WOT 4 AR(T)F

[john corcoran]

Hi all I have built quite a few kits in the
past and found the flair scout series too
be very good quality kits.I learned too fly on a magnatilla and it took massive abuse, heavy landings and worse,also I found them very repairable planes would
recommend this scout too anyone,covered in solartex its a very strong rough field
aeroplane and a doddle too fly.

[Grumpy1]

hi all just getting back into this hobby and having built 2 or 3 from the mr foss stable was interested to see this review. Wot (he he) about this electric stuff?
Anyone had a wot4 with similar performance to the one i had with an irvine q72?
The one thing that appeals to me is cleanliness, even though im a petrol head at heart.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Funny you should mention that Wayne, we've got a tiny little bit about electrifying the Wots's next month. Give Chris Foss a call.

[Danny Fenton]

I have returned to modelling after an absence of 25 years, and it was interesting to see the magazine article on the Wot 4. One caption, "not seen one of these in the air before? where have you been for the last 25 years!" well that's me.
I was stunned when I walked into a local model shop to see rows upon rows of ARTF models. What has happened to the hobby? So many are missing the wonderful pleasure of building the model in the first place.
I agree with many on this thread regarding the veneer on the Wot 4, it is apalling, what with cracking, and the ends cracked and split. I seemed to remember a Middle Phase I built many years ago also had poor veneering. My comments will go further I'm afraid. There was none of this light ply around when I was modelling, and although it seems very light, and for its weight has good strength, I didn't get one unwarped bulkhead! This made building an accurate and straight model more difficult than it should have been.
I was also quite shocked to find that there was so much not included, especially when you consider the kit price, compare the contents to an avwrage ARTF. No tank, spinner, wheels, mount, even the washers for the U/C were not included. Is it any wonder newcomers to the hobby go straight for the ARTF shelves?
A lovely design, which I hope will fly as well as everyone states, but I do feel I haven't got value for money.

[Engine Doctor]

Hi Danny ,Has the veneer on you Wot 4 wings split? I a previous post I wrote about the quality of the veneer on the Foss range of kits . Since then I dug out a Phase 6 I have had tucked away for a few years and guess what ? The veneer is perfect .This model is probably 15 yrs old and has no cracks in the veneer .The question is "Why do the new kits wing veneer split?" Perhaps Mr Foss could answer this .An explanation would be appreciated.

[Danny Fenton]

Afternoon Dr, The wings arrived with split veneer on one panel, the other looked like the ends had been faced with a chisel rather than a sharp saw and the ends of the veneer were cracked and split. I wonder if the glue has changed that Chris uses, or the veneer thickness?

[Tony Campbell]

Funnily enough, Engine Doctor, I just went up into my loft, where I have a 15year old middle phase....... veneer also in perfect nick......1992 must have been a good year :-)

[Braddock, VC]

I'm halfway through building a wot 4, I have to say I'm appalled by the quality of the die cutting, for the money he charges fossie's having a right old laugh.

[Danny Fenton]

John, were your light-ply bulkheads flat? mine were all over the place.

[Engine Doctor]

Just for the record what were the kit parts on David Ashby's kit like? If David reads this can you comment ? I really enjoy building models ,but so many kits manufactures thought they could put rubbish in the boxes that we now have an ARTF dominated market. As I said earlier I really enjoy building and if i come across a rubbish bit I have the equipment and time to make another part .If the comments on Foss kits in this thread are anything to go by then Chriss foss kits will surely go the same way as others.what a pity!!!

[David Ashby - Moderator]

My kit was fine. I didn't notice any poor veneer. The wood was excellent. Ply was flat etc...

The kit hasn't changed much in 10-15 years now and while we're used to laser cutting the WOT4 isn't in the genre.

I guess the WOT4 is what it is but I found all the wood in my box was fit for purpose. A little cutting, sanding and shaping of course, lots of mess like I said in the review but that's what the kit is.

[Braddock, VC]

Die cut slots up to 3/32" oversize, packed out with hardwood to make it fit.
As chris says the datums are crucial on this model, get them wrong and it's a bag of sh one t gaps like this don't endear the kit to me especially as I paid more than £80 for it.
Fossie also mixes metric liteply 3mm thick with imperial balsa 1/8" which leaves noticeable ridges.
Also the carefully designed adjustable firewall is another case of him having a laugh.
Sorry they've decreased in quality since I bought my first one in 1983. Even the instructions are a shabby photocopy whereas they used to be printed in a lovely seventies brownish shade.......

[Danny Fenton]

I have to agree with you on the adjustable firewall John, I built mine recessed for a JEN56 and the construction turned into a "plug the gap" and fill in the spaces. The main problem with this was keeping firewall to fuselage side integrity, and finding spare bits of wood that weren't earmaked for other areas of the build. The times I used offcuts to make a fillet etc, to find out that said offcut was the raw material for another part.

[Engine Doctor]

Hi David . I agree that cutting ,sanding and shapeing with lots of sawdust and mess IS what building planes like the wot 4 is all about. But poor quality is not acceptable especially when a newcomer can buy an ARTF far cheaper than a wot 4 kit.
Regards
ED

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Hi ED, my kit was fine so I'm sorry you guy's have had problems for which I agree there is no excuse.
I guess for me the main point is the finished model and whether there is an ARTF equivalent that can replicate the WOT's many qualities - if on balance, the WOT4 can be judged a value for money purchase when every aspect of the path to flight happiness can be assessed, building problems included.

I think we all agree the WOT4 is a fine model in the air, one of the very best. For which suprisingly few ARTF equivalents seem to have emerged.

Is the pain worth the gain?

[Engine Doctor]

Hi David your right that No artf model can compere with the Wot 4 for durability and ruggedness .Hopefully Chriss foss will take these comments on board and remedy the fault that seem to be creeping in.
E.D

[Danny Fenton]

I am returning to modelling after some time away, and there certainly were no ARTF's available so I cannot comment on whether the Wot 4 will perform any better than a chinese take-away, nor on its longevity. I hope it flies as well as everybody says. I certainly prefer building to flying, so will continue to sand and shape balsa, spreading dust and fumes throughtout the house, much to my wifes annoyance. I don't remember having any building problems on Gangsters, Fun Fighters, and the Flair Scout models. Which interestingly are still available to us balsa bashers, but my memory isn't what it was.
"they say respect your elders, trouble is they are getting hard to find"

[Danny Fenton]

I have to agree with you on the adjustable firewall John, I built mine recessed for a JEN56 and the construction turned into a "plug the gap" and fill in the spaces. The main problem with this was keeping firewall to fuselage side integrity, and finding spare bits of wood that weren't earmaked for other areas of the build. The times I used offcuts to make a fillet etc, to find out that said offcut was the raw material for another part.

[Tony Richardson]

Living the "other side of the pond" I do not have access to the "wot" range of kits although I must admit I have been tempted to go the mail order route simply because they look like a good everyday model, the kind that will take a licking and keep on ticking, but the the price of 90 GBP converts into a tad over $200 Cdn plus shipping, for that kind of money there are many scale kits from " Sig, Topflite, Balsa USA etc" plus many many more ARF's the Sig Rascal 40 springs to mind and was my first ARF does everything I ask of it, great slow flyer, gracefull high wing pattern ship and will scoot along with the best of them but it is not a Wot4 and I did not get to see the bare bones and "Bash it" into my own style which is one of the great pleasure's of kit building.

As for the discrepancy in lumber size's I have encountered this in a couple of kits and found it really frustrating until a fellow club member advised me to purchase a set of calipers and measure all pertinant parts then either sand the bigger parts to size or add to the smaller parts, that said I realize this should not be the case and with laser cut kits very rarely is, but is that not what building is about??. As far as the veneer on the wings goes I have to agree I would be peeved if it split, obviously quality of said veneer is not what it used to be, ( I prefer a built up wing ) glas or carbon tissue could be used but again at 90 quid extras should not really be required and as David said in his review could be considered exspensive by some but again there is no substitute for the pride felt when a model that started as a box of sticks takes to the air for that first time, after all said and done the next time I am in the UK I might just give a wot 4 a trans atlantic flight.

[GrumpyGnome]

I built a Wotty about 2 years ago - don't recall having any significant issues with the quality or fit of parts. I'm sure there was the occasional niggle but I don't reacall ever building a 'perfect' kit; or even assembling the 'perfect' ARF. The way it flies makes any hassle easily forgotten. Or maybe I'm more forgiving :-)

Brilliant plane.

GG

[Dead-stick]

About 20 years ago I drew a scaled down plan of my trusty Wot 4 to make a 3' wingspan version, but instead of a foam wing I used a built up fully sheeted one. I stuck an OS 10 FSR up front, and filled it ( to capacity!) with radio gear. I was not dissapointed in the performance of this miniture Wotty, it was every bit as good as the original! (I don't have the plan any more, but I do have a photo lurking about somewhere.)It just goes to show what a good design it is.
Has any one else done this I wonder, as I have only seen larger ones used as glider tugs.

[Stevo]

The WOT 4 is obviously one of the best models around - no dispute about that, love it or hate it! Im building one now, for my 12yo as a step up from a trainer. its got a few different features (I'm one for doing things differently!) but I have not changed it radically. Just a question - what fuel tank is averyones favourite? it will run with a 53FS engine.

Watch progress at: www.sjarman.co.uk
Thanks to all.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

I guess the tank bay favours a square tank - I used a SLEC orange tank (sorry can't remember which size this is...10oz?)

[JOHN W]

Having recently passed my A certificate, I'm thinking ahead and want to choose my second plane. I love flying, but I am a very poor builder !

The Wot 4 would be perfect, but the building part puts me off. Can anyone recommend a similar ARTF plane ?

[David Ashby - Moderator]

ARTF ? what's that? ;-)

OK, well the choice is endless.
Here's two suggestions - there's the Black Horse Twister which is a copy of the Precedent FunFly which was a classic intermediate model.
The Seagul PC9 is a great follow-on model with nice scale looks.

Good luck John. Tell us how you get on.