Topic: First "low winger" help me decide please....

Hi all,

Well the time has come for me to start thinking about my next plane. I'm after a Low Wing plane that's nice and easy to handle.

Have found the Kyosho Spacewalker and it seems to fit the bill, lovely finish to it and I like the idea of that suspension to smooth out the harder landings and it states that it would be a good intro to low wingers... Anyone have any experience of this plane???

KYOSHO¡ÃPRODUCT | Space Walker 50  

Any advice welcome on any other planes that may be suitable, there are so many out there when you start looking that it's easy to get overwhelmed with too much choice.....

Thanks.....

 

p.s. I have a brand new OSFS-61 to go in it...so a scale looking plane would be nice....

 

It's the sign of the times. I vaguely remember my first low winger a Gangster 63 and then what everone should have a Chriss Foss  Acro Wot.

Nothing wrong with the Space Walker 

I was about to say the very same about the Gangster,bought mine for £20 off a clubmate and have to be honest never found a model that flew better than that one IMO,lost it through some young lad switching on and not realising what he had done .Promptly bought another one must have been off my tree when I sold it on,hindsight eh!
Always liked the Spacewalker but what it flies like I cannot say,seem a lot of them around so must be ok.
HTH
John

Gangster for me too. 

Might be a bit outdated, but it flies beautifully and you can take some diabolical liberties with it and get away with it.

Wasn't there a build thread on here a while ago of the new version? 

Hi Gibbo

Many years ago (about 30+) I had a Gangster 52. Without doubt, the best laxative ever devised. Aileron flutter like no other model I'd ever flown. Bike clips and a cork weren't in it.

I've always liked the Spacewalker. It has everything a good sound low wing aeroplane ought to have. I'd have thought the Kyosho version would be among the better produced versions too Gibbo, so I see no reason why this shouldn't be a goer. Do make sure you sound out the more experienced pilots on your field though Gibbo. You do need to be familar with aileron use before getting to grips with a low winger.

I recently bought the Seagull 1/4 scale Spacewalker Gibbo. Something like this.....

Another vote for the Gangster 63, If it's a first low winger then look for something with solid wing tips not built up as they are more durable with inevitable tip scraping on landing that you will experience.

Hi all,

Well the time has come for me to start thinking about my next plane. I'm after a Low Wing plane that's nice and easy to handle.

YT Spitfire.

Only kidding. 

These seem to be popular at my local club as a first low winger: Cherokee 40 ARF,Value Series (HAN1900): Hangar 9

YT Spitfire.

Only kidding. 

These seem to be popular at my local club as a first low winger: Cherokee 40 ARF,Value Series (HAN1900): Hangar 9

Very funny  now what idiot would think of buying a YT Spitfire for their second plane   

Anyway, I think i'm gonna go with that Spacewalker, just get a good feeling about it. and although it may share nothing else with the spit at least the landing gear layout is the same'ish.....

1 step closer.....

 

Having so much more fun since going solo. dead sticks are becoming more frequent as I find it hard to bring her in now as I'm having so much of a grin in the air......Have fitted a timer into my TX using an old egg timer. no more running out of fuel.....

Good to hear that you are getting on so well gibbo ! The thing that you will find when you first try your 1st low winger is how much more responsive they are . You can get yourself into trouble a lot quicker than with your high wing trainer this is because they dont have the pendulem effect of the fuz below the wing , generally they will roll a lot faster and can catch you out by that fact , set it up on low rates at first untill you get used to the way that it flies and then increase the rates to suit . As the others have said   the gangster is a blinding plane and if i recal correctly the 63 was the same size dimension wise as mick reeves sport scale spit that loads of us had a few years back . try to get something that you have to build mate it will help you out in the long run when it comes to repairs that we all have to do in this hobby and eventually when you start to build your dream spit . Keep it up mate ! Mickey

Might a trike U/C be a bit more forgiving too, and save the Spacewalker for No. 3? 

Whatever mate, go for it and enjoy. 

A good low winger is the Seagull 40. Looks great, very cheap £50 and flies really well. Very aerobatic, but not too so and is strong enough.
I like flying it as its reliable and fun. The Thunder Tiger 54 4s is spot on!

Might a trike U/C be a bit more forgiving too, and save the Spacewalker for No. 3? 

Whatever mate, go for it and enjoy. 

What's easier to land ? I've got a tail dragger set-up at the moment and am getting on fine with it. I'm guessing that the nose wheel stop you nosing in on landings more often right?!

will prob stay with the setup on the space walker.

That Seagull looks quite inviting, does it have the option to be a tail dragger, or have a wheel at the back....

Can someone give me the proper terminology for the spitfire wheel layout please:

Spitfire layout is what?

Tail dragger is obvious.

Tricycle obvious again

what else is their?

 

Anyway, still dribbling over the Spacewalker.......and with my first 4 stroke burbling away inside it it would be great I reckon.....

In no rush though, still open to idea's 

It's more that they're easier to take off IMO (especially on grass where you have to balance a tail-dragger on the elevator and correct yaw on rudder)

... but, if you're already flying a tail-dragger, you should have no problems.

All IMHO of couse 

Little wheel at the back = taildragger, wheel at the front = tricycle.

Ignore all whats been said about pendelum affect it has next to no effect on models. Some low wingers have less dihedral than high wing trainers and it's this that helps the stability NOT the pendelum affect. The roll rate is easily controlled with less movement. Fly it just like your high winger and you'll be fine, just make sure the wings are level as you flare on landing, you can more easily touch a wing tip.

Regards - John

Tail dragger 'v' tricycle....

In theory, tail dragger is harder to land, if your speed is slightly high, the main wheels touch, the tail goes down, angle of attack increase, aircraft balloons. Tricycle, touch down, tail comes up, angle of attack decreases, aircraft stays on the ground.

Take off, it's not necessary to lift the tail, most will simply fly off the deck although it's good fun to taxi around with the tail in the air. Nosewheels on tricycle undercarriage are very vulnerable.

On both full size and models I much prefer tail dragger.

J

Little wheel at the back = taildragger, wheel at the front = tricycle.

Ignore all whats been said about pendelum affect it has next to no effect on models. Some low wingers have less dihedral than high wing trainers and it's this that helps the stability NOT the pendelum affect. The roll rate is easily controlled with less movement. Fly it just like your high winger and you'll be fine, just make sure the wings are level as you flare on landing, you can more easily touch a wing tip.

Regards - John

Oh I see so even with a little wheel at the back it's a tail "dragger" ok......

I thought the dragger bit was because it had a skid and not a wheel......gotcha..

 

Oh I see so even with a little wheel at the back it's a tail "dragger" ok......

I thought the dragger bit was because it had a skid and not a wheel......gotcha..

 

Some indeed do have skids (Weston Cougar 2000...), if the backend is on the floor it's a taildragger, if it has a nosewheel it's a trike.

Seems like you're progressing and having fun.

J

Ignore all whats been said about pendelum affect it has next to no effect on models. Some low wingers have less dihedral than high wing trainers and it's this that helps the stability NOT the pendelum affect.

I'm not convinced. Does anyone remember back in the early 90's a company that used to make trainers before ARTF were common. The company was called Swift Models and they did a trainer that admittedly was a little ugly but you could move the wing so it was either a high wing model or low wing model. I think the name of the model was an Alpha but not sure on that.

My point being this model was definitely easier to fly as a high wing model. It was the first low wing model I flew and I remember finding it more sensitive in its low wing configuration and this was using the same wing/fus just with the wing in the other position. My dad bought a second airframe but we never did get around to flying it as I moved onto an Aerostar 62.

If I were you I'd stick to a taildragger, nosewheels especially on artf's are a weak point.

The Spacewalker looks great

Steve

The noseleg assembly on the Seagull is top notch. Its proper glued and anyway if you were to break that, then the rest of the model would be broken as well. So far its done a hard winter's flying, doing touch and goes at high speed over a football field grass and the wheels are still tight, with no slop. I reckon the Seagull model range have got the stronger undercarriage as their PC9 Tucano has survived a full power belly splat and the wheels have remainined intact. I would go for the Seagull 40, as its cheap and flies well. Also it's so well built, even the fuel tank/engine mount is ready installed and the hinges are quad pinned in place! The noseleg works well, making take-off easy and taxi's well.

I'm not convinced. Does anyone remember back in the early 90's a company that used to make trainers before ARTF were common. The company was called Swift Models and they did a trainer that admittedly was a little ugly but you could move the wing so it was either a high wing model or low wing model. I think the name of the model was an Alpha but not sure on that.

My point being this model was definitely easier to fly as a high wing model. It was the first low wing model I flew and I remember finding it more sensitive in its low wing configuration and this was using the same wing/fus just with the wing in the other position. My dad bought a second airframe but we never did get around to flying it as I moved onto an Aerostar 62.

There are all sorts of possibilities here, did the CG move slightly back by any chance? could the wing in one position be causing turbulance over the tail?

I fly on a regular basis a Weston Cougar and a Weston Mini Hype. The wings are almost identical, Cougar is high wing, Hype is low wing, they fly the same. Ditto Elation Buddy and Neon, same wing different Fuz.

Never did notice it much on full size either Cessna 182 / Piper PA28 Cherokee, the PA28 was nice to land though.

The only point I'm making is theyre not different enough IMHO to mean Gibbo or anyone else would find it un manageable.

J

J

Some indeed do have skids (Weston Cougar 2000...), if the backend is on the floor it's a taildragger, if it has a nosewheel it's a trike.

Seems like you're progressing and having fun.

J

Hello J,

Have been training on  Weston Cougar 2000 since I killed my last two trainers (one a flight error one a build error)

The Cougar came my way cheap with an engine and some really nice servos so I decided to take it up as a trainer, found it so much easier than the big lardy trainers. flew really slow and responsive. Guys at the club weren't so sure but having taken it up all agree it's a great first plane.

Just don't turn the rates off by accident  my first barrel roll.......

The Cougar is indeed a good trainer with the movements reduced there is however a caveat.... You may get so used to the benign handling and get out of any situation easy that the Cougar gives you, when you move to something else you will take a little time to adapt. With that in mind, you'll get on with the Cougar well.

J

The biggest issue with the Cougar and other Fun Flys which I see nearly every weekend is you never learn how to control a model on the ground. As fun flys get into the air so quick you never really master rudder control on the ground and when people move to something that takes a longer take off they end up with the model going in all directions. There are a handful of people like that in each of my clubs.

Apart from that they are good fun and you can increase the throws to get used to twitchier models bit by bit 

I'd vote for the Seagull 40 as well m8,

I have one and there great - will take you fromA to B no problems and for the price.... well you cant go wrong really.

The nose well is no problem - the wife has gone from her Star to Seagull and found it easy to fly but can soon get intersting with when you notch up the surface deflections a little...

Brand

Test flew a Black Horse Travel-Air (taildragger) the other w/e.  Was impressed by how well it flew.  Cheap too.  Their Speed-Air is ok as well (tricycle u/c).  Downside of both models was the covering - pre-painted stick on pvc.  Does the job but not as nice as "proper" covering material.

Bruce

There you are then, Gibbo. You know what to pick up at Weston Park on 20/21st June!
Seriously, though, you HAVE to go to Weston Park, the modelling world would be nothing, without it and you would learn alot, especially the night-time flying, so many types of models, you would see them all fly - infact I'll take my Seagull 40 and watch it fly - You are going to WP are you...?
See you there...?

p.s. there are loads of traders to help you choice.

The biggest issue with the Cougar and other Fun Flys which I see nearly every weekend is you never learn how to control a model on the ground. As fun flys get into the air so quick you never really master rudder control on the ground and when people move to something that takes a longer take off they end up with the model going in all directions. There are a handful of people like that in each of my clubs.

Apart from that they are good fun and you can increase the throws to get used to twitchier models bit by bit 

EXACTLY what the bloke at the club said and to that end I've been practising running it the length of the runway before gently easing back and letting it take off.

If the wind dictates a take off from left to right I aim for a bump at the far corner of the runway that launches her for you, it's great fun and teaches me how to stear towards it, so when and if I do get a little deviation under normal takeoffs I normally pull her back on course ok.

There is also the benefit of it does look like things might go wrong, YANK it back and the thing take's off almost vertical.  

I'm having a great laugh learning to fly these things honestly. I've had LOTS of hobbies and this is one of the most challenging AND the most fun all at the same time......

Lovely!   

It's important to learn all things that aircraft do. Flying a model that doesn't give you a scare doesn't teach you anything.
For example I've got a few aircraft you have to fly with respect. Learn these querks and when something does happen, you can react and save the day.
For example I've got a edge 540, 108 size. It can be a P@! to fly, it will tip stall, flick on too tight turn and tuck under at high speed. I've been flying it for a few years and taught me to expect anything. It entered a spin on its own recently, but I kept my cool, applied power, put nose down and centralise controls - it flew out of it just above the trees.
I was flying another model in a gale and on a low pass, turbulence flipped the model inverted, no panic, just keep compensating and climb out inverted and re-correct higher up. Sometimes a scare keeps you learning...