ARTF quality

[Lee Smalley]

I have seen so many ARTFs that have what i can only call pathetic U/C systems now this normally is not a problem as over time it gets sorted but lets face it this has been going on for years, and still they do little about it. Normal / slightly rough landings end up almost writing off an airframe, so few people repair them as they no longer have the skills!!  so what can we do about it

1. RCM+E do a grand job at highlighting the kits that have this problem unlike RCMW, many review have stated very weak U/C only then for it to be disgarded in the summing up section. IE  "dislikes = NONE"    whattt!!!!

2. dont buy these kits

3. Improve your building skills so you can actually do a repair job (see recent rcm+e Artical)

4. If you are a learner go for a model that either is known to have a good UC or build your own so many great kits out there very easy to build and quite cheap!! and the flying qualities are excellent thats why they have been around for very many years

 

VFM kits are fine but if they only last 5 landings where is the VFM in that ??

[Lee Smalley]

i Agree David i see more than a few whos landings can only really be of any use on an aircraft carrier, it is a really skill that needs perfecting, but i have seen a few kits listed as "trainers" or "ideal second model" that are bound to get a few rough landings and they can just not cope with it, models like the old wot 4 and Galaxy models stuff are well loved because they took this abuse and did not fall apart that is why they are still produced today

[Merlin spit]

not sure how clear it is on the photo you may have to zoom in ,this is my ripmax spitfire after a poor hand launch this morning ,the result is that all the glue joints had come adrift and  a couple of battery tray suports had broke ,it was a simple case of gluing it back together ,this time with more glue.

 

 now was i lucky that it wasnt glued well and it gave way easy and didnt break to bits ,or should it of held together with more glue ?

 overall ive been very happy with the quality of the ripmax spitfire and was glad it was a easy fix ,any suggestions on how to beef up the above area welcome ive only expoxyed it back at the moment 

[Tim Mackey]

I think we must all remember the old saying of "add lightness" when it comes to model aeroplanes, in most cases, light is good, and people are often surprised at just how heavy a model comes out at after building - this is often down to how little epoxy is left in the bottles after building

I agree of course that a typical trainer needs to be robust as it will get a few hard arrivals no doubt! However, not every ARTFis classed as a trainer  ( the Spitfire being an example ) and we should not expect the manufacturer to compensate for poor flying and landing techniques etc by slopping on the heavy ply and epoxy everywhere. This is NOT aimed at your particualr post austen, but is in keeping with the thread topic.

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

I certainly think David has a valid point here....in t' olden days when we built our own models these were often high wing types & landed much slower....nowadays many artfs are for sleeker/faster models (semiscale Extras, edges etc) which invariably land faster too. My own landings often leave something to be desired (like...someone else to do it for me!!!!) so I would hold my hand up here.

 

However this is definitely NOT the whole picture......my last ARTF to fail in this way failed on its first landing & it was one of the best I've ever done.....a beautiful floatly landing, gentle touchdown & crack...the wheels folded. I literally stood there open mouthed in disbelief!!!!

[Merlin spit]

i know your not  aiming at my post tim ,i was happy with how it had all come unstuck really because it made a easy fix ,i should have said that .i did use more glue than tthe factory had ,but i needed some forward ballast anyway as  ive been putting the battery as far forward as it would go and i was well under the recommended AUW

 

i can understand keeping airframes as light as possible ,but sometimes it like theyve spot glued parts i see how you could do this  on non -structual parts but surely a bit more where its needed cant hurt?

 

as a conparsion a cars front wing is often spot welded ,but you wouldnt epect the engine mount or sub frame to be spot welded would you?

Edited By austen rover on 25/06/2009 17:55:17

[david Osborne]

While I can see the point about landing technique I do not believe it to be the end of the story.

 

I firmly believe that it is your responsibility to learn to land correctly, and then put that knowledge into practice. but there are a few other things to consider.

 

1. We are all human and typically the human being makes a mistake 15% of the time. this increases depending on stress and pressure or the situation etc. Therefore in theory about 1 out of 9 ot 10 landings will be less than perfect regardless of outside influence.

 

2. Outside influence such as a sudden gust of wind at the wrong time can lead to a less than perfect landing.

 

3. A certain level of abuse is usually taken into account by many manufacturers and there are requirements to meet standards and pass tests for such things as shock, topple and general handling abuse. Granted this does not apply to everything but in general consumer goods are tested and designed to meet the standards - why should ARTF be any different? If you bought a phone where the cover kept falling off you would take it back wouldn't you, even if it did not affect the function. If youre car wheels collapsed when you accidently hit a kerb then the car would be in serious danger of being removed from use, ok not the best example maybe but the principle is there.

 

3. Light is one thing not strong enough is another. The avaiation industry goes to great lengths to make aircraft as light as possible and they are, to all intents and purposes only built as strong as they need to be. However, that does require the inclusion of reserve factors to take into account the unknown, abuse and life requirements etc. OK I know it is not quite the same thing but the principle is the same we want the lightest aircraft structure to do the job so the rest pays of in economy and payload.

 

Cheers. Dave Osborne

[david Osborne]

Oh and forgot to add.

 

If a structural failure occurs in flight and the model becomes uncontrollable causing damage or injury who is responsible? if you can prove the model structure was at fault would the BMFA insurers reclaim the money from the manufacturer as is common practice in other such compensation cases?

 

Cheers again Dave Osborne

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

A Modelling Guru Writes......

“A smooth landing is mostly luck; two in a row is all luck; three in a row is prevarication.”

 

 “You know when your landing gear is up when it takes a lot more power to taxi.”

 

& finally

 

 “Mankind has a perfect record in aviation: we never left one up there”

[Stephen Grigg]

Im just completing an ARTF Blackhorse Super Air,and Ive been very impressed with it all.I can even see an excess amount of glue on the joints I can see.The coveringhas no bubbles and is g0ood and tight,I have no complaints so far

[ken anderson.]

i have been flying a ' weston cougar' 2000 since 2006-when i first bought the artf model i was impressed with the build quality and still am-i bought an 'ultrafly hawk ' which to say was rubbish would be polite...'ripmax spitfire' is really good quality..... 'perkin's pretty 'is good quality and worth the dosh.......multiplex blizzard is excellent....

 

the 'ultrafly hawk 'i'm talking about is not the current one but the other so-called foam thing they were passing off as one..........

 

         ken anderson..........

[001]

The BMFA have a form on their site, where people who have bought/ flown sub standard ARTFs can report their problems although I have yet to see any feedback published by them. It would at least be interesting to know just how many reports have been submitted to them.

[Ian Jones]

For some reason I hadn't spotted this discussion until today.

Anyway my complaint is that today I flew my Irvine Tutor 40 and I'm quite seriously thinking about disposing of it. The covering has gone quite crinkly and brittle in places and in others it has started to peel back especially in places subject to exhaust deposits. At first the nose wheel got bent quite a lot and a good number of people pointed out the poor design of such devices and gave me lots of advice about what to do about it, except how to land properly! Of course that problem would not have occurred if I had been a real aeromodeller and built my own trainer from a plan or kit . With the benefit of hindsight I can say without doubt that insufficient landing training was the real problem and it was not a fault of the aircraft build or design. I don't think I'll bother getting another though, for one simple reason - after 6 years and about 100 flying hours with this aircraft I don't need to! Sounds like a lot of flying but for my first two years I hardly flew anything else and at a conservative estimate at an average  of 40 minutes flying a week its easy to clock up that much time. It's done really well & I don't fly it much these days, just when I sometimes feel like a change but it would have been nice if it lasted a bit longer.

 

My second aircraft was/is a Seagull PC9. Only real complaint being that my first one suffered elevator flutter which I cured by replacing the elevator rod with a sullivan snake but that didn't prevent the eventual falure, after 3 years, of the elevator horn. Since I was making an inverted pass over the field at the time  I don't need to tell you the result! I have seen similar problems with other Seagull PC9s. However it's such an easy & enjoyable aeroplane to fly that I had to replace it and fit the snake & better horn from scratch. It's still in regular use to this day.

 

My third aircraft was/is a Ripmax SE5a now in it's 4th year. I think the top to bottom aileron connecting rod design is a bit dodgy but having said that it's stayed in place. It still looks good though I have sealed down the edges of the covering a few times.

 

Yep there's dodgy ARTFs out there but that doesn't mean they are all bad and though it is very worthwhile to identify ARTF's not to buy it would also be a good thing to give the good ones a mention too.

Edited By Ian Jones on 03/07/2009 01:39:50

[The real Ron Truth]

Crikey its  been ages since I bought an ARTF and cant believe the same old issues are still happening.

 

Apart from poor U/C set ups that cant be beefed up until you trash it, I really dislike the idea of fixing a cowl with 3-4 self tappers screwed into thin ply or balsa side sheeting.

 

I witnessed a nice Black horse Chipmunk  do a gentle nose over on landing and the whole weight of the model  fell of the cowl causing it to snap free ripping the fuselage to bits.

 

Why do they not install proper mounts or at least give you sometihng substantial to screw into. And before you say, do it yourself, try mounting blocks down a long  oval fuselage when your hand doesnt fit!

 

The best Ive come across was the BH Twister, simple design that has been around long enough for the design to be fine tuned. NEVER buy something " just out " or new as you are just a guinea pig for the designers. JP Tiger moth 30 comes to mind which was my last artf. Looked beautiful, fittings poor, absolute silence from Perkins when I tried to get some help with the cg.

 

Finally as a specialist in Consumer Law, DO take  these things up with the retailer and dont be fobbed off to the manufactuer. Should a fault arise, the onus is firmly on the retailer to show goods are fit for purpose and without defect for up to  6 months. USE IT.

 

 

 

 

 

[grizz]

I had a serious problem with my Weston Cougar.The first  time I flew it  the model ground looped nearly "crowning" my helper by just missing his head with the engine at takeoff revs.The only damage was a broken prop.Upon investigation I found that the servo tray had come adrift.When I applied up elevator the tray had detached due to the pull on the tray by the closed loop rudder set up.I found that  virtually NO GLUE was holding the tray into the fuselage-an obvious build fault by the far east builders.When I contacted Weston to report this build error,I was told that Weston were quite satisfied with the Cougar etc.etc etc. It would seem that no inspection of finished kits is carried out-integrity of critical parts of the plane is essential and in this instance both myself and my helper were lucky  to get away unscathed from what could have been a very serious incident.

[Kelly]

ARTF no they are not, more like MACAC (Main Airframe Constructed and Covered)

I have not been able to put together ANY  of my so called ARTF models without some modification or replacing of duff parts.

At some point a ARTF model is going to do a member of the public or club member some serious damage, then the makers of these abominations may sit up and take notice , I hope 

[James Goens]

Well this is my first post here and I'm from the other side of the pond. I live in small town, Illinois. Pardon any language issues.

 

The ARF situation is no better here in the states. After I bought my E-flite Diamante I then discovered the weak undercarriage. It folded on a pretty soft landing, no bounce and grass field. I had previously read about this but decided to fly until it broke, which it did. I made my own laminated ply mounting block, reinforced it with tri-stock and glued the whole thing in with epoxy and microballoons. No problems since.

 

I also had a Hangar 9 Tribute 36 with a known weak fuselage problem. They were cracking at the trailing edge of the wing. Yep, mine cracked in flight. Fortunately ?? I was doing a flat spin and the plane just plopped into a wheat field. I contacted Horizon Hobby and they sent me a new fuse, no questions asked.

 

This is all still very frustrating. Things have come a long way since I first flew way back in 1988, but they could still be better. Just about every ARF I've built, I have either modified something or changed the hardware. More quality control would go a long way. 

 

 

[Tim Mackey]

Welcome aboard James... be sure to check the forum users guides etc.

Have fun... and thanks for your input - hope you stay around our friendly forum.

[philfly]

David you touched on something that i myself have been trying to find out.

You commented that a model must be flown in and not just motor cut and glide.

 

I am currently flying an overlander 55" extra260. A fantastic model but as seems to be the norm the undercarriage mont broke after a relatively soft landing on a smooth field. The mounting plate itself broke in half, an easy repair and i was using a 5s pack in place of a 4s (recomended), i also had the canopy come away in flight, but the instructions specifically mention not to rely on the magnet and include a screw fixing (which i had forgotten to secure)

 

Anyway my point is this. This model lands very quickly using the cut and glide method. You would never intentionally land a glow powered aircraft without the engine running, in fact Dead stick can be a worrying proposition, yet we land heavy electric models with no propellor running to slow us down. You wouldn't drive your car down a steep incline without being in gear would you?

 

So what is the correct method of landing my extra? do i have on some power? opinions please.

PS i know this is off topic, feel free to move it,

Edited By philfly on 09/07/2009 15:45:29

[Roy Holmes]

I was so delighted with my first Hype 3D that I purchased a second one

against  the day when my beloved Hype was no more,  I made the fatal mistake of assuming that the build quality would be the same, and did not check the joints around the firewall etc.   On reving up to take off on test flight the engine pulled straight out of the plane.  There was no glue to be seen arround the firewall. Reported this to Weston who just wern't interested.   Lesson Check everything you can. 

[ZigZag]

Having recently retired a V-MAR Stinger, I am in the process of  constructing (assembling?) a Black Horse Twister - my third ARTF.  The two kits are poles apart. V-MAR quality (at least as far as the Stinger was concerned) leaves a great deal to be desired and reinforces the old adage, low price, low quality. The Twister is marginally more expensive but considerably better quality in terms of design, build and hardware. I will not buy another V-MAR product, however, I would certainly consider Black Horse again.

[Tony Campbell]

Posted by philfly on 09/07/2009 15:44:40:

 

So what is the correct method of landing my extra? do i have on some power? opinions please.

 

I'm no expert on electric models having just started converting over from I.C, but one thing I do is to set the throttle trim on the transmitter to a slow idle. This allows me to shut the throttle completely just the same as when flying an 'oily' and still have the prop running at a simulated idle speed.  The difference is frankly amazing and transforms the landings from being almost deadstick like, to being controllable. The main reason being, that a rotating prop disc creates more drag than a stationary prop.

 

Just my 2p worth, but it works for me  

[Adam Lomax]

i bought a weston uk groove which looked good on first inspection but after it crashed due to airframe failiure i found that the wing joiner was still tacky like only one part of a two part epoxy where applied (the covering was holding it togeather) when i needed to get to my radio gear i didnt need a scalepl the model could be pulled apart due to the lack of glue in all of the jonts

 

i rang them up and told them my problems, i even said i would buy a new fuselage off them but i never got a reply off them and even when i rang them they where desperate to get rid of me 

 

as you can probably tell im annoyed at weston uk  

[DAVID CLIFFORD]

I love my black horse twister. good build quality but still with the u/c a weak point. I have fixed it a couple of time now with plenty of epoxy.

I am now looking at the ripmax/chris foss wot 4 which comes out end of August. i may just take everything out of the twister and into the wot 4.

My local hobby store £85. bargain price in todays market.

D

[Graham King]

I bought a new Weston Mini Hype a couple of years ago. Build quality was generally good, but the rear rail for the rudder servo just crumbled to dust as soon as it was touched. I had to cut it away and fashion a new rail from spruce.  The standard rail was balsa and literally turned to a fine dust on touching it.   Other than this, the airframe has put up really well with 2 years of abuse and hard flying.  My only real complaint has been noise related. The light airframe and West 36 with pipe being difficult to get below 82db.  I fitted rawlplugs (?) to the motor mount to reduce airframe resonance and foam wing seal between fusealage and wings. Still needed to over prop to get down to an acceptable level, which spoils the performance. When are engine manufacturers going to realise we need quieter engines?