap). And, when I think about it, maybe
the whole kit isn't neccessarily throw-away should I want to go to an IC
plane later (even if the bits are reused in an unrelated project).
The shop also had a Cessna foamy (same maker) which looked equivalent, price
and construction-wise, to the Cub. The difference was that it's a tricycle
undercarriage, rather than a tail-dragger. Would the Cessna be a better
choice?
--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Big PLUS point.... and this is inevitable... when you crash a foamy will be
a really easy repair. A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there
done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = easy easy route and
much less painful.

until you BUILD the balsa model, in which case perfect repairs are
possible Just build it again! Or as much as needs it..


Foamies always end up tatty

["KGB" (KGB)]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:18:21 -0000, "TTman" <***@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

<SNIP>

Post by TTman
A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there
done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = easy easy route and
much less painful.

Hi

Oh dear, oh dear - the modern ways of doing (or rather, not doing)
things!!!!

I have been modelling for more years than I care to remember and in my
time - along with every other old timer, I feel sure - I have repaired
and reflown some horrendous looking crashed models. Even in a full
bore vertical arrival everything rear of the wings usually survives
relatively intact and as long as you still have the plans (assuming
kits still come with plans of course) with a bit of ingenuity, a sharp
knife and a sheet of balsa, what appears to be a pile of matchwood can
usually be restored to flying condition.

In those days we didn't have much option, we couldn't afford a new
model - the radio gear alone, cost around a month's wages; and that
was for only 2 channel!!!! 8^)

Regards

KGB

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by "KGB" (KGB)
<SNIP>

Post by TTman
A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there
done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = easy easy route and
much less painful.

Hi
Oh dear, oh dear - the modern ways of doing (or rather, not doing)
things!!!!
I have been modelling for more years than I care to remember and in my
time - along with every other old timer, I feel sure - I have repaired
and reflown some horrendous looking crashed models. Even in a full
bore vertical arrival everything rear of the wings usually survives
relatively intact and as long as you still have the plans (assuming
kits still come with plans of course) with a bit of ingenuity, a sharp
knife and a sheet of balsa, what appears to be a pile of matchwood can
usually be restored to flying condition.
In those days we didn't have much option, we couldn't afford a new
model - the radio gear alone, cost around a month's wages; and that
was for only 2 channel!!!! 8^)
Regards
KGB

You had TWO channels..

when I were a lad...

[Kevin]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by "KGB" (KGB)
<SNIP>

A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there done that
several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = easy easy route and much
less painful.

Hi
Oh dear, oh dear - the modern ways of doing (or rather, not doing)
things!!!!
I have been modelling for more years than I care to remember and in my
time - along with every other old timer, I feel sure - I have repaired
and reflown some horrendous looking crashed models. Even in a full
bore vertical arrival everything rear of the wings usually survives
relatively intact and as long as you still have the plans (assuming
kits still come with plans of course) with a bit of ingenuity, a sharp
knife and a sheet of balsa, what appears to be a pile of matchwood can
usually be restored to flying condition.
In those days we didn't have much option, we couldn't afford a new
model - the radio gear alone, cost around a month's wages; and that
was for only 2 channel!!!! 8^)
Regards
KGB

You had TWO channels..
when I were a lad...

you,re only a youngster then :-)

[Nobby Anderson]

Post by "KGB" (KGB)
<SNIP>

Post by TTman
A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there
done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = easy easy route and
much less painful.

Hi
Oh dear, oh dear - the modern ways of doing (or rather, not doing)
things!!!!
I have been modelling for more years than I care to remember and in my
time - along with every other old timer, I feel sure - I have repaired
and reflown some horrendous looking crashed models. Even in a full
bore vertical arrival everything rear of the wings usually survives
relatively intact and as long as you still have the plans (assuming
kits still come with plans of course) with a bit of ingenuity, a sharp
knife and a sheet of balsa, what appears to be a pile of matchwood can
usually be restored to flying condition.
In those days we didn't have much option, we couldn't afford a new
model - the radio gear alone, cost around a month's wages; and that
was for only 2 channel!!!! 8^)

Oh dear, oh dear - the modern ways of doing (or rather not doing)
things!!!!

I have been driving for more years than I care to remember and in my
time - along with every other (very very) old timer, I feel sure, I
have driven and repaired some horrendous old cars. We even had to stand
in front of them and crank a handle to start them, and even that would take
a bit of ingenuity.

In those days we had to serrvice them ourselves it was so expensive. It
cost a year's wages just to buy the car, and a month's to get it serviced,
so we did a lot of that ourselves, too!

Nowt wrong with taking advantage of modern materials and techniques.
They have their place. I still enjoy building from scratch or kits
(as opposed to ARTF) but it'll be a cold day in hell before I use tissue
and dope again. ;)

Nobby
Actually the bit about driving a crank-start car was bollox, I first drove
in 1978 and it was electric start. I did use tissue and dope, though.

[Boo]

Post by Nobby Anderson
Actually the bit about driving a crank-start car was bollox, I first drove
in 1978 and it was electric start. I did use tissue and dope, though.

Didn't that just gum up the engine ?

[Nobby Anderson]

Post by Boo

Post by Nobby Anderson
Actually the bit about driving a crank-start car was bollox, I first drove
in 1978 and it was electric start. I did use tissue and dope, though.

Didn't that just gum up the engine ?

Naa, you smoke the dope and wipe your snoz on the tissues. Not immediately
before driving the car, though ...

Nobby

["KGB" (KGB)]

<SNIP>

Post by Nobby Anderson
I have been driving for more years than I care to remember and in my
time - along with every other (very very) old timer, I feel sure, I
have driven and repaired some horrendous old cars. We even had to stand
in front of them and crank a handle to start them, and even that would take
a bit of ingenuity.
In those days we had to serrvice them ourselves it was so expensive. It
cost a year's wages just to buy the car, and a month's to get it serviced,
so we did a lot of that ourselves, too!
Nowt wrong with taking advantage of modern materials and techniques.
They have their place. I still enjoy building from scratch or kits
(as opposed to ARTF) but it'll be a cold day in hell before I use tissue
and dope again. ;)

Hi

Surely the main difference between cars and "toy" planes is that cars
are a necessity (debatable I realize) to most people, whereas RC
flying is a hobby.

To me, a car is simply a useful means or getting from "A" to "B" - (or
to the flying field and back) - and if it goes wrong, I take it to an
expert to mend.

Model aircraft, on the other hand, are part of my hobby and are
something I enjoy tinkering with. In an effort to improve my
expertise and enjoyment of my chosen hobby, I like to get involved
with all aspects - including building and repairing. Also it is
amazing how much incidental knowledge, useful in other aspects of
life, one acquires building and repairing planes. I now have a
reasonable layman's knowledge of materials & structures, DIY skills
such as soldering and metal bending etc; a useful collection of handy
tools and bits and pieces of assorted materials useful for all sorts
of purposes, and I am regarded among friends as something of a "guru"
as to what sort of glue to use for what particular application.
Actually modern adhesives are something I do take advantage of - when
I started it was just balsa cement and tissue paste.

One of my lasting regrets however, is that the extremely attractive
female friend of mine who, wearing only her underwear, managed to glue
her shoe to her pubic hairs whilst using superglue to repair the sole
(it's true), unfortunately didn't take advantage of my expertise; I
would have been more than happy to help out. 8^(

As far as aircraft go, building and repairing them at a very early
age, I acquired a reasonable knowledge of how and why they fly - and
why they fall out of the sky, how to trim for straight and level
flight (another lost art), which control surface does what etc., in
other words a basic grounding in aeronautics (not very useful in
everyday life admittedly, except for reassurance when halfway across
the Atlantic at 30,000 feet).

Having said all that, my original post was meant to be somewhat tongue
in cheek and I do realize that one can get as much or as little as one
wants from a hobby, if you do not want to go deeply into it, you don't
have to: and - having owned a hobby shop many years ago - whatever
somebody does for a hobby, providing it is legal and doesn't harm
anybody else, then no matter how "weird" it may seem to another
person, if they personally get relaxation and enjoyment from doing it,
then good luck to them.

I do take your point about tissue and dope. I went off it after my
very first attempt to build a model plane (rubber powered) at the age
of around nine, when I very stupidly had the bright idea of trying to
speed up the drying time by holding the newly doped structure over a
lit gas ring!!!!! Definitely a Darwin award entry (I was very young
don't forget) and although I didn't actually burn the house down, I
never tried it again. 8^)

Regards


KGB

[Nobby Anderson]

Post by "KGB" (KGB)
<SNIP>

Post by Nobby Anderson
I have been driving for more years than I care to remember and in my
time - along with every other (very very) old timer, I feel sure, I
have driven and repaired some horrendous old cars. We even had to stand
in front of them and crank a handle to start them, and even that would take
a bit of ingenuity.
In those days we had to serrvice them ourselves it was so expensive. It
cost a year's wages just to buy the car, and a month's to get it serviced,
so we did a lot of that ourselves, too!
Nowt wrong with taking advantage of modern materials and techniques.
They have their place. I still enjoy building from scratch or kits
(as opposed to ARTF) but it'll be a cold day in hell before I use tissue
and dope again. ;)

Hi
Surely the main difference between cars and "toy" planes is that cars
are a necessity (debatable I realize) to most people, whereas RC
flying is a hobby.
To me, a car is simply a useful means or getting from "A" to "B" - (or
to the flying field and back) - and if it goes wrong, I take it to an
expert to mend.
Model aircraft, on the other hand, are part of my hobby and are
something I enjoy tinkering with. In an effort to improve my
expertise and enjoyment of my chosen hobby, I like to get involved
with all aspects - including building and repairing. Also it is
amazing how much incidental knowledge, useful in other aspects of
life, one acquires building and repairing planes. I now have a
reasonable layman's knowledge of materials & structures, DIY skills
such as soldering and metal bending etc; a useful collection of handy
tools and bits and pieces of assorted materials useful for all sorts
of purposes, and I am regarded among friends as something of a "guru"
as to what sort of glue to use for what particular application.
Actually modern adhesives are something I do take advantage of - when
I started it was just balsa cement and tissue paste.
One of my lasting regrets however, is that the extremely attractive
female friend of mine who, wearing only her underwear, managed to glue
her shoe to her pubic hairs whilst using superglue to repair the sole
(it's true), unfortunately didn't take advantage of my expertise; I
would have been more than happy to help out. 8^(
As far as aircraft go, building and repairing them at a very early
age, I acquired a reasonable knowledge of how and why they fly - and
why they fall out of the sky, how to trim for straight and level
flight (another lost art), which control surface does what etc., in
other words a basic grounding in aeronautics (not very useful in
everyday life admittedly, except for reassurance when halfway across
the Atlantic at 30,000 feet).
Having said all that, my original post was meant to be somewhat tongue
in cheek and I do realize that one can get as much or as little as one
wants from a hobby, if you do not want to go deeply into it, you don't
have to: and - having owned a hobby shop many years ago - whatever
somebody does for a hobby, providing it is legal and doesn't harm
anybody else, then no matter how "weird" it may seem to another
person, if they personally get relaxation and enjoyment from doing it,
then good luck to them.
I do take your point about tissue and dope. I went off it after my
very first attempt to build a model plane (rubber powered) at the age
of around nine, when I very stupidly had the bright idea of trying to
speed up the drying time by holding the newly doped structure over a
lit gas ring!!!!! Definitely a Darwin award entry (I was very young
don't forget) and although I didn't actually burn the house down, I
never tried it again. 8^)

I agree with everything you've said but as you've pointed out in your
second last paragraph you cna take as little or as much as you want
from the hobby, which is something you couldn't do 30 years ago, when
it was (a) expensive, and (b) you pretty much had to build your own
plane from a kit with bits of balsa in it. The difference now is that
the bar to entry into the hobby is much lower - instead of a month's
wage to get started it's now a fraction of that - you can get a plane
that'll fly reasonably well into the air for under �100 - that's got to
mean more people trying it outi than if they had to build from scratch.
I used to believe that you weren't doing it properly if you didn't build
from scratch, now I've mellowed and pretty much changed my point of view.

It's the same in my other childhood hobby, electronics. It's hard to get
kids interested in that these days compared with 40 years ago, simply
because 40 years ago a radio cost an arm and a leg and a crystal set
could be built for a week's pocket money. Now I can but an AM/FM/clock
radio for a week's pocket money (recently bought by daughter one for �2.99
which is only a quid more than her pocket money). Also the level of
sophistication is so much more - it's difficult to do anything worthwhile
cheaply as a hobbyist because the components are too sophisitcated (you
can't just solder transistors and resistors to a pegboard, you have to
deal with hard to solder IC packages and the like). In 1965 a bistable
multivibrator that flashed a couple of lights was novel, now it doesn't
compete with a Nintendo DS, and if you want a bistable multivibrator you
buy it from Anne Summers ;) These days I are won though (an Elektronik
Enjuneir) so I don't have to do it as a hobbyi (and frankly do so much at
work that if something electronic breaks down at home I chuck it out and
buy a new one if it's not obviously repairable or under warranty).

I also did the dope thing trying to straighten half a glider wing over
an electric hob. Oops. Can't remember if I've subsequently 'fessed to
my parents.

Nobby

[Kevin]

Post by Wally
Thanks for the comments so far, folks (please keep them coming).
A "toe dip" is about right for my level of interest at present, and I'm
naturally reticent to spend more than I need to for the sake of having a go.
The (balsa?) IC trainer package for 162 quid looks like a good deal compared
to the foamy Cub - until the additional 70 quid or so for accessories is
factored in. I'm sure it's a lot more plane, but 2.5 times the cost leads
one to think a bit more before buying.
I bought the 20-quid RC PlaneMaster sim, which comes with a dummy Tx that
plugs into the computer's USB port. I felt this was a better option for a
sim, since it allows my fingers to get the hang of using the same controls
I'd find on a real Tx (unlike a computer joystick).
A 'proper' balsa plane with an IC motor certainly has an attraction, more so
when I went to the local model shop for another look around. I saw some
built foamies, and they didn't impress me as models (scale or otherwise).
It's just a couple of bits of expanded polystyrene with plastic bits glued
on. I realise most of the money is in the electrics (Trefor, I think the Tx
is included), so the airframe is neccessarily a small part of the cost - but
it still looked a bit cheap and 'toyish', and that kinda put me off a bit.
On the other hand, there is scope to reuse the electrics from a foamy in
another RC project at a later date.

dont use the radio in any land based craft though if its 35mhz
Although I'm posting here as a resut of

Post by Wally
interest in flying model planes, I have a more general interest in radio
control (wheeled vehicles, sailboats, motor boats), so it's not beyond the
realms of possibility that the electrical gubbins could be used in something
else (home-brewed, most likely). On a related note, is there any reason to
not reuse the foamy's Tx, Rx, and servos in an IC trainer?

only problem with some radios is they are short range and have tiny
servos both of these things are of no use in a large IC trainer

Post by Wally
Hmm. On balance, I think the foamy is in the lead, in spite of my feeling
that it looks cheap (well, it is cheap). And, when I think about it, maybe
the whole kit isn't neccessarily throw-away should I want to go to an IC
plane later (even if the bits are reused in an unrelated project).
The shop also had a Cessna foamy (same maker) which looked equivalent, price
and construction-wise, to the Cub. The difference was that it's a tricycle
undercarriage, rather than a tail-dragger. Would the Cessna be a better
choice?

http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=5617&Desc=cub
this looks easy to fly

[Wally]

Post by Kevin
dont use the radio in any land based craft though if its 35mhz

Ah, good point - forgot about that.

Post by Kevin
only problem with some radios is they are short range and have tiny
servos both of these things are of no use in a large IC trainer

I wondered about range. The servos are 8.4g - what does that mean, and are
they any good?

Post by Kevin
http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=5617&Desc=cub
this looks easy to fly

Do planes break as easily as they do in the simulator? :)

[Kevin]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
dont use the radio in any land based craft though if its 35mhz

Ah, good point - forgot about that.

Post by Kevin
only problem with some radios is they are short range and have tiny
servos both of these things are of no use in a large IC trainer

I wondered about range. The servos are 8.4g - what does that mean, and are
they any good?

8.4g is the weight of a servo, the smaller they are the smaller the
plane will need to be as they don't have the same power/speed as a
bigger servos ,they will work on the ground in a bigger plane but they
might not be able to move the controls at speed when flying so always
pick a servo to suit the plane
the conventional wisdom is use a Futaba 148 or similar servo for a
normal i.c trainer and these will weigh 40grams and have a larger
electric motor driving the arm

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=5617&Desc=cub
this looks easy to fly

Do planes break as easily as they do in the simulator? :)

depends on what the are made from :-) EPP is more or less unbreakable

[erg]

Hi,
The group seems to have yawned and woken up !

How about something along the lines of the Multiplex Easy Glider ?

It's a glider so it can fly slow and give a novice time to think.
It's made of Elapor foam which should bounce a bit before breaking.
Landings can be nice and slow, especially if you have got the thing set up
properly.

Get the electric powered one and you can fly off flat ground, slopes, etc.

I haven't got one but I haven't seen a bad word about them online....

[Kevin]

Post by erg
Hi,
The group seems to have yawned and woken up !
How about something along the lines of the Multiplex Easy Glider ?
It's a glider so it can fly slow and give a novice time to think.
It's made of Elapor foam which should bounce a bit before breaking.
Landings can be nice and slow, especially if you have got the thing set up
properly.
Get the electric powered one and you can fly off flat ground, slopes, etc.
I haven't got one but I haven't seen a bad word about them online....

I forgot that one

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by erg
Hi,
The group seems to have yawned and woken up !
How about something along the lines of the Multiplex Easy Glider ?
It's a glider so it can fly slow and give a novice time to think.
It's made of Elapor foam which should bounce a bit before breaking.
Landings can be nice and slow, especially if you have got the thing set up
properly.
Get the electric powered one and you can fly off flat ground, slopes, etc.
I haven't got one but I haven't seen a bad word about them online....

I know a man who has..they are good if you are *really* new..but you
will soon get a bit bored.

[Wally]

Post by Kevin
8.4g is the weight of a servo, the smaller they are the smaller the
plane will need to be as they don't have the same power/speed as a
bigger servos ,they will work on the ground in a bigger plane but they
might not be able to move the controls at speed when flying so always
pick a servo to suit the plane
the conventional wisdom is use a Futaba 148 or similar servo for a
normal i.c trainer and these will weigh 40grams and have a larger
electric motor driving the arm

Righto. So, the weight of the servo is an approximation of its power.

Post by Kevin

Post by Wally
Do planes break as easily as they do in the simulator? :)

depends on what the are made from :-) EPP is more or less unbreakable
http://youtu.be/xFQMZTOP0Ug

I'm beginning to go off the foamy idea a bit. I was talking to a guy from a
local club, and he reckoned they were a bit light for the prevailing
conditions (a bit breezy). Reckoned I wouldn't get many decent flying days,
and also said that there's unlikely to be much flying until March. This is
leading me towards considering something a bit heavier (I think that means
an IC trainer). Due to the cost, I'm reconsidering getting used kit and
relying on my arf-decent technical aptitude to fix or recondition as
required. If I'm looking at a probable 3 months, I have time to learn more
and do some bargain hunting (still want to keep the spend within reasonable
bounds).

[Kevin]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
8.4g is the weight of a servo, the smaller they are the smaller the
plane will need to be as they don't have the same power/speed as a
bigger servos ,they will work on the ground in a bigger plane but they
might not be able to move the controls at speed when flying so always
pick a servo to suit the plane
the conventional wisdom is use a Futaba 148 or similar servo for a
normal i.c trainer and these will weigh 40grams and have a larger
electric motor driving the arm

Righto. So, the weight of the servo is an approximation of its power.

Post by Kevin

Post by Wally
Do planes break as easily as they do in the simulator? :)

depends on what the are made from :-) EPP is more or less unbreakable
http://youtu.be/xFQMZTOP0Ug

I'm beginning to go off the foamy idea a bit. I was talking to a guy from a
local club, and he reckoned they were a bit light for the prevailing
conditions (a bit breezy). Reckoned I wouldn't get many decent flying days,
and also said that there's unlikely to be much flying until March. This is
leading me towards considering something a bit heavier (I think that means
an IC trainer). Due to the cost, I'm reconsidering getting used kit and
relying on my arf-decent technical aptitude to fix or recondition as
required. If I'm looking at a probable 3 months, I have time to learn more
and do some bargain hunting (still want to keep the spend within reasonable
bounds).

personally I would go the IC route if you can find some one to help if
not go for foam

[Wally]

Post by Kevin
personally I would go the IC route if you can find some one to help if
not go for foam

I'm sure I can get help to learn (my neighbour flies, and there are two
clubs within a few miles of me). I'd very likely be going the club route in
any case with an IC. The eventual aim is to make flying videos of some sort,
and I suspect an IC will be better placed to handle the payload of bullet
camera and digital recorder doohickey.

[Kevin]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
personally I would go the IC route if you can find some one to help if
not go for foam

I'm sure I can get help to learn (my neighbour flies, and there are two
clubs within a few miles of me). I'd very likely be going the club route in
any case with an IC. The eventual aim is to make flying videos of some sort,
and I suspect an IC will be better placed to handle the payload of bullet
camera and digital recorder doohickey.

I have a "flycam one" video camera and you can put this on almost any
plane as its only 40 grams complete, so don't let size rule your models

[Wally]

Post by Kevin
I have a "flycam one" video camera and you can put this on almost any
plane as its only 40 grams complete, so don't let size rule your models

The car rules the size. None of these 2-metre wingspans for me. :)

[Kevin]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
I have a "flycam one" video camera and you can put this on almost any
plane as its only 40 grams complete, so don't let size rule your models

The car rules the size. None of these 2-metre wingspans for me. :)

another option is slope soaring as I guess you have quite a few hills up
North :-)
then you could have one of these
http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=7755&Desc=

[Wally]

Post by Kevin
another option is slope soaring as I guess you have quite a few hills
up North :-)
then you could have one of these
http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=7755&Desc=

That's approximately three times bigger than I have room for. It's also 'not
to my taste', visually. :)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
personally I would go the IC route if you can find some one to help if
not go for foam

I'm sure I can get help to learn (my neighbour flies, and there are two
clubs within a few miles of me). I'd very likely be going the club route in
any case with an IC. The eventual aim is to make flying videos of some sort,
and I suspect an IC will be better placed to handle the payload of bullet
camera and digital recorder doohickey.

No. Fancy a 10lb 96" span electric?

No problem these days.

It's just that the cost gets similar to IC as you get up towards a .40
style plane.

I personally got fed up with the mess and cost of running IC and went
all electric.

The planes are no different really..less overbuilt for electric thats
all..no need for anti vibration stuff.

They make MUCH better camera platforms as a result No oil, not
vibration. You can shut the engine off completely.

Electric can be small, pathetic and slow, but it doesn't HAVE to be.

You can take any 40 trainer and fit sonething like an AXI 4130 and it
will fly better than the IC will, without the oil, the mess and the noise.

[Wally]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
No. Fancy a 10lb 96" span electric?
No problem these days.

That has no chance of fitting in the car if it doesn't come apart. How
easily are these things dismantled? How long would the fuselage be on such a
plane?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
It's just that the cost gets similar to IC as you get up towards a .40
style plane.

I think I'm resigned to spending a bit more than I originally envisaged
anyway. At least I have some time to learn and bargain hunt.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I personally got fed up with the mess and cost of running IC and went
all electric.

There's a thing - how much fuel do (trainer type) IC planes get through?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The planes are no different really..less overbuilt for electric thats
all..no need for anti vibration stuff.
They make MUCH better camera platforms as a result No oil, not
vibration. You can shut the engine off completely.

Noted.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Electric can be small, pathetic and slow, but it doesn't HAVE to be.
You can take any 40 trainer and fit sonething like an AXI 4130 and it
will fly better than the IC will, without the oil, the mess and the noise.

What about flying time? Do you cycle 2 or 3 batteries round a charger on the
day?

[Kevin]

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
No. Fancy a 10lb 96" span electric?
No problem these days.

That has no chance of fitting in the car if it doesn't come apart. How
easily are these things dismantled? How long would the fuselage be on such a
plane?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
It's just that the cost gets similar to IC as you get up towards a .40
style plane.

I think I'm resigned to spending a bit more than I originally envisaged
anyway. At least I have some time to learn and bargain hunt.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I personally got fed up with the mess and cost of running IC and went
all electric.

There's a thing - how much fuel do (trainer type) IC planes get through?

6 oz fuel a 15 min flight not sure if thats the same as fluid ouncesm
but the tanks used to be sized that way but not brought a tank for years

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The planes are no different really..less overbuilt for electric thats
all..no need for anti vibration stuff.
They make MUCH better camera platforms as a result No oil, not
vibration. You can shut the engine off completely.

Noted.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Electric can be small, pathetic and slow, but it doesn't HAVE to be.
You can take any 40 trainer and fit sonething like an AXI 4130 and it
will fly better than the IC will, without the oil, the mess and the noise.

What about flying time? Do you cycle 2 or 3 batteries round a charger on the
day?

LiPo's take 1 hour to charge NiMh about 30 mins for a 10 min flight so
to fly constantly you need several chargers and batteries, I usually
have 3 sets and take 3 models so I can fly each model 3 times without
charging

[Wally]

Post by Kevin
6 oz fuel a 15 min flight not sure if thats the same as fluid ouncesm
but the tanks used to be sized that way but not brought a tank for years
LiPo's take 1 hour to charge NiMh about 30 mins for a 10 min flight so
to fly constantly you need several chargers and batteries, I usually
have 3 sets and take 3 models so I can fly each model 3 times without
charging

So, either way, it's about a 10-15 minute flight before having to refuel or
charge/swap battery. I think it's then a balance between deciding what I'd
rather do between flights, the initial cost of the bits, and the running
costs.

I'd have to say that battery swapping has an attraction over dealing with
liquid fuel and glow plugs. I'd need to do numbers on the initial spend,
although I suspect that, for a more powerful electric setup to suit a
heavier plane, it will be similar to that for IC. I guess running costs are
negligible for electric - unless the batteries have a limited life? Do LiPos
need to be discharged before recharging?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
6 oz fuel a 15 min flight not sure if thats the same as fluid ouncesm
but the tanks used to be sized that way but not brought a tank for years
LiPo's take 1 hour to charge NiMh about 30 mins for a 10 min flight so
to fly constantly you need several chargers and batteries, I usually
have 3 sets and take 3 models so I can fly each model 3 times without
charging

So, either way, it's about a 10-15 minute flight before having to refuel or
charge/swap battery. I think it's then a balance between deciding what I'd
rather do between flights, the initial cost of the bits, and the running
costs.
I'd have to say that battery swapping has an attraction over dealing with
liquid fuel and glow plugs. I'd need to do numbers on the initial spend,
although I suspect that, for a more powerful electric setup to suit a
heavier plane, it will be similar to that for IC. I guess running costs are
negligible for electric - unless the batteries have a limited life? Do LiPos
need to be discharged before recharging?

batteries will do at least 50 cycles if hammered, 500+ if treated really
well. The reality is something like new packs every couple of years.

The ideal state for long life is to store half charged,. And cool.

In my case the seldom heated workshop at full charge or where they came
out of the plane, works nearly as well.


I generally have a charging session the evening before flying.

[Wally]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
batteries will do at least 50 cycles if hammered, 500+ if treated
really well. The reality is something like new packs every couple of
years.
The ideal state for long life is to store half charged,. And cool.
In my case the seldom heated workshop at full charge or where they
came out of the plane, works nearly as well.
I generally have a charging session the evening before flying.

Okay, so a bit of care should keep the costs minimal. For a motor that would
be comparable to an IC engine, in whatever trainer one might sensibly
choose, what mAh rating should the batteries be? A quick scan at my local
shop's web site shows that they range from 800 to 3300mAh, with a
corresponding range of weights. To put it another way, what capacity would
give the 10-15 minutes flight time in an electrified 'IC' trainer?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
batteries will do at least 50 cycles if hammered, 500+ if treated
really well. The reality is something like new packs every couple of
years.
The ideal state for long life is to store half charged,. And cool.
In my case the seldom heated workshop at full charge or where they
came out of the plane, works nearly as well.
I generally have a charging session the evening before flying.

Okay, so a bit of care should keep the costs minimal. For a motor that would
be comparable to an IC engine, in whatever trainer one might sensibly
choose, what mAh rating should the batteries be? A quick scan at my local
shop's web site shows that they range from 800 to 3300mAh, with a
corresponding range of weights. To put it another way, what capacity would
give the 10-15 minutes flight time in an electrified 'IC' trainer?

Depends on the power. A sort of .25cu in motor is roughly about a 250W
motor. Thats would be something like a 2200mAh 3 cell pack. That will
fly a 50" sort of model nicely.


Throttled back to cruse, you might get about 15-20 minutes. Flat out it
will be flat in 6-8.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
No. Fancy a 10lb 96" span electric?
No problem these days.

That has no chance of fitting in the car if it doesn't come apart. How
easily are these things dismantled? How long would the fuselage be on such a
plane?

I made thee tail detachable as well. No bit is longer than 4 foot.

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
It's just that the cost gets similar to IC as you get up towards a .40
style plane.

I think I'm resigned to spending a bit more than I originally envisaged
anyway. At least I have some time to learn and bargain hunt.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I personally got fed up with the mess and cost of running IC and went
all electric.

There's a thing - how much fuel do (trainer type) IC planes get through?

Not sure. Tanks look abut 100ml and that last about 15 minutes, so a 5
liter can of fuel probably last 50 flights.

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The planes are no different really..less overbuilt for electric thats
all..no need for anti vibration stuff.
They make MUCH better camera platforms as a result No oil, not
vibration. You can shut the engine off completely.

Noted.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Electric can be small, pathetic and slow, but it doesn't HAVE to be.
You can take any 40 trainer and fit sonething like an AXI 4130 and it
will fly better than the IC will, without the oil, the mess and the noise.

What about flying time? Do you cycle 2 or 3 batteries round a charger on the
day?

Well. My slow stuff will fly over half an hour on a charge. It depends
on how throttle happy you are. Generally at lest ten minutes a charge.
So a couple o batteries pre charged gets you a couple of ten-fifteen
minute flights then its about 40 -50 minutes to have enough charge in
the first one again.

Lithium batteries don't need hot charging either, so you can if you want
bring three or four pre charged packs to the field, and fly off them.

the A123 cells that people are staring to use may be faster charging
than lithium. I am not familiar.

I enjoy the sound and smell of IC engines, just not enough to get one
again yet. Might get a weeny diesel though.

[Wally]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I made thee tail detachable as well. No bit is longer than 4 foot.

That's just about the limit - just been out to measure the boot of the car.
The opening is 43" wide by 16" front to back. If I were to dip one end of
the wing/fuselage in and slide it left, I could just about manage 49" in the
width. Depth from bottom to lowest point of the opening is 13". Anything
bigger than that would have to go into the passenger space (which I'd rather
avoid).

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Not sure. Tanks look abut 100ml and that last about 15 minutes, so a 5
liter can of fuel probably last 50 flights.

Not a huge cost per flight, then. Are any other bits and bobs needed for
maintenance?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Well. My slow stuff will fly over half an hour on a charge. It depends
on how throttle happy you are. Generally at lest ten minutes a charge.
So a couple o batteries pre charged gets you a couple of ten-fifteen
minute flights then its about 40 -50 minutes to have enough charge in
the first one again.

I envisage slow for now so that sounds promising - I have almost zero skill
at flying r/c and I don't think adding a fast plane is a good idea. Sounds
like a charger and two or three batteries should suffice.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Lithium batteries don't need hot charging either, so you can if you
want bring three or four pre charged packs to the field, and fly off
them.

Righto. Is that the LiPos that you're referring to?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
the A123 cells that people are staring to use may be faster charging
than lithium. I am not familiar.

A123? Is that cell size? Used in LiPo packs?

[Kevin]

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I made thee tail detachable as well. No bit is longer than 4 foot.

That's just about the limit - just been out to measure the boot of the car.
The opening is 43" wide by 16" front to back. If I were to dip one end of
the wing/fuselage in and slide it left, I could just about manage 49" in the
width. Depth from bottom to lowest point of the opening is 13". Anything
bigger than that would have to go into the passenger space (which I'd rather
avoid).

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Not sure. Tanks look abut 100ml and that last about 15 minutes, so a 5
liter can of fuel probably last 50 flights.

Not a huge cost per flight, then. Are any other bits and bobs needed for
maintenance?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Well. My slow stuff will fly over half an hour on a charge. It depends
on how throttle happy you are. Generally at lest ten minutes a charge.
So a couple o batteries pre charged gets you a couple of ten-fifteen
minute flights then its about 40 -50 minutes to have enough charge in
the first one again.

I envisage slow for now so that sounds promising - I have almost zero skill
at flying r/c and I don't think adding a fast plane is a good idea. Sounds
like a charger and two or three batteries should suffice.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Lithium batteries don't need hot charging either, so you can if you
want bring three or four pre charged packs to the field, and fly off
them.

Righto. Is that the LiPos that you're referring to?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
the A123 cells that people are staring to use may be faster charging
than lithium. I am not familiar.

A123? Is that cell size? Used in LiPo packs?

A123 are just another battery type similar to LiPo's
http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=6444

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Kevin

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
I made thee tail detachable as well. No bit is longer than 4 foot.

That's just about the limit - just been out to measure the boot of the car.
The opening is 43" wide by 16" front to back. If I were to dip one end of
the wing/fuselage in and slide it left, I could just about manage 49" in the
width. Depth from bottom to lowest point of the opening is 13". Anything
bigger than that would have to go into the passenger space (which I'd rather
avoid).

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Not sure. Tanks look abut 100ml and that last about 15 minutes, so a 5
liter can of fuel probably last 50 flights.

Not a huge cost per flight, then. Are any other bits and bobs needed for
maintenance?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Well. My slow stuff will fly over half an hour on a charge. It depends
on how throttle happy you are. Generally at lest ten minutes a charge.
So a couple o batteries pre charged gets you a couple of ten-fifteen
minute flights then its about 40 -50 minutes to have enough charge in
the first one again.

I envisage slow for now so that sounds promising - I have almost zero skill
at flying r/c and I don't think adding a fast plane is a good idea. Sounds
like a charger and two or three batteries should suffice.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Lithium batteries don't need hot charging either, so you can if you
want bring three or four pre charged packs to the field, and fly off
them.

Righto. Is that the LiPos that you're referring to?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
the A123 cells that people are staring to use may be faster charging
than lithium. I am not familiar.

A123? Is that cell size? Used in LiPo packs?

A123 are just another battery type similar to LiPo's
http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=6444

yeahs..there are some lithium technologies that can stand more abuse,
but are heavier. 123 is one, saphion is possibly the same thing in a
different form.

[erg]

Post by Wally
I'm sure I can get help to learn (my neighbour flies, and there are two
clubs within a few miles of me). I'd very likely be going the club route in
any case with an IC. The eventual aim is to make flying videos of some sort,
and I suspect an IC will be better placed to handle the payload of bullet
camera and digital recorder doohickey.

If you really want to get into aerial photography then I would seriously
consider electric power.

Until recently I was an i.c "junkie", both glow power and diesel. Then I
converted one of my planes to electric power. Was it a success ? Well...
all of my planes are now converted to brushless outrunners and lipo packs.
I guess it was a success >:-))

For aerial photography the benefits of electric power are... very little
vibration and the ability to switch the motor on and off at will. The
problem with video and model planes is that the camera will produce
horizontal lines across the picture if the spinning prop is in the
camera's view. Electric power, a folding prop and a speed control with
brake function solve that problem as the prop stops and doesn't windmill.

You don't have to point the camera forward but many prefer to do so.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
dont use the radio in any land based craft though if its 35mhz

Ah, good point - forgot about that.

Post by Kevin
only problem with some radios is they are short range and have tiny
servos both of these things are of no use in a large IC trainer

I wondered about range. The servos are 8.4g - what does that mean, and are
they any good?

standrd small servo.

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=5617&Desc=cub
this looks easy to fly

Do planes break as easily as they do in the simulator? :)

easier!

[Dave Lane]

Post by Wally
I suppose it's my turn to ask the newbie questions...
I'm interesting in trying out model flying

good luck - you'll get a different opinion for every reply here... :+)

my 2p's worth...hope it's of help

go for leccy - it's a lot hassle for a newbie

important question - are you going it alone, or is there anyone to hand
that can show you the basics?

If going it alone, forget about an ic-powered trainer, as it will last
about 10 seconds (if you get it into the air) and you'll end up with an
expensive bag of bits.

Take a look at the Multiplex Easystar - this is a pusher-glider electric
type, eg:
http://www.brchobbies.co.uk/?page=shop&item=555

this version has most of the gear installed, and you can pick up 35Mhz
Transmitter and Receiver pretty cheaply these day. It will need only a
small flight battery that can be charged from a 12 v source with a
cheapo Esky Lipo charger.

The Easystar is made from moulded polypropylene which is very, very
tough, but still flexible to absorb all but the worst 'arrivals'. If it
does break, it's easily fixed with ordinary superglue, or in the event
of a dent, can sometimes be fixed by dunking the afflicted bit into hot
water. Trying to repair a fuel-soaked built-up model can be a dead loss.

There are many advantages to this type of design for the go-it-alone
learner. No undercarriage means that the fuselage won't get ripped
apart by a less than good landing. You can test glide the thing by
simply chucking it over long grass - just this alone will increase your
confidence, and that's what learning is all about. All models require
'trimming' when built - that is, they need the control surfaces
tweaking, the cg tweaking and so on, to make them fly well. But, as a
beginner, you won't know how to do this in the air. If you can do this
with a few test glides without needing the motor, it's a lot easier.
(The old codgers here will now be off daydreaming about free flight models)

The rear-facing prop is less likely to bite you or get broken, and as a
powered glider with a thick wing section, it will be more stable, less
likely to build up too much speed, but still be able to handle a little
wind when you do make progress.

Although there'll be many opinions expressed here, there are a couple of
things that I think we'd all agree on:

You will break it! Even after many years' flying, we all still do, now
and then. So do consider repairability.
It *will* end up looking tatty.... :+)
If you manage to crack flying it, you will soon find the model too tame
and want something a bit more lively - so can it be upgraded? The
Easystar comes with a basic brushed motor, and there are any number of
upgrades for this.

Go have a look at:
http://www.rcflights.co.uk/EasystarEquip.htm

to see what one enthusiast has to say about these.



hope that's of help..... best of luck

cheers


Dave



and, in the main, want to find

Post by Wally
out about what would be a good plane to start with. I'm aware that I should
join a club, get insurance (via membership of the BMFA?) and undertake my
first flights with an instructor, possibly with buddied radios.
I haven't flown models (or real planes) before, and haven't spent much time
playing with computer flight simulators, but I think I get the general idea
that wiggling the sticks on the Tx move the control surfaces on the plane
and thus make it move about in the air. I'm technically adept - have a
reasonable understanding of radios, physics, engines, electricity, and have
the skills and facilities to fabricate almost anything.
I could conceivably buy a kit, or plans, and spend ages building something
very nice and expensive, and promptly trash it on its maiden flight. I don't
think I want to go down that route - I could build something, and that may
well be an option for the future, but I think I'd like to get the basics of
flying sorted out first. If the interest sustains beyond that, then I'll see
about building my own.
So, for a first plane, I'm looking to strike a balance between cost, effort,
and flyability, and I think that means one of the RTF offerings. One that
caught my eye was the Top Gun Super Cub outfit. The main attractions of this
for me are...
Seems that everything needed to get started is in the box.
Not expensive at 100 quid.
High wing plane for better stability.
Computer simulator using Tx USB connection.
Very little assembly required.
Convenience of leccytrical power.
More details here...
http://www.marionvillemodels.com/radio-controlled-models/aircraft/beginner-pilots/Top-Gun-Park-Flite-Super-Cub-PA18-RC-radio-control-plane---inc-flight-sim/product.aspx
Would this be a sensible choice for a first plane? I should point out that,
should I get into the hobby more seriously, I wouldn't neccessarily be
looking to keep any of the bits for a future plane (happy to replace radio
stuff, etc, if need be).
Is electric a viable choice? How much flight time can I expect with
something like this? How long does the battery take to recharge, and can I
charge from the car? How much are spare batteries?
Anything else I should know? Any other options I should consider?
Thanks in advance,

[Wally]

It's looking like the 100-quid foamy has gone for a burton, partly due to
the concern that it may be too light for what I gather are typical wind
conditions in my local area. If it's the case that a heavier plane
neccessitates a bigger spend, then I have to work out a list of bits such
that, if I decide this isn't for me, I can sell on without taking too much
of a financial hit - or potentially find a way to reuse some of the stuff,
at least. My questions here are about radio gear...

The two clubs local to me mostly use Futaba gear, so I'd be going for
something of that make on the basis that it will be easier to get advice and
support based on the experience of others, and because there should be no
issue with connecting up buddy cables.

The 2.4GHz stuff looks very interesting. From what I can gather, this
doesn't need frequency arbitration by allocating crystals to fliers - you
just get your Tx and Rx locked to each other, and you're free to fly without
worring about somebody else overriding your signals. I've seen stuff about
packet filtering, and stuff about rapid frequency changing - is there one
2.4GHz system, or is there a relatively basic one and a fancier one with
both interference rejection features?

What's the deal with using something like a Futaba FASST radio for
non-aviation models? I see 2.4GHz controllers for cars, for example. Aside
from a plane, other potential interests in models include a yacht (nice lake
near me that's conducive to this), and maybe a helicopter (as an alternative
camera platform). There's also a latent interest in some sort of wheeled or
tracked vehicle. For now, a plane is where my interest lies, with a yacht
coming afterwards, and the others some time in the future with no specific
plans.

What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get servos
separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits? Go for a Tx
only, and buy Rx and servos as needed? If I go for an electric plane, how
does the ESC fit into this scheme? Does the ESC plug into a servo output on
the Rx and basically look like a servo to the system?

Can I buy a second Rx (and servos) and lock that to the radio, such that I
can run two different models without the need to swap the Rx over between
them? Is second hand kit a viable option? Is there likely to be much 2.4GHz
gear for sale used, or is it too new for much to be available?

What kind of range can I expect to get?

And... how many channels? I'm thinking that the 6EX is probably the
'recommended' starter set for this, but is six enough in the longer term? I
see stuff about planes that use two servoes for ailerons to give flaps,
which means five channels are used for a '4-channel' setup, meaning only one
channel left over. If I were to progress to something with a retractable
undercarriage, then that's the channels used up. Is there anything else I
might want to use spare channels for, or is it the case that 7+ channels is
disproprtionately expensive?

The 6EX seems to sell for 170 quid, while the 7C/FF7 is over 300 - does it
really cost that much just for an extra channel, or does it have extra
features that make it worthwhile? I'm not sure that I really need extra
model memories (6 and 10?), although the 7C seems to have a more
sophisticated interface for setup. Does the 7C have additional programming
options that the 6EX lacks? From what I've read, both have plenty of
programming options (control mixing?).

[Kevin]

Post by Wally
It's looking like the 100-quid foamy has gone for a burton, partly due to
the concern that it may be too light for what I gather are typical wind
conditions in my local area. If it's the case that a heavier plane
neccessitates a bigger spend, then I have to work out a list of bits such
that, if I decide this isn't for me, I can sell on without taking too much
of a financial hit - or potentially find a way to reuse some of the stuff,
at least. My questions here are about radio gear...
The two clubs local to me mostly use Futaba gear, so I'd be going for
something of that make on the basis that it will be easier to get advice and
support based on the experience of others, and because there should be no
issue with connecting up buddy cables.
The 2.4GHz stuff looks very interesting. From what I can gather, this
doesn't need frequency arbitration by allocating crystals to fliers - you
just get your Tx and Rx locked to each other, and you're free to fly without
worring about somebody else overriding your signals. I've seen stuff about
packet filtering, and stuff about rapid frequency changing - is there one
2.4GHz system, or is there a relatively basic one and a fancier one with
both interference rejection features?

different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and
information so you are tied to that makers receivers

Post by Wally
What's the deal with using something like a Futaba FASST radio for
non-aviation models? I see 2.4GHz controllers for cars, for example. Aside
from a plane, other potential interests in models include a yacht (nice lake
near me that's conducive to this), and maybe a helicopter (as an alternative
camera platform). There's also a latent interest in some sort of wheeled or
tracked vehicle. For now, a plane is where my interest lies, with a yacht
coming afterwards, and the others some time in the future with no specific
plans.

apart from the extra power a aircraft set uses I believe you can use it
for any model

Post by Wally
What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get servos
separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits? Go for a Tx
only, and buy Rx and servos as needed? If I go for an electric plane, how
does the ESC fit into this scheme? Does the ESC plug into a servo output on
the Rx and basically look like a servo to the system?

you might get a better deal on a complete outfit so have a look at what
you need first,
a ESC just plugs into whatever channel you need it on

Post by Wally
Can I buy a second Rx (and servos) and lock that to the radio, such that I
can run two different models without the need to swap the Rx over between
them? Is second hand kit a viable option? Is there likely to be much 2.4GHz
gear for sale used, or is it too new for much to be available?
What kind of range can I expect to get?

with a full power aircraft set and full range receiver you should have
control beyond the point you can actually see the model

Post by Wally
And... how many channels? I'm thinking that the 6EX is probably the
'recommended' starter set for this, but is six enough in the longer term? I
see stuff about planes that use two servoes for ailerons to give flaps,
which means five channels are used for a '4-channel' setup, meaning only one
channel left over. If I were to progress to something with a retractable
undercarriage, then that's the channels used up. Is there anything else I
might want to use spare channels for, or is it the case that 7+ channels is
disproprtionately expensive?
The 6EX seems to sell for 170 quid, while the 7C/FF7 is over 300 - does it
really cost that much just for an extra channel, or does it have extra
features that make it worthwhile? I'm not sure that I really need extra
model memories (6 and 10?), although the 7C seems to have a more
sophisticated interface for setup. Does the 7C have additional programming
options that the 6EX lacks? From what I've read, both have plenty of
programming options (control mixing?).

I have a Futaba 9c and have never used flaps(apart from dropping the
ailerons)or retracts, 5 channels are the most I normally use ,the 7 and
9 have better mixing functions/features that for a beginner are more or
less wasted but nice to have later

[Wally]

Post by Kevin
different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and
information so you are tied to that makers receivers

Yes, was already aware of that. I was meaning, is it all the stuff within
Futaba's range?

Post by Kevin

Post by Wally
What's the deal with using something like a Futaba FASST radio for
non-aviation models? ...

apart from the extra power a aircraft set uses I believe you can use
it for any model

Good - extends its uses quite a bit. By extra power, do you mean the extra
channels and configurability? Or Tx power?

Post by Kevin
you might get a better deal on a complete outfit so have a look at
what you need first, a ESC just plugs into whatever channel you
need it on

Righto.

Post by Kevin

Post by Wally
What kind of range can I expect to get?

with a full power aircraft set and full range receiver you should have
control beyond the point you can actually see the model

...which is plenty, I think.

Post by Kevin
I have a Futaba 9c and have never used flaps(apart from dropping the
ailerons) ...

I think that's what I was meaning - something to do with flicking a switch
on the Tx and the ailerons operate in tandem as flaps.

Post by Kevin
... or retracts, 5 channels are the most I normally use ,the 7
and 9 have better mixing functions/features that for a beginner are
more or less wasted but nice to have later

I'll do some reading and see what I can learn about the mixing functions
each. To an extent, the available facilities could shape future plans
(thinking ahead to other types of model, here, and also wondering what could
be done in terms of camera control).

[Wally]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and
information so you are tied to that makers receivers

Yes, was already aware of that. I was meaning, is it all the stuff
within Futaba's range?

Um, finger trouble. I meant...

"Is it the same for all the stuff within Futaba's range?"

[Kevin]

Post by Wally

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and
information so you are tied to that makers receivers

Yes, was already aware of that. I was meaning, is it all the stuff
within Futaba's range?

Um, finger trouble. I meant...
"Is it the same for all the stuff within Futaba's range?"

Futaba use FAST which is frequency hopping and the same on all Futaba
sets, Spectrum use 2 channels,
Spectrum seem to me to have the better system but that's just my
personal view, and to be honest I am on 35Mhz and its getting better all
the time as everybody else moves over to 2.4ghz and you wont get a £6
receiver on 2.4ghz so I have no immediate need to swap 8 planes over to
2.4ghz as it will cost a fortune

[Gavin]

Post by Kevin

Post by Wally

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and
information so you are tied to that makers receivers

Yes, was already aware of that. I was meaning, is it all the stuff
within Futaba's range?

Um, finger trouble. I meant...
"Is it the same for all the stuff within Futaba's range?"

Futaba use FAST which is frequency hopping and the same on all Futaba
sets, Spectrum use 2 channels,
Spectrum seem to me to have the better system but that's just my
personal view, and to be honest I am on 35Mhz and its getting better all
the time as everybody else moves over to 2.4ghz and you wont get a £6
receiver on 2.4ghz so I have no immediate need to swap 8 planes over to
2.4ghz as it will cost a fortune

The Spectrum starts up and looks at the frequencies available and
picks two free ones. It's possible (but unlikely) that it can pick 2
channels that are free and then get interference on them, and it will
not move off the preset channels. At least as the Futaba is hopping
around it will move off the interference channels.

It's a remote chance but still a chance, and I'm with you staying on
35Mhz..

[Kevin]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and
information so you are tied to that makers receivers

Yes, was already aware of that. I was meaning, is it all the stuff within
Futaba's range?

Post by Kevin

Post by Wally
What's the deal with using something like a Futaba FASST radio for
non-aviation models? ...

apart from the extra power a aircraft set uses I believe you can use
it for any model

Good - extends its uses quite a bit. By extra power, do you mean the extra
channels and configurability? Or Tx power?

Post by Kevin
you might get a better deal on a complete outfit so have a look at
what you need first, a ESC just plugs into whatever channel you
need it on

Righto.

Post by Kevin

Post by Wally
What kind of range can I expect to get?

with a full power aircraft set and full range receiver you should have
control beyond the point you can actually see the model

...which is plenty, I think.

Post by Kevin
I have a Futaba 9c and have never used flaps(apart from dropping the
ailerons) ...

I think that's what I was meaning - something to do with flicking a switch
on the Tx and the ailerons operate in tandem as flaps.

Post by Kevin
... or retracts, 5 channels are the most I normally use ,the 7
and 9 have better mixing functions/features that for a beginner are
more or less wasted but nice to have later

I'll do some reading and see what I can learn about the mixing functions
each. To an extent, the available facilities could shape future plans
(thinking ahead to other types of model, here, and also wondering what could
be done in terms of camera control).

one model to learn on is a Zagi nearly indestructible about £40 stock
setup go brushless later and boy are they fast & ugly
http://shop.avicraft.co.uk/product_info.php?currency=GBP&products_id=1458

chuck in a brushless £8 motor £6 esc £12 battery and have fun


I re-learnt to fly on one and its been in trees and several crashes and
still going strong

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally
It's looking like the 100-quid foamy has gone for a burton, partly due to
the concern that it may be too light for what I gather are typical wind
conditions in my local area. If it's the case that a heavier plane
neccessitates a bigger spend, then I have to work out a list of bits such
that, if I decide this isn't for me, I can sell on without taking too much
of a financial hit - or potentially find a way to reuse some of the stuff,
at least. My questions here are about radio gear...
The two clubs local to me mostly use Futaba gear, so I'd be going for
something of that make on the basis that it will be easier to get advice and
support based on the experience of others, and because there should be no
issue with connecting up buddy cables.
The 2.4GHz stuff looks very interesting. From what I can gather, this
doesn't need frequency arbitration by allocating crystals to fliers - you
just get your Tx and Rx locked to each other, and you're free to fly without
worring about somebody else overriding your signals. I've seen stuff about
packet filtering, and stuff about rapid frequency changing - is there one
2.4GHz system, or is there a relatively basic one and a fancier one with
both interference rejection features?

There is a standard which all must confirm tom but that leaves a huge
area for incompatibility as well. No two manufacturers gear will work
with each other AFAIA. Religion abounds, as do early adopters finding
serious flaws. Thers good second gen 2.4 stiff coming nstream, and of
course a ton of 35Mhz stuff ultra cheap on ebay...

Post by Wally
What's the deal with using something like a Futaba FASST radio for
non-aviation models? I see 2.4GHz controllers for cars, for example. Aside
from a plane, other potential interests in models include a yacht (nice lake
near me that's conducive to this), and maybe a helicopter (as an alternative
camera platform). There's also a latent interest in some sort of wheeled or
tracked vehicle. For now, a plane is where my interest lies, with a yacht
coming afterwards, and the others some time in the future with no specific
plans.

Think it's all street legal.

Post by Wally
What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get servos
separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits?

Not if you want small servos. Buy TX/RX as a matched pair, and buy
servos online cheap!

Post by Wally
Go for a Tx
only, and buy Rx and servos as needed? If I go for an electric plane, how
does the ESC fit into this scheme? Does the ESC plug into a servo output on
the Rx and basically look like a servo to the system?

Yes. It also (gernerally) supplies the power to the servos and receiver.

Post by Wally
Can I buy a second Rx (and servos) and lock that to the radio, such that I
can run two different models without the need to swap the Rx over between
them?

Yes.

Post by Wally
Is second hand kit a viable option? Is there likely to be much 2.4GHz
gear for sale used, or is it too new for much to be available?

Npt a lot. And it commands a price.

Post by Wally
What kind of range can I expect to get?

About 500m with parkfly sets about 1500meters with 'pukka;' gear. Watch
out for some systems that only have 10mW txes. For full range 100mW is
needed. A small plane is pretty hard to control at 200m a large one at
500m. Big gliders often go further tho

Post by Wally
And... how many channels? I'm thinking that the 6EX is probably the
'recommended' starter set for this, but is six enough in the longer term?

Basically yes, unless you are doing something special. Like air
brakes/crow brakes and flaps as well as retracts and so on. Better
transmitters have ore mixing ability and more model memory too. Both are
useful. Esp model memories,. However you wont know what you want later
now, so don't worry about it.


I

Post by Wally
see stuff about planes that use two servoes for ailerons to give flaps,
which means five channels are used for a '4-channel' setup, meaning only one
channel left over. If I were to progress to something with a retractable
undercarriage, then that's the channels used up. Is there anything else I
might want to use spare channels for, or is it the case that 7+ channels is
disproprtionately expensive?

It shouldn't be. The main cost is in extra switches and so on.

Post by Wally
The 6EX seems to sell for 170 quid, while the 7C/FF7 is over 300 - does it
really cost that much just for an extra channel, or does it have extra
features that make it worthwhile? I'm not sure that I really need extra
model memories (6 and 10?), although the 7C seems to have a more
sophisticated interface for setup. Does the 7C have additional programming
options that the 6EX lacks? From what I've read, both have plenty of
programming options (control mixing?).

IIRC it has a lot more programming.


BTW if you et a TX that has a removeable RF module, second hand on
35Mhz, you can buy third party 2.4Ghz stuff to plug in there instead.

[Wally]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
There is a standard which all must confirm tom but that leaves a huge
area for incompatibility as well. No two manufacturers gear will work
with each other AFAIA. Religion abounds, as do early adopters finding
serious flaws. Thers good second gen 2.4 stiff coming nstream, and of
course a ton of 35Mhz stuff ultra cheap on ebay...

The ability to use the same stuff for non-aviation models is a fairly big
factor - I'm rather more inclined to buy dearer kit if it has the potential
for multiple uses.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Wally
What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get
servos separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits?

Not if you want small servos. Buy TX/RX as a matched pair, and buy
servos online cheap!

I was looking more at the 6EX and FF7 options. The 6EX at 170 quid comes
with S3003 servos, while the FF7 at 315 has S3152s. The S3003s are 8 quid
each, and the S3152s are 27 quid each. The FF7 is also available as a Tx/Rx
pack for 200 quid (from Al's Hobbies), so the 115 difference matches the
servo price. (And the Tx/Rx cost difference works out to 60 quid.) The S3152
is described as a digital servo - what does that mean, and I do I need it if
I get an FF7 - or can I buy the FF7 Tx/Rx combo and use the cheapie servos?
(On a side note, is 250 quid for the FF7 2.4GHz full set a good price?)

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Yes. It also (gernerally) supplies the power to the servos and
receiver.

The speed controller is controlled by the Rx, but supplies power to the Rx?
The battery connects to the ESC to ensure high current transfer with minimal
series contacts, with a spur feeding power to the rest?

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Wally
What kind of range can I expect to get?

About 500m with parkfly sets about 1500meters with 'pukka;' gear.
Watch out for some systems that only have 10mW txes. For full range
100mW is needed. A small plane is pretty hard to control at 200m a
large one at 500m. Big gliders often go further tho

Righto.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Basically yes, unless you are doing something special. Like air
brakes/crow brakes and flaps as well as retracts and so on. Better
transmitters have ore mixing ability and more model memory too. Both
are useful. Esp model memories,. However you wont know what you want
later now, so don't worry about it.

Per my other post, one thing that springs to mind is camera controls. No
solid ideas at present, but there may be possibilities there.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
BTW if you et a TX that has a removeable RF module, second hand on
35Mhz, you can buy third party 2.4Ghz stuff to plug in there instead.

I'm not sure that that's economically viable - seems that the module and Rx
are quite expensive on their own.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Yes. It also (gernerally) supplies the power to the servos and receiver.

The speed controller is controlled by the Rx, but supplies power to the Rx?
The battery connects to the ESC to ensure high current transfer with minimal
series contacts, with a spur feeding power to the rest?

*regulated 5v* spur. with some limitations on current delivery/power
dissipation.

Post by Wally
Per my other post, one thing that springs to mind is camera controls. No
solid ideas at present, but there may be possibilities there.

yes. You would probably use retratcts or some monetary switch fr that
function.

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
BTW if you et a TX that has a removeable RF module, second hand on
35Mhz, you can buy third party 2.4Ghz stuff to plug in there instead.

I'm not sure that that's economically viable - seems that the module and Rx
are quite expensive on their own.

Depends if you already have £250 of transmitter with 16 models
programmed in ;-)

[Wally]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
*regulated 5v* spur. with some limitations on current delivery/power
dissipation.

If the Rx and servos are the same for both, what provides regulation and
current limiting in an IC model? Or do they use a lower voltage battery, and
is the current limiting only with regard to the motor on an electric? Is
there an argument for a separate Rx/servo battery on an electric?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
yes. You would probably use retratcts or some monetary switch fr that
function.

Ah, do retracts work with a momentary switch, with motion controlled on the
plane? Or does the Tx send a constant signal (up or down) with some kind of
limit switch/electronics on the plane?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Depends if you already have £250 of transmitter with 16 models
programmed in ;-)

All I have a 20-quid Tx-alike USB joystick and some sim software. :)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
*regulated 5v* spur. with some limitations on current delivery/power
dissipation.

If the Rx and servos are the same for both, what provides regulation and
current limiting in an IC model? Or do they use a lower voltage battery, and
is the current limiting only with regard to the motor on an electric? Is
there an argument for a separate Rx/servo battery on an electric?

4.8v 4 cell Nicd used in IC model. No regulation.


There are arguments for using separate batteries, yes, but the other
eternative is a sparate higher power regulator running off the motyor
battery.

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
yes. You would probably use retratcts or some monetary switch fr that
function.

Ah, do retracts work with a momentary switch, with motion controlled on the
plane? Or does the Tx send a constant signal (up or down) with some kind of
limit switch/electronics on the plane?

retracts on fixed switch. Yould have to manually toggle it.

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Depends if you already have £250 of transmitter with 16 models
programmed in ;-)

All I have a 20-quid Tx-alike USB joystick and some sim software. :)

Right...

[Gavin]

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
There is a standard which all must confirm tom but that leaves a huge
area for incompatibility as well. No two manufacturers gear will work
with each other AFAIA. Religion abounds, as do early adopters finding
serious flaws. Thers good second gen 2.4 stiff coming nstream, and of
course a ton of 35Mhz stuff ultra cheap on ebay...

The ability to use the same stuff for non-aviation models is a fairly big
factor - I'm rather more inclined to buy dearer kit if it has the potential
for multiple uses.

You can only go for 2.4 Ghz then, 35Mhz is for Air use only, 40Mhz
Ground only

There's no reason why 2.4 sets cannot be used for ground, but they
don't have all the same programming as a dedicated ground set. (it the
one with the car wheel as a steering wheel) they'll be able to do the
same just they may be labeled differently, or your have to make custom
mixes.

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Wally
What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get
servos separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits?

Not if you want small servos. Buy TX/RX as a matched pair, and buy
servos online cheap!

I was looking more at the 6EX and FF7 options. The 6EX at 170 quid comes
with S3003 servos, while the FF7 at 315 has S3152s. The S3003s are 8 quid
each, and the S3152s are 27 quid each. The FF7 is also available as a Tx/Rx
pack for 200 quid (from Al's Hobbies), so the 115 difference matches the
servo price. (And the Tx/Rx cost difference works out to 60 quid.) The S3152
is described as a digital servo - what does that mean, and I do I need it if
I get an FF7 - or can I buy the FF7 Tx/Rx combo and use the cheapie servos?
(On a side note, is 250 quid for the FF7 2.4GHz full set a good price?)

Some of it depends on how you think you'll get on in the hobby. A 6EX
will suffice for starting and a few years, but after that you may be
wanting advanced mixing that's on the FF7.

Inwoods have the FF7 2,4Ghz full set for £240, so the price is about
right. The 6EX 2.4 Ghz full set is £160.
If at a later date you want to upgrade to the FF7 you have to throw
away the 6EX and buy a new Tx, the ff& 2.4 Ghz set is £140. So it's
cheaper from the offset to buy it if you think you'll need it.

If your not in a rush wait for the summer model shows there's usually
some deals on there.

Servo wise don't scrimp, and certainly don't buy any off Ebay until
you really understand what you are buying. The servo's can be the
difference between pulling out of trouble and hitting the deck. It's
not a case of getting the absolute cheapest you can, but rather
getting the most appropriate for the model, at the best price.

Digital servo's (that's the S3152) are more than analog (the S3003),
but spec Wise (hope this is legible!)

3152 3003
Speed .23 sec/60° @ 4.8V .22 sec/60° @ 4.8V
Torque: 44 oz-in @ 4.8V 69 oz-in @ 4.8V
Size: Same
Weight: 1.3oz (37.2g) Weight: 1.5oz (42g)


The S3152 are designed to put 50% more torque so they'll push bigger
control surfaces, and hold them there in the face of wind pressure.
They'd be wasted on a trainer, but if you buy a 3D aerobatic model
they'll shine.

Post by Wally
Per my other post, one thing that springs to mind is camera controls. No
solid ideas at present, but there may be possibilities there.

Forget it.

It will take you up to two years to learn to fly, then worry about the
camera, most setups use a self timer on the shutter (google chdk for
Canon cameras to see how you can make the simplest canon take photo's
every few seconds without user intervention). or a servo adapter than
causes the shutter to be released, either way both the ff7 and 6ex
have the spare channel that can do this.

Post by Wally

Post by The Natural Philosopher
BTW if you et a TX that has a removeable RF module, second hand on
35Mhz, you can buy third party 2.4Ghz stuff to plug in there instead.

I'm not sure that that's economically viable - seems that the module and Rx
are quite expensive on their own.

The Modules are about £100, if your buying new buy what you need,
module are only viable if you have a expensive transmitter already.

You may also want to try finding a local club, they may have the
equipment you can try before splashing out on the kit.

[Wally]

Post by Gavin
There's no reason why 2.4 sets cannot be used for ground, but they
don't have all the same programming as a dedicated ground set. (it the
one with the car wheel as a steering wheel) they'll be able to do the
same just they may be labeled differently, or your have to make custom
mixes.

I'm not too fussed about having the 'wrong' controls for a wheeled vehicle -
not looking to race cars or play with monster trucks. My interest is some
sort of robotics project involving something that can move itself around the
floor, so I'm thinking that using r/c to operate the servos while developing
the mechanical and motive aspects would be useful. I can follow that up
later with an autonomous control system (perhaps using PICs and some sort of
driver circuitry for the servos). All that is some way off, though - just
something I'd like to keep in mind if the same radio gear can be used for
such an endeavour.

Post by Gavin
...
If at a later date you want to upgrade to the FF7 you have to throw
away the 6EX and buy a new Tx, the ff& 2.4 Ghz set is £140. So it's
cheaper from the offset to buy it if you think you'll need it.

Aye, I'll have to do a feature comparison and crunch some numbers.

Post by Gavin
If your not in a rush wait for the summer model shows there's usually
some deals on there.

I think I'd like to start a bit sooner than that - a guy from one of the
local clubs says flying tends to start around March.

Post by Gavin
The S3152 are designed to put 50% more torque so they'll push bigger
control surfaces, and hold them there in the face of wind pressure.
They'd be wasted on a trainer, but if you buy a 3D aerobatic model
they'll shine.

So arguably not needed. I'm not sure that 3D aerobatics attracts me at the
moment, although I appreciate that that could change later. I take it that
the analog ones with 6EX should work with any trainer I'm likely to get.

Post by Gavin
It will take you up to two years to learn to fly, then worry about the
camera, most setups use a self timer on the shutter (google chdk for
Canon cameras to see how you can make the simplest canon take photo's
every few seconds without user intervention). or a servo adapter than
causes the shutter to be released, either way both the ff7 and 6ex
have the spare channel that can do this.

I'm talking about video - bullet cam and digital recorder. I was thinking of
something like a retract, where the camera is underslung (maybe inside
something to limit drag) and can be oriented to look ahead-and-down, or
straight down (or aft, maybe).

[Gavin]

Post by Wally

Post by Gavin
There's no reason why 2.4 sets cannot be used for ground, but they
don't have all the same programming as a dedicated ground set. (it the
one with the car wheel as a steering wheel) they'll be able to do the
same just they may be labeled differently, or your have to make custom
mixes.

I'm not too fussed about having the 'wrong' controls for a wheeled vehicle -
not looking to race cars or play with monster trucks. My interest is some
sort of robotics project involving something that can move itself around the
floor, so I'm thinking that using r/c to operate the servos while developing
the mechanical and motive aspects would be useful. I can follow that up
later with an autonomous control system (perhaps using PICs and some sort of
driver circuitry for the servos). All that is some way off, though - just
something I'd like to keep in mind if the same radio gear can be used for
such an endeavour.

The main point is the frequencies. It's illegal to use 35Mhz on a
ground based machine (be it a car or robot), just as you cannot use
40Mhz for a Airplane. 2.4 is open to all.

Post by Wally

Post by Gavin
...
If at a later date you want to upgrade to the FF7 you have to throw
away the 6EX and buy a new Tx, the ff& 2.4 Ghz set is £140. So it's
cheaper from the offset to buy it if you think you'll need it.

Aye, I'll have to do a feature comparison and crunch some numbers.

Post by Gavin
If your not in a rush wait for the summer model shows there's usually
some deals on there.

I think I'd like to start a bit sooner than that - a guy from one of the
local clubs says flying tends to start around March.

Wuss's : ) We fly all Winter and I've got mud encrusted boots,
trousers, jackets and planes to prove it!

I'd say go to the club and see what they have. Most clubs tend to be
Futaba based, and if that's the case you on the right track. If the
club is JR biased it may be better to get JR, as the club members will
have experience of programming and setting them up.

Most (except for the cheapest) Transmitters have a buddy system where
you can link an instructors TX to a students. Just like dual controls
in a car the instructor can take control back, and hopefully prevent a
crash. This only really works well on the same brand, so again
visiting the club first could save you money. They may also have some
used gear for sale. Probably not on 2.4 but worth asking.

Post by Wally

Post by Gavin
The S3152 are designed to put 50% more torque so they'll push bigger
control surfaces, and hold them there in the face of wind pressure.
They'd be wasted on a trainer, but if you buy a 3D aerobatic model
they'll shine.

So arguably not needed. I'm not sure that 3D aerobatics attracts me at the
moment, although I appreciate that that could change later. I take it that
the analog ones with 6EX should work with any trainer I'm likely to get.

To be honest it depends on your budget, they are wasted on a trainer,
and you may carry them forward into a aerobatic model, but then again
you may well crash the trainer and write the whole thing off as you
learn. I went through two trainers as I learned to fly, I think at
least one of them I broke at least one servo, so it's horses for
courses. Then again if you buy the FF7 you may as well use them
rather than buy more just for the sake of it.

Analog and digital servos are interchangeable, it refers to how it
works in the servo case, they work off the same signal, be it analog
radio (PPM) Digital (PCM) or digital 2.4Ghz. They also work across
brands, you don't need to pair Futaba servo's with a Futaba receiver

The only important thing to remember about the same brand is if you go
digital (either PCM on 35Mhz/40Mhz or 2.4Ghz) you need to have the
same brand Transmitter and Receiver.

Post by Wally

Post by Gavin
It will take you up to two years to learn to fly, then worry about the
camera, most setups use a self timer on the shutter (google chdk for
Canon cameras to see how you can make the simplest canon take photo's
every few seconds without user intervention). or a servo adapter than
causes the shutter to be released, either way both the ff7 and 6ex
have the spare channel that can do this.

I'm talking about video - bullet cam and digital recorder. I was thinking of
something like a retract, where the camera is underslung (maybe inside
something to limit drag) and can be oriented to look ahead-and-down, or
straight down (or aft, maybe).

As you learn to fly a trainer you won't have time to worry about it.
Trainers are very boxy and a bit extra drag won't make any difference.
I have a Ixus 60 I put under a plane, it changes the balance slightly
but doesn't really make any appreciable difference to the plane,
either from an extra weight or drag point of view.

[Wally]

Okay, the radio deal is done. I went for the 7C/FF7 2.4GHz outfit with the
digital servos, for 250 quid. Reasons...

The shop was open today (and a tenner's worth of petrol away).
They didn't have any 6EXs left (at 140 quid).
Extra channel.
Wider range of programming options.
More model memories.
Better screen and programming interface.

I was planning to have a last consideration between the 6EX and the 7C,
although I think my heart was set on the 7C in any case. Having looked at
the numbers, I felt the extra spend was worth it, mainly from the point of
view of future proofing. No matter how you work it, going from the 6EX to
the 7C is an expensive way to end up with a 7C. Given that there are a
certain amount of unknowns regarding my needs (in-plane camera controls, and
god-knows-what with the future robotic vehicle), I reckoned it was better to
get the more sophisticated radio at the start.

Batteries are on charge an much reading of the manual will ensue. :)

[Kevin]

Post by Wally
Okay, the radio deal is done. I went for the 7C/FF7 2.4GHz outfit with the
digital servos, for 250 quid. Reasons...
The shop was open today (and a tenner's worth of petrol away).
They didn't have any 6EXs left (at 140 quid).
Extra channel.
Wider range of programming options.
More model memories.
Better screen and programming interface.
I was planning to have a last consideration between the 6EX and the 7C,
although I think my heart was set on the 7C in any case. Having looked at
the numbers, I felt the extra spend was worth it, mainly from the point of
view of future proofing. No matter how you work it, going from the 6EX to
the 7C is an expensive way to end up with a 7C. Given that there are a
certain amount of unknowns regarding my needs (in-plane camera controls, and
god-knows-what with the future robotic vehicle), I reckoned it was better to
get the more sophisticated radio at the start.
Batteries are on charge an much reading of the manual will ensue. :)

did you decide on a model yet?

[Wally]

Post by Kevin
did you decide on a model yet?

Not yet. Got a bunch of homework to do on that, still. The guy in the shop
seemed to think that IC was the way to go for a starter, on the premise that
I won't need any more than a plane, an engine, and fuel - apparently,
someone else will be doing all the stuff like starting until I can be
trusted to do it myself. His argument was that IC is a cheaper entry and is
quicker to get back in the air since there is no battery recharge time; and
that batteries comparable with a .40 IC would be rather expensive if one
wants to match the turnaround time of refuelling. IC might have further cost
eventually, but his point was 'more flying, less waiting, less initial
outlay'. This was a shop in a different town, however, so I don't know if
what he's describing would happen at the clubs near me.

I connected the radio bits up and the servos all do servo stuff. Next is to
learn enough of the programming to assign controls to the other three
channels and see if they're okay as well.

[Gavin]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
did you decide on a model yet?

Not yet. Got a bunch of homework to do on that, still. The guy in the shop
seemed to think that IC was the way to go for a starter, on the premise that
I won't need any more than a plane, an engine, and fuel - apparently,
someone else will be doing all the stuff like starting until I can be
trusted to do it myself. His argument was that IC is a cheaper entry and is
quicker to get back in the air since there is no battery recharge time; and
that batteries comparable with a .40 IC would be rather expensive if one
wants to match the turnaround time of refuelling. IC might have further cost
eventually, but his point was 'more flying, less waiting, less initial
outlay'. This was a shop in a different town, however, so I don't know if
what he's describing would happen at the clubs near me.

He's pretty right. IC seems a bit more to start with but it's older
known technology. The engines are pretty simple to use and maintain.
You need to remember to add in the cost of a Glow Starter, gel cell
battery and a starter motor, you may not do the starting but you
should have your own kit anyway..

Electric is simple but the Batteries (usually lithium ion) can be a
pig, and can be really expensive. Especially when they fail for no
reason and you have to replace them. Battery will take at least an
hour to fast charge and repeated fast charging will stuff a battery.

I'm surprised they didn't try and sell you a package all in one with
the TX.

Trainer wise there is usually very little difference between them in
terms of performance and build. And I'd say get a "decent" engine,
Irvine or OS (but not the blue OS LA series) , that means you'll
have decent amounts of power (the LA is a budget engine and not really
sporty). Avoid SC, RMX and MDS engines.

In the club we've had Boomerangs, Arising Stars and Irvine Tutor
trainer planes, they all have the same handling characteristics, ie
slow, stable, predictable. Despite the different brands and names
parts are usually interchangeable too..
Forget the names go for a cheap one, trust me you are probably going
to crash it a few times..


Like anything you don't want to be doing anything to the model until
someone's explained it to you, purely on a safety basis. At this
point you need to contact a local club and find out about them. Then
get the plane, engine etc and build it (should only take a weekend),
and take it to a club meeting / flying day. Someone will check it
over and assuming all's OK they may get you up that day for the first
time.

Post by Wally
I connected the radio bits up and the servos all do servo stuff. Next is to
learn enough of the programming to assign controls to the other three
channels and see if they're okay as well.

Don't bother.

Most trainers don't need any programming, they are simple beasts. One
channel each for Throttle, Ailerons, Elevator and Rudder. If you
learn the programming now you'll probably have forgot it all by the
time you need it.

You may want to look at buying / borrowing (The club you join may
have one) a simulator, that lets you use your transmitter on the PC
and you can try and learn at home.
It's NOT the same as being at the field, mainly as you have a limited
field of view on a screen compared to in real life, but if it saves
you a repair or two it's worth it. Prices vary from Free (FMS but you
need to make . buy an interface) to up to £150 for the best ones.


Oh and welcome to the money pit of Model Flying..

[Wally]

Post by Gavin
He's pretty right. IC seems a bit more to start with but it's older
known technology. The engines are pretty simple to use and maintain.
You need to remember to add in the cost of a Glow Starter, gel cell
battery and a starter motor, you may not do the starting but you
should have your own kit anyway..

He was quite clear that they use their gear at first, and the beginner buys
his own later. That would be at a different club, though, so might not apply
in my local area.

Post by Gavin
Electric is simple but the Batteries (usually lithium ion) can be a
pig, and can be really expensive. Especially when they fail for no
reason and you have to replace them. Battery will take at least an
hour to fast charge and repeated fast charging will stuff a battery.

I'll do some more serious numbers on this once I've homed in on a first
plane. Either way, it seems that there are good and bad points for both.

Post by Gavin
I'm surprised they didn't try and sell you a package all in one with
the TX.

It wasn't a hard sell place - seemed happy to answer questions.

Post by Gavin
Trainer wise there is usually very little difference between them in
terms of performance and build. And I'd say get a "decent" engine,
Irvine or OS (but not the blue OS LA series) , that means you'll
have decent amounts of power (the LA is a budget engine and not really
sporty). Avoid SC, RMX and MDS engines.

Why? Do they have reliability issues?

Post by Gavin
In the club we've had Boomerangs, Arising Stars and Irvine Tutor
trainer planes, they all have the same handling characteristics, ie
slow, stable, predictable. Despite the different brands and names
parts are usually interchangeable too..
Forget the names go for a cheap one, trust me you are probably going
to crash it a few times..

One that I saw attracted me on the basis of size: MFA Skyhawk...

http://www.sussex-model-centre.co.uk/shopexd.asp?id=38

It's a bit dearer than some, but the wing will fit in the boot of the car.
Has 'veneered' foam wings (veneered with what?) and a GRP fuselage. Suited
to a smaller engine (15-25, it says).

Post by Gavin
Like anything you don't want to be doing anything to the model until
someone's explained it to you, purely on a safety basis. At this
point you need to contact a local club and find out about them. Then
get the plane, engine etc and build it (should only take a weekend),
and take it to a club meeting / flying day. Someone will check it
over and assuming all's OK they may get you up that day for the first
time.

Okay.

Post by Gavin
Most trainers don't need any programming, they are simple beasts. One
channel each for Throttle, Ailerons, Elevator and Rudder. If you
learn the programming now you'll probably have forgot it all by the
time you need it.

Nah - I doubt I'll forget. Even if I forget some, I'll remember plenty, and
it'll be easier to relearn any bits that I have forgotten later. Not
learning it for the purpose of setting up a trainer neccessarily, but to
understand what options it gives me (not just for planes).

Post by Gavin
You may want to look at buying / borrowing (The club you join may
have one) a simulator, that lets you use your transmitter on the PC
and you can try and learn at home.
It's NOT the same as being at the field, mainly as you have a limited
field of view on a screen compared to in real life, but if it saves
you a repair or two it's worth it. Prices vary from Free (FMS but you
need to make . buy an interface) to up to £150 for the best ones.

I got the 20-quid Reality Craft one.

Post by Gavin
Oh and welcome to the money pit of Model Flying..

Not the first money pit I've been in. :)

[Kevin]

Post by Wally

Post by Gavin
He's pretty right. IC seems a bit more to start with but it's older
known technology. The engines are pretty simple to use and maintain.
You need to remember to add in the cost of a Glow Starter, gel cell
battery and a starter motor, you may not do the starting but you
should have your own kit anyway..

He was quite clear that they use their gear at first, and the beginner buys
his own later. That would be at a different club, though, so might not apply
in my local area.

Post by Gavin
Electric is simple but the Batteries (usually lithium ion) can be a
pig, and can be really expensive. Especially when they fail for no
reason and you have to replace them. Battery will take at least an
hour to fast charge and repeated fast charging will stuff a battery.

I'll do some more serious numbers on this once I've homed in on a first
plane. Either way, it seems that there are good and bad points for both.

Post by Gavin
I'm surprised they didn't try and sell you a package all in one with
the TX.

It wasn't a hard sell place - seemed happy to answer questions.

Post by Gavin
Trainer wise there is usually very little difference between them in
terms of performance and build. And I'd say get a "decent" engine,
Irvine or OS (but not the blue OS LA series) , that means you'll
have decent amounts of power (the LA is a budget engine and not really
sporty). Avoid SC, RMX and MDS engines.

Why? Do they have reliability issues?

not at all the don't start often enough to become unreliable :-)
seriously they will either be a pig to start or keep cutting out in
flight or the will work ok so you either get a bad one or a good one
ASP have a look at just engines for engines they wont sell duff makes
http://www.justengines.unseen.org/
these are the dogs dangleys you wont get much better service anywhere
I have had SC engines that are brilliant but others in the club hate the
things
the only motor I run at the moment is a ASP 80 FS and I love it its
never cut out in flight yet

Post by Wally

Post by Gavin
In the club we've had Boomerangs, Arising Stars and Irvine Tutor
trainer planes, they all have the same handling characteristics, ie
slow, stable, predictable. Despite the different brands and names
parts are usually interchangeable too..
Forget the names go for a cheap one, trust me you are probably going
to crash it a few times..

One that I saw attracted me on the basis of size: MFA Skyhawk...
http://www.sussex-model-centre.co.uk/shopexd.asp?id=38
It's a bit dearer than some, but the wing will fit in the boot of the car.
Has 'veneered' foam wings (veneered with what?) and a GRP fuselage. Suited
to a smaller engine (15-25, it says).

Veneer could be anything Ply, balsa, obeche

Post by Wally

Post by Gavin
Like anything you don't want to be doing anything to the model until
someone's explained it to you, purely on a safety basis. At this
point you need to contact a local club and find out about them. Then
get the plane, engine etc and build it (should only take a weekend),
and take it to a club meeting / flying day. Someone will check it
over and assuming all's OK they may get you up that day for the first
time.

Okay.

Post by Gavin
Most trainers don't need any programming, they are simple beasts. One
channel each for Throttle, Ailerons, Elevator and Rudder. If you
learn the programming now you'll probably have forgot it all by the
time you need it.

Nah - I doubt I'll forget. Even if I forget some, I'll remember plenty, and
it'll be easier to relearn any bits that I have forgotten later. Not
learning it for the purpose of setting up a trainer neccessarily, but to
understand what options it gives me (not just for planes).

Post by Gavin
You may want to look at buying / borrowing (The club you join may
have one) a simulator, that lets you use your transmitter on the PC
and you can try and learn at home.
It's NOT the same as being at the field, mainly as you have a limited
field of view on a screen compared to in real life, but if it saves
you a repair or two it's worth it. Prices vary from Free (FMS but you
need to make . buy an interface) to up to £150 for the best ones.

I got the 20-quid Reality Craft one.

Post by Gavin
Oh and welcome to the money pit of Model Flying..

Not the first money pit I've been in. :)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Wally

Post by Kevin
did you decide on a model yet?

Not yet. Got a bunch of homework to do on that, still. The guy in the shop
seemed to think that IC was the way to go for a starter, on the premise that
I won't need any more than a plane, an engine, and fuel - apparently,
someone else will be doing all the stuff like starting until I can be
trusted to do it myself. His argument was that IC is a cheaper entry and is
quicker to get back in the air since there is no battery recharge time; and
that batteries comparable with a .40 IC would be rather expensive if one
wants to match the turnaround time of refuelling. IC might have further cost
eventually, but his point was 'more flying, less waiting, less initial
outlay'. This was a shop in a different town, however, so I don't know if
what he's describing would happen at the clubs near me.

== he knows sod all about electric

Which is still very much the way things are.

Post by Wally
I connected the radio bits up and the servos all do servo stuff. Next is to
learn enough of the programming to assign controls to the other three
channels and see if they're okay as well.