Next Airplane Suggestions
- Thread starter BenH
- Start date
Foamforce
Well-known member
I liked mine. I’ve only flown it once so far but it flew nicely and I didn’t crash it on the maiden, which is saying something. The only issue I had with it was probably a thrust angle problem. It would pitch up substantially under thrust. It has a lot of down thrust built in, but I may have had loose holes for the skewers that held the engine pod in. I’ve corrected that but I haven’t test flown again. But yeah, other than that it flew nicely and was fairly acrobatic for a 3 channel. You can’t really do 4 channel with the mini from what I’ve heard. Well, you can, but it flies better on 3 channel. I do think the regular scout is better, but I like the mini scout too.
If you want to use your A pack, consider a Nutball. It’s just such an easy build, and it’s such a hoot, that you’re not out much even if you didn’t like it. One sheet of foam, only a few cuts. The Nutball isn’t about graceful flying or looking good, it’s about looping 15 times in a row and doing inverted rolls and vertical figure 8s, whatever those are called. Flying in high wind is hilarious. Crashing doesn’t make you sad. I‘ve laughed out loud more when flying the Nutball than any other plane. With the Nutball, weight matters a lot, so keep the battery small. I fly a 650mah 3s and I’d go smaller, but I can’t move any more weight forward. Heavy Nutballs just want to stall all the time and aren’t as much fun.
dap35
Elite member
The regular scout is going to be easier and more stable. I had the mini scout and it didn't do well if there was any wind.
BenH
New member
I also have a general question about electronics: Do you have a whole electronics setup for each airframe (a separate motor, servos, ESC, receiver for each plane)? Or do you have 1 or 2 electronic packs that you move into different airframes depending on what you want to fly? Do you move your motors, ESC, and receiver and leave your servos?
My plan right now is that I'm just going to fly my TTrainer a lot, eventually master it, and then build a new plane (probably the Scout based on what all of you have been saying). I'm just wondering if I should then invest in a new power pack (B) for the regular Scout, or if I should disassemble my TTrainer and use the A pack to build a mini Scout.
Basically, I don't want to end up buying or owning a bunch of expensive electronics that end up sitting in an airframe that I will rarely fly (my A pack in my TTrainer collecting dust while I fly a power pack B Scout). Cost is the main limiting factor for me in this hobby. I'd like to have fun and improve in building and flying while not spending money unnecessarily.
My plan right now is that I'm just going to fly my TTrainer a lot, eventually master it, and then build a new plane (probably the Scout based on what all of you have been saying). I'm just wondering if I should then invest in a new power pack (B) for the regular Scout, or if I should disassemble my TTrainer and use the A pack to build a mini Scout.
Basically, I don't want to end up buying or owning a bunch of expensive electronics that end up sitting in an airframe that I will rarely fly (my A pack in my TTrainer collecting dust while I fly a power pack B Scout). Cost is the main limiting factor for me in this hobby. I'd like to have fun and improve in building and flying while not spending money unnecessarily.
MrClean
Well-known member
Smart to use the same equipment as much as possible. Better, have two sets, one going into the new plane while you fly the old one. I had one flight pack for years AND for years, that's all I could afford. But it was the 70s, I was in college and what little money I made that I didn't spend on fuel, glowplugs or props went to woo a certain young redhead. Serious, look into adding ailerons to a TTrainer wing. You strap that wing on with rubberbands anyways, you can swap and fly. Remember if you're flying mode 2 that you'll want to move the rudder servo plug to the rudder slot. Two planes for one.
dap35
Elite member
I have several sets of electronics. I don't tend to move servos or receivers. Motors and ESC's can get moved around a bit. I find the C-Pac motor to be the most versatile.
BenH
New member
I already have the aileron wing built and ready to go once I master the simple wing on my trainer. I'll probably get a B-pack next, since there seem to be a lot of simple-ish planes that use it (including the regular Scout). Should I then use the motors and ESCs across multiple airframes in the future, and buy additional servos (if needed) to permanently mount in my airframes?
dap35
Elite member
Thats the approach I try to take. I would jump to a C-Pac, most of the airframes are pretty flexible and a number are listed for both B & C (such as the scout and simple stick).
MaxTheFliteFreak
Active member
Every version of the Scout is great and will fly exceptionally no matter what you do to it. Since you're on a budget and you already have the A motor, go with the Mini Scout. It is slower, lighter so you don't have to worry about taking any damage when crashing and you can 3add ailerons for learning roll and bank controls. Goodluck.
Tench745
Master member
The original concept of the FT power pod and the whole "swappable" series was to let new pilots use one motor, ESC, RX, and battery and swap it out between planes. You'd only need to buy servos and related hardware for each new plane. It works well if you're budget constrained, and you can expand your arsenal as money allows. It is nice to have at least two sets of electronics so if one plane goes down or something gets damaged, you have a backup.
Be very aware, if you are swapping your RX from model to model you need to make extra sure your radio is set up correctly for whatever plane you're about to fly and not the one you just took it out of.
mastermalpass
Elite member
Like Tench said; the FT Swappables allow for easy switching out of the expensive power system. Get new servos for each plane and simply unplug your Rx from them when switching models. Servos are often mounted in ways that mean it'd be a lot of effort to keep cutting them out and sticking them in and they're also cheap - you can get a pack of 10 for less than the price of an 20A ESC.
Of course, when swapping, do all the relevant checks to make sure you plugged the servos into the right ports. You don't wanna pull back on the stick only for it to roll off to the side!
mastermalpass
Elite member
I like the look of the FT-22, but I'm surprised to hear its a hands-on flyer. My BipePipe is like that; tracks like an arrow, but if you point it down, it won't point back up until you tell it to. And it is surprisingly fast in a dive!
I will vouch for the FT Mini Scout, it was my second successful model after my first plane; the RC Powers Su-34 V4. And a nice first step into straight wings with tractor props. As you have started on a straight-wing-tractor-prop and showed an interest in prop-in-slot Park jets, I was going to recommend RC Powers designs. They are nice looking and each in the V4 Pack was built around a certain mission:
Su-34: Super stable trainer.
Su-30: Hover-capable stunt plane
MiG-29: Fast, yet stable in the slow speeds
F-18: The multi-role all-rounder.
The catch? It's $30 for that pack! And you've already mentioned your on a budget. (Plus even then, crashing an RC Powers plane ALWAYS means work) So, I was thinking, "Right, where can I find a naturally self-stabilising prop-in-slot parkjet that would fly on an A pack? .... Oh, yeah I forgot, I DESIGNED EXACTLY THAT"
My Half-Pipes were designed primarily with crash-resistence in mind. I aimed them at beginners, but in hindsight; they're squirrely and beginners spend a lot of time walking across the field to pick them up and throw them again... But as a Second plane? Maybe this will be a good skill-developer. They are pretty stable at slow speeds, but if you throttle up they can become very aerobatic, even on 2S and the crash-resistance part is ideal for when you're pushing them. You see in the video on the thread I linked, that I've snagged the ground at speed a few times and they can take a whack. Lemme know how they look to you!
I will vouch for the FT Mini Scout, it was my second successful model after my first plane; the RC Powers Su-34 V4. And a nice first step into straight wings with tractor props. As you have started on a straight-wing-tractor-prop and showed an interest in prop-in-slot Park jets, I was going to recommend RC Powers designs. They are nice looking and each in the V4 Pack was built around a certain mission:
Su-34: Super stable trainer.
Su-30: Hover-capable stunt plane
MiG-29: Fast, yet stable in the slow speeds
F-18: The multi-role all-rounder.
The catch? It's $30 for that pack! And you've already mentioned your on a budget. (Plus even then, crashing an RC Powers plane ALWAYS means work) So, I was thinking, "Right, where can I find a naturally self-stabilising prop-in-slot parkjet that would fly on an A pack? .... Oh, yeah I forgot, I DESIGNED EXACTLY THAT"
My Half-Pipes were designed primarily with crash-resistence in mind. I aimed them at beginners, but in hindsight; they're squirrely and beginners spend a lot of time walking across the field to pick them up and throw them again... But as a Second plane? Maybe this will be a good skill-developer. They are pretty stable at slow speeds, but if you throttle up they can become very aerobatic, even on 2S and the crash-resistance part is ideal for when you're pushing them. You see in the video on the thread I linked, that I've snagged the ground at speed a few times and they can take a whack. Lemme know how they look to you!
Inq
Elite member
I understand how my FT Storch has self righting ability with its high wing and dihedral and static longitudinal stability with proper CG placement and countering trimmed-up elevator. I also understand my F-22 had none since there is no dihedral and prop is on the centerline of the wing. It takes stupidly forward CG to make it even remotely flyable. And flyable it is, but it doesn't self-right, self-level at all. You point it... it goes until... well... usually the ground is involved for me.
How did you incorporate self-righting and self-leveling into your design? I'm interested as I'm doing a scratch design with my F-23 and I just assume (if I'm lucky) it would be no worse than an F-22.
BenH
New member
These look great! It sounds like it could be exactly what I was looking for. I don't want to get another power pack A and am not too keen on disassembling my TTrainer power pod. Whether or not I build this depends on how much my TTrainer gets destroyed. If at some point my trainer is incapable of flight, I'll take the electronics and might build one of these designs. I was planning on getting a power pack B to build a regular Scout, since I can also add ailerons to it unlike the Mini Scout.
Last edited:
mastermalpass
Elite member
I understand how my FT Storch has self righting ability with its high wing and dihedral and static longitudinal stability with proper CG placement and countering trimmed-up elevator. I also understand my F-22 had none since there is no dihedral and prop is on the centerline of the wing. It takes stupidly forward CG to make it even remotely flyable. And flyable it is, but it doesn't self-right, self-level at all. You point it... it goes until... well... usually the ground is involved for me.
How did you incorporate self-righting and self-leveling into your design? I'm interested as I'm doing a scratch design with my F-23 and I just assume (if I'm lucky) it would be no worse than an F-22.
The main trick my halfpipes used was pretty much stolen from the FRC Foamies MiG 2.88 and it's a simple trick: set the battery tray lower than the wing. Putting the weight below the wing causes a hang-glider effect that has gravity pulling the plane to level. However, some of them needed their weight nearer the rear where the tray wasn't that far below the wing, so I think the HalfPipe underbelly itself contributed somehow. Because the first HalfPipe was actually a little over-stable on the roll axis and so the HalfPipe Delta didn't include the dihedral on the wings and it was still stable on the roll axis.
Another thing that would help with roll stability was nabbed off the Su-34 V4 and that was 'toe-in' on the vertical stabs. With them flaring out to the rear by 3° each, it had a kind of dihedral effect on the yaw axis and a stable yaw axis means a stable roll axis!
Finally, one trick accidentally discovered on the first prototype was having the centre of thrust ever-so-slightly below the wing. The more throttle you used the more it gently pitched up - away from the ground.
Last edited:
mastermalpass
Elite member
mastermalpass
Elite member
I'm glad they are appealing to you! I hope they still are when you've got all your flights out of your Tiny Trainer. I've not flown one myself, but it is adored on this forum and many report it to stay flyable after a lot of beatings! If you're anything like me, you will have considered a roster of potential second planes by the time you're done with this one.
The mini scout isn't designed to have ailerons, but I've seen it done. And they can really own the sky if you're feeling up to modifying designs like that.
dap35
Elite member
I built a mini-scout with ailerons and it flew fine if there was zero wind. A regular scout with a C-Pack flies infinitely better.
BenH
New member
Several Questions:
Would these be a good option for some cheap servos:
Amazon.com: 10Pcs SG90 9g Micro Servos for RC Robot Helicopter Airplane Controls Car Boat : Toys & Games
Can I fly FT Swappables with a power pack B or C (Mainly FT Flyer, Nutball, and Delta)?
Should I get a power pack B, or a power pack C?
Can power pack C planes fly with a power pack B? Would power pack B planes be too sensitive with a power pack C?
Can either power pack fly with an 850mah 11.1V 45C 3S Lipo battery?
Would these be a good option for some cheap servos:
Amazon.com: 10Pcs SG90 9g Micro Servos for RC Robot Helicopter Airplane Controls Car Boat : Toys & Games
Can I fly FT Swappables with a power pack B or C (Mainly FT Flyer, Nutball, and Delta)?
Should I get a power pack B, or a power pack C?
Can power pack C planes fly with a power pack B? Would power pack B planes be too sensitive with a power pack C?
Can either power pack fly with an 850mah 11.1V 45C 3S Lipo battery?
Similar threads
