cstevec

My Feedback: (1)

My personal favorite Love/Hate relationship is with the Pacific Aeromodels Laser 200. The plane is very high quality and the hardware is good, It flies like it is on rails and has no bad tendacies whatsoever. BUT........... (ain't there always a but?) ............ The landing gear is of a very poor quality it bends on even greaser landings, and is so springy if you hit even a little bit the plane will bounce 5 or more feet in the air. My second gripe with the plane is with the covering material. It is of a very poor quality, doesn't shrink, was wrinkled all over the plane and is unmatchable.

The plane goes together well though, and it really does fly like it is supposed to. I use it for practicing IMAC sequences.

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

So like the thread title says, should it be avoided at all costs or do you like it?

quint

tIANci

cstevec - I have been eyeing the Aero Pacific Laser 200 1/4 scale ... what size is the one you were flying? I have the EZ Laser 200 and loved the way it flies but that one is already like 15+ years old and I retired her.

JoeAirPort

My Feedback: (41)

That thing was a pain to put together. Had to add all sorts of wood and glue to make sure it wouldn't break. Putting the servos in that tight space was not easy. There just was not a whole lot of room for anything in that fuse (battery, radio etc). Well once it was built I forgot all about the problems and it flew nicely. But then the covering started to some off. Anyone that has this problem, iron it real good and seal the seems with Luster coat clear. Otherwise it will all peel off. It does fly nicely though. It just has the typical horrible coupling of a fun fly.

cstevec

My Feedback: (1)

tIANci,

I have the 1/4 scale. 72" wing, powered with a Saito 1.20. You will love the plane, you will hate the covering. The gas tank leaves a bit to be desired as it is only about 12 oz. (pretty small for a 1.20 size plane). One of the few ARFs I have assembled lately that has not needed lead in the nose when I used the recommended engine.

quint, personally I wouldn't buy it again because of the covering issues. Sure does fly good though. Looks good in the air but you can lose it on a overcast day. ( I have the blue one.)

8178

My Feedback: (17)

We should start a list of all the ARFs that have had wing failures. Hardly a day goes by that someone doesn’t post a note about a failed ARF wing.

ckangaroo70

My Feedback: (51)

One of my complaints is with manuals also. I have seen alot of manuals that are very vague, containing incorrect information, or just do not explain steps well enough. To be fair I have also seen some Manuals that are very well thought out, well explained, and contain nice details. I believe the Manual is a very important part of any new Plane, and should also be considered when making a Plane Purchase. It just makes the assembly process go so much better and smoother when you have a good manual. A bad manual can set you on the path of hating a Plane as soon as you take it out of the box. I would not go as far to avoid a Plane at all Cost because of its Manual, but it is sure something I would consider before making a purchase. I konw this is a ARF forum but I will throw this out anyway. Sig LT-40 Kit=Good Manual, Sig 1/4 Scale Clipped Wing Cub Kit=Bad Manual

Fubar-One

My Feedback: (1)

I put a Magnum .91 FS with onboard glow in mine. Sounded *****in during fly-bys but, as I said, flew like crap. I originally used a 3 bladed prop (forget the exact size and pitch) for a more scale look but when it would roll to the left when I cranked up the throttle, I switched to a 2 blade prop in case that was the reason. Wasnt. Rolled just as bad with the 2 blade prop.
Maybe I just got a bad one and yours will kick butt.[8D]

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

Any Lanier vacum formed fuse planes. I have built 3 of them two for me and one for someone else. If I had my way I would throw everyone I could find away. They wern't worth the air pollution they created when they were made[:'(]. Avoid at all cost, even though they are cheap.

NM_Mark

My Feedback: (8)

Seagull Models Edge - Right wing folded 45 seconds into maiden flight...didn't even have a chance to try a loop with the thing. Didn't fold at the root, it folded where the joiner spar ended. I emailed Horizon Hobbies twice...they didn't even bother to answer me. Another guy in our club had the same plane...wing folded on the 12th flight. Horizon ignored him too...now NOBODY at our club fly's Seagull Models planes.

I don't want to really badmouth Horizon, because some of their planes I absolutely love (73" CAP - LOVE IT!!!), but I think it would have been at least courteous to answer our emails...even to say there was nothing they could do.

Just my opinion...Mark

evfast

My Feedback: (31)

I had a problem with the wing, I talked to Randy at Horizon at product support and they sent me a new wing. The service and support was amazing. I really don"t understand if you say they ignored you.

Try to give them a call again and explain your problem, its in their best interest to help you out if the plane was defective.


anyways good luck

ckangaroo70

My Feedback: (51)

I know that Tower Hobbies is not always the cheapest place to buy from, but I think most, but not all people would agree that their Customer Service is Top Notch. I have never bought from Horizon, so I really can't comment personally about them. I know alot of people that buy from Horizon, and really enjoy alot of the Planes they sell, so it is dissapointing to here that the post above had a bad experience with Horizons Customer Service. I have never read a bad comment about Hobby Services in Champaign Illinois so I would really be suprised to see someone say that they had a bad experience with Hobby Services. From all the Flyers I Fly with, Hobby Services is one of the most respected repair places in the Hobby.

ckangaroo70

My Feedback: (51)

Alot of good info being passed on here.

jcflysrc

My Feedback: (50)

Knock on wood...I never got a bad ARF. I might be very lucky. For the most part, I think ALL ARF manufacturers turn out pretty good product. FOR THE MONEY. That's the key there. You get what you pay for, and if your LUCKY...like me, you will not end up with a lemon. I suspect that no matter what the price is or who makes it, you are subject to get a bad one every now and then. Now if one is "bad" because of design flaws, and has a history of failures, I sure want to know about it. And if one wants to know, a search right here will usually turn up the info. Thanks RCU!

A thread about "good or bad" customer service might be useful.

Jim

tIANci

cstevec - I know what you mean about loosing it in the sky on an overcast day. I noticed it when I first flew the EZ Laser. Thanks for the info.

Warjet

My Feedback: (327)

I have 2 ModelTech ME109 ARF's, 1 in the box unbuilt. The flying one has been around for a couple of years, never a problem, easy to fly (that's why I bought another). Flies best with an old HB 40 PDP (tried 46's, but were too nose heavy I think). Never can tell.....................

Warjet

My Feedback: (327)

I have a Global P-47 that I've had for several years, flies great. Remember, this was a 46 size plane by design, but mine has the Magnum 61 in it and it goes pretty good. Another club member put a Magnum 75 in his, a real screamer. Another case of you never know..............

josephair

AVOID AT ALL COSTS:

World Model 80" ZERO.....retract landing gear is weak and wobbly...the plane wobbles from side to side if the wind blows on it.

Great Planes...Lancair wing failure

H9 Corsair...crummy finish and SLOPPY retracts

H9 P-51...,.very weak retracts

Little Tony....firewall comes loose

GP GEEBEE...mistakes in instruction manual, quality of construction

Dragom Lady covering is a mess

China model products Peasooter....way too heavy

Goldberg Tiger 60 ARF.....tail fit sucks

Kyosho CAP...very wrinkled covering

GP Cristian Eagle.....flips over on every landing..landing gear way to stiff

tIANci

Jo ... what do you fly? Heheheee ...

Fubar-One

My Feedback: (1)

The one I had was .60 sized which is why I went with the .91FS. The recommended engine was their .8? (.84, .86?)FS that is no longer made. I am not a believer of overpowering a plane, myself but I do go for the upper end of the recommended engine range of a plane.

flyingbells

CM Pro Passion 3D

This aircraft is structually unsafe even though the rest (manual, covering, make etc) is okay. The problem is design in the tail.

Bill.

Roby

Doesn't ARF mean "all ready to fix" ? Or maybe "all ready fubar'd"
or
Perhaps they should be called RTR's "all ready to repair".

I am not a fan of ARF's but I have several as knock arounds.
I want to thank all of you gentlemen for some what validating
my opinion of these sub quality products.

Now , lets get back to building again.

Regards
Roby

Woody 51

No, ARF stands for "Already Faulty!"
I have not had one ARF that I haven't had to change or modify something on.
Even from the much vaunted "World Models." Hangar.

tIANci

Woody ... my ARF experiences have been good. Just saw the latest batch of VMARs ... leave a lot to be desired. Want a tough ARF? Go for a Black Horse, they are built strong ... hence a little over weight!

fkozlof

Thunder Tiger ARF's, IMO.
I've had two: Champion 35 (6+ yrs. back)
G-202 2 yrs. back.

Both had a tendancy to 'roll out to the right', when you cracked in up elevator.
I had very experienced helpers mess with balance, fit, elevator trim, etc. and we concluded there was something strange about the wing design, which caused what was in effect, a 'high speed stall'. While they did tip stall seriously, at slow landing speeds, they were especially 'crazy' at high speed, in a high G pull up.

To the point of being dangerous. I nearly headed for the pits a couple of times doing a high speed pass and climb to altitude.

I'm experienced at building, and highly confident in the wing fit and left-right angle of incidence, so if it's wrong, it's likely because the wings were not made symmetrical to start with (ie. left differs from the right).

Thus, I'm all done with TT arfs. Too bad about the G-202, 'cuz it looked real nice, and did some great aerobatics. It's just that some of them were not induced by the pilot !

If you KNOW what really might have caused this tendency to 'high speed stall', please email me at [email protected]. thanks.