Anyone with experience of the Acro Wot Foam E?

[Nigel Heather]

On 28/04/2023 at 07:55, David Davis 2 said:

 

I'm Old School Paul.

 

If I were going to spend £200 on a model I'd buy a kit or short-kit and build it but I appreciate that you may not have the time or inclination to build a model off the plan. You're quite right, when you say that prices have shot up. IIRC I paid less than £100 for my Acro WOT Foam-E. It did not last long in my clumsy hands!

 

Finally, I don't believe anyone who says that ARTFs are cheaper than building a model from a kit or plan. I built a DB Sport & Scale Skyrider for £160 in a carefully costed excercise last year. https://forums.modelflying.co.uk/index.php?/topic/50509-the-cost-of-building-recording-the-financial-cost-of-building-a-db-sport-scale-skyrider-a-surprise-for-miss-blue-eyes/page/4/&tab=comments#comment-938468 This was £30 cheaper than an ARTF WOT 4 and fully £100 cheaper than a Travel Air.

 

But that will ultimately end up a lot more expensive.  If you were to traditionally build the equivalent of an AcroWot foamy, you would need more powerful motor and ESC and would not be able to use cheap 3S 2200 - you'd have to go to 4S or maybe even 5S.  The complete model would end up costing significantly more than an AcroWot Foam-E - agree it would be better but you have to consider people's budgets too.

[John Stainforth]

Sorry to spoil the party, but I had one of these and I was underwhelmed. Probably the worst value for money I have ever bought in aeromodelling - it looks like about 20 quids worth.

[GrumpyGnome]

Really? Why? What were you expecting?  

[paul devereux]

8 hours ago, John Stainforth said:

Sorry to spoil the party, but I had one of these and I was underwhelmed. Probably the worst value for money I have ever bought in aeromodelling - it looks like about 20 quids worth.

 

7 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Really? Why? What were you expecting?  

Why? it's had pretty good reviews? Though I agree with value for money with ALL foamies- cheap generic motors, cheap servos, cheap linkages, cheap undercart and wheels- the most expensive bits are probably the box art and decals. On the durability side of things, I am very careful with my few models, I practise landing with as much flare and as close to the stall as possible.

[paul devereux]

On 28/04/2023 at 07:19, Masher said:

https://rochesterrc.uk/shop/max-thrust-riot/?utm_term=&utm_campaign=Campaign+2023-01-17+13:33:15&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=3646878698&hsa_cam=19580550959&hsa_grp=&hsa_ad=&hsa_src=x&hsa_tgt=&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjwuqiiBhBtEiwATgvixEZ6gRYqoUaMf-f75yEarCKYgWTTc6sJOTCGKcnqlminroF7-MlFYRoCBOcQAvD_BwE

Nice model and a nice price, but too much like the Wot 4 to seem like a progression for me.

[paul devereux]

double posted

Edited May 1, 2023 by paul devereux

[GrumpyGnome]

To make a Riot decent, you'll need to:

 

Change the wheels - the stock ones are made of concrete

Change the axles - made of cheese

Remove the lump of nose weight

Max out the throws

Change all the clevises

Hack around in the battery bay so batteries fit

 

Than it's OK.

 

More like a Wot4 than an Acrowot though.

[paul devereux]

This is an RCME review of the Acro wot foam-e:

Quite honestly, there’s nothing about the way this model flies that I don’t like. As something for club flying, it’s great. For sport aerobatics, it’s great. For stooging about at low power, it’s great. As a second model, it’s great. Heck with reduced controlled throws you could teach someone how to fly. This is no pattern ship nor is it a 3D model, it’s not designed to be, but it’s a good all-rounder, fun and versatile. Truth is, it represents ridiculous, and I really mean ridiculous, value for money; it’s not just a case of getting so much model for your cash or the fact it does really go together in thirty minutes – it’s a Chris Foss design, something that’s associated with genuinely fantastic flying aircraft and this one’s no exception. Whatever it is you fly, whatever your skill level, seasoned professional or new to the hobby, you’ll really enjoy this model.

Acro Wot Mk.2 Foam-E | RCM&E (modelflying.co.uk)

Edited May 1, 2023 by paul devereux

[Nigel Heather]

1 hour ago, paul devereux said:

This is an RCME review of the Acro wot foam-e:

Quite honestly, there’s nothing about the way this model flies that I don’t like. As something for club flying, it’s great. For sport aerobatics, it’s great. For stooging about at low power, it’s great. As a second model, it’s great. Heck with reduced controlled throws you could teach someone how to fly. This is no pattern ship nor is it a 3D model, it’s not designed to be, but it’s a good all-rounder, fun and versatile. Truth is, it represents ridiculous, and I really mean ridiculous, value for money; it’s not just a case of getting so much model for your cash or the fact it does really go together in thirty minutes – it’s a Chris Foss design, something that’s associated with genuinely fantastic flying aircraft and this one’s no exception. Whatever it is you fly, whatever your skill level, seasoned professional or new to the hobby, you’ll really enjoy this model.

Acro Wot Mk.2 Foam-E | RCM&E (modelflying.co.uk)

 

I’d agree with most of that.  When new my AcroWot flew beautifully, no vices at all, I never experienced the stalling when landing that one person mentioned, I could slow mine right down it it would stay in the air.

 

It is very light and that is a double-edged sword.  It means that it flies very nicely on those cheap 3S 2200 batteries.  I’ve had other models designed around the 3S 2200 but have found them to be sluggish compared with the AcroWot.  But the downside of the lightness means that it isn’t very robust.  This means that minor mishaps that other planes might shrug off will usually damage the AcroWot, and although you can make good with UHU POR it is never quite the same.  I suspect the biggest culprit is the weak motor motor mount which can loosen after mishaps or simply over time.  Once this happens the thrust line can drift about and the days of flying as if on rails are gone.  Mine still flies but has become somewhat jittery.

 

And price, when I bought mine the MRP was something like £150 and I paid about £135 which was a bargain (probably what the RCME review was describing) but with the recent rapid inflation, all prices have gone up, but foam Wots seem to have increased relatively more than others.  The MRP is now around £250, a 67% increase.  When I bought mine I also looked at the Ruckus - they were similarly priced, the Ruckus was slightly more expensive - after inflation the Ruckus is significantly cheaper - which leads me to conclude that the Wots have been price-hiked more than the competition.

 

I have a Ruckus now, haven’t flown it yet, it does appear to be much better made than than the AcroWot, but it is heavier.  I doubt it will fly as well on 3S so I’m planning on flying it on 4S which means more expensive batteries.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[paul devereux]

28 minutes ago, Nigel Heather said:

I suspect the biggest culprit is the weak motor motor mount which can loosen after mishaps or simply over time.  Once this happens the thrust line can drift about and the days of flying as if on rails are gone.  Mine still flies but has become somewhat jittery.

Do you think it would be feasible or worthwhile putting epoxy liberally around the motor mount to hold it in place better?

[Nigel Heather]

26 minutes ago, paul devereux said:

Do you think it would be feasible or worthwhile putting epoxy liberally around the motor mount to hold it in place better?

Have a google to see what others have done.  One issue is that access to the motor and the mount are very limited.  The problem is that the mount is a metal plate which is simply secured in slots in the foam of the fuselage sides.  Even with a new model out of the box if you push the spinner up, down, left or right you can see it moves a little.

 

Strengthening the mount where it meets the foam sounds like a good idea - something I would look at doing if I ever got a new one.  In my case I found out about the model’s weaknesses too late.  I lost the undercarriage plate very early on, I was on track for a very nice landing though a little short.  It just touched down very slowly and very gently inches before the mown stripped in the slightly longer grass ( we are not talking long, just an inch or two, we have sheep on the field that keep the grass pretty short).  Every other model I have owned would have struggled that off and landed fine, but the tiny wheel dug into grass and ripped the undercarriage plate off breaking one of the ply doubters inside.  Frankly I was quite shocked, apart from hitting the relatively short grass on the edge of the strip the landing was smooth and slow - never imagined that so much damage could result.  If I had fitted bigger wheels I think it would have been fine, if I had fitted nylon bolts maybe they would have broken instead.

 

As for the motor plate, mine has definitely loosened over time.  Glue would probably help but I’d do it as soon as you get the kit so you know you are fixing it with the correct thrust angle.  I probably wouldn’t use expose as it is very brittle - as the foam flexes or the mount mores it could crack or detach.  I would be more inclined to use something more flexible like UHU POR or silicone sealant. But check to see what others have done.

 

That’s a lot of negative, but I can’t express enough, how nicely it flies when new, probably the nicest flying model I have ever had - the trick is keeping it in that condition. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Colin Carpenter]

You would have to get glue between the wood and the foam - difficult when new and no foam compression . It should manage about 150-200 flights b4 mount gets wobbly and it becomes not nice to fly. Don’t think there’s a win win solution! Colin

[Nigel Heather]

26 minutes ago, Colin Carpenter said:

You would have to get glue between the wood and the foam - difficult when new and no foam compression . It should manage about 150-200 flights b4 mount gets wobbly and it becomes not nice to fly. Don’t think there’s a win win solution! Colin

Yes, definitely something where having the assistance of a friendly gynaecologist would be very useful.

 

I probably agree with the 150 to 200 flights - of uneventful flying.  But in my experience, eventful landings, even those that appear to do no harm can reduce that flight count considerably.  Basically any event that tries to make the motor move unnaturally is going to stress that mount.

 

One thing that I appear to disagree with consensus is the battery compartment and hatch.  I think it is brilliant.  Maybe I just have the perfect sized batteries (Overlander 3S 2200mAh SuperSport Pro) but they fit like a glove leaving just enough room for the wires and the deans connectors (BTW, keep the deans, even they are not your connector of choice, because they are smaller than XT60 which may not fit in the compartment).  The hatch fits securely.  No straps or Velcro needed, battery change is a doddle and very quick.

 

By comparison, fitting the battery and electronics in a Max Flight Ruckus is a nightmare.  Some have resulted to building a ply battery plate arrangement - which is probably what I am going to do.  It’s hard to imagine that the designers of the Ruckus ever fitted a receiver and a battery.

 

The other big advantage of the AcroWot over the Ruckus is that the wing is easy to remove from the AcroWot, it is much more awkward with the Ruckus in fact I suspect I will just keep it attached.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Nigel Heather]

BTW I’ve been enthusing about it but when it came to the replacement I got a Ruckus - so why didn’t I get another AcroWot, two reasons:-

 

1. Price - all prices were hit by inflation but Ripmax (Chris Foss) products seemed to be taking the piddle.  When I bought mine not so long ago, the MRP was around £150, now it is around £250, that’s a 67% hike.  But everything has gone up, true but when I bought the AcroWot the MRP of the Ruckus was about £10 dearer, now it is about £30 cheaper, the Ruckus has increased by 38%
2. Irritation - it irked me that after so few flying hours, and only a couple of very minor mishaps I was faced with having to replace it.  It felt that if I bought another AcroWot I would be rewarding Ripmax (Chris Foss) for their design defects.  It felt wrong that I was having to replace it and wrong that Ripmax ((Chris Foss) would benefit from poor design features.

So that’s why I didn’t buy another AcroWot but part of me does regret that decision.  I think if you know about the poor design areas up front you can do something about them and will probably enjoy many more hours of great flying.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Masher]

4 hours ago, paul devereux said:

Nice model and a nice price, but too much like the Wot 4 to seem like a progression for me.

Well try the Ruckus then?

https://www.modelshopleeds.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=28056&gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwxr2iBhBJEiwAdXECwyJgypR8E5DhVzfRGxqSWHhHqIBnN7lkbqUIxOAZdg8wHAt_IvbxbhoCDoYQAvD_BwE

[paul devereux]

30 minutes ago, Masher said:

Well try the Ruckus then?

https://www.modelshopleeds.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=28056&gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwxr2iBhBJEiwAdXECwyJgypR8E5DhVzfRGxqSWHhHqIBnN7lkbqUIxOAZdg8wHAt_IvbxbhoCDoYQAvD_BwE

It looks a nicer plane, and cheaper. Do you know if the motor mounting is better than the Wot 4? Come to that, is the Wot 4 foam-e motor mounting an unusually poor design, or are all  foamie motors prone to getting loose?

[Masher]

All I know is that lots of people fly the planes mentioned in this thread. They all have good and bad points as do all ARTFs, just Google the reviews and make your choices. Funnily enough individuals will have their own opinions on suitability of each model and sometimes this will have something to do with their flying success or otherwise. If you analyse it too much and believe everything you read, you will never by any ARTF

[Nigel Heather]

1 hour ago, paul devereux said:

It looks a nicer plane, and cheaper. Do you know if the motor mounting is better than the Wot 4? Come to that, is the Wot 4 foam-e motor mounting an unusually poor design, or are all  foamie motors prone to getting loose?

 

I've got a Ruckus as a replacement for my Acrowot.  Not got it flying yet.  Here are my thoughts just looking at the components.

 

Build quality and robustness is better.

 

It's heavier so reckon it will need 4S to get the same sort of performance as the Acrowot on 3S.  So more expensive batteries.  BTW the kit assumes 4S as it comes with a prop suitable for that - if you want to fly on 3S then you would need to buy a different prop.

 

Each to their own but I think the Acrowot looks better.  The undercarriage on the Ruckus looks a bit weird. Also shame that the cockpit is empty need to add a pilot.

 

The Acrowot is easier to transport because the wing is in one piece and comes off and on very easily.  The Ruckus wing is in two halves joined, I guess you could remove it for transport but it would be a lot of faff.

 

Battery and electronics fitting on the Ruckus looks awkward.  The battery, ESC and receiver pretty much have to go in the same area with fiddly straps for the battery.  Best solution I have seen is to build a battery plate system but that is extra work you have to do.

 

Looking forward to my Ruckus but think it is going to be a lot more work to get into the air.

[GrumpyGnome]

The wing fixing on the Ruckus is a ply tongue at the front and 2 bolts at the back ......not onerous 🙂

[Nigel Heather]

28 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

The wing fixing on the Ruckus is a ply tongue at the front and 2 bolts at the back ......not onerous 🙂

It's not that, it's that the wing buts up to a solid fuselage bottom.  There is a small hole in the fuselage bottom and the four leads from the wing have to be fed up through that hole to the receiver.  There is no room to tidy the wires in the wing, it all has to be done in the fuselage.  Where the wires come into the fuselage is directly adjacent to the elevate and rudder controls so the wires have to be packed quite tidily so not to interfere with the servos or the battery.

 

Not saying it can't be done but it is much more faff than what you have to do with the AcroWot.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Cuban8]

9 hours ago, paul devereux said:

 

Why? it's had pretty good reviews? Though I agree with value for money with ALL foamies- cheap generic motors, cheap servos, cheap linkages, cheap undercart and wheels- the most expensive bits are probably the box art and decals. On the durability side of things, I am very careful with my few models, I practise landing with as much flare and as close to the stall as possible.

Sorry to appear to be a bit unkind, but most magazine reviews seem to me to be written with the author keeping one eye on the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. Either, that or reviews should carry the caviat  "For entertainment purposes only".

Been going on for decades, and not only in the aeromodelling magazine world. Cars, Motorbikes, etc all the same. Lets' face it, the publishers don't want to upset their advertisers and possibly put revenue at risk.

Anyone got any old MDS engine reviews tucked away that we could all have a laugh at?

[paul devereux]

This is my elegant solution to the wheels getting a bit wobbly. The factory-fitted ply plate seems a bit loose in the fuselage- so I butted some epoxy in a bit of a cut out I made- it is firm so far, in fact if I try to wobble it, the foam moves. If this gets wobbly, I'll epoxy a ply plate to the bottom of the fus.

I have thought of slathering epoxy all around the motor mountings to anchor them to the foam, if I get the acro wot. It will be under the nose cone so will not be visible.  It does mean I won't be able to unscrew the motor- but my theory is that the motor will last longer than the foam plane itself anyway. Does anyone see a problem with this idea?

 

[Nigel Heather]

23 minutes ago, paul devereux said:

This is my elegant solution to the wheels getting a bit wobbly. The factory-fitted ply plate seems a bit loose in the fuselage- so I butted some epoxy in a bit of a cut out I made- it is firm so far, in fact if I try to wobble it, the foam moves. If this gets wobbly, I'll epoxy a ply plate to the bottom of the fus.

I have thought of slathering epoxy all around the motor mountings to anchor them to the foam, if I get the acro wot. It will be under the nose cone so will not be visible.  It does mean I won't be able to unscrew the motor- but my theory is that the motor will last longer than the foam plane itself anyway. Does anyone see a problem with this idea?

 

 

Undercarriage plate - mine didn't have that much glue on it. This is the primary way it is held in place - the plastic plate has slotted ears that push into slots in the fuselage.  In side the fuselage there are thin ply plates which slide through the ears of the plastic plate and lock it in place.

 

What happened on mine is that the wheel caught in the grass, ripped the undercarriage, pulled the plastic plate, and the ply plate snapped.

 

I looked for spares but they don't do them and I realised the reason is that the ply plates can only be inserted on the production line whilst the fuselage is in two halves.

 

Glue on the motor mount plate - if I ever get another I will try that.  I would use a flexible glue like UHU POR or silicone sealant.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Colin Carpenter]

I used Gorilla glue when the mount first loosened. Initially thought the skittishness and up and downing was radio problems. Got it back by gliding it down from height ! The glue probably lasted another 50 flights till the motor nearly pulled out. Result was 💥💥😂😂😂😂Colin

[Geoff S]

10 hours ago, Cuban8 said:

Sorry to appear to be a bit unkind, but most magazine reviews seem to me to be written with the author keeping one eye on the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. Either, that or reviews should carry the caviat  "For entertainment purposes only".

Been going on for decades, and not only in the aeromodelling magazine world. Cars, Motorbikes, etc all the same. Lets' face it, the publishers don't want to upset their advertisers and possibly put revenue at risk.

Anyone got any old MDS engine reviews tucked away that we could all have a laugh at?

 

I'm afraid you're right.  I remember reviews of British motorcycles when they were king in the 1950s and 60s which described vibration as little more than a tremor felt through the handlebars. My brand new   1965 BSA 650cc Lightning's vibration was so bad that at 80/90 mph (legal then) my eyeballs were vibrating so much I couldn't read the road signs on the M1 🙂 .  It threw a conrod when a piston collapsed after 9,000 miles and just inside the 6 month guarantee period (I rode a lot in those days).

 

The model reviews are much better, though, particularly ones for kits which the reviewer built.  I've generally been fairly happy with the foamies I've bought but, as you say, not so much with MDS reviews.