View Single Post
Old 05-19-2012, 05:58 PM   #8
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,883
Thanked 152 Times in 150 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)

You're making a fatal mistake if you think a simulator is the way to get information on what planes would be appropriate. Unfortunately simulators just are not that good yet. By far, people are a superior source of information for what you are looking for.

Here's the problem. The higher the ratio between the wind speed and the speed your plane flies the harder it will be to fly that plane. Larger planes fly faster than smaller planes, so they are much less affected. Also, the larger plane has more mass than the little one, so the same force moves it less from your flight path.

So slower planes and lighter planes are affected worse by the wind and you are looking for a slow, light airframe and expecting to find one that does well in wind. Nothing fits the bill well, but there are some compromises you can opt for.

One is a fast, aerobatic plane that maneuvers quickly so you can compensate for being bounce all over creation by that wind. As a beginner that setup won't help you because you won't be able to fly it even with no wind. They have no inherent stability and fly too fast for a beginner to learn anything before airframe destruction. Things will happen much too fast for you to be able to react properly or maybe not be able to react at all. You'll have a collection of broken pieces and no idea what went wrong. Therefore you won't learn anything.

Your best bet might be the compromise of a slower, 3-channel plane and let the wind disqualify you from flying most of the time. At least then you can learn to fly and gain the skill to do the first scheme successfully. You can't learn by crashing. You learn by successfully flying BEFORE you crash. If you don't have time to learn before the destruction you'll never learn how to fly. Flying is taught by success, not failure.
Rockin Robbins is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.03978 seconds with 16 queries