VQ Models ..... what's the opinion

[toto]

Does anybody have the low down on VQ models ..... in particular .... The Beechcraft Barron .... or .... Bonanza ... or the Twin Otter.

 

It doesn't seem to be models that are covered well on here.

 

I have seen a couple of videos on line but something more first hand would be of interest.

 

The assembly and the flying with any " gotcha's would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Toto

[GrumpyGnome]

Don't have one myself, but a flying chum has had 2 Hurricanes.  First one destructed in mid air quite spectacularly due to, we think, a damaged main spar caused by an earlier 'arrival'.  He liked it so much he quickly bought another as a replacement.

 

Good stuff: they look good, they're relatively cheap (but I think they come without retracting undercarriage of any sort), they have some relatively un-modelled types available, they seem to fly well (I'm not sure this is true of all VQ kits so hopefully others will chip in! 

 

Bad stuff: the Hurri was a bit of a porker, the covering is brittle and not easy to repair, usual advice of checking key glue joints etc. is essential.

 

You're going to need to start building your bigger shed soon.......

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

I have the Hurricane with an old OS .90 from the 90's, and with mechanical retracts, and I love it, I

took it to the field 3 times last week it's a good flyer 'but' the fire wall was parting company with the fuselage early on in its existence, and the

film is rubbish it wrinkles when it actually stays on the structure, I stuck the trailing edge film on the rudder sunday  and the balsa of the trailing edge of the wing came apart last week, so it's a plane that will keep you busy.

 

I have just remembered, I was given the Cessna 188 60/90 after a crash, it wasn't that bad I repaired it flew it and then gave it back ( all part of the service ) the film was of a better quality and it did fly well.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Paul De Tourtoulon
C 188

[Don Fry]

I had one of their Mig fighters (about 15 years ago). Decent flier. 

Difficult to land. (Wheels too far back, sorted with wedges to alter the leg angle), suggested cg a fairytale ( don’t mind too far forward but that was stupid). 
 

Build had issues. Usual checks on glue joints, but undercarriage needed glassing in to have any hope of being serviceable. And you got M2 push rod ends to go on the wood push rods. Fitting the elevator I was fine adjusting it, screwing the m2 clevis in, and just as I got to the correct length, it slid down the push rod. Close examination, every push rod thread in the kit was of appalling variablely bad manufacture, clevises were variable diameter. 
 

It met its end when it needed another minor repair, bit fragile, and they were always hard work, and I was fed up messing with it. Might be better nowadays.

 

My advice think carefully about ARTFs. 

[toto]

Thanks for all the comments chaps.

 

Hopefully the film is a bit better. Hit the glue joints with a bit extra glue from the start. Pay additional attention to the firewalls. ...... that's a good start. They are a bit cheaper than most ..... makes you wonder ....

 

Toto

[Don Fry]

That’s just it, Toto. Mine was cheap, but poor value. Didn’t last.

[EarlyBird]

I have two, Tiger Moth and Giant Stick. Both needed loads of lead in the nose, 450 gr and 900g respectively, and wing tip covering looking like they had been picked up by the wing tips in the factory.

 

The covering is poor, sticky backed plastic, it winkles in the sun and melts at the lowest temperature my iron will go down to. By what I have read it also fades quickly. Mr Vin Quin likes the printed sticky backed plastic so I would not expect it to change.

 

I will not buy another.

 

Steve

[Learner]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGnome said:

 

 

You're going to need to start building your bigger shed soon.......

Warehouse!😅

[David P Williams]

Had the VQ Dauntless. Horrible sticky backed plastic, flimsy cowl. Big struggle to get the flaps/dive brakes operating correctly. Included electric retracts either bent or pulled out on the greasiest of landings. Flew fairly well.
Currently have an ME 108. Even flimsier cowling cracked from nose over (very difficult to taxi and take off as wheels too far back. Mechanical retracts with cheesium wire legs. Even more flimsy vac formed wingtips crack if you look at them. Flies beautifully when you get it in the air.

Biggest problem given the flimsiness of mouldings is that there are no spares available. The distributor doesn’t stock any spares and can’t/won’t source them. “There’s not enough call for them” they said.

Must just be me then.

[leccyflyer]

Never been even slightly tempted, from what I have read in reports. Which is a shame because they have some interesting subjects not covered (no pun intended) by other manufacturers. Pre-printed film is not a good start in my experience, even the higher quality manufacturer's pre-printed film fall far short of a Profilm/Oracover or even Solarfilm covering job. Definitely sounds like one to avoid.

[Gary Clark 1]

I had the Macchi 202 and it flew great. There are some slight issues with quality sometimes but they're about half the price of a seagul or hangar 9 equivalent so that's expected. It was my go to flier for a while until a very low inverted flyby resulted in a rapid and unplanned deconstruction of the fuselage! The wing is still perfect and I have a plan from outerzone that matches the span exactly so may rebuild the fuselage at some point.

 

I've flown their P-47 too, also flies well

 

Gary

[toto]

Thanks guys,

 

Ever wished you'd asked earlier .... never mind ..... maybe they wont take up shed space for too long if they are not the best. 

 

I have  bought the retracts for the VQ Barron and they looked pretty good. When I come to construct ...... some time away ..... I'll see if there is anything that can be done to bolster the area around the retracts.

 

As far as the covering goes ..... it looks like the rather attractive schemes they come in may end up like a patchwork quilt a bit sooner than I expected. If the airframe itself can stand up to time, it maube the covering is simply replaced with a much simpler  custom " ahem " version.

 

Cheers

 

Toto

[leccyflyer]

Ah. You've already bought a couple?

[GrumpyGnome]

25 minutes ago, toto said:

Thanks guys,

 

Ever wished you'd asked earlier .... never mind ..... maybe they wont take up shed space for too long if they are not the best. 

 

 

Please don't take this the wrong way but......... am I right in thinking you're asking for advice/thoughts after you've bought it?

[Cuban8]

1 hour ago, David P Williams said:

Had the VQ Dauntless. Horrible sticky backed plastic, flimsy cowl. Big struggle to get the flaps/dive brakes operating correctly. Included electric retracts either bent or pulled out on the greasiest of landings. Flew fairly well.
Currently have an ME 108. Even flimsier cowling cracked from nose over (very difficult to taxi and take off as wheels too far back. Mechanical retracts with cheesium wire legs. Even more flimsy vac formed wingtips crack if you look at them. Flies beautifully when you get it in the air.

Biggest problem given the flimsiness of mouldings is that there are no spares available. The distributor doesn’t stock any spares and can’t/won’t source them. “There’s not enough call for them” they said.

Must just be me then.

A friend who is a highly experienced builder and flyer of large scale models bought a VQ Dauntless as a fun machine that looked good and could be used as a hack. Sadly, it was a very poor model that quickly became tatty after a short time and wound up flicking into the deck after an otherwise good standard take off.

Personally, I'd pass on that particular brand - the quality seems to be way too variable and the risk is that you may finish up with a Friday afternoon dud.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Cuban8

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGnome said:

 

Please don't take this the wrong way but......... am I right in thinking you're asking for advice/thoughts after you've bought it?

Sounds like me,,,😅

[SIMON CRAGG]

Having seen / flown a couple of these at our club.........I would save your money.

 

Why?

 

Heavy, usually need a LOT of weight in the nose = wing loaded in a bad place.

 

Covering, half an hour in the sun = wrinkled bag of plastic covering.

 

Construction, mediocre....even on a good day.

 

To a certain extent, they remind me of the early VMAR models. Not bad to look at, but no more than that. 

[Ron Gray]

Ah. You've already bought a couple?

 

🚪🐎

Edited August 2, 2023 by Ron Gray

[John Lee]

Had their CAP 10 a number of years ago. It flew & I won a couple of flying only scale competitions with the model. However that was in spite of the construction, let's just say I would never consider buying another VQ model.

[toto]

Fair enough ..... you get what you pay for to some extent ..... there shall be no more ..... thanks for the warning.

 

Toto

[RottenRow]

1 hour ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

 

To a certain extent, they remind me of the early VMAR models.

I read somewhere that they were from the same company, which might be the case as VMAR disappeared and VQ appeared a while later.

 

Perhaps someone can confirm this (or otherwise)?
 

I’ve never had a VQ model but do have an old VMAR PC-9 bought secondhand at a Buckminster swap meet a couple of years ago. Its construction and finish does match the descriptions given by many of VQ models. Whilst it does fly, it doesn’t fly very well, and can drop a wing suddenly and without warning.

 

Brian.

[Chris Walby]

 

Both VQ and a couple of years old...both with Laser 80's powering and sounding just great. No added lead, just put the the ancillaries in the right place  

 

Quality is what you expect for the price and best of all they fly great. The 190 does not have flaps and its not an issue as its very stable, in fact its surprising how slow it will fly. IMO if you damage the UC on these then you are not flying or landing correctly, simples. Don't add weight just to land hard or something else will break

 

Two advantages of Lasers up front, no need to add lead and they sound great + on low oil they make next to no mess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Seen plenty most fly O.K, the odd bit of frugal on the glue isn't that uncommon to many ARTFs, only real gripe is the covering used, make up some wing bags n go fly em. The models not the bags. 😁

[Eric Robson]

Chris, you have added weight with the Lasers, lighter engines will require extra ballast to balance. I have 2 VQ models they fly quite well. What I can't understand with a lot of ARTF models is the desire of the manufacturer to laser cut as much wood away from the nose area thereby weakening the part that needs the most strength then having the need for additional weight for an area already weakened. I bought a Kyosho Spitfire second hand, it flew very well but I eventually piled it in, pilot error,the front end collapsed, the structure turned to match wood,  fortunately rear of the front wing former was not too bad so it was rebuilt using balsa and ply and less ballast.

[aidan mcatamney]

15 hours ago, toto said:

Does anybody have the low down on VQ models ..... in particular .... The Beechcraft Barron .... or .... Bonanza ... or the Twin Otter.

 

It doesn't seem to be models that are covered well on here.

 

I have seen a couple of videos on line but something more first hand would be of interest.

 

The assembly and the flying with any " gotcha's would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Toto

A good friend of mine Toto and also a fellow club member has just recently bought the VQ models Twin Otter.  I havnt seen it personally , but he has flew it a few times now and describes it like flying a big trainer.  This man knows his stuff when it comes to building rc planes from kits as he has been doing it since 1963.  He will turn 79 this Saturday coming.  He is both a master builder and a fantastic pilot who certainly hasn't lost his touch.   That's all I can tell you about VQ models as I've never owned one myself,  but of what I've read about them, the quality wouldn't be as good as Seagull, but with all reports, they fly very well.