Thinking about the next plane

[Hoomi]

The Union ratified a new contract last week, which included a Ratification Bonus that will be on the next paycheck. Between that and a Team Achievement Award, I should have a nice windfall after taxes. I figure the lion's share is going to be put to practical use (bah! Adulting!), but I get to play with some of it, so I've been perusing different planes.

I find the EDF jets tempting, but I'm not sure I'm ready yet for that kind of flying. I need something that will be okay with the dirt runway at our flying field, not too much money between plane and associated necessities for flying (such as receiver, batteries, etc), and a bit of a step-up from the Calypso, Sensei, and Dynam Waco. Maybe something with retracts or flaps to add those elements to my experience base.

I've thought about the Avios Bushmule, for multi-engine and flaps. It has the added bonus of tundra-style wheels for our desert runway, but on the negative side, isn't available from MRC.

The Warbirds section offers some nice options as well, though there are a lot that are out of stock at the moment.

Anyway, I thought I'd toss it out here for discussion, and see what more experienced pilots might suggest as a good step-up plane.

[rifleman_btx]

Might look at the flightline Bearcat. You will get all the little extras like the flaps and retracts, and from my experiences the Grumman cats have also all been a smooth transitional model to step up to with the nice wide wing. Anyway, that's my thoughts.

[Hoomi]

The Bearcat's currently out-of-stock. I wonder how long it'll be before they get more?

[rifleman_btx]

Damn, they are usually pretty quick on replenishing planes. Might drop a line on their chat system and see what they say.

[xviper]

I've had the SkyMule and now the BushMule. It's a wonderful plane but remember that it has reversing ESCs so you don't want to accidentally hit that switch while flying. Also, those big tires will fly off almost anything and now that the Mule is a 4s plane, it has plenty of power to get off even the roughest runway. Also note that just because it has flaps, doesn't mean it needs flaps. Flaps may make it handy for dropping stuff out the back by slowing the plane down and to also help to take off on 1/2 flaps, but I've found that on both Mules, smooth landings are better achieved by not using flaps at all. Flaps simply slow the plane down too much and requires the use of more throttle, which is counter-intuitive when landing most prop planes. Coming that slow and with low to no power, the plane can easily stall at the critical moment.
How about the HobbyKing Tundra? (Not the Grand Tundra as it's a bit more money doesn't fly any better than the smaller Tundra.) Take a look at the Eflite Cherokee. I have the Cirrus and a friend has the Cherokee. The Cherokee is much easier to fly and land than the Cirrus due to its wing shape. Don't worry too much about the smaller tires. It'll get off rough ground easily.

[Hoomi]

Reversing ESCs? As in, full throttle suddenly becomes no throttle, or props start spinning backwards? (Thrust reversers! Land and stop on a dime! :D )

I haven't looked at the Tundra yet, but will take a look at that as well.

One concern on the Bearcat is that the recommendation is for paved runway or very short grass. It looks like it should handle our dirt runway okay, as I've seen other pilots flying planes with smaller wheels and lower ground clearance than the Bearcat has, and the 'Cat looks like it has fairly strong struts. A couple of the planes I've looked at, I'm shying away from due to reviews mentioning easily broken landing gear. If I was confident all my landings would be as smooth as yesterday's, I might not worry about that as much. I think taking a little of the weight out of the nose of the Sensei when I repaired the broken motor wire connection helped a lot. The Sensei was so nose-heavy that, if I didn't put some weight on the tail, it had a difficult time rotating on take-off, and trying to keep the nose up at slower landing speeds was a struggle.

The Cherokee might be tempting, too, as I've had the privilege of flying a real Cherokee before in an introductory flying lesson.

[xviper]

Reversing ESCs? As in, full throttle suddenly becomes no throttle, or props start spinning backwards? (Thrust reversers! Land and stop on a dime! :D )

I haven't looked at the Tundra yet, but will take a look at that as well.

There's a safety feature (sort of) built into the reversing ESCs. The throttle must be reduced to near zero before it will actually spin the props backwards, but there's still a possibility that you can flip the switch by accident and the next time you reduce the throttle to zero and throttle up again, the props will be reversed. This is a feature that was introduced so that when these planes are used on water, it's possible to back out of something when you can't actually get to the plane. These planes land so slow that prop braking is not necessary.

[Hoomi]

I was being facetious on the thrust-reversing (even if it seemed applicable, it sounds to me like an accident waiting to happen). For most of our fields, it's better to let the plane roll off the end of the runway, than to try any radical "braking" methods on landing. The brush at the end of our runway does a good job of slowing planes down quickly, without doing any more damage than maybe a foxtail or two stuck in the foam.

I watched MRC's review of the Cherokee. That's definitely a contender right now. If I wanted to have some real fun, I'd dig up a photo of the one I flew for the intro lesson, paint the model to match, and get some custom decals from Callie. As it is, though, the photos and video show a nice looking model. A big plus is that it can use the same battery as the Sensei. I'd still get another battery or two for it, but having the batteries useful for more than one plane would be nice.

[rifleman_btx]

Nice, i was just going with what you were saying about going to flaps and retracts. My first thought was the dynam hellcat, but there isnt any flaps so thats what sent me to the bearcat. I don't see why it wouldnt work on the desert runway.. but yeah if theres other options you are considering to get on it faster, definitely make it happen. I guess the thing is with tail draggers short grass is about the best (to me even over paved), but i have landed my dynam hellcat on my dirt driveway no problem from time to time

[Hoomi]

The real 1966 Cherokee I got to fly a little over 6 years ago. I expected maybe ten to fifteen minutes of "stick time" in mostly level flight. The instructor, however, actually had me take off, fly north to Saguaro Lake, perform a few turns over the lake, fly back to Mesa, Arizona, and then land the plane. The only thing he handled on the landing were the rudder pedals.

That was one mighty cool Father's Day present. I would love to pursue an actual pilot's license, but at that time, the instructor said you could figure on a minimum of $10K to get the license, between classroom costs, instructor time, plane rental, etc. I'm sure it's more now, and it's difficult to consider that kind of outlay from the budget for something that would be just a hobby.

[fhhuber]

On the subject of thrust reversing.

Indoor aerobatics competition uses variable pitch props and one maneuver is hovering nose down.
There's also been some discussion of one plane that has an ESC with a second switched channel used for reverse. (someone was having issues of it going into reverse randomly when the second plug to the RX was not plugged in)

You wouldn't use a car style ESC unless you used a switch to limit normal operation to forward only. Car style ESCs are heavier due to a better heat sink, not expecting good airflow for cooling. Aircraft ESCs need good airflow if you want to get anywhere near rated max watts.

[rifleman_btx]

That, and a car esc normally weighs twice as much amp for amp as a aircraft unit.

[JamesonC]

I've had the SkyMule and now the BushMule. It's a wonderful plane but remember that it has reversing ESCs so you don't want to accidentally hit that switch while flying. Also, those big tires will fly off almost anything and now that the Mule is a 4s plane, it has plenty of power to get off even the roughest runway. Also note that just because it has flaps, doesn't mean it needs flaps. Flaps may make it handy for dropping stuff out the back by slowing the plane down and to also help to take off on 1/2 flaps, but I've found that on both Mules, smooth landings are better achieved by not using flaps at all. Flaps simply slow the plane down too much and requires the use of more throttle, which is counter-intuitive when landing most prop planes. Coming that slow and with low to no power, the plane can easily stall at the critical moment.
How about the HobbyKing Tundra? (Not the Grand Tundra as it's a bit more money doesn't fly any better than the smaller Tundra.) Take a look at the Eflite Cherokee. I have the Cirrus and a friend has the Cherokee. The Cherokee is much easier to fly and land than the Cirrus due to its wing shape. Don't worry too much about the smaller tires. It'll get off rough ground easily.

I agree on the Cherokee and the Tundra. I have both and they are a blast! BUT, In my opinion, the Grand Tundra does fly much better than the smaller Tundra! If you have the budget and room for it, I would really recommend the Grand Tundra! It may be my favorite prop plane to fly right now!

Another fun plane that handles rough my rough field well is the CZ Cessna 150. Great flying plane that has handled anything I have thrown at it!

[crankestein]

I love my Durafly Tundra, its one plane you can throw anything at it and keeps looking for the sky. It must have by now a few ounces of epoxy and hot glue, scars all over the fuselage, chopsticks, etc and it still flies inverted easy.
I bring it at the club and brings a laugh to anyone that sees it, and they laugh even more when its in the sky.

Flaps are not needed, but it is a lot of fun on windy days, and able to almost land it anywhere w them because they do stop the plane. I fly mine w a wooden smaller prop, am more of a glider person, so I like to fly it w the wind and its momentum, flaps etc. Get more battery life and easy on the electeonics.

good luck on your next plane

[rifleman_btx]

I concur with the tundra, a buddy has one and its almost the only plane he brings to the field. Now he went back and bought the grand tundra

[Hoomi]

Lots of pluses on both the Tundra and the Cherokee. I like the Cherokee for the low-wing configuration (which I don't have a low-wing plane yet), the nostalgia for having flown a real Cherokee, and that Motion RC carries it. I like the Tundra for the rugged landing gear, big wheels, and that it will stay aloft at almost painfully slow speeds. Both have some great reviews, and are comparable in price.

I'd originally thought about getting the new DJI Mavic 2 Zoom, but couldn't quite justify the idea of dropping $1250 on a toy I really don't need. A couple of hundred or so on a new toy, though, is doable.

[xviper]

Lots of pluses on both the Tundra and the Cherokee. I like the Cherokee for the low-wing configuration (which I don't have a low-wing plane yet), the nostalgia for having flown a real Cherokee, and that Motion RC carries it. I like the Tundra for the rugged landing gear, big wheels, and that it will stay aloft at almost painfully slow speeds. Both have some great reviews, and are comparable in price.

I'd originally thought about getting the new DJI Mavic 2 Zoom, but couldn't quite justify the idea of dropping $1250 on a toy I really don't need. A couple of hundred or so on a new toy, though, is doable.

For a stout landing gear, the Tundra is the way to go. I don't know what the regulations are in the US, but in Canada, any RC aircraft with a camera on board has very tight restrictions on where you can operate it. It's considered surveillance and requires a permit unless used exclusively on private property where the camera can't video or take pictures of anything or anyone outside of that property. Many people here who have thought about getting a camera drone end up not doing it for those reasons. They've got nowhere they can fly it.

[Hoomi]

Restrictions are getting tighter here in the US, due to those who won't follow the existing rules. Currently, all National Parks are "no-fly zones," as well as all Arizona State Parks. Because our flying field is less than 5 miles away from an airport, and almost directly inline with one of the runways, our club has a strict "no drones" rule at the field.

It's too bad that the responsible pilots end up suffering for the actions of the irresponsible and the idiots.

[rifleman_btx]

Yeah its a shame really, its alot of fun to fly through a camera sight, but people keep wanting to be stupid just for that "oh i just got away with that thrill". They think freedom means do whatever they want where and when they want is excusable just because they are Americans. They think they should get a free pass, then bitch because a law was made to prohibit them from doing stupid crap. Its like we use to say in my unit, "Give a dumbass a gun, and he will shoot himself every time."

[crankestein]

A lot also has to do on this new generation, they show up to the field w all the fpv, quads, antennas, goggles, even the way dress and talk as if they are so cool and the next best thing. And such approach does not get them that far.
Not humble at all, think they own the field, and many times stupidly attempt to school senior club members. Its a comedy show, I have talked to a few of them one on one no bs, but they are not receptive. They hate to accept their noob status at all costs.

Our field is close to a military airstrip, so the club members gave the "fvp guys" a quick reminder, and they took them lightly. A few got their memberships revoked, the treasurer gave them their money back, thank you and good bye... ja ja