Matthewdupreez
Legendary member
@Ratcheeroo has what looks like a really great high wing trainer.. that can be a low wing and a biplane... with hardly any mods..
THE NEW TUTOR!!! ?????????????
- Thread starter Tc Concepts
- Start date
Matthewdupreez
Legendary member
maybe someone else should beta build one and see how it flies.....
SSgt Duramax
Junior Member
He was a huge contributor when I first got into FT. He has dropped off the radar (his last post on here was Feb). He has some really neat designs. I have some of his chuck planes for my kids, and I also got inspired to pull the trigger on the electronics for that micro plane I posted. I am also playing with one of his chipmunk designs. The first one I built was a victim of poor build quality, poor piloting, and stupidity.
Byrdman
Well-known member
Perfect! My specialty!!
Ratcheeroo
Legendary member
His Spitfire is a pretty bird too, Built that over a year ago now, scary fast for me at that time, should bring it out for another go sometime just to see how well I can fly it now. his planes are among the more sturdier builds that I have seen.
thank you, now on my short list. i have been looking for something in the 1 meter range, will just fit into my hatch, and i already have 3 3s 2200's from my aeroscout.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/VOLANTEXRC/?tag=lstir-20
Last edited:
SSgt Duramax
Junior Member
I feel ya. My Audi has about a 50" wingspan limit. Good thing I got an A7 instead of an A6. My 60 inchers I need to detatch the wing and put in the front passenger compartment.
Byrdman
Well-known member
SSgt Duramax
Junior Member
I miss my duramax. I owned it for 10 years and had about 267k when i traded it in on my Audi. It blew a headgasket and it was going to be a 10k repair bill.Wait a sec... Audi??? You can put almost anything in a Duramax
I think i need another one. Better wait til i retire and get some land before i start collecting vehicles again.
basslord1124
Master member
I have slowly been catching up on things where we recently moved houses and what not. I watched the video on the Tutor Triathlon on the FT youtube channel the other day, and seeing the various ads for the Tutor.
It really seemed like a knock-off of some of their previous designs....like I immediately thought, another FT Simple Cub? But if the focus is a better flying Cub then that is good. Like others I'm sure, I had some difficulty with the Cub. Just didn't quite nail it to me. Of course, I think I just prefer a bigger wingspan moreso than a clipped wing.
Not sure if I will give one a shot or not...could still be a little while before I try anything new. But I'll keep it in mind. I'd like to hear the general consensus on what others think about it too after they put it through its paces.
It really seemed like a knock-off of some of their previous designs....like I immediately thought, another FT Simple Cub? But if the focus is a better flying Cub then that is good. Like others I'm sure, I had some difficulty with the Cub. Just didn't quite nail it to me. Of course, I think I just prefer a bigger wingspan moreso than a clipped wing.
Not sure if I will give one a shot or not...could still be a little while before I try anything new. But I'll keep it in mind. I'd like to hear the general consensus on what others think about it too after they put it through its paces.
Hoomi
Master member
The Tutor fuselage puts me a lot in mind of the Bushwacker fuselage.
As far as why the FT crew isn't putting the plans online, my impression is that some unscrupulous folks overseas were taking the FT designs, making cheap knock-offs, and selling them as their own.
While this might seem like a "so what?" deal, since FT isn't selling the designs in the first place, consider this true story. Revolution quad-line kites were invented by Joe Hadzicki, and Rev kites are manufactured here in the USA. Amazon carries Chinese made knock-offs for a lower price. They've had people who bought the knock-offs get mad at them, because they broke a spar or damaged another part, and Rev doesn't sell parts for the knock-offs (they knock-offs are just different enough, that Rev parts do not fit).
I would not be surprised if people bought the knock-off FT design SBKs from overseas, and then got mad at FT because the quality was shoddy.
As far as why the FT crew isn't putting the plans online, my impression is that some unscrupulous folks overseas were taking the FT designs, making cheap knock-offs, and selling them as their own.
While this might seem like a "so what?" deal, since FT isn't selling the designs in the first place, consider this true story. Revolution quad-line kites were invented by Joe Hadzicki, and Rev kites are manufactured here in the USA. Amazon carries Chinese made knock-offs for a lower price. They've had people who bought the knock-offs get mad at them, because they broke a spar or damaged another part, and Rev doesn't sell parts for the knock-offs (they knock-offs are just different enough, that Rev parts do not fit).
I would not be surprised if people bought the knock-off FT design SBKs from overseas, and then got mad at FT because the quality was shoddy.
SSgt Duramax
Junior Member
That is exactly why they stopped posting their plans. Counterfeiters ran my wifes dress business under too (stole her pics and all).
I am sure if you want something similar to a tutor, there is something that fits the bill.
We are playing with this design here :
https://forum.flitetest.com/index.php?threads/sig-kadet-junior-group-build.68881/
Relatively the same thing. I built one in a micro sized (40%) and it is a hoot.
Hoomi
Master member
Myself, I would be more likely to just go ahead and buy the SBK from Flite Test. I recently did a scratch-build of the FT Alpha, and several times during the process of laying out the plans and cutting the foamboard, I found myself thinking, "This is why the speed build kits are popular."
CappyAmeric
Elite member
The Tutor flies much better than the Simple Cub (although my Simple Cub always flew good). With the normal wing it is designed as a very stable trainer. With the turbo wing on a C pack it is a very smooth aerobatic model. The gear assembly is WAY stronger than the Simple Cub or Bushwacker. The CG is perfect with 800 mAh 3s or 4s. The Bushwacker’s nose is not long enough to get a good CG.
TheFlyingBrit
Legendary member
Sorry about this but I have got to disagree with you there. The Cub is not one of Flite Test's better designs, not everyone has had a good experience with it and feedback on this forum alone is testimony to that. The Bushwacker on the other hand. I personally consider it to be one of the best flying planes in the Flite Test collection. Its certainly one of the best foamboard models that I have built and flown. In fact I was so impressed, I am planning to build another one early next year.
As for the Tutor.
The colour scheme looks good in the advert, that's about the only positive thing I can think to say about it. The design isn't original, its more of a mix of previous models.
Plus the prices I saw when I clicked on the advert, to be honest they where a bit shocking considering what you can buy out there for similar prices.
There again its just my view and opinion, others may see it differently.
CappyAmeric
Elite member
The OP was asking about comparing the Simple Cub to the Tutor. As I said, the Tutor flies great, and a lot better than the Simple Cub - but then again, MY experience with the Simple Cub is that it flies fine. Understanding P-factor is a must for flying the Simple Cub - and in that regard, if it is configured for 3 channel, the rudder is being used to counter P-factor in a takeoff and climb - and hence less authority for turning. With ailerons, and correct coordinated turns make it fly good. Perhaps the Simple Cub will get folks ready to fly full-sized airplanes because its P-factor is very similar to a real Cub.
TheFlyingBrit
Legendary member
One of the training instructors at my club took my Simple cub up in the air for a test flight and said, "if you can fly this model, you can fly almost anything" then laughed.
I didn't think it was a particularly hard plane to fly, once its up in the air but take off's and landings where tricky. I have flown much easier planes than the Simple Cub, but I have also had some a lot more difficult. I built a mighty mini version 3ch, that's even more of a pig to fly than the full size version, that had several crashes until I got the setup and motor selection right.
They reckon you need coordinated turns for high wing planes like the cub (which is true for the big balsa scale versions), but I found it easy enough to fly bank and yank. A bit of rudder did make turns look nicer, but rudder wasn't really a necessity.
That is until you came in for that last approach turn at low speed, rudder as opposed to aileron is the order of the day.
It really loved to drop that wing in the slow approach turns, using ailerons. I got around it by keeping some throttle on, at least until I straightened up on the approach then eased back on the throttle once it was level.
Altering the incidence of the wing also improved the glide characteristics (I lifted the rear of the wing, by 1mm) can't remember who told me about that tip but it worked.
I didn't think it was a particularly hard plane to fly, once its up in the air but take off's and landings where tricky. I have flown much easier planes than the Simple Cub, but I have also had some a lot more difficult. I built a mighty mini version 3ch, that's even more of a pig to fly than the full size version
, that had several crashes until I got the setup and motor selection right.They reckon you need coordinated turns for high wing planes like the cub (which is true for the big balsa scale versions), but I found it easy enough to fly bank and yank. A bit of rudder did make turns look nicer, but rudder wasn't really a necessity.
That is until you came in for that last approach turn at low speed, rudder as opposed to aileron is the order of the day.
It really loved to drop that wing in the slow approach turns, using ailerons. I got around it by keeping some throttle on, at least until I straightened up on the approach then eased back on the throttle once it was level.
Altering the incidence of the wing also improved the glide characteristics (I lifted the rear of the wing, by 1mm) can't remember who told me about that tip but it worked.
CappyAmeric
Elite member
Come on, the Duster flies great! Crank up the expo, cuz it is easy to over control with full length ailerons.
Want something harder than a Duster? Try the Twin Super Bee. That little sucker will go fast and is also easy to lose it when banking.
Similar threads
