Wot 4 MkII ARTF

[Myron Beaumont]

How about " Another Ready To Fix "  ?

or perhaps "a chinese fake anyway"  ?

Having said that,my one and only ARTF ,a 3 year old  Extra 300s.60 from Seagull is great ! They appear to have a pretty good reputation from what I've read of them .

[Braddock, VC]

Richard don't have negative waves, most joints in built up structures can be tested, if they "click" or move relative to the other glued parts (easily discernible through the most opaque film covering) then they are not sound and you have the right to return the stuff to the model shop. If you bought it mail order complain by phone and e-mail to the distributor FIRST telling them where you bought it, if you're going to get the stuff changed he will contact that retailer. Then contact the retailer and tell them the outcome of your exchange with the distributor. It pays to get names btw.

I practiced what I preached with a black horse ultimate and was sent, foc , new parts.

With respect to the fus, things are normally so much easier, most of the high stress joints ARE visible (ok, I have a telescopic inspection mirror that I bought specifically for this purpose) and I've spent many a happy evening dribbling cyno in or dripping aliphatic resin in, though I subsequently used a very long handled (18") artists brush to apply all sorts including epoxy, the syringes used to change ink in computer print cartridges are excellent for applying pva/aliphatic through the side of the fuse, too.

So you see I disagree emphatically with your take on things, with one exception viz, I don't expect a car to exhibit these or similar shortcomings, there again I gave more than £20k for my last car and I gave £80 for my last artf so I can't even kid myself that we're comparing like with like here.

I like to give the model the best chance of success as my limited flying skills test any shortcomings to the limit, especially those in u/c.

Think outside the box mate and you'll get a lot more satisfaction than you do moaning after stuffing it.

[001]

I'm not  'moaning after stuffing it' that was not my intention.

I am more concerned that people could be flying model aeroplanes with serious structural defects near and over other people and property..

As for using a mirror and dribbling glue down a fuselage, why should anybody do this to a new product? You certainly cannot do this with a wing.

How many other modellers are going to take a new model out of its box, hold it to their ear and start bending and twisting it, then be prepared to add more glue, in inaccessible places and closed cavities or send it back to the seller?

The matter of cost, model or car, should not come into it.

I don't know what the expression 'Think outside the box' has to do with the discussion.

 

 

So I stand by my comments.

 

[ken anderson.]

hello richard-have to agree with you 100%..when our models go the journey-a fair old % of the time it's through pilot error...wrong input,cant cope wth the condition's(pilot i mean)diorientated..etc/etc.......but now we have the new (artf)situation where you put your equipment in and hope that somebody else has glued it together properly-for no body can test each kit for the stresses it is going to be put through...in the case of the Wot 4...there is a certain number of people who think that they must put in as a min a 60 2st...and away they go...on a wing and a prayer...so really not surprised that some of the artf Wot's are having premature death's.....

 

       ken anderson.........

[Braddock, VC]

Richard, the amount of twisting you need to do is minimal compared to the amount of force that is applied during normal club type manoeuvres where double figure "g" numbers may be routinely achieved.( Incidentally I did not suggest regluing wings.)

I did this to the wing on a blackhorse ultimate bipe, contacted ripmax, then inwoods and was sent a new set of top wings.

Neither ripmax or inwoods asked for a contribution nor did they want the unserviceable wing returning.

You have to ask yourself if you are complying with the provisions of the ANOs if you ignore simple testing like this.

One of the tests that our cfi applies to newbies (and oldies!) who bring new planes for him to test fly is to pull the control surfaces to ascertain if the control panels will fall off in flight. He does this quite vigorously.

I keep recalling the girl that was killed by someone who glued an acrowot tailplane in without removing the film. I don't want to do anything like that or argue the toss with someone who dismisses the use of simple checks out of hand.

By outside the box I inferred that one should consider more than the integrity of the model and take the effects of failure into the equation. OK most times it's just going to dent your/my wallet but what if?.........

[001]

If anyone buys an ARTF then The Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies. That is, fit for purpose.

 

But, if the assembler or builder has not the experience to assemble it in a safe manner or does not read, comply with or understand the instruction manual then it is their reponsibility if something is added,  - (as in a larger engine!) - left out, wrongly assembled or badly adjusted.

 

So, John, why are you flying a Wot 4 ARTF with a Saito 82, when Ripmax advertise as a maximum, the fitting of a 8.65 cc two stroke!?

What does the instruction manual say about it

 

What was originally in question was the basic design and integrity of the structure of my aircraft as supplied by the shop.