Real flight 9 seeking Old Timer SAM type models (like Playboy) also cancelling Ailerons.


New member
Hello All
I have recently started using RF9 as I seem to have a lot of difficulties flying a radio model. I have noticed on RF9 that all the models have ailerons which are not present on old-timer models, is there a way or model within the RF9 list (that I have missed) that does not have ailerons. Is there a pack etc. that contains some Old Timer models like the playboy.


Active member
I don't know if there are any models that don't use aileron input, but I would certainly be willing to try setting one up or possibly even creating one from plans.

I can start by fiddling with a currently available model to see what can be done from the sim standpoint, but I don't expect any real impediments. RF is an excellent sim that is very versatile. If you have a favorite that you would like to propose, I'm open to suggestions.

Would you be willing/able to put in some time helping if needed?


Well-known member
RealFlight Add-Ons Volume 4 has the Spectra Select, Tutor Cabin Trainer
There is a reason... 3 channel planes do not fly well. Time to move up.


Well-known member
It's pretty easy to put the rudder on the aileron channel in the editor. Then just assign the aileron channel to nothing. Instant 3 channel plane. They really don't turn well though.


Well-known member
There are a few older designs on the Swap pages... They fly Okay but considering when they were constructed it, poor handling is to be expected. Look up the Powerhouse.EA as an example


Well-known member
I think 3 channel models belong on the mantle. They are not really safe to fly. There are many reasons that they were abandoned. No reason to did up the corpse.


Active member
BLT Park Flyer
Fling ILM Hand Launch
FlyZone AirCore Principal
FlyZone SkyFly
FlyZone SkyFly 2
Multiplex EasyStar

I guess we all missed the models above which are all included with RF 9/9.5. Check the RealFlight Legacy Aircraft and the Swap Pages. There are probably more, but I think this is a good representation of the types to look for. Basically, start with models that have significant dihedral. (Wingtips higher than wing roots.) Wings with multiple sections at progressive angles of dihedral will usually be the best performers, but you can always tweak the models in the editor when you are more comfortable with RF. Note that there are a number of gliders and trainers that have dihedral and 4 channel controls, so you may have to load and check by wiggling the right stick sideways if you don't recognize the model or know the design.

I'll probably go ahead and make a Playboy Senior as I have plans for a 71". I would welcome your input once I get a complete model together and start tuning up the physics. There aren't too many of us old timers that have gazed lovingly at the swan neck silhouette of the Playboy's pylon and made the jump to virtual! I have fond memories of shaping and smoothing that pylon more than once, courtesy of my local Plane Eating Tree. It will be fun to do it digitally.

I think 3 channel models belong on the mantle. They are not really safe to fly.
Big shock here, but I'm gonna go ahead and respectfully disagree on both points, and there are lots of innovators that still produce 3 channel models. In particular, 3 channel control is extremely popular for small and/or low power planes. It may actually be the only option for ultra small and ultralight models, which at some point fall back to 2 or even 1 channel systems for weight and power reasons.

I agree that throwing out aileron control on a design that relies on ailerons for control is unsafe, especially on a 45lb giant scale hurtling around at 80mph, not to mention most jet designs. Three channel models can be inexpensive, approachable, maneuverable, and lots of fun! The only safety caveats I can think of apply to all RC planes. They need to be designed for the control system used, properly constructed, in good working condition, and they need to be responsibly flown. Three channel models are current production trainers, park flyers, and gliders. There is also a substantial vintage homebuilt market. I'm not sure if any properly executed and properly used control system can be called safer or less safe than any other. That said, I would tend to suggest that 3 channel models are probably more safe based on overall weight, construction materials, and slower flight speed.

Welcome @bill2995! Enjoy the sim and this forum. There are lots of great people here with loads of experience and knowledge to share. Don't pass over info that only appears in posts for older versions of RF. Older posts provide a great deal of depth to this resource and much of the info is still valid and/or applicable to RF 9 and 9.5.

Be safe and well!


Active member
What do you mean "past?" I, for one, am perfectly happy with one foot on the bleeding edge and the other on the roots of RC. Just because more channels are available now doesn't mean that 3 channel models are less valid solutions or that more channels are better. It's entirely dependent on the application.

I don't see how you can reasonably refer to 3 channel models as "the past" when they are currently being designed, manufactured, and sold, and will be for the foreseeable future. They are the most common recommendation for prospective hobbyists and definitely the most economical entry point to RC.

Sorry, friend, but 3 channel models are the bedrock of RC today and have been RC's bright future for half a century, ever since Controlair advertised their Three Channel proportional transmitter in 1968. They probably will be forever.

Bobby M

New member
Just go on believing that, your kids are taking away the keys soon anyway.
House of Balsa used to make a parasol old timer called the Pietenpol. It flew quite well as I recall, and was only three channels. I wish I could find one at a reasonable cost and add ailerons, but I would settle for three for starters. I really loved that plane. I just got back into RC and it sure has changed.