ARTF quality

[Nick Burroughs]

Well, my suggestion re asking manufacturers why they sell badly built/glued aircraft promoted a bit of interest but no editorial comment. 

[flytilbroke]

Editorial comment might happen, did you ask for any? We, the purchasers have more ability to influence the Retail, Wholesale, and of course the Manufacture of the items we buy. Just don`t buy rubbish, or at least don`t buy poor quality. Of course we would then have to Pay More.

 

We could all suggest or complain to the wholesale companies, they would perhaps soon get the message as they would be spending expensive time answering the phone.

 

I think thier answer would be initially, that they "make" and sell at the price point, we, the customers, are willing to pay.

[Nick Burroughs]

I may not have asked for editorial comment as such, but I certainly inferred it in the first email in this thread.

 

I think that the manufacturers should be asked for their comments on problems that have been found, and asked what they are willing to do about it.

 

If I knew that a model had been improved in the light of your reviews then I would be prepared to pay more for quality.

 

However in some of the reviews that I have seen ,I certainly would not buy that particular model and would look very carefully at  others from the same manufacturer.

 

I take your point about complaints to wholesalers and agree that it is a good idea.

[Adrian Smith 1]

As scratch builder and latterly an ARTF constructor I must comment on the poor quality fittings and design of my latest project the Cmpro Mossie which I am using two OS 52FS motors.

A recent reviewer warned about the almost impossible fitting of the wing bolts (took him a day). Due to the odd alignment of the bolts and concealed nuts in the fuz moulding, it took me a day and a half plus some Isopon filler to accomplish.

The rudder fixing in the fuz attached to a push rod wouldn’t hold a feather and was replaced with my own closed loop system. Both fibre push rods were thrown away (why does Cmpro persist with these things?) as they bent like Quelch’s cane before six of the best! I replaced the elevator pushrod with a decent piece of dowel.

Next came the fitting out of the moulded nascelles. The supplied throttle pushrods were barely M2 is size and had to be bent to align the throttle arm with the servo level. These rods were also discarded and replaced with better quality M2 rods due to too much give in the provided items. Fitting them gave rise to lots of swearing as due to the internal wood frame in each nascelle, which houses the servos and retract frame, not being in the same sense. This meant one of the rods was a pig to fit.

Furthermore one needs hand the size of a baby to fit the fuel tanks within the moulding as there really isn’t any access. That’s as far as I’ve got.

I have lost all enthusiasm for the project and am very disappointed. It’s only the initial cost outlay that’s keeping me going. I hope when I fly the thing it’s worth it.

[Kelly]

Seems like a can of worms has been opened by this thread .

 

ARTF should mean the parts of the model already constructed should be up to standard and all the supplied fittings etc should be of a high quality .

 

Looks like 99% of  ARTF models , to a greater or lesser extent  fail to meet the above criteria 

 

A thread for people to list issues they have with ARTF quility to then be forwarded on to the various manufacturers from this web site,  may have more impact than individual complaints

[Tom Foreman]

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

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

 Hi Phifly, I fly a similiar model to the Overlander Extra, a Dualsky Extra 260, which apart from the covering scheme is exactly the same, although I have a lighter 4s1p 3700 LiPo set up in mine.

 

I have broken the undercarriage 3 times up to now. I agree with David that this model has to be flown to the ground, cutting the motor and plonking it on the ground will break the under carriage, but as you have probably noticed if there is no head wind this thing will float past you on the lowest throttle settings. I have now learned tp cut the throttle about 30 ft out, 10 ft high, then advance it a couple of clicks push down on the nose and then flare with up elevator to a smooth landing. I have removed the wheel spats and installed larger wheels which has improved the ground taxing greatly on grass so I can taxi back nearer to the pitts no problem. Also keep an eye on the motor mount box, after my last repair I had to remove the cowl to recover the front of the fuse and found all the glue joints had failed, and only the interlocking wooden construction was holding the motor onto the model!

 

Tom

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Sorry Phil, mised your post but Tom has it.

 

One point - I usually have brake off on the ESc which means the spinning prop can act as a brake but bottom line - keep a little speed on, don't turn too soon (and too high) for finals, use throttle as an elevator to bring her in and don't let the model drop that final few ft.

 

I've just built the Overaldner Sukhoi 50" and re-inforced the structure around the u/c block. I've found that it's not the block that's weak but the structure around it. 20 flights so far and not a problem.

Edited By David Ashby - RCME moderator on 21/08/2009 16:30:40

[Stephen Grigg]

What method did you use to reinforce it please David?

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Well some use glass fibre cloth to make a bandage but I didn't have any so I sort of filled in the spaces between the longerons/formers with lite-ply and then added a generous layer of epoxy.

 

Here's a pic.....

 

Not pretty but it's done the job. From horrible experience it seems like the u/c mount is fine but the structure around is weak so a less than gentle landing means that if the u/c even slightly twists then there's nothing structure-wise to stop the surrounding airframe to twist and break too.  

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME moderator on 21/08/2009 16:26:41

Edited By David Ashby - RCME moderator on 21/08/2009 16:28:41

[philfly]

Thanks for the reply guys that was my thoughts exactly. I also reinforced the undercarriage in a similar way, just a fillet of epoxy around the plate and no problems since, and had a very hard landing when the canopy came off in flight again, dispite being screwed as well as the magnets and then whenn my speed controller melted

[Rob Cope]

Two things...

 

Most of (if not all of) the ARTF damage at our club has been from bad luck with conditions or plain mistakes.  This equally applies to all planes, not just ARTF.

 

However, following the discussions on undercarriage, I think ARTFs might have a higher survival rate if some of those plain-cut-ends were tapers.  This is especially true in undercarrienge mounting where the shock-loads should be dispersed across the fuselage/wing rather than concentrated into a point where the undercarriage bracing abrutply ends.

 

...agree about the Irvine Tutor 40 covering - going brittle after 18 months - also have you tried to repair it? Melts and browns at the touch of a low heat iron!  Be very wary, _very_ wary...

[Adrian Smith 1]

Just bought an ARTF Capiche 140 from Weston UK and am almost finished with build. By and large the kitting is excellent. However, the canopy.......oh dear! In the simple operation of removing out of the polythene bag the side split half way along the side! Further upon picking is up from the edge it split there too. Very brittle indeed. I phoned Weston to get a replacement. The response I got was less than helpful. The comment which was fair I suppose was they would have take a canopy from another kit to do this. Plus I am being charged the best part of 20 squid for the pleasure! Not good enough I am afraid and rather spoilt my impression of what is generally a very good kit.

Anybody had the same problem?

[David Ashby - Moderator]

One would expect them to carry spares for the model at the very least Adrian - spats, cowls, canopies etc..  

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 30/11/2009 18:17:42

[Adrian Smith 1]

Well that's what I would have expected David, but sadly it appears not the case hence I was bit miffed. I could have got one from CarbonCopy but that would have been £40+.

 

Anyway I'd hardly touched the offending item so I didn't really see why I had to pay. Regretably I had no choice.

[Pete B]

Posted by Adrian Smith 1 on 30/11/2009 17:13:15:

I phoned Weston to get a replacement. The response I got was less than helpful. The comment which was fair I suppose was they would have take a canopy from another kit to do this. Plus I am being charged the best part of 20 squid for the pleasure! Not good enough I am afraid and rather spoilt my impression of what is generally a very good kit.

Anybody had the same problem?

 

I can't comment on the kit, Adrian, although at £300 I wouldn't be expecting to find any problems with it!

 

What gets to me how Weston seem to be dealing with it. When are these firms going to realise that it is, or should be, the kiss of death for their business, if they act like this?

Whilst I accept that not all customers act fairly or honestly with retailers, I'd like to think that the majority of us do and when we raise an issue we shouldn't have to fight for redress.

 

The problem is theirs - they supplied the kit - if it's defective, they should, for publicity's sake, sort out the customer without argument and then take up the problem with the distributor. A charge of £20 is outrageous - I'd like to see their justification for that!

 

I didn't have any plans to look to them as a customer but, when instances like this are aired, there's an even less chance of me doing so in the future. How many others think twice about using retailers after hearing things like this?

 

An angry Pete

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Have to agree with Pete B here.......if it had been me I think I might have been tempted to send the whole kit back as faulty & either request a replacement kit or a refund (plus the cost of the postage).....at least that way Weston wouldn't have had to "....take a canopy from another kit......."

 

If, as a business, they choose not to carry such spares then then they will have to support their products in some other way....

 

Can there be any other product we buy for which we would have to accept such service....???

 

"I'm sorry your washing machine door is broken.....I'll have to take one off another machine as a replacement & charge you £20 ".....er....no...I don't think so.....

[Tom Foreman]

I guess its too late to give Island Models a ring for a spare?

 

Tom

[Stephen Grigg]

Yes,I have been put off by your treatment by them,Ive only been buying Seagull and Blackhorse  with no problems.When I found the retrac wells missing Galaxy immediately took them from another kit and I havent spent 100 pounds on a kit yet.Very poor customer service by Weston models and thanks for bringing it to our attention

[Adrian Smith 1]

Sadly Tom It's too late to try Island Models. I have looked at its website and they look good. Have you used them much? Thank you for all your comments guys. I really like these forums so we can find the best route to go when in difficulty.

[Bill R]

I have built 2 ARTF models. The Seagull Arising Star as my first trainer model and the Black Horse Super Air as the low wing trainer +. The only thing was the instructions are a little sparse. I glued the strengtheners for the wing screws on the top of the wing as they said. problem was it should have been the bottom of the wing. Should have really thought about it first but too keen to get it finished. it also dod not tell you how far forward the engine needed to be from the front of the firewall like the A* instructions did. The A* balanced great but the S/air needed some 6 oz of lead on the bottom of the firewall to balance. Having said all that both models fly well. The covering edges are starting to lift on the A*, especially around the engine and bottom of the fuselage.

The problem I have is getting straight answers to questions I ask on the forums.

The best example is what servo's did guys use on the ailerons of the TN Hurricane? I did not get any straight answers so asked Tony. His reply was any that has a torque of 1,7Kg/cm +. A straight political answer!

 

 

Bill R.

[Tyler Griffiths]

I most certainly have, and continue to, encounter problems with the model that I am building at the moment, which, by the way, is my first model, the MTH Super Flying Models Piper Cub (68" Wingspan) in a number of areas. The biggest problem with the model is the instruction booklet, although there are also a few other little things, such as the fact that the pushrods do not fit the horns, the lack of space for the throttle pushrod, among many other things.

[YakMad]

I had a fatal (to the model that is) flaw in the wing design and construction of my Hanger9 RV-8, on it's third flight after it's maiden flight one wing decided to go it's own way in mid-flight. The wing slid about half way off to wing tube before it failed completely and the model spun into the ground. At  first we thought the wing retaining bolt had come loose but when we examined the wreackage the bolt and the ply root rib where still firmly attached to what was left of the model, when the wing was recovered it appeared that the ply root rib had just been butt glued onto the end of the wing panel and basically the wing sheeting and a small glue joint at the leading and trailing edge was holing the wing on. I have built and flown serveral Hanger9 models and all have been robust designs until now. This is my first Hanger9 model that was designed for both IC and EP and I'am wondering has weight saving gone a bit far. I must commend Sussex Models though as they replaced the model within 24 hours, the only problem now is that I wiil have to open up both wings and strengthen the join between the root ribs and the rest of the wing.

[Stephen Grigg]

Hi Yakmad,do you think gluing the wings together might have prevented your catastrophe ?

[Iain Jeffrey]

Hi

I also purchased a Capiche 140 recently, it also had a cracked / split canopy, this was at both ends and numurous splits, the cowl was also split at one of the mounting points. I bought it from my local model shop so had no probs getting the bits replaced.  On inspection of the kit before building, it looked as though someone had already been in there looking for bits.

 

Iain

[Kelly]

Hi YakMad

Sounds like another Friday afternoon Hanger 9 job that missed quality control.

I had a crap H9  P-40, will never buy H9 again