Wot 4 MkII ARTF

[Bill R]

The airfarame looks well constructed out of the box. following the instructions I found that the aileron wires passed straight through the supplied clevises!.

When fitting the wheels, one was a hard sponge and the other very soft plus one wheel was a greater thickness so that the axle required adjustment of the nuts to allow free wheel movement whereas the other wheel spun freely with the nut bottomed out on the thread. The rudder push pull is rubbish as the wire quickly cuts into the nylon of the servo arm. Why not supply a 2mm rod and tube? There were no servo spacers to raise the rudder servo above the aileron servo unless the two bits of metal were them. Problem being that the metal bits were too long to do the job and meant the servo screws were too short for a good hold. The instructions showed wood spacers anyway.

One of the metal clevises for the rudder assembly was broken [pin fell out on opening to fit it] and there was no engine mount.

Overall, "the ship is spoilt for a ha'porth of tar". I have built an Arising Star and a Black Horse Super Air, not so strong an airframe but far better quality of fittings plus 20 quid cheaper! the Super air flies great, especially with flapperons and does the business with aerobatics. I wont be buying another wot 4 and now you know WOT for!

Excuse the pun!.

 

 

Edited By Bill R on 27/01/2010 00:25:27

[winchweight]

I must be honest, mine had none of these issues and is built straight from the box. I guess quality assurance checks are what they used to be.

[Bob Moore]

Mine was fine too, but the clevis's didn't fit and most poeple have said the same  I didn't use their rudder wires, used a snake instead!

You may have got a Friday afternoon one

[JIM NOONE]

Well I was very disapointed with the Wot 4 Mk2 Kit.

Push rods too short, tail wheel axel too short, I had to make a new one. Aileron push rods too soft [ bend too easy] .Clevises did not fit , wrong threads for rods provided.

Engine mounts were different sizes. Tail plane messy too fit. Tail plane stabeliser slots too big. Rudder control horn missing from kit. I feel there should have been some trimming supplied in the kit for wing joint.

 I used snakes for rudder and elevater control, I found these gave a more posative feel.

 

On the plus side,

when everything got sorted out , This plane flew very well . I found My  SC 46 to be well suitable.

 

I will not buy another Wot Mk2 untill the kit contents have been improved.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Oh Dear! ARTFitisis hits the WOT4

 

Now I'm going to be really boring...but the best I can contirbute is,

 

Get a "real" WOT4 guys - from Chris Foss, not Ripoff - sorry Ripmax - silly me.

 

Goes together great, flies fantastic and lasts forever!

 

BEB

[colin watson]

READ MY REPORT ABOUT THIS AWEFUL  EXPERIENCE BUY THE KIT VERSION NOT A BADLY MADE ARTF YOU CAN FIND SO MANY BETTER AIRFRAMES OUT THERE

Edited By Timbo - Administrator on 09/03/2010 22:45:23

[NigelH]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother on 09/03/2010 22:01:48:

Oh Dear! ARTFitisis hits the WOT4

 

Now I'm going to be really boring...but the best I can contirbute is,

 

Get a "real" WOT4 guys - from Chris Foss, not Ripoff - sorry Ripmax - silly me.

 

Goes together great, flies fantastic and lasts forever!

 

BEB

 

I really don't know why people see it this way.  For about £15 less than a Wot 4 kit, you can have a Wot 4 ARTF with everything included.  It will be in the air long before a kit version would be and as they're going to be lighter, they're going to be flying better as well.  Don't forget the finish.  They aren't many 'amateurs' who can cover a model as well as those people in the factories as ARTF Wot 4s come

 

As for Ripoff ?  How could that be ?  It costs much less, you don't need to buy extra glue, covering film, etc, you get more and most of the work has been done.

 

Even if you have to swap some of the hardware, you're still going to be quids in.

 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Mmm, interesting question Nigel. But I think you almost answer it yourself!

 

Consider this: How can Ripmax make the WOT4, assemble most of it, cover it, ship it half way round the world, pay a royality to Chris Foss, sell it for £15 less than the original designer and still make a profit?

 

Even allowing for the use of cheap labour, its still quite a feat as you say. I think the reason is some serious corners have been cut. Now I've only seen one ARTF WOT4 and then only briefly, but I would say that I noted the following;

 

1. There's a lot less wood in there! Now you're right this does make it lighter - but frankly the marginal benefit (given that mine has almost unlimited vertical performance with a Irvine 53 anyway) is not worth the compromise of the strength and general robustness. The saving in weight is propably less than the equivalent of a tank fuel. This saving hasn't been done to make the plane fly better, its been done to save money! But at a cost to the buyer, in an "untidy arrival" (and lets face we all do them from time to time) I'd back my WOT4 against the ARTF anyday of the week.

 

2. The wood is simply not as good quality if my sample of one is anything to go by. Its softer and not as cleanly grained. Again cheaper, as not only is better wood more expensive, the time taken selecting it, so that the most approriate wood is used for each part, is very costly in manpower. 

 

3. As far as I could see the ARTF has a symmetrical wingsection ( I could be wrong - but it looked that way to me) the classic WOT4 does not - that's part of the secret as to why they fly so well.

 

So I don't agree that the ARTF is the same plane for less money - its not.

 

But the real point, for me at least - and I suspect a lot of people who build - is that my WOT4 is just that - its MINE! There is some of me, my individuality, in my plane. You're dead right of course the factory covering will look much better. But, though I say so myself, mine looks pretty smart to me, and 10 feet away you wont see any inferiority at all! But, I can put my WOT4 in field with a 1000 others and still pick it out from 100 yards away! There almost certainly isn't another exactly like it anywhere in the world.

 

And its not just the colour scheme. When I built it, because I was "down there amongst the balsa dust" it has all sorts of minor mods and bits and pieces that I wanted. This makes it even more individual.

 

And if the worst happens (heaven forfend!) and it does get damaged - I built it, so I can fix it, I know how it goes together. I also know there's enough glue on all the joints, and that the most appropriate glue was used at all points, not the cheapest or the most convienent for mass manufacture - but the best. I did that because I wanted it to last not few weeks while its new from the shop, but for several seasons.

 

And when it flew for the first time I had the pleasure of feeling "I built that from planks of wood with my hands and my skills" to me that's a significant part of the pleasure of this hobby.

 

Now don't get me wrong - I can understand the attraction of the ARTF, and each person must follow the hobby as they see best. For those who like to fly lots of different planes - ARTF makes sense. But surely you can't really mean it when you say you can't understand why people build? Nor do I see how you can really believe that you get the same - or even a better - plane for less money. If it really was "the same" why do think Mr Foss is still selling kits?

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 11/03/2010 01:16:58

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 11/03/2010 01:19:01

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 11/03/2010 01:20:11

[ken anderson.]

it would be interesting to hear what Chris Foss has to say on the finished/put to market Wot 4 look alike......clone..but then again at the end of the day i think it's just about value for money....we cant have it all way's.../i think there will be a lot of happy flyers who now own the ARTF imposter's...... ...

 

   ken anderson.....

 

what about albert hatfull who designed and built the first jnr 60 in 1946...now avalable as ARTF...and electrified as well....... it's the end of the modelling world as we know it...

[NigelH]

BEB

 

In my opinion, it isn't just that ARTFs are cheaper, it's that kits are more expensive.  If you look at any traditional kit, I suspect that you'd be hard pressed to believe that you've got good value for money.  Compare how much it would cost to buy the balsa.

 

I accept your comment about balsa quality.

 

As for building, I'd love to build a Junior 60 with a little four stroke in it.  I've seen attractive examples in burgandy and cream where the carved 'cowl' fits round the engine in great style.  I'm sure that I'd make a good job if it but not having any spare time or much space to set up a building board makes it difficult.  Funnily enough, this is where I would not compromise by getting the ARTF.  I think that such a vintage model shouldn't look like an ARTF version with immaculate glossy covering.

 

I'd also really like to build a Ben Buckle Fokker DVIII but the same constraints apply.

 

I hope that agree with me that this is mature debate and not two blokes ranting

 

Nigel

 

[Bob Cotsford]

re Nigel's comments, I recently bought the wood for an APS Eros, working from the materials required list on the plan.  It looks as though it will work out short in a few areas, and updating one or two features such as c/f tube instead of dowel in paper tube for the fin joiner adds to the list, not to mention the cost of wheels and control fittings.

All in I'd say it will cost around £50 for materials.  Add in the time to cut put all the parts, new saw and knife blades, cost of patterns (ok, I scanned and printed them for the most part, so inkjet cartridge and paper) and DB Models or Ben Buckle kits look quite reasonably priced.  On the other hand, this really is all my own work.

 

I've had a couple of ARTFs, and the amount of work that's gone into them makes them good value, but that just makes them good CHEAP models.  They still contain a poor choice of materials, little glue, and no soul.

 

My Acrowot was built in the early 90's, has been through fairly extensive repairs more than once but still flies a treat.  I suspect the ARTF version will not be as resilient when it arrives in the shops.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Nigel - no probs at all mate - of course its all amicable and we can agree to differ!

 

As I say I can see the attractions of ARTF - lots of different planes to fly, good for people with a restricted time giving them a way to participate, and even for those who, maybe because of home contraints or disability, might find building difficult. All this I happily accept. And hell, this is a hobby and each person has the God given right to pursue it in the way that they want to .

 

My points really were to say why I still build and why I believe a ARTF and built WOT4 are really "chalk and cheese".

 

I suppose my view would be the ARTF WOT4 might well be a good ARTF and lots of fliers might have fun with it - but my view is it not a WOT4 as I understand it and have enjoyed and it seems to me to have been "built down to a price" rather than up to a standard.

 

BEB

[Marko]

hi all with all this talk of the artf wot4, know one has mentioned in fact this is a discontinued MK2 it is built to cost and is very weak .we've had two fall apart whilst flying at our club ,first ..the wing bolt fixing parted ,which part do you watch fall to the ground wing  or fuz?next was a firm landing and the fuz snapped just behind the wing rib !!! lm not saying they are no good because they are no worse than any other plane for that price but.............in my opinion if you want to have a wot4 buy a kit and as above build it light, build it strong  you cant beat the real thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mine .........       cherrs ............................mark

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Nice

 

BEB

[Mark R]

On my 2nd WOT4 ARTF.......first one build wise was ermm interesting, the wings joined where they touched, shame they didnt touch in many places, had to sand about 2mm (carefully) to get them to touch front, middle and rear and not just in the middle.  That one went down in a spiral after, now this is were i am speculating, ailerons on one side seem to ermm come adrift, reason to say i am specualting is that it went thru a tree (no folliage) on the way down and dont know how much branch interference happened, BUT it did have one aileron totally detatched and the other is attatched.  Some of the club members have said they are not 100% sure on the CA hinges, are they upto the job etc.  Second WOT4 seems to be ok, build was lots better this time everything seemed to fit well, did use 'lots' of CA on the hinges this time, so hoping it was one off and it was pilot inability or interference (35mhz boy here) rather than airframe failure.

Love the plane tho, very easy to fly and i fully understand why its popular with people.

[Tim Mackey]

Mark....why are all your posts in italics?

[Mark R]

Ahh it due to me using word (for spell checker) and i use italics on there and transpose on here.  Helps cut out spelling mistakes as i am dyslexic.  Should i only use normal font....if so sorry

 

 

Edited By Mark Rowse on 22/03/2010 17:46:19

[Tim Mackey]

The forum has its own spellchecker.

Left click all txt to highlight it, then right click and use "check spelling"

[Mark R]

Okey dokey, sorry didnt realise, as i couldnt see it on the bar at the top....is there a problem with me using italics, just curious.

[Tim Mackey]

nah not really, justy a little harder to read I find

[Mark R]

Okey dokey, will use standard texts, sorry just so used to using italics i dont notice

[colin lee]

Hi Guys,

 

   Been a while since i had a look here, I got a wot 4 artf just after chrimbo I did not have any problems with my kit, the only thing i changed was the threaded rod for the rudder just thought it was to small, I fitted a west 36t2 with a pipe, I must of had at least a 100 flights with her now, flys really well will do just about any thing you want great in the wind i am still flying when everyone else is packing up. She's a tough little cookie, Not sure what people want you can buy this kit if you shop around for £80 now, if you built one it would cost you £50 to cover it with profilm plus all the other things you would need. We all no you get what you pay for but overall it really is good value for money. When i got this plane i was going through a spell of no confidnece thanks to this little plane i am now back on track and really enjoying the hobby.

                                                                      Cheers

                                                                            Colin

 

[Braddock, VC]

I don't know if the artf is lighter, I just acquired an original mark 2 and whilst the foam wing is about one ounce heavier, the fuselage of the original is about 100 grammes lighter ie nearly 1/4 of a pound, I found this amazing and can only attribute it to the amount of balsa sanded off  and the orange box wood they use for the fus sides on the artf.

BTW both models are kitted out with the same gear, 5 148s, giant cod 2.4 rx, 1000mah lipos and bec and a saito 82a up front, the artf has an irvine spinner and a jxf 14 x 6 2 blade prop, the original has a 3 blade graupner 12.5 x 7 and heavy duty spinner (soon to be changed for a similar set up as the artf). Both are nose heavy. I'll check the wings to see if they are interchangeable, I did look closely and they look the same..

As to bits falling off the artf, the instructions clearly state that all glue joints should be checked over and additional glue added if required, the wing mounting bolt plate has to be one of the higher stressed items in the model, mine has triangular balsa reinforcing it as does the original, same with the u/c. The tailplane mounting slot is oversize on mine, a sliver of ply sorted that. The only issue I had with the artf was the firewall is right at the end of the fuse as opposed to 12mm back as on the kit version, this precludes a pretty fitting for a 4 stroke.

I think Chris has had a hand in the instructions as they are the best bar none that I've had with an artf, and that includes yt, H9, kyosho; the only one that comes close is thunder tiger instructions.

Edited By John Gibbs on 22/03/2010 22:52:10

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Colin - that's good to hear

 

 

[001]

How do you check all the joints in an ARTF model without stripping off all of the covering?

 

Even if you did there would be places that you cannot see or reach without opening up the structure. You are almost entirely at the mercy of the manufacturer that the construction has been carried out properly.

I say this from experience of a new Ripmax Xclaim that had gaps between main structural members with no glue and longerons that were just short lengths of wood between formers.

 These defects and poor design were not expected and could not be seen just by looking from the outside. (There is a photo elsewhere on this forum).

I was happy with it until it ran off of a short grass runway and into some long grass and broke in two! (Not at high speed).

So saying that all joints should be checked and additional glue added is a nonsense.

(Would you buy new car that needed additional welding in places that you cannot see in order for it to be fit for the road?)