Contact email for Chris Foss Designs?

[Dale Bradly]

Good luck!

[911hillclimber]

Thanks!

I've been adopted by a really good flyer and teacher at the local Club and his patience is most welcome.

He is all buddied-up Tx to TX so has rescued quite a few situations I have got myself into.

I hoped this RC thing was simple, it certainly is not, but I never give up.

 

I have crashed more times than I have landed, but soon in 2023 I hope to get over that and actually fly my Standard Buccaneer in a calm afternoon solo.

That is the target!

[David Davis 2]

I find this all very strange Hillclimber.

 

I've worn out two WOT 4 foam-Es and I didn't even realise that there was a weight in the tail! I just screwed on the tail plane, added a 3S 2300 LiPo and receiver and flew the thing. Perhaps they've altered it in its latest manifestation.

 

They do fly well but I believe that the Riot is a stronger model.

[kevin b]

On 27/12/2022 at 22:10, David Davis 2 said:

Years ago I spoke to Chris Foss over the telephone long before there were any foamy electric powered ARTF WOT 4s. Even in those days he said that his business was "a computer-free zone," so best of luck on getting in touch with him by email. He certainly designed the original WOT 4 and AFAIK he has nothing to do with the ARTFs which are all marketed by Ripmax.

 

If you have a problem with your model I'd contact Ripmax and see what they say. They are excellent fliers. I've had two of them.

I totally agree. However.

As far as I can tell every Ripmax Wot 4 variant appears to be labelled (on the model itself) "by Chris Foss".

This infers that Chris Foss actually designed that particular model, not that he designed the original Wot 4 from which it is derived. His input into the development of the Chinese product is also well documented, both by Ripmax and the various magazines in which they have been advertised.

I think if anyone was to take issue with his attitude that it is nothing to do with him, then he could be on a sticky wicket. Lending (or selling) your name to a brand is a 2 way street.

That doesn't detract from the fact that he took a Scandinavian control line design (allegedly) and produced an excellent radio controlled model that in its original form at least has stood the test of time (and many bad landings !). His input into our modelling world over many years is also something to be recognised.

[Nigel Heather]

On 27/12/2022 at 17:18, 911hillclimber said:

I have just assembled a Wot4 Foam-e, a Xmas present.

Most unimpressed by the quality and fragility of this plane, the fit and finish is poor compared to my long suffering Kingfisher.

 

I want to contact Chris Foss about this via email, but the web site looks very old giving a FAX number to contact them.

 

Does anyone have an email I can use please?

The plane is from Ripmax via my local model shop.

Thanks in advance,

Graham.

 

I'd swap your Wot4 for my Kingfisher in a heartbeat.

 

I agree that, purely on the face of it, the Kingfisher build is superior.  But with that comes a lot of weight.  The most important thing about an aeroplane is how it flies and my AcroWot is far superior to my Kingfisher and I would expect the same of the Wot4.

 

Let me know if you want to swap 😀

 

But there are a couple of areas where the AcroWot could be improved and they may hold true for the Wot4 too.

 

Undercarriage attachment - replace the metal screws for nylon ones.  A heavy landing can rip the mount out of fuselage, breaking the mount in the process.  There is no spare, it would be impossible to fit any way. So you are left with a home brew repair.

 

Motor mount - the motor sits in a metal plate which sits in slots in the fuselage sides.  It is not very secure and over time or after impact the thrust angle can drift.

 

Also if flying from a grass strip,  fit bigger wheels.  You don't have to go balloon like Kingfisher but the ones supplied are tiny - they grap in any divot risking the undercarriage being ripped out.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Edited December 30, 2022 by Nigel Heather

[911hillclimber]

Thank you Nigel, my Kingfisher is very heavy due to the copious layers of Gorilla brown expanding glue in the front of the fuselage. When I crash I rally CRASH.

Plastic screws for the u/carriage is a good idea, I will follow that up.

I have fitted larger wheels already (club strip is quite rutted) but plan to go larger, have some to fit already.

 

Chap at the field who can fly really well has a Kingfisher, and he thinks it a hard plane to learn on and the WOT is far better, so your thoughts are not alone.

[Nigel Heather]

6 hours ago, 911hillclimber said:

Thank you Nigel, my Kingfisher is very heavy due to the copious layers of Gorilla brown expanding glue in the front of the fuselage. When I crash I rally CRASH.

Plastic screws for the u/carriage is a good idea, I will follow that up.

I have fitted larger wheels already (club strip is quite rutted) but plan to go larger, have some to fit already.

 

Chap at the field who can fly really well has a Kingfisher, and he thinks it a hard plane to learn on and the WOT is far better, so your thoughts are not alone.

 

Yes ironically, I find the AcroWot easier to fly than the Kingfisher.  My thoughts are that the Kingfisher is too heavy and underpowered - I actually find the Kingfisher hard to slow down for landing - mine come in pretty fast and long - so much for STOL.  By comparison I can float the AcroWot in and land in a much shorter distance than I can with the Kingfisher.  I also find the Kingfisher wallows in turns and difficult to maintain a constant height in the turn - by comparison the AcroWot turns on rails.

 

I imagine the Wot4 will be even easier.

 

You are quite right about the quality of the build - on cosmetics alone the Kingfish looks a much higher quality product.  But what is important is how they fly and I think you will be very pleased with the Wot4.

 

Another thing is this - heavier planes crash harder, do more damage, lighter planes crash softer, do less damage.  So in reality although the Wot4 may look less substantial you might find it fairs better in light crashes than the Kingfisher.

 

I would have swapped - but it was half in jest - my recommendation would be to stick with the Wot4 - it is a very nice aircraft.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

[Rich Griff]

So glad you are flying hillclimber.

 

Practice practise practise, you will soon be going solo which is when the real learning starts.

 

Good that you have a "target" to reach and surpass, you'll soon get your A ticket.

 

Never had a wot4 but they were popular at Llyn club at the time. My shadow ( still flying well, thanks Ian ) is a bit wot4 ish ....

[911hillclimber]

That is a very good description of how the Kingfisher behaves, and the other club member who also has one finds the same.

 

Looking forward to the WOT4.

 

On the tail weight:

I think some of these 'WOT4' designs may have been made with and without the weight.

Another member said his has no weights in the tail.

 

As to getting an A ticket...that could be some time off at my rate of learning, I'm not a natural but love this side hobby of mine and the flying field experience too.

[911hillclimber]

To my surprise, Ripmax have replied to me concerning this plane and have asked for my thoughts by email.

We shall see what may happen, but at least they replied first day back.

 

The plane is now on 100mm dia wheels for the rough and tumble of our flied surface. Looks good too!

[Bruce Collinson]

I’ve a current Foam Wot 4 in construction and to my surprise, there is a steel tail weight built in, under a white plastic cover under the fus immediately in front of the tail wheel bracket.   Can’t see it but the magnet picks it up.   It is branded as a Foam E, New Mk. 2+.

 

Good that Ripmax have responded.   I did think it was a little optimistic asking Chris Foss to comment.   If you engaged an architect to design a house and the builder made a horlicks of the construction, your beef wouldn’t be with the architect, would it?   Isn’t the contractual trail to the retailer first, then the importer as the maker’s agent?   My first one ripped the wings off due to a manufacturing fault, the wing pegs were moulded far too short, and the retailer replaced it after, no doubt, securing a credit from Ripmax.

 

For a follow-on, there’s an Acrowot builder’s kit in next weekends BMFA auction and when I last checked it was about a third of retail even with modest buyer’s commission.   If you build it, and it’s a great follow-on from a Wot 4, reinforce the u/c plate and ensure your chosen battery will clear the formers when inserted.   Also the cowl, assuming the arrangement is the same as the ARTF.

BTC

[Kim Taylor]

On 30/12/2022 at 22:46, 911hillclimber said:

As to getting an A ticket...that could be some time off at my rate of learning, I'm not a natural but love this side hobby of mine and the flying field experience too.

Problem is, you've got two 'summer' hobbies - as you've no doubt been finding, it's difficult to build up any regular stick time when it blowing a hoolie and raining outside.

Kim

[911hillclimber]

My Ripmax Foam-e has  (had) that weight under the plastic cover, and it sure was glued in..

It will make the plane very aerobatic, great if you can handle that.

However, this plane is sold as trainer and acrobatic.

Surely, this should be the plane has the tail weight loose so the expert flyer can glue it in and do aerobatics, the novice starts with a calmer handling plane.

It is the wrong way round.

 

As to 2 summer hobbies, yes, that is true, but I race the car at weekends and fly if weather is good Tuesday or thursday mid week, but i must admit my stick time is very poor, i am also reliant on my buddy instructor to be available too which he usually is.

I think I 'flew' about 8 times in 2022.

[leccyflyer]

3 minutes ago, 911hillclimber said:

My Ripmax Foam-e has  (had) that weight under the plastic cover, and it sure was glued in..

It will make the plane very aerobatic, great if you can handle that.

However, this plane is sold as trainer and acrobatic.

Surely, this should be the plane has the tail weight loose so the expert flyer can glue it in and do aerobatics, the novice starts with a calmer handling plane.

It is the wrong way round.

 

As to 2 summer hobbies, yes, that is true, but I race the car at weekends and fly if weather is good Tuesday or thursday mid week, but i must admit my stick time is very poor, i am also reliant on my buddy instructor to be available too which he usually is.

I think I 'flew' about 8 times in 2022.

Is the Wot-4 Foam-E marketed as a trainer?  I'd classify it as a lightweight sports aerobatic model - one to move onto after one's initially mastered a trainer.

[leccyflyer]

http://www.ripmax.com/Item.aspx?ItemID=A-CF020A

 

Ripmax say

 

"The new Mk2+ retains all the flying characteristics that made the previous version so popular. The Wot4 Foam-E Mk2+ has a huge flight range, if you open the throttle you have a 1:1 power to weight ratio perfectly suited to sports aerobatics manoeuvres. Where the Wot4 Foam-E excels is its wide speed range, if you lower the throttle you can fly slowly and use little space. It makes for a perfect first aerobatic model for newer pilots and a really fun sports model for experienced pilots."

[MattyB]

10 minutes ago, 911hillclimber said:

My Ripmax Foam-e has  (had) that weight under the plastic cover, and it sure was glued in..

It will make the plane very aerobatic, great if you can handle that.

However, this plane is sold as trainer and acrobatic.

Surely, this should be the plane has the tail weight loose so the expert flyer can glue it in and do aerobatics, the novice starts with a calmer handling plane.

It is the wrong way round.

 

2 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

http://www.ripmax.com/Item.aspx?ItemID=A-CF020A

 

Ripmax say

 

"The new Mk2+ retains all the flying characteristics that made the previous version so popular. The Wot4 Foam-E Mk2+ has a huge flight range, if you open the throttle you have a 1:1 power to weight ratio perfectly suited to sports aerobatics manoeuvres. Where the Wot4 Foam-E excels is its wide speed range, if you lower the throttle you can fly slowly and use little space. It makes for a perfect first aerobatic model for newer pilots and a really fun sports model for experienced pilots."

Exactly, the Wot 4 has never been and never will be a trainer. For a start it has no dihedral and is therefore neutrally stable in roll; the wings need to be actively levelled by the pilot coming out of each turn, otherwise it will just spiral in. I suppose you could fit a satabiliser and fly it in 2D mode to simulate dihedral, but a purpose designed trainer will still be a better bet for 99% of learners IMO - the problem with stabilised models is that they can ingrain bad habits that are difficult to unlearn later. 

[911hillclimber]

I returned to model flying 2 years ago, and as I was wearing short trousers when I last flew (control line), I was a total novice.

I bought a FMS Kingfisher back then with a stabiliser.

The Kingfisher is a 5 channel plane, high wing with a flat wing, no dihedral.

 

I joined my local club, joined the SMEA and arrived at the flying field.

Stating my novice status i was very 'all the gear, and no idea' and was adopted by one of the members to buddy connect so to teach me. 

This was only if I switched off the stabiliser and got stuck in with a simulator added into the bad weather day mix.

 

Today, I am classed as nearly ready to fly solo by my buddy and others.

Another member has 3 WOT4's, all foam-e and he felt I was ready for this plane.

 

I can take off with ease and control, attain height without drama and turn etc using the alierons etc, it is just landing I find tricky which is coordination of the plane to the strip, speed and heights ok, just tend to be off-centre.

Sometimes I get it right, times a bit bouncy, some times crash in equal measure.

 

I am sure there are many who would say this plane is not right for me but that can only be based on what I have written here, the members at the field have shared my 2 years of learning and can assess me accurately, they have all flown WOT4 foam-e's.

I am a long way off yet being able/confident to arrive at the field and simply go and fly and return in one piece, but I'll get there, maybe this year.

My interest is to learn and be able to be safe and competent enough to fly the models i really like, my vintage Ben Buckle planes in still or 5 mph breezes, 3 channel.

 

The plane is right in front of me. I have high hopes of success in reaching such basic levels in 2023.

[leccyflyer]

I don't think anyone has said that the Wot -4 Foam-E is not the model for you, in particular. My comments chiefly regard your claiming that the model is marketed as a trainer, and that there are failings in the model on that basis, which simply isn't the case. Ripmax correctly described the Wot-4 Foam-E as an aerobatic sports model - the same as the ubiquitous Wot 4 before it. Chris Foss's design for a trainer was the superlative Uno Wot and subsequently the Wot Trainer, which was adopted by Ripmax as an ARTF.

 

Best of luck with your continued learning in 2023 -if I might make one small observation, if you are going to get to the stage of being able to confidently solo, you'll need to have a lot more than 8 flights in the coming year. Such a small number of flights wouldn't even be enough to keep an experienced flyer current and keep their rusty thumbs at bay.

[911hillclimber]

Ok, I think this has run its time , so I do thank everyone for their help and advice.

I am sure I will have other things get in my way trying to progress that I will need help on as I have in the past.

 

I wish you all a great New Year!

Graham.

[David Davis 2]

My trainee, Frans, has tried to fly the Kingfisher and he has found it too fast and too responsive. He built a Junior 60, he can fly that and the i/c powered Boomerang though he has some trouble taking off.

 

If you can fly a Kingfisher, you will have no problem at all flying a WOT 4 Foam-E. They are so light that you can be slow them to walking speed, at least the earlier ones could. They are quite pricey now though aren't they? You'll have no problems flying your vintage models either.

 

The advice about using a simulator on your PC is sound. I'm less sure about flying with stabilisers.

[Bruce Collinson]

All the (excellent) CF planes seem to be prone to bounce on landing.   Do as I do and buy a bag of 100 nylon bolts from the equally exemplary Ian Shaw at Modelfixings and replace as required.   I think I went through 8 in the limbo comp at our fun fly.

BTC