Ripmax WOT4 Mk2 ARTF chat

[David Ashby - Moderator]

A decent prang could write off any model I guess Ian but I know what you mean. 

 

This one is very strong, probably not quite as strong as a traditional kit with it's foam core wings but certainly far more robust than the average ARTF and proof that Chris Foss was involved at the production stages.

 

I think if anyone break one or knocks the wheels off then they'll only have themselves to blame.  

Edited By David Ashby - RCME moderator on 01/10/2009 08:50:13

[DAVID CLIFFORD]

David,

Having just finished my build and posted it on here i must agree that the wheels are much more substantial than others i have previously built.

As you say if you knock these off its your own fault.

As for overall construction it is very light for the size of model but does not lack the strength that many modern ARTF's do today.

I hope to maiden on Sunday morning so i'll let you know how the U/C holds out as i have a bit of a reputation for taking them off.

 

D the excited

[David Ashby - Moderator]

LOL, hope all goes well.

[DAVID CLIFFORD]

Graeme, Dont know if you have looked at the build thread i put up but i have taken the loop out and put a snake in. Just for me personally it feels more solid and precise.

D

Edited By DAVID CLIFFORD on 02/10/2009 23:25:03

[Graeme Evans]

Maiden. Didn't expect to get the weather but this morning was almost perfect. 

My set-up: Futaba S3001,3003,3004 servos, Irvine 53 Mk2 on APC11"x7" prop, Model Technics Formula Irvine Sport 5 fuel. Spektrum AR500 Rx. CoG as per book at 82mm. Other Mods: Replaced throttle linkage entirely, fitted 2" deflector on exhaust, fitted elevator servo counter to instructions as push rod too short, replaced control horns on closed loop rudder. 

First flight, required 2 blips of up elevator and 2 of aileron trim. Controls way to sensitive but landed safely. 

Reduced Rates to the minimum recommended by the book, flew again but elevator max up was needed several times for 45degree banked turns.

Third flight, fantastic, set-up was: ailerons 7mm, elevator 8mm and 25% expo on both. rudder full as per book. I don't use it much in the air. but the ground handling is great. Even taxi'd cross wind with no problem after landing. My Funfly and Pulse XT both refuse to taxi against the wind on our tarmac strip.

As no surprise, this is a great model. The ARTF kit is average, there are a couple of weaknesses with some of the fittings but the plane is sound. I am very pleased with my set-up, I have what I think is the right amount of power for a fun aerobatic flight, I get just enough for unlimited vertical but probably not enough for 3D type moves. The fuel tank is ample, my initial timer set to 6 mins used ~20% of a tank, so a 20min flight would be comfortable and I was throwing it about quite a bit.

For under £100 (£89 seems to be common) this is a great plane for throwing around the sky with some gusto. 

I can see why when I arrived at the club this morning there wasn't a single person who didn't recognise it.  

Bonus: No cleaning, the exhaust smoke/oil misses the plane entirely, so no wipe down. 

Pics: 

http://www.modelflying.co.uk/albums/member_album.asp?a=8066

[DAVID CLIFFORD]

Hi Graeme, Congrats on the maiden, She does fly nice doesn't she.

I also maidened today, odd i had two clicks elevator and two clicks aileron!!

 

My maiden pics are here.

I am trying to download some video on youtube but it is getting along at a snails pace so may not work.

 

D

 

P.S David i didn't take of the U/C as this thing floats like a glider on aproach. One video'd touch down was on deadstick into gusty wind and only bounced a couple of times, but then i wasn't  flying it .

 

D the well contented

[David Ashby - Moderator]

She's certainly floaty especially in a wind, well done David.

 

[DAVID CLIFFORD]

 

HERE is the first video i have, the second one wont download? dont know why.

 

D

[DAVID CLIFFORD]

And HERE is the other one at last.

 

D

[Graeme Evans]

and mine: 

http://www.initi.co.uk/uploads/Wot4Maiden.wmv

[BB]

Looks like a great plane.  Nearly bought the last in stock at my LMS on Friday - but resisted.  Still have an Acrowot in a box to build Doh, still, nearly christmas !!

 

Meantime out of spite, I put a 10x6 on my Wot T .46ax.  It now punches above its weight !

 

Great videos & pics

 

BB

[DAVID CLIFFORD]

 

Graeme,

 

Nice vid mate, i think i need to take my digi camcorder next time i fly and get some longer shots.

Was it as good as you expected?

 

D the impressed

[Graeme Evans]

I am extremely pleased. It can do anything I can do, as fast or slow as I can handle. I still need time to get more familiar with it and I may tune the throws a little further yet, but very happy. 

[TonyS]

Sorry everyone, and I'm probably going to sound like a complete heretic here, but can someone explain wot (!) all the fuss is about? I'm sure it must fly brilliantly but then there are a gazillion trainers on the market that can compete.

It's not a particularly attractive plane IMHO - boxy, plank wing etc but it gets so much air-time (sorry about the pun).  The Sebart Shark is a much more modern looking trainer for example.

Just genuinely curious... 

[Graeme Evans]

for a start it isn't a trainer, its distinctly aerobatic. There is no dihedral in the wings which are symetric and the wings are very close to the thrust line.

It would be a risky model to learn to fly with. 

This is a model that has been around for 20+ years it is as recognisable to us rc lot as a spitfire is to the general public. this model set the standard for 'sport flying' way back when I was little. It has great heritage.

It also happens that is is still as great as it ever was.

[NigelH]

For a start off, the WOT 4 is a classic beyond just about anything else.

 

And ...

 

* an ARF version makes it available to a much wider audience.

 

* it's not a trainer.  It's a sports model.

 

* that wing should, and apparently does, give good low speed handling benefits.

 

* looks are a personal choice.  I really like the trim.  IMHO, the Sebart Shark looks strange, so I'll not buy one.

 

* the Shark costs maybe £40 more.

 

There's nothing wrong with these guys enthusing about the WOT 4 ARF or anything else for that matter.

 

[TonyS]

Ouch!

I was only asking a pretty innocent question I thought....

 

I never said there was anything wrong with anyone enthusing about it - sorry if you mis-read my comments.

It just doesn't seem to me (and I did emphasise this)  to be  a particularly 'special' looking plane.

Each to their own I've always said and no-one should be criticised for having a passion for anything (personally I like Kylie Minogue but I'm sure that others would express different views  

[Graeme Evans]

I think you just about have it. 

It's NOT about the looks.

(though I think it looks fine, sure it's quite basic looking, but hey, its for flying not looking)

[Graeme Evans]

PS: you question is entirely valid - we're just trying to answer it

[TonyS]

Thanks Graeme,

I guess it's like a Morris Minor - a classic but not to everyone's tastes.

It must fly well though, it's been going for donkey's years I gather.

 

[Graeme Evans]

I'd say more like an old Mini, but yeah.

[Graeme Evans]

1977 it came out - 32 Years ago! 

http://www.chrisfoss.co.uk/Wot-4-notes.htm

[TonyS]

Nearly as old as me - does that make me a Classic....

[Mick Turner]

Hi...Ive just finished building the Wot 4 RTF.....Very nice model to build and a reasonable colour instruction manual. Couple of issues I found with the build

 

1, wheel bolts are not the best ive seen because the bolt is not threaded all the way and the shoulder is too long leaving the wheels to flop about a bit so i changed it to a M4 bolt and was able to tighten the bolt to the leg.

 

2,The threaded bar which goes through the rudder for the close loop system is very small indeed and could have done with a more substantial one as i think in time its going to wear a hole and become loose.

 

3, Instruction manual although good quality was not very clear on a couple of issue (I.E) when measuring where to put the engine it doesnt actualy show you in detail where to measure from, Most of us would automaticaly know but to a new to the hobby person may not know and struggle slightly with this.

 

4 Only a small gripe...once you join the wing I think a small piece of white sticky  back covering would have been nice to cover where the join is just to finish it off nicely.

 

All these issues are small and not that important realy but as ive built one I thought its worth mentioning,

On a scale of 10 i would give it 8-9 out of 10 its very pretty and I stuck a ASP 61 on the nose and still got it to balance without added weight.

Nice model ,nice to build and lets hope it flies as well as it looks.

[DAVID CLIFFORD]

Hi Mick,

If you have read my build blog you will see i have had some gripes with this plane as well one of them being the pull pull system for the rudder which i replaced with a snake.

The instruction manual also forgets to tell you to put the support bar in for the elevator as well and to less experienced modelers this could also cause issues.

I used a piece of white insulating tape over the wings as i also felt this was an area that needed attention.

 

TonyS, my, my, my did you kick the proverbial wasps nest. I have never had a Wot 4 before but am fully aware of the pedegree of this series of models and have seen many incarnations and copies and have seen the enthusiasm with which the modelers and fliers show towards them.

I dont t think it is an ugly model, it most certainly is not a trainer, that is what the WOT TRAINER is for which is another good ARTF version. Have a look at some of the vids posted around, youtube etc follow our links (mine and graemes) Graemes are better and longer.

 

D