Dodgy ARTF Undercarriages

[Adrian Smith 1]

 

By and large all the Cmpro ARTFs I have bought have performed in the air very well but experience has taught me to reinforce the U/C area as a matter of course. I have recently had to do this retroactively to the Extra 300S 90 size after a bouncy landing. However, after buying the Leo 120 it was pretty obvious to me the U/C is not up to the job. The wing loading is a relatively high 26oz/sq ft and the U/C legs are no greater than those provided with much smaller Quest 50! The Leo's U/C recess, which seems to be constructed with a eight inch poor quality liteply, soon gave way after a couple of bouncy landings. I have now put a quarter inch birchwood ply platform in the fuz insert along the nose to remedy this failure. This has lowered the U/C legs a tad but has solved the problem and I don't feather the APC props tips anymore on concrete runways.     

[Kelly]

Hanger 9 U/C retracts are just not up to our flying fields,unless the grass is like a bowling green they are rubbish.

Just my opinion based on flying a  H9 P-40 .

[Terry Whiting]

The number of ARTF models I have been asked to TRY and repair makes me wonder if any of the guys operating CAD have ever designed and built a model from scratch. I very much doubt it.

 If they had I'm sure there would be far less trainer type ARTF models re-kitting themselves on an arrival, afterall a TRAINER should be able to take a little punishment as take offs and landings are a part of the learning process.

 

But then does the manufacturer regard this type of model as a mere throw away item,

not wishing it to last, if they did last think how sales would plummet, to combat this problem the use brain washing psychology, COLOUR, we all love colour, so the brighter the box, the greater chance of hooking the next punter.

 

This guy loves black and white in the form of a  plan. 

 

 

Edited By Terry Whiting on 04/08/2009 12:02:16