Warbirds as a skill level?

[Konrad]

Guys help me out.
I’m reading a lot about Warbirds being a level of flying skill. Like; "I hope to learn to fly this Champ then graduate to warbirds". This makes no sense to me as air and gravity make no distinction whether a model has a swastika or star on it. More advance skills are needed as the wing and power loading go up as well as the wing tapers increase. Most Dynam “warbirds" are really just gentle aileron trainers in war paint. So what’s with the myth that warbirds take a certain level of skill.

[crxmanpat]

I would classify the MAJORITY (not all) warbirds as an intermediate style plane. Most warbirds are low wing tail draggers. Tail draggers themselves represent a challenge taking off. I've been flying for 10 years and I still have to concentrate when taking off in a taildragger.

I think the only warbirds I would consider "beginner level" at all would be the ParkZone or Dynam T-28. Even though it's low wing, it has tricycle gear for easier takeoffs, and is a pretty stable plane. I know a bunch of guys who started off with that plane.

Personally, I would never recommend a typical warbird as a starter plane.

[fhhuber]

Warbirds used to be notorious for being heave and unforgiving beasts. Highly detailed scale warbirds with detailing approaching what would be expected for competition can still be that way.

Most of the modern foam ARF/PNP/RTF warbirds are not as heavily loaded and have been "tweaked" to be easier to fly.

For several years in a row I went to a nearby club's annual scale fly-in and every year THE SAME GUY would bring out a beautiful 1/4 scale P-51... hammer the throttle and cartwheel the thing down the runway. Always with significant damage... totaled a couple of them.
You could get away with doing that with most of the foam ARF/PNP/RTF Mustangs... you can't ever get away with it and a classic heavy detailed scale model.

[Konrad]

Intermediate style? In the old days we had the basic trainer (CG Eagle 63/Sig Kadet) Then there was the aileron trainer (CG Falcon 56, Sig Kavalier) followed by the sport ship (Sig Kougar, Jenson Ugly Stick, CG Sky Tiger) Then came the advanced planes with their triple taper wings and high wing loadings, Pattern Ships and Racers (not Q500) come to mind. And in my day the Top Flight heavy wing loaded warbirds!

Most warbirds of the foam type seem to me to sit in the aileron trainer stage (intermediate). Not basic trainer but still gentle flier that can roll and loop with some kind of grace. As to tail dragger I find that they are actually easier to take off than trike gears as they are somewhat self correcting about bent gear. I saw trike gear as an attempt to protect the prop not something to aid in the take off run. Now true warbirds tend to have the nose pointed up more than sport tail draggers and this does mean one needs to be on the rudder early in the take off run.

I too was shocked when I saw a bunch of rank beginners flying the Foam T-28 and successfully.
I agree that the typical warbird is not a basic trainer. But I don't see them as a mark of skill or a skill level.

BTW love how Sig used the "K" in their naming.

All the best,
Konrad

[Konrad]

Warbirds used to be notorious for being heave and unforgiving beasts. Highly detailed scale warbirds with detailing approaching what would be expected for competition can still be that way.

Most of the modern foam ARF/PNP/RTF warbirds are not as heavily loaded and have been "tweaked" to be easier to fly.

For several years in a row I went to a nearby club's annual scale fly-in and every year THE SAME GUY would bring out a beautiful 1/4 scale P-51... hammer the throttle and cartwheel the thing down the runway. Always with significant damage... totaled a couple of them.
You could get away with doing that with most of the foam ARF/PNP/RTF Mustangs... you can't ever get away with it and a classic heavy detailed scale model.

So this term is a hold back from the good old days. When you had to be gentle on the sticks to get the heavy bird in the air with that stinking engine and not stall her in the turns.

But I'm hearing this "warbird" from newbies that never were exposed to those glass and wooden scale monsters of our youth.

[Mizer67]

I think for new pilots, even without a reference of the older, heavier wing loaded planes that typified the term, a foam "warbird" is several steps in skill:

1.) Low wing
2.) 4 channel
3.) Tail dragger (harder ground handling, mainly vs. typical trikes)
4.) Faster than trainers usually, sometimes by a lot
5.) Less forgiving stall characteristics, typically warbirds even today will drop a wing vs. mushing forward due to wing characteristics
6.) Higher stall speeds than a trainer
7.) A "cool" plane - I think many people start in RC wanting to fly a Mustang or a similar plane
8.) A plane that, typically, will require power-on landings (although not always with foamies)

If they can advance through all those steps quickly, skipping some of those "steps" is a viable strategy. Each person learns differently and at their own pace though.

[WintrSol]

There are different levels of skill required within the group labeled 'warbird'. For example, the T-28 is a warbird trainer, so will be a bit more stable, and forgiving, than a Spitfire, as long as you keep the speed up. Among EDFs, the A-10 is a warbird, but is designed for low-speed ground attack, and has a good stall characteristics, while an F-15 or A6 are more of a handful. True fighter aircraft are not very stable by design, as stability is the enemy of maneuverability; assuming the model is at reasonable scale, it will also be relatively unstable, especially if the CG is set accordingly.

[F106DeltaDart]

On top of those points, a warbird usually has more features than the typical airplane, and is less tolerant of setup issues. An experienced pilot will know how to correctly setup an airplane before the maiden, and preflight. In addition, features like retracts are not nearly as tolerant to hard landings as the gear on a trainer. Pilots should certainly be very good at smooth landings with the trainer before progressing to a warbird. I know these skill sets apply to most airplanes, but they are extra critical for warbirds.

[wrongroad]

G'day gang,
Konrad has a good and valid point.
When I started flying thirty five years ago, a scale warbird was always considered to be the realm of the top notch pilot. I built a 72" MkIX Spitfire but never got to the stage where I could fly her [motor racing got in the way] and I sold her to a pilot who took her to many scale meets and more often then not, came away with the first place trophy.
Coming back to the hobby and finding how good electric power had become, I decided to start all over again and go with a high wing trainer, as well as a Radian [for heavier wind conditions], progressing through a low wing trainer before the FMS 1400mm T-28.
While I still would never recommend that a new pilot learn with a FMS 1400mm Mustang [although they are relatively easy to fly] I do not think that the modern 'scale' warbirds are any where near as hard to fly as the models of thirty years ago.
Point to make here, when 'my' Spit went to her forth owner, he promptly flew her into the ground and totally destroyed the model that had lived for over twenty five years. :angel:He had gone straight from a high wing trainer to a ARF warbird and thought the older machine would be a snap to fly. He was even warned not to try and fly it like the current style model. He failed to listen.
While there is no doubt that a Mustang, F4U, Bf109 in the FMS 1400 series are more difficult to fly than say a bixler or anything with a gyro training aid, they are not as hard to fly as the older machines.
We should be all grateful for that fact:D and I am.
I was congratulated on a good landing last Sunday with my P-51 Duchess Arlene and I thanked the man and then added that it was largely the model that allowed me to fly it like I can. And that is the truth;).
Yes, a warbird does have more bells and whistles and that does mean that a pilot has to have the dexterity to use these extras. A good landing always makes a good flight and you do have to learn to land them. Some landings I see from learner pilots that they think where 'fantastic' would promptly rip the gear clean out of any brand of ARF warbird be it foam or traditional build. [I was there once as well. All pilots have been]
But I think it is a case of going up step by step as it was thirty years ago, but perhaps the top step is not as hard to reach as it was then.
Another thought as well, we all have access to some pretty good flight simulators these day and that also plays a part in the faster learning curve available to today's pilots. We were lucky to get two flights a week back then. I see new pilots getting more flights than the instructors at my club these days. Then they go home and practice all week on the sim. What a great invention!
This is not meant to upset anyone but is a simple observation from someone that has been around for a while. As I have already said, I welcome the ease of flight that the modern machines give us.....it is great for our hobby/sport and great for the ego. Yes my ego needs stroking every so often:p:p
And do forget the help of the modern transmitter. That is almost another story.
Regards and respect
Daryl


PS, Mizer, One way to make sure you turn a good warbird model into tomorrows garbage is to try and glide in.
It is a bad habit, in my humble opinion, to get into and I see models, every weekend, go spearing into the ground because the pilot tried to slow it up and cut the power. Light weight foam models will actually run out of airspeed quicker that something with a bit of weight.
I made some bad landings trying to coast to the runway and it nearly cost me.
I can recommend that any pilot with a foamy, to keep the power on. Too slow kills.

[Shirty]

G'day boys, not much to add than what's already been said, but as far as an overall classification I'd say intermediate. It's a bit of a step from flying a high wing trainer with tricycle gear, but not a leap like learning turbines for example. And some warbirds are harder than others. For foamys I'd say this is about right. Jump up to giant scale warbirds etc is another kettle of fish. Easiest bird I've flown out of the box is the fms zero. I'd almost say this was a beginner plane. I'm very much in the powered landing camp too. ;)

[chevstar]

Hi Pilots I was reading all these post and was very pleased to see that most people do start flying with trainer type aircraft I personally was one of those pilots that wanted to fly mustangs. I started with the little Park Zone with as3x. My first one didn't last more than a couple of flights and many repairs, than I went to the hobby shop and they sold me a package with the P-51 and a simulator,that was the biggest boost to my flying skills since I could practice take-offs and landings and was getting pretty good with that aircraft with about a hundred flights with her. Than I bought a Pandora,witch was the best plane ever, started with the high wing tail dragger then moved to the low wing tail dragger then added flaps. After getting great experience with the Pandora I then went back to the warbirds started with the FMS 1400 T-28 and after that went with the Mustangs I have 3 of them now the Eflite P-51 44 inch,FW Iron Ass,FW Old Crow, and have been hooked ever since!!! Love war birds

[Mizer67]

PS, Mizer, One way to make sure you turn a good warbird model into tomorrows garbage is to try and glide in.
It is a bad habit, in my humble opinion, to get into and I see models, every weekend, go spearing into the ground because the pilot tried to slow it up and cut the power. Light weight foam models will actually run out of airspeed quicker that something with a bit of weight.
I made some bad landings trying to coast to the runway and it nearly cost me.
I can recommend that any pilot with a foamy, to keep the power on. Too slow kills.

I do use power-on for landings.

I have landed (small) foamies without throttle though without damage of any kind or stalling, so it's possible, but not a best practice particularly as the wing loads get heavier. I was qualifying my earlier statement so that someone wouldn't accuse me of saying it wasn't possible. It's possible, but not a great idea.

[Lon]

Oh yes, power her in...just as if i was going to do a touch and go.

[wrongroad]

G'day Mizer,
I am glad to see that:D
And I want to stress that I was not having a 'go' at you but trying to make sure that you understood the bad habits people are developing in landing models. I see that you do.
It is sometimes hard to know the experience of a fellow modeler by looking at a site page.:)
The reason that I try to steer people in the right right direction is that, in my club and no doubt in many clubs through out the world, there is a specimen called the Guru Of Flight.
Our GOF gives out so much bad advice that I try to make it right and sometimes I over do it. So if I offended you in any way, I offer you my absolute apologizes.
I really hate seeing good models smashed for no logical reason. And what really gets on my nerves is, that these guys get a following of pilots that hang off their every wrongly made statement.
OK, I am over it now:D:D
Thanks for listening!

Regards and respect
Daryl

[The Huff]

I have the Freewing 1400mm T-6 Texan and for a foamy it is a HEAVY bird ! With ten ounces of lead added to the inner cowling to cg correctly and a 4s 4000mah pack all the way forward she's humpin some weight (~5.5 lbs) around the pattern. CG'd properly this is an awesome model to fly, however, she flys like a T-6 and woa to the pilot that doesn't keep power up in turns and on final ..... Tip stall city .... crash and burn Mav ! Flying the Freewing T-6 is a pleasure but she's a bit of a handful and I would not recommend her as a next (intermediate) step into the warbird category at all. She sure looks impressive in the air though ! (I have the Navy SNJ version because everyone knows Navy planes fly better .... )

[Mizer67]

G'day Mizer,
I am glad to see that:D
And I want to stress that I was not having a 'go' at you but trying to make sure that you understood the bad habits people are developing in landing models. I see that you do.
It is sometimes hard to know the experience of a fellow modeler by looking at a site page.:)
The reason that I try to steer people in the right right direction is that, in my club and no doubt in many clubs through out the world, there is a specimen called the Guru Of Flight.
Our GOF gives out so much bad advice that I try to make it right and sometimes I over do it. So if I offended you in any way, I offer you my absolute apologizes.
I really hate seeing good models smashed for no logical reason. And what really gets on my nerves is, that these guys get a following of pilots that hang off their every wrongly made statement.
OK, I am over it now:D:D
Thanks for listening!

Regards and respect
Daryl

We're all good mate.

I wasn't trying to give out bad advice....may have come across that way though.

When I was first learning I was taught basically power off landings (well, 20 years ago you still had a smidge of power from needing to keep the nitro motor idling along). I think a lot of people still land that way and are taught to land that way by instructors with the foamy trainers because they have so much lift, ultra light wing loads and don't want to descend - - and gentle stall characteristics so you can just float them in.

Some of the foamy warbirds aren't far off from trainer wing loadings and even the airfoils aren't that much different in some of the birds (become flat bottom towards the tip), so you can get away with a lot of bad practices for a while, until one day you don't any longer or buy a different warbird that isn't as forgiving and crack one up.

[Grossman56]

Tapered wings my friend, look at it like going from a small basic car and into a sports car!
Take it up and don't worry about retracting the gear, get some altitude and back off on the throttle and gently pull the nose up, she'll stall on you and tip off on one wing, hence the name tip stall, recover by letting up on the elevator and giving it some throttle. Now you know what a tip stall looks like and how to get out of it.
Like Lon said, approach a landing like a touch and go, keep a little power on but remember what those wings did and watch for it. You can extend your glide path by pulling back on the elevator but, unlike the trainers, do it once and if it's still not landing where you want, go to throttle, otherwise things could get nasty!

Grossman56

[fhhuber]

Actually, the result of pulling back attempting to stretch a glide is usually to land short.... or stall.

There is some best glide angle and airspeed for distance and another for duration. The max distance speed and angle is the "LD Max" (also Vmd). Pull back and you slow down and might get more duration (depending on how much you pull back) but the Length of travel over ground compared to Distance from ground lost will be less.

with enough information you can calculate LD Max... but we don't have the instruments to hit it based on the numbers. You have to eyeball it. After just a minute or two, an experienced sailplane flier can trim the plane for LD Max. (then save/remember that trim setting because its VERY useful)

That is where I trim my planes for landing mode. You can extend by a small addition of power or make the plane descend on a steeper angle with just a little UP elevator.

Note that if you pull, you lose airspeed, so when you let back off the elevator the descent rate increases MORE until the plane recovers the airspeed...
Pulling back from LD Max in an attempt to stretch the glide gets you in a lot of trouble fast.

http://www.emergencylanding.info/forced%20landing.html

“Do not try and stretch the glide! (by pulling the nose up)”
This is bad for 2 significant reasons:

1. For a start it will steepen your glide once you are settled at that speed.
2. But more importantly, if you are not careful, you could stall it. From here you could end up spinning in to the ground which would definitely mean game over for you. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Alternatively you might just slam in to the ground with a very high sink rate which could shatter your spine and is also quite likely to mean game over for you. So stick to the best glide speed.

[Grossman56]

Personally, it works for me, but I guess it would depend on how much back elevator you give it, like I said though, if it doesn't get the results you want, give her some power otherwise, things could get nasty i.e. tip stall.
And I agree with the article, if you are in a forced landing situation, no motor, you don't want to lose your forward momentum, but we are talking normal approach landings with power available, aren't we?

Grossman56