Stuka Stunt Control Line Forum
Archive, 2000–2021 · recovered from the Internet Archive
Forums › Stuka Stunt Main Forum

What "trainer"?

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 15 of 15 known posts recovered

Steve Campbell · Dec 20, 2003 08:43 AM

#0 source
My plan was to use the Cox ME-109 I've got coming to re-introduce myself to C/L flying. Upon reflection, that may not be the smartest move I've ever made, for several reasons.

I'm aware of all the "solid" (sheet wing) entry-level planes out there, but they leave me a bit cold.

Is there a 1/2A "trainer" with a built-up wing that I can throw together for re-familiarization flights? I seem to recall that there was a RingMaster for the Cox Babe Bee that had a built-up wing.

Thanks again for all the responses. I know these questions must get old...

peabody · Dec 20, 2003 08:54 AM

#1 source
Steve:

Although a lot will disagree, I feel that you are wssting your time with a 1/2a..... though they are a lot of fun, the tend to fly too quickly to really be able to learn much.

A "full sized" plane is generally a lot easier to: start, fly, become enthused about, etc. Try a Brodak Streak trainer with a .15 (or even a .25 LA). Durable and a real aeroplane. Don't spend too much time trying to make it pretty....the most successful trainer 'round these parts is Butt ugly, but flies well.

Have fun.

See Ya

Peabody

Steven Yampolsky · Dec 20, 2003 11:07 AM

RE: What#2 source
Please consider Ukey 35. That's what I used to learn to fly on. It has all the right properties of a trainer:

1) It is VERY easy to put together
2) It is VERY sturdy. I crashed mine mercilessly about 6 times before it it finally croaked. I am not talking about nicked the prop or broke the landing gear kinds of crashes. I'm talking about full steam ahead, have to pull it out of the ground with BOTH hands kinds of crashes. I didn't bother counting small ones.
3) It is VERY ugly. A must for a trainer: no personal attachment to a plane.
4) It is a very good flier. It is based on combat plane technology so if you stand it on its tail, it will just plow through as if nothing happened.


Steven Yampolsky

peabody · Dec 20, 2003 11:13 AM

RE: What#3 source
Steve....
the Ukey is, indeed, a terrific trainer....and not a bad vehicle to carry someone to the Advanced level, either.....

I would imagine what level the flyer is at is a factor here....I believe that a "basic" trainer such as the Brodak piece, is not a requirement for many....it teaches the pilot to take off, climb, fly level, dive and land reasonably well, but loops and the like are out of the question (well, repeated loops, anyhow).

We encourage all returnees to get some stick time on our trainers.....to make certain that dizziness is overcome and to "re-hone" basic skills.

See Ya

Peabody

Currell · Dec 20, 2003 11:35 AM

RE: What#4 source
If you do want to stick with 1/2A, you don't really need a solid wing. The mass of even a Baby Flite Streak (built up wing, of course) is so small, that they "bounce" (usually) when they hit the ground. Or maybe a Baby Clown, from Brodak. Or a Baby Lightning Streak. You get the idea. They fly much better than solids in the 1/2A realm, although solids, if kept light, can surprise you.

Agree, though, that a .15 or larger motor is the way to get re-intro'ed to CL. Here, I would recommend the solid winged Flite Streak Trainer. You can put a .15 or .19 on it, even an ABC Schneurle Asian Rim .10, probably. The Sig Shoestring/Buster is another one, and there was a thread on it either here or at Flightlines, can't recall which.

Currell

Currell · Dec 20, 2003 11:37 AM

RE: What#5 source
Steve: The Beginner's (Baby) Ringmaster indeed has a solid wing. But the Baby Ring. with a built up one is the way to go, for reasons mentioned above. Currell

Bill Little · Dec 20, 2003 11:41 AM

RE: What 1/2A?#6 source
Brodak has several of builtup wing 1/2A's to use a radial mount 1/2A on.
Bill <><


Disclaimer: I am neither a NATS Champion, engine reworker, engine producer, column writer, Hobby Shop owner, *rockeet* scientist, nor otherwise. Just an old Advanced flier.

mogren · Dec 20, 2003 06:24 PM

RE: What 1/2A?#7 source
Phil Cartier has a nice 1/2A kit( Hacker) at the "Core House"
I kit the "Plastic Fantastic" Through Protech-Aero.com Both of these fly very well and are designed around the Cox reed engines. The small Brodak series of kits, build a lot slower and fly way fast and are much bigger turning than either of these.
MM

Steve Helmick · Dec 20, 2003 07:05 PM

RE: What 1/2A?#9 source
1) A basic trainer is a waste of time. You WILL be able to fly level, but may well get dizzy if you don't do some loops and 8's to give yourself a break from level flights. Stuff happens VERY fast with 1/2a's, on their short lines.
2) No arguments about the Ukey 35 or 40. Either flies fine on an OS .25 FP or LA. The ARF Flite Streek is another obvious choice. If you are prejudiced against profiles or LA's, I'm sorry, but profiles are practical and LA's are a fine running engine for our purpose, given correct fuel, tank, glowplug, prop, and no leaks in the backplate area. Bigger engines give you more time flying, and less time flipping. I admit it, I don't like 1/2a's. I'm not real sure about the C*x Me-109, but if that is the stunt model, I'm sure they are a collector's item, and worth a lot more on eB*y than at the flying field. Steve

Steve Campbell · Dec 20, 2003 10:15 PM

RE: What#10 source
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-03 AT 10:21 PM (CST)
 
The Baby Clown or Baby Lightning Streak is exactly what I'm looking for.

Guys, I have no doubt that the larger planes fly "better". However, I'm basically backing into this. I do not want to invest a lot of time or resources; yet.

My plan is to find an old Babe Bee or Golden Bee, take the engine out of the ME-109, put the radial mount tank on it, and put it on a simple wood kit for my "re-introductory" flights. Then, I'll fly the ME-109. Yeah, it has collector status. Big deal. I got it for a good price, and I got it to play with, not re-sell for a profit. As I said in an earlier post, the whole impetus behind this is a nostalgia thing. Cox models introduced me to the world of flying model airplanes. I'm just trying to snag a bit of those good past times.

A profile model with a built-up wing should be ideal for what I'm trying to accomplish. I can build it quickly and finish it with left-overs from my covering scraps box.

What I want to do here is have a simple, economical C/L model to fly with my friend on the infrequent times we get together. Later, if I decide to get into this more deeply, I'll build a nice full kit; that Bucaneer 740 is very appealing; ought to be super-cool with a four stroke.

phantomflier · Dec 20, 2003 10:36 PM

RE: What#11 source
Check with your hobby shop, if they have any perfect tanks try to get one of about 1/2oz. Then order a Cox Sure Start from Lone Star Models it's $14.50 plus shipping.

Leave the Me-109 alone they sometimes sell for very high prices on Eb*y especially when new in the box.

Steve Campbell · Dec 21, 2003 07:06 AM

RE: What#13 source
I found it on their site, but have no clue what a Sure-Start is (no photo).

Can you expand?

dennis · Dec 20, 2003 10:37 PM

RE: What#12 source
>The Baby Clown or Baby Lightning Streak is exactly what I'm
>looking for.
>
>Guys, I have no doubt that the larger planes fly "better".
>However, I'm basically backing into this. I do not want to
>invest a lot of time or resources; yet.
>
>My plan is to find an old Babe Bee or Golden Bee, take the
>engine out of the ME-109, put the radial mount tank on it,
>and put it on a simple wood kit for my "re-introductory"
>flights. Then, I'll fly the ME-109. Yeah, it has collector
>status. Big deal. I got it for a good price, and I got it to
>play with, not re-sell for a profit. As I said in an earlier
>post, the whole impetus behind this is a nostalgia thing.
>Cox models introduced me to the world of flying model
>airplanes. I'm just trying to snag a bit of those good past
>times.
>
>A profile model with a built-up wing should be ideal for
>what I'm trying to accomplish. I can build it quickly and
>finish it with left-overs from my covering scraps box.
>
>What I want to do here is have a simple, economical C/L
>model to fly with my friend on the infrequent times we get
>together. Later, if I decide to get into this more deeply,
>I'll build a nice full kit; that Bucaneer 740 is very
>appealing; ought to be super-cool with a four stroke.
>
>
I got back into C/L when I offered to help a youngster fly a profile Estes sheet 1/2A Ringmaster. It was nothing special so I got an Estes 1/2A built up Ringmaster and put a Cox Black Widow on it.It was covered with one of the light films and painted to boot. So much for weight concerns it was a hoot to fly but there was only one thing wrong. Even though it was fast it was too short a flight. Really needed more time at the handle.
So my advice to you is if you have to have a 1/2A then build it but do listen to the other posts and get another larger plane. It will satisfy your urge for more . It becomes addictive almost immediately, trust me on this.
Dennis

Ty Marcucci · Dec 20, 2003 06:54 PM

#8 source
I have to agree with Yam and Pea here. A plane with a .15/.19 is much easier to fly and control and then even a .29/.35 trainer is even better. Do you have access to a hobby shop that just might have a Flite Streak ARF (Almost Ready to Fly) kit in stock. That would get you in the air quickly. Do indeed try the Ukey as well.

Louis · Dec 21, 2003 10:07 AM

#14 source
FLITE STREAK TRAINER for sure!!! CA it together then spray on a couple of light coats of Rustoleum. It flies great and will even do wingovers, loops, and very large lazy eights.