Conference vmszoo::rc

    Back in my power days, I built the Goldberg Skytiger with a HB .60
    in it.  I have also built the Eagle 63 and Gentle Lady.  I have
    enjoyed these kits and recomend them to anyone.  

    I'm bulding my first low-winger...its a Goldberg Super Chipmunk.
    I'm putting a OS.90 four stroke in it.  It claims to be a good
    first low-winger and all, but that is they're opinion.  Its a
    real nice kit with good instructions and quality material.  I'll
    be using flaps too. Looks sharp!
    
    Ken

        Re:< Note 609.0 by CLYPSO::HARTWELL "Dave Hartwell" >

                The Great  Planes  SUper Sportster is a good, if somewhat
        agressive, choice.   I  have  the  .60  and recommend getting the
        biggest ship you can  transport.    Bigger  planes  are easier to
        flyand look better.  The  additional  cost is minimal.  The Super
        Sportster .60 flies extremely well with  a  K&B .61 for about $80
        and incredibly well on a Saito .80 for about $150.
        
                As  far as crash resistance and rebuilding  ability  mine
        has been through two serious crashes (1 pilot  error - they don't
        fly  well  without  the  ailerons  plugged  in,  and another  for
        unexplained  reasons)  In  both  cases it was easy to repair  and
        flies just as well.
        
                Go for it - a 91/120 if you dare.
        
        Anker

    Dave,
    
    Two questions before I give you my recommendation.
    
    1.  Did you learn with an instructor and is he/she still around?
    
    2.  What type of radios do your flying buddies have?
    
    Some recommendations:  First if you still have access to an instructor,
    then Anker's choice of a Super  Sportster is great.  The bigger
    the better.  I have a Super Sportster 20 and it is a little squirrely
    at times, I wish I would have bought a 40 or 60.  If you are on
    your own I would suggest a shoulder wing airplane like the Ace 4-40
    or the Sig Kavalier or a Sky Tiger.
    
    Trainer cords are great both to help you get to know your new plane
    with a more experienced pilot at your side but eventually you may
    want to teach someone else to fly.  I don't think the conquest can
    be used with a trainer cord.  Also get  more than four channels
    since eventually you'll want flaps, etc. 
    
    Good luck - Remember, after landing, if you can pick your plane
    up with one hand, it was a good one!
    
    Scott

    I concoor with Anker.  The bigger the better.  I started on a Eagle
    63 and moved to the skytiger and then 1/4 scale RV-3 with a 2.3
    cu engine. 
    I have since help people fly those .25 so called trainers.  I know
    I dont like them.  I cant see why anyone would want to fly such
    a small plane (No offense John, I'll let you fly my 1/4 scale when
    I take her out).  Get at least a 60+" plane with at least a .40
    engine.

    One plane you should be looking at is the Hobby Lobby "funster 40".
    It is a low winger with a 72in. wingspan. It can be hot or fly so
    softly. Uses a 40-45 engine. I have one and suggest that you look
    into it. My second choice is also the Goldberg Skytiger.

     As for an instructor, Anker has the honer of being the instructor
    for my first couple of landings... I'll assume he will be around
    from time to time in the future.... My PT40 is still intact with
    no crashes other than a hard landing or two thanks to the excellent
    instruction I received from both Anker and others in CRRC. I want
    something that is more acrobatic, but not a handfull. I was hoping
    to use the .40 SF OS engine out of the PT to save a few bucks. Maybe
    I should just build the bigger plane and spring the bucks.
    
     Again on the radio.. are dual rates meaningfull to me or just another
    toy
    
    
    							Dave
    

    As could be expected, you're getting various advice, all of
    which is good. Since each of us only ever had one "2nd plane"
    it is expected that our experiences are quite varied. Many of
    us have also observed others who have made choices to note which
    seemed to be the most successful.
    
    My own experience with a 2nd plane is the Sig Kavlier, and I recommend
    it highly. It is a 40-size shoulder wing plane, with a semi-symmetrical
    airfoil. It is easier to control than a low wing such as the Super
    Sportster, and is I think a reasonable step up from a
    high-flat-bottomed-wing trainer. The Kavalier is quite aerobatic, but
    you can start by flying it slow like a trainer and work your way up to
    higher speeds - it flys well at any speed. This is my 2nd season on the
    Kavalier and I'm about to graduate myself to a Super Sportster 20 (I
    should have finished it long ago, but it's "almost done" now!). 
    
    A good secondary use for the Kavalier that I've really enjoyed is
    that it's an excellent float plane. The shoulder wing is fairly
    high above the water but it's acrobatic enough to have lots of fun
    with. When the Sporter's done I expect to fly it almost exclusively,
    but will try to find more opportunities to run the Kavalier on floats.
    
    Dave Hughes

    an other thing to consider is a Carl Goldberg Piper CUB. Engine
    size varies between .40 & .60 You can build it with either standard
    or clipped wing. A clipped wing with a .60 should give you a lot
    to handle.
    
    md

    I have been very happy with both my Super Sportster 20 and 40, but
    you should have plenty of experience before trying one of these.
    They are fairly fast and they fly very well in good hands.  If you
    are prone to hard landings, you will be repairing the main gear
    mounts in the wings though.  This is true of most low wingers since
    many of them have the main gear in the wing.  The sport-air 40 is
    also a good flyer and it is much easier to fly then the Super
    Sportsters because it doesn't have a fully symmetrical wing.  This
    becomes a limitation after you get more experienced, but it is a
    good first low wing  plane.  
    	I would have to go with Dave Hughes' suggestion for a second
    plane though.  Don't rush into more than you can handle unless you
    are ready for a setback.  Get something with a simi or fully
    symmetrical airfoil that flies faster than the PT-40, but don't
    go all the way to a very fast plane like the Sportsters.
    
    Charlie
    

    
    		I'd suggest a stik something. They are basic,forgiving
    and more responsive. You can get one built for almost as much as
    a build up kit costs. Hobby Shack has them for app. 70.00 all built
    ready for covering. I'd go this route and then when you have it
    flying buy the low winger Sport Air 40. By the time you have the
    sport air built you'll have sufficient time of the stik 40 to be
    able to handle the sport air. They the same engine that is used
    in the stik 40 can be transfered to the sport air.
    
    
    						Tom 

    On the "Stik" theme,
    
    Circus Hobbies offers completely built Ugly-Stiks, pre-built using
    conventional balsa-ply construction and completely covered/trimmed
    in the classic res/white with Maltese-Cross color scheme, in both
    .40 and .60 sizes.  Essentially, all you do is install yer' radio
    and engine, then go fly.  The .60-size sells for $99.00 and the
    .40-size is somewhat cheaper though I don't remember the exact price.
    
    This would offer the ideal 2nd/intermediate ship without the time
    required to build it (which could be invested, instead, in yer'
    3rd ship, the Super-Sportster, perhaps).

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

PCMs very nice, but...

At this time I'd pick one of the 1991 FM sets, and probably one
by Airtronics. The reason for specifying 1991 is that anything
else is a bad investment right now.  It would have to be a very
high quality set, because we want it to pass the AMA gold sticker
test -- frequency +/- 1500 hz, sidebands -55 db -- sooner or
later this performance will be demanded by everyone. 

I would go for FM for two reasons; first, this will be the
modulation of choice in the 1991 environment, second, you can buy
extra receivers CHEAP, such as that hot number from EXPERT and
its twin from Polk's at $29.95.

So why not PCM?  I don't believe the technology has matured
enough yet, and I don't think it will for several years.  Also, I
see little reason for all the bells and whistles in a PCM set.
The important ones are servo reversing, servo end point, and,
possibly dual rates; I suppose some would argue for mixing.  Most
good FM sets have those adjustments.

I think that many of the current transmitters WILL pass the AMA gold
sticker test.  For example, my Futaba Conquest (AM) displays the gold
sticker I got at the WRAM show in Feb.

The real catch here is that while many of the transmitters meet 1991
specs, THE RECEIVERS DO NOT.  So, it probably is a good idea to look for
a radio that specifies that the transmitter AND THE RECEIVER meet the
1991 specs.  (Personally, my solution will be to buy a new receiver for
my Conquest when 1991 rolls around.)

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Caster Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    Bill,
    
    Just a line or two to let you know I wholeheartedly concur with
    yer' views regarding organization of the RC_notesfile.  I couldn't
    begin to guess if it's feasible/possible for our file, but it'd
    really be nice....................................................    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)