Is the Mini Scout a good plane? Or is the regular Scout better?
I would prefer the mini because I could reuse the A pack electronics from my TTrainer.
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.Is the Mini Scout a good plane? Or is the regular Scout better?
I would prefer the mini because I could reuse the A pack electronics from my TTrainer.
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.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.
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).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?
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.Is the Mini Scout a good plane? Or is the regular Scout better?
I would prefer the mini because I could reuse the A pack electronics from my TTrainer.
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.
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?
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!
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.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 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.
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.
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.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.