PETER BRUCE - Eastchurch Gap

A reply to Robert Putley1 - who asked if I was able to measure the RF before and after the Spectrum repair.Simple answer is I did however the RF readings were almost the same and not well down on the old Tx reading I had before I sent it into be checked. As the equipment I used measured field strength I felt there was no justification in making an assumption that the readings were conclusive as even an angular difference on orientation of an aerial will give an attenuation to any signal reading obtained using this method - so very unscientific to assume anything. A new Tx was supplied by Horizon to me which came from Germany and its the newer model fitted with the divergency aerial board (NOT just two aerials soldered to one point on the board )- which can be identified with a different model number. I have to say I have never flown with the new supplied Tx - I got it ready but just could not face the chance of losing another model again - or TWO in succession as happened to me that day so I now fly with my old Futaba 35 Meg Tx and the Futaba 2.4 module fitted in the back. Had no issues except the extra cost of all the new Rx. After the on board video evidence (posted here) confirmed my plane was - to my mind "hit" with RF I could not trust the Tx set-up again however, loads of guys fly our site on Spectrum with only a couple of reliable "what happened to that" problems which cant be confirmed so it's my theory my two models which were delivered to the ground one after another could have been the result of a passing ships radar which also has operation on 2.4.... Its a long shot but our site is right on the Thames / Medway estuary so lots of big ships come in and go and their 2.4 radar can pump out a lot of "Watts"- but its only my theory not a fact. The visual evidence I had off the camera on both planes as they were going in shows the only TWO common factors to both planes was the camera (which I have used on many occasions past and since) and the Tx... I have since made my choice and have a brand new DX6 - new version - is still in the box with the Lipo battery unconnected. I can't and won't say anything against Spectrum equipment as I have no justifiable reason and loads in our club fly Spectrum but for me I just felt uncomfortable even with the new Tx. Horizon did do the right thing and you can't be fairer than that which is something you cant say of many importers. Hope this helps others. Make sure you see the videos... Regards Peter

Hi all. After the demise of my old Hobbyking Catalina - wife put it in - i just had to get a new one but Hobbyking don't market it now so the wife kindly replaced the model with a Dynam PBY Catalina. I know the floats can snap off sometimes taking the end of the wing with it on grass landings so I did the same trick with this model I did before with my old Hobbyking Catalina which proved so successful...

Hi Dennis. I normally do this but felt asking was worthwhile as it's a common kit. Regards Peter

Hi Robert. Thanks for the reply. 60mm is where I would go for as well but felt it would not hurt asking here. I have to say although the Dynam kit has more detail I still favour my old Hobbyking Catalina and I liked the undercambered wing section which gave it a great slow flying speed but this Dynam looks like it will be a lot faster... Not as keen on my one with it's plain grey colour so may re-paint it in emulsion which I hope will adhere to the EPO foam and not peel off. Fingers crossed.

I got the EPO kit from the wife to replace the old Hobbyking on she put in a years back which is nice as I always liked the plane... Anyway the problem is with the instructions which are conflicting on the point of the C of G. I have an idea where I would put it however if there is anyone who specifically has got this model and can tell me the C of G position they use it would save me guessing... In the instructions it gives two positions and both are measured from the front leading edge of the wing. The description Write up says the ideal position is 80 to 85mm behind the leading edge. The two drawing diagrams say 60 to 65 mm behind the leading edge and this is what I would go with....   Any other Catalina flyers made it past the test flight? Regards Peter     Edited By PETER BRUCE - Eastchurch Gap on 30/12/2016 18:48:18

Seen the review on the Acrowot XL in RCM&E October issue - they say that the fittings supplied are OK - but then go on to say that they changed the control horns over to the three bolt type like I used on model number two... With BOTH my Acrowot XL kits the clevises were the same poor quality - gap on the joint - but no mention of this was made in the review. https://youtu.be/ACN20h4TJ54 I hope his plane continues to pull out from a dive as sooner or later it won't.... PS No other help from Ripmax other than they say they are looking to change things so they must be aware...

Hi Tim. In my early teens I used to build simple kits however as you infer - time is often the dictator. Chris Foss is a name well known in these circles and his designs are flawless because they are well tried before he puts them out there so the snags were all sorted which is why his models carry so much weight with us all. Regarding build quality = Chinese people working in factories also have bad days and still have to make quotas so things will get through and once covered problems are often hidden. The build quality between my two Acrowot XLs can be clearly seen on the wings - my first kit was built to a better standard but on the second there are issues I can see but can do nothing about. Also some areas of the coloured coverings needed going over with the heat iron as in some areas it was not secured properly and would have lifted off the surface of the wings in a short time. On my first Acrowot XL I used thinned clear gloss fuel proofer to go over all over the covering joints however I have not yet done this on the new model as I wanted to get it into the air first... I think your advice to beef things up is a good idea but I feel that everything is made extra light now because of the rise in electric flight where weight is all important so that's the route all air frame's have gone which is not good when it comes to fitting an IC engine up front... Signs of the times... Regards Peter

I think the points that are coming in thick and fast are clearly saying whats supplied are not good enough!

SOME GOOD NEWS GUYS. I have been contacted by Ripmax UK (who I also sent the video to). They are very concerned and are going to look at the issue raised - so that's at least progress which can only help others. I suspect if this is addressed quickly by the China manufacturer it will still take a long time for stocks to change in the UK & USA however it shows how worthwhile it is sending videos onto manufacturers / distributors and of course placing them onto a group forum such as this... I myself built the first Acrowot XL kit to the letter of the instructions and to have such a dramatic failure so near the ground with such a catastrophic outcome was a horrible lesson which only then made me delve further into the cause of the tragic event... At least the flight was short and bitter and the event took place on our flying field - but what if I had it up performing aerobatics and had the clevis strip out!! A 30cc heavy lump falling from the sky is not what we want. I have to respond to Engine Doctor and others that only NOW do I understand why you use other fittings instead of the items that are supplied with kits and this comes I suspect from (dare I say) older experience within the hobby... I think its a sign of the times that everything now is to a price and quality is not so much an issue however things must be "fit for purpose" which must also encompass its use within the operating parameters the device must work within - together with some safety margin... No point having a walking stick if you can't lean on it! . Taking it further what I have used before on my WW1 biplanes is totally unacceptable on the Acrowot XL however as a builder I followed the instructions supplied with the plane and used the supplied hardware never expecting there to be any issues - how wrong I was. One of the worse stressed areas is using the supplied clevises on the elevator servo. It can take a lot of force in a dive so knowing what I know now I wouldn't hold my breath when it came to giving the model some elevator to pull it out of a dive... Best advice to give - take along a shovel to dig your engine out and a black bin liner to put the bits in... My second Acrowot kit was purchased around five months after the first however the supplied clevises were exactly the same as supplied in the first Acrowot kit.... Also mentioned above (Hi Peter . Don't hold your breath for reply ! I knew a person who left customer service because his hands were tied on what he could do to help customers) At least I have got a reply - lets see if the kit changes and the hardware issue is acted upon. ------------------- PS I have checked the new 3 bolt fixing control horns I have got and fitted - they seem very firm indeed and my thanks to Braddock for the heads-up. Regards Peter

Hi Rich2. Thanks for the mention to Chris Foss but to be fair it's not his problem as his design is first class which is why I got another kit. From what I hear on here Ripmax are aware of the problem - shame I didn't know before my plane flew... The video was made to bring it to the attention of future builders as the fittings need looking at. Regards Peter

Tuesday Night - No reply yet from Ripmax regarding the video...

Your Welcome. Regards Peter

Hi there. Search for "Kavan" fittings which will put you in the right direction but expect to pay a much higher price - but as I found out - how much is your model and safety worth! I have cut and pasted below and its how it comes out so PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT SHOUTING... From BrentfordRC & jsmodelshobbies off eBay TRI-HORN M3X9mm FOR RC PLANES KIT SCRATCH BUILDING REPAIRS HANGAR 9 YT RC PLANS. YOU WILL RECEIVE 4X HORNS WITH SCREWS. ---------------------------- Kavan Heavy Duty Maxi Ball Link with Offset Ball M3  

Wise words of wisdom. Please move next door to me! Regards Peter

Hi Bob. I think I used the same exhaust you are showing. It almost otally removed the exhaust sound from the engine and all I could hear was the tinkle of the internal parts which you would normally not hear. As you say - where the hell would you put it on a model - Clearly shows what can be done...

Hi Braddock. You cover a few points and I would say before you fly your Acrowot you have a good look to assure yourself the quality is fit for purpose - if in any doubt change them over else in a dive with the forces you get with a larger model they could well fail. You can get away with the fittings supplied on smaller models perhaps but on a 30 to 35 cc you could bell end up like my plane shown in the video above.... On the noise front. The manufacturers are totally to blame for this. The silencers supplied are too thin and not baffled in most instances so greater noise levels are to be expected. The thin sheet walls act like speakers in their own right and the smaller petrol engines exhibit a higher "crack" sound which is annoying to your ears. When one distributor was asked why the noise level was so high exceeding the safe Db ear level the answer was "we make the spec for the American market" = true or not it's not the best reply... I played about with a petrol engine a while ago and is it didn't need to go vertical in a plane I could afford to lose some revs so I modified the exhaust and its been flying in a Toffee drop President T240 very well with a noise level that worries no one. Sensible use of the throttle always goes a long way for less noise as well of course and if your flying scale it often pays to slightly over prop as well... See video below.

Hi Andrew. You worry me regarding your comment "I note the kit is reviewed in the current RCM&E and the reviewer states that the fittings are of good quality." My second Acrowot XL kit was only delivered two weeks ago and the fittings are the same quality as the first Acrowot kit I had months ago - the quality has not changed so where did the RCM&E fittings that are good quality come from!!! Regards and thanks for your comment. Peter

Hi Bob. Thanks for your reply and I have to say I was gutted about the crash as I had been plagued with a major engine problem with the new fitted NGH 35 engine (See my other two videos posted in IC Forum section on the "Fix" for my NGH 35). The engine was cutting out at all different times and I landed with so many dead sticks its lucky the model survived in one piece. It was only due to being weary of the dodgy engine that I had not really flown the model in any real sense so the used and supplied fittings had no real strain was put on them... Its a shame I ended up in this section for my reply however on the search for AcrowotXL this was what came up. If I had found the other links I would surely have NOT used the supplied hardware in this kit... The clevises supplied in the kit - considering this can take engines up to 35cc are not safe at all on reflection and Ripmax must be aware of the problem. Two other kits which were obtained at the same time as mine also lost their wing coverings which peeled off in flight under extreme maneuvers however the faulty wings were replaced by Ripmax - but only after the faulty ones were returned to the shop and the person waited some time for the new ones to be sent. The shop concerned were admirable in their efforts to rectifiie the matter (Ashford Models) and it was Ripmax who were slow it seems...

Hi Timothy. Thanks for your reply. Did a search for Acrowot and this was the site "wot" came up so I posted my original warning here. The plane is great so I'm not knocking it as I have now just finished building kit number two... Little video to make the point - ouch - now on Acrowot XL number two. Regards Peter

Just some info - check the supplied clevises in your kit - if the 3mm threaded end has a one mm gap on the rolled joint don't use them. Better to use higher quality fittings on this model...