Steve Houghton 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I’ve just read the Speedo Pro Mk.2 review in the mag and I have to say that it isn’t the same Speedo Pro Mk2 that I bought just before Christmas last year. There were numerous differences in the two models. There was no visible sign that the fuselage on mine had been strengthened. I’d read elsewhere that the fuselage had been strengthened, and had been advised by others on our forum that there was no need to add carbon tow below the wing seat as was the case with the Mk1. So I was most disappointed when on my 3rd flight a crack appeared under the wing after what I thought was just a “normal” landing. I then had to go back to the workshop and strengthen that area myself. There were no instructions with mine at all. Aluminium wing sleeves? They weren’t aluminium in my kit, but some sort of plastic tube which needed to be cut to length, and in fact I squashed one as I was trying, (unsuccessfully) to cut it. Dimples for the servo cover mounting screws perfectly match the pre-drilled holes in the wing underside? Not on mine! I didn’t notice any dimples and there certainly weren’t any pre-drilled holes in the wing. There was no method included in my kit to secure the canopy, so I either have to use tape or rubber bands. On a positive note, I didn’t experience any problems with the elevator push rod binding, mine is as smooth as silk. I fitted a 4 cell 800mah Sanyo Eneloop RX pack, which just about slots into the fus under the canopy. Because of this, the only viable place I had to fit a Spektrum RX was in the nose in front of the battery pack, and as there is no other room for a switch, I would have to plug and unplug the battery power lead into the RX each time. In order to get the RX to fit in the fus, I had to remove the plastic outer cover. Not ideal! As for flying it? I can’t remember how much nose weight I had to add, but it was a silly amount. That said, it flies well off the slope and I have flown it in up to 20mph winds, and it penetrates surprisingly well in that, which is probably due to the low frontal area. Having tasted the joys of the Mk2, (although I have a sneaky suspicion mine was a Mk1 in the guise of a Mk2), I will be considering a Mk3, though which version of that I am unsure of just yet and am awaiting some reviews to help me make my decision. Steve A470Soaring.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Thomson - Slopeside Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Hi. Rob here from slopeside. I agree regarding the dimples and the covering removed. This is not how we ship them. You should however have received the extra bits mentioned. Regarding the potential of a mk1 in the guise of a mk2. We have had a few models recently that have had some flaws - much like the old mk 1 version. It is possible there has been a bad batch. We are already in talks with rvm on the quality control and hope to eliminate any chance of issues occurring. As always.. If you have any issue with the model you receive; get in touch! Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Houghton 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 Hi Rob I didn't have any issues with the model at the time of purchase as I had nothing to compare it against and thought that this was how it was, otherwise I would have been in touch. It wasn't until others began purchasing the model and posting on the Speedo thread that I began to notice some discrepancies. I remember one other forumite mentioned that he received servo extention leads in his kit, which I didn't. I'm not one who normally moans because one person has got something that I haven't, it just seemed that the differences between the review model and my model raised the questions that I pointed out. Steve A470Soaring.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Smalley Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I think you have to keep in mind what you pay and what you get, the cost of the speedo is stupid cheap, at that price I would expect to have to do far more to get it to fly than you actually have to, I paid a lot more than that for my typhoon and had far more to do with zero instructions !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Houghton 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 Oh I totally agree Lee . The Speedo is fantastic value for money, and I will have the Mk3 as I said previously, which is very competitively priced also. My issues were the differeces between the Mk2 I received, and the Mk2 reviewed in the mag. Surely they should have been identical models? Steve A470Soaring.blogspot.com Edited By Steve Houghton 1 on 03/05/2012 09:34:37 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Smalley Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 not so sure mate model will be under continual review and slight improvement your mk2 is quite old, maybe the review model is newer so prob has few tweeks in it , but they couldn't warrant calling it a MK3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Houghton 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 My Mk2 was purchased just before Xmas, the flying shots in the mag said the pictures were taken during the warm spell in March but they'd had to wait weeks for suitable conditions. I don't know mate, I'm not convinced, especially with the weak fuselage issue. They wouldn't have called it a Mk3 anyway as we know the new Mk3 has now been launched and is available now with a larger, 2 piece wing in either built up or GF covered foam, (mouldie) version. In a way, I'm quite surprised they've reviewed the Mk2 and not waited to review the Mk3. Steve A470Soaring.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Smalley Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 agreed mate, although i am not suprised at the differences as when i purchased my TYPHOON (an incredible model by the way) i was then suprised at the small changes across all the Phoons there on display, for example mine had a carbon d box whilst a std phoon does not!!...... or maybe they do now !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Thomson - Slopeside Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 To avoid this thread going around in circles.... The speedo reviewed is a Mark II speedo as sold by ourselves. (Slopeside.co.uk) Why do I know this? Because we sent it in for a review! The only area I can see in the review that is a little odd is the pre-cut wing panels for the servos and the dimples for where the screws go in. It is possible that someone at RCM&E had a go on the model before the end reviewer got it - but this is not how we normally ship them. We agree completely that the manual is rubbish! At the moment we have an internal project underway to provide new manuals for ALL of the models we sell. I look forward to the new Speedo manual being released in the next couple of weeks. Future orders will be sent out with a printed version of this manual in the box. Over-all, the Speedo Mark II is a superb aircraft. Not without it's small typical chinese niggles; but a good all round performer - and you get allot for your money! The newer and larger Mark III is avaliable with a glass wing, or a built up wing. This version was only released in the past month and is best considered a Mark 3 version 1!. We have found a few minor issues - that are being addressed at present; but nothing too bad. I imaging that the next round of models will be getting more polished. The manufacturer is very keen to listen to our feedback; and will be introducing changes to build and parts where required. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Smalley Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 but thats the same with all models mate mouldies are the worst for it small niggles etc, when andy reviewed the Phoon first off, the fus supplied had the carbon wings spar in such a location that the pushrods went right trough it !! the fact is its very very cheap, and work will be required, heck you can spend nearly a 1000 quid on a mouldie and you get no instructions and work will still be required generally !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Houghton 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 Don't get me wrong, the Speedo is a marvelous model, and the price is fantastic, and although there weren't any instructions, it didn't take a rocket scientist to work out how to put it together. But one can usually find a build thread for these things on line anyway, which is what I did, and it wasn't a problem. I was mearly pointing out that there were differences between the review model and mine which gave me cause for concern that mine may have been a Mk1 and not a Mk2, the fuselage which seemed to crack to easily being the main concern. I repaired my cracked fuselage with carbon and all seems to be fine, and it flies lovely, and I'd have another one if I were to lose it. Steve A470Soaring.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Freeman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Blimey! Just got in from work and found my review has caused a bit of a stir If I could respond to Steves observations in the OP.... 1. The review version is defo a Mk2 as seen on the comprehensive box artwork found on the end of the box lid..... My version has a good strong fuz with carbon tows under the wing seat and down the sides of the canopy opening. Since sending the review in I have cartwheeled it a couple of times and it has done an impression of a tent peg once..... all in the interest of experimentation and testing of course! No signs of any cracks or anything. It IS a strong fuz - no doubt! Maybe yours, Steve, was an early version prior to this fuz being introduced?? 2. The instructions I received weren't much use so you didn't miss much there TBH! 3. The aluminium tubes can be seen in the photo at the top of page 70. They were the correct length requiring no adjustment. 4. My servo covers came with dimples...... ....... which, when drilled out, lined up perfectly with the pre drilled holes in the wings...... These holes in the wing were done at the factory I recon. 5. My hatch retention was a home made affair using the traditional piano wire and magnets arrangement. I needed two piano wires 'cause one in the centre clashed with the battery!! 6. I overcame the sticking elevator control with a weight saving altenative that works a treat as described in the article! Some other info for you all.. There were some servo extension leads in with the kit. I thought Graham had included these but they could be part of the kit. There was also some red velcro!! Not sure what that was for and it is still in the box! I don't know when this kit was put together by the manufacturer but THIS kit appeared in RCM&E's "Counter Point" in April 2012. Was recieved by me on 8/3/12. Built and ready to go 11/3/12. First flights from the flat 25/3/12 (in shorts). Flying shots in the review off the slope 15/4/12 (in thermals...fickle British weather!). It is all quite recent so maybe this kit was a modern Mk 2 or a Mk 2.5 perhaps! Talking about Mk's. I'm up for reviewing the Mk. 3 if I'm lucky enough to be asked. If it's half as good as the Mk 2.5 it should be a blast...... I hear it has a rudder as well. Excellent! Cheers, Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Houghton 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 Thanks for your comments Mike. I don't really know what to say that would be different to what I have already said. When I made a few enquiries on line, including on this forum, and by experienced and respected model fliers, I was told that the Mk 2 fuselage had been strengthened after complaints had been received that it easily cracked, particularly under the wing seat. In fact the build blog of the original Mk 1 on another forum recommends that re-enforcement is made due to it being easily damaged. My crack appeared after I'd stalled the plane a few, (3 ish) feet above the ground and it landed nose first. So much for the re-enforced fuselage I thought. I took it home and repaired it with carbon ribbon, and as a precaution strengthened the opposite side of the fuselage as well. Since then it has been ok. So after reading your review, I feel a bit, disappointed that I seem to have received an inferior version of the Mk 2, or should that be Mk 1.5? I still love flying this plane and I'm sure I will have many hours of fun with it and would recommend it to anyone. Cheers Steve A470Soaring.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Gow 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 My Speedo 2 arrived in Feb. I liked the wing and the fixings, very nice canopy etc. However I wasn't happy with the fuselage though as it was pretty heavy especially at the tail. I made my own instead out of ply and balsa and added a rudder. I have yet to fly it but the reviews on other forums look hopefull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_B Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Nice job with the built up fuselage Alex, it almost looks like a small Phase 6. I bet there's plenty of room for the hardware now! I have a very early MK II and have flown it extensively over the last 3 years without any problems, but I did make my wing a one piece affair as the plane is small enough to remain fully rigged. If ever I do bend it I'd be tempted to make a fuselage similar to yours and maybe even replace the wings with foam veneered units as some folk have already done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Freeman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Alex, you are spot on about the weight of the fuz. A combination of the slender nose and the long moment makes the fuz very tail heavy. I ended up filling the nose with lead. I cut sheet lead into 1mm cube shunks, mix it with epoxy and pour the resulting "porridge" into the nose. This is how much I had to use...... Bill is also right about the space, there is no doubt it is a squeeze in there but I think that slender fuz looks fab and is well worth the effort of fitting all the gear in. All my gear is forward of the wing LE leaving some inviting room for ballast under the wing! Even with all that nose weight we are well under the lower end of the RG15 recommended wing loading. I'm over the amount of lead required now, and the tight squeeze, just enjoying flying it........ if the rain ever stops!! Cheers, Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Houghton 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 Posted by Alex Gow 1 on 03/05/2012 21:42:25: My Speedo 2 arrived in Feb. I liked the wing and the fixings, very nice canopy etc. However I wasn't happy with the fuselage though as it was pretty heavy especially at the tail. I made my own instead out of ply and balsa and added a rudder. I have yet to fly it but the reviews on other forums look hopefull. Love that Fus Alex, make me one! Pretty please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ashby - Moderator Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Perhaps I can just drop by and say that apart from sometimes photographing the contents, needless to say, we don't touch or 'start' kits before sending them to reviewers. Edited By David Ashby on 07/05/2012 07:06:19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Thomson - Slopeside Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Looking at the pictures above - i would agree. The holes are definitly factory made. By the text in the article I had assumed the solar film had been pre-cut. The style in the picture is the expected finish. The dimples in the plastic. That is not normal; and looks like the mold has changed. All this does is to highlight the various Chinese inconsistancies we are working to remove. In do feel however that sometimes we can expect too much. I have personally found the body and strength more than acceptable across the various models I have flown. It is always a balance of strength vs weight. Yes.. We can make it stronger... But that would increase weight, with the result that everyone would say it is a brick and does not perform well. In all my breakages... The bottom line is that I have planted it into the ground too fast! In normal flights and landings.. No problem . End of the day... It is a small glass and balsa built up glider - not a foamy (which to be fair can be desireable on the slope) Regarding the new and larger speedo light. You may notice these are not on our site at present. (listed - but not for sale). We have picked up a few minor quality issues while spot checking; and are wating for replacement parts from rvm. These should be with us in the next week or so. Both rvm and slopeside are very keen to improve the offering - any feedback good or bad is welcome. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slopetrashuk Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Rob, you don't send me any press releases of your product for my slope column. Jump on the bandwagon! Mike - Good job with your review. What was the slope? Andy Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Thomson - Slopeside Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Did not know I could! Do I just email then to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slopetrashuk Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I'm always on the look out for content Rob, especially domestic. Writing a regular column (especially after a few years) can leave your brain like mush and your knowledge like a withered husk! (joke.....) If you have something of note, let me know. If you have high quality photos better still. If I see it myself on the slope and in use - best of the lot! email addy is at the end of every slope column. In reality - probably best to spam every mag you can think of, don't you agree? Andy Edited By Slopetrashuk on 07/05/2012 09:06:51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Thomson - Slopeside Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Great . Will make sure I send you updates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Freeman Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Posted by Slopetrashuk on 07/05/2012 08:52:43: Rob, you don't send me any press releases of your product for my slope column. Jump on the bandwagon! Mike - Good job with your review. What was the slope? Andy Ellison Cheers Andy, Much appreciated! The title shot was taken at Uffington White Horse Hill in Wilts and the airbourne shots were off a little slope in Derbyshire called Narrowdale, just north of Alstonfield. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conwy Soarer Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I have had my Mk2 speedo for getting on 3 years, bought mine from China (tut tut!) I fly it pretty much once a week and have had no issues with it apart from having to replace the CF tube on wing seat for a new one, on the review this is aluminium which as far as I can see is the only difference between the review and mine. No instructions with mine either but its not rocket science. Mine has carbon under the wing seat and has proved plenty strong enough for the little beast. I think Steve you might have had one that slipped through the QC net (unusual for Chinese models ) The only thing I did not agree with in the review is the suggested wind range, I have flown mine in everything from a gnats fart to a have to lean to fly wind with only a tiny bit of ballast. Many will disagree but I think this could become a classic with almost cult following in the states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.