GRANT ED

I have noticed that RCU's whipping boy VMAR have been releasing a number of new models with the F-5 and the mig 21 plus others. I was wondering have VMAR improved. Are these models of a better quality that the older models?

MerlinL14

I believe they are, but I will still not buy one . They are still well behind other cheap manufacturers like Seagull, who even use the same factory!!!!!!!!

c44u

Well, they couldn't get any worse, could they?

Seriously - they may be getting better, but so are the others.

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

Not long ago I was interested in the F-5 and a couple other prop jets they have. On my initial look at the planes, I was very disappointed. They look like they were designe by a 5 year old kid. If they can make them lok that bad, they can make them look good. There loss!

ooooo

I never had a problem with VMar products to begin with. I always liked their trainers.....the Apache III for instance is one of the best trainers on the market. Their sport planes are also awesome.......the Edge 540, the Arrow Tiger, the Cap 232 .60 - .90 size etc just to mention a few are well built and have good hardware. The covering is what most ppl have a grouch about because it cannot be duplicated or replaced easily. The design of the firewall and having 80 % of the hardware already installed is what an ARF is all about. I've done my share of building kits over the years as it's hard to get ARF's or used planes in my neck of the woods.
I'd say VMar rocks (although not the best ARF available). IMO they are better built than WorldModels. (There I've said it....and maybe stirred the pot)

Cheers.

IronCross

Better the WM... There goes your credibility... Have they started using real balsa yet or are they still using that green wierd wood that sits in the sun on the flight line and warps as it drys out.?

kqutob

Kaz
Better retract that befor this thread is avalanched with protestors.
good luck

ooooo

I've got big shoulders. I stand by what I've said. I can only speak from my experience with VMar products. I believe they have better planes than others and more variety....and mostly the price is right.

Ironcross wrote:
"Better the WM... There goes your credibility... Have they started using real balsa yet or are they still using that green wierd wood that sits in the sun on the flight line and warps as it drys out.? "

My credibility is not in question here, so climb a greasy pole somewhere else if that's your thing........................take another look at WM......not even enough wood. They don't use balsa even....just wood strips and styrofoam.

IronCross

You sure your talking about World Models ?... I have 7 of there ARF's and have yet to see any styrofoam used... Even there new low priced (69.00) ones which are great flyers do not use styrofoam... We use them for pylon racing... Good price and good planes..

ooooo

OK.....take a look at their Velox Rev II......wood strips and styrofoam between the canopy and empennage. The Wing has to be strengthened...the landing gear has to be done over or they rip off completely on landing.....even greasing it in. The firewall has to be glassed or the engine will rip it out. Whilst we're at it......ask anyone who owns WM low wing planes and have their input and advise. VMar is one step above WM at this point in time.....but don't get me wrong, I'm by no means saying VMar is ok by a long shot. They have improved with their building material and scale looks.....their covering cannot be duplicated or replaced. That's where they need improvement at this point in time.
Cheers.

ooooo

Check this ad.....everything you want in an ARF and more. Proves my point eh! except maybe for the covering.

Fastsky

I have an WM Super Sports 40. Replaced the smallish wheels for my grass field but used everything else as supplied. Very smooth, very fast well built plane that flys and lands easy. Can't complain, and it was a very good price for the value. [8D]

caseyh46

My Feedback: (1)

My WM low wing T-34 is absolute Beaut.. no foam anywhere.... no fiberglassing the firewall.. no rebuilding of the main gear (and I by no means have greased every landing)... heck.. they even come with that nifty clear cowl so you don't have to guess while cutting the real cowl. Kaz I have to respectfully say that I think you are wrong about WM. For a 110 dollar T-34 that can be used as a very fast pylon racer is a good deal anywhere in my opinion. In my opinion.. which is just mine... WM is far and away better quality than VMAR... but good on ya for holding your own and saying your peace...

IronCross

KAZ
I have 2 WM T-34's, (Pylon Racing), 1 Dago Red, 1 Mustang (Rockwell), 1 30 size Extra, 2 Super Sport 40's, 2 SkyRaiders etc... All low wing planes... None of them have exhibited the traits you mention.. I do beef up the firewalls on all my ARF's. Just my thing... And generaly like the Mustangs etc which have .91's in them they are way overpowered.. They fly great and are built tough...
I however do not or have ever seen (besides pictures) the Velox Rev II.

ooooo

Hi caseyh46......the new students at my club migrated to the WM sport 40 and T-34 after the got their wings....these were the best of the new students last year. Sure the planes were fast, flies so-so ok.....but if looks could kill....both of those models would do so. They dropped those models after a month. The model that I'm referring to with WM is the Velox Rev II...it's a 60 -90 size. Check this site for the extreme modifications that owners of this plane had to do.....I know, I own one.

Here's my opinion on a good model that earlier everyone was up in arms against.......Phoenix. Their planes are excellent and came a long way.....flies better than WM, VMar or Seagull.
All that I'm saying here is.....VMar at their present state of ARF's...has come a long way.....'Xcept for the covering that cannot be duplicated or replaced...... IMO, the Apache III is one of the best trainers around and their scale models are something other manufacturers have to recon with. Hey and the price is right

model-flying.com

I fly 2 VMAR planes, A cap231 Breitling and one of ther Easy 3ds. The Cap is great to fly although a little heavy. The Easy 3D is just laugh, I just through it around the sky without a care (well for £55 it's easy to replace) It will hover all day with a Irvine 46 although I dont like the colour scheme.
Have a look at my website for some pics.

Andrew
www.model-flying.com

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Kaz, your credibility is all you have here. We don't know you, or anything about you. If your posts are credible, people will take you seriously. If they aren't....

Yes, your credibility is very much in question here.

Jim

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

I've owned a couple VMAR planes and never had a problem. One thing everyone always seems to miss is the price. The prices can't be beat.

Kudos to VMAR from one manufacturer to another. Keep it up.

ooooo

[quote]ORIGINAL: jrf

Kaz, your credibility is all you have here. We don't know you, or anything about you. If your posts are credible, people will take you seriously. If they aren't....

Yes, your credibility is very much in question here.

Jim


So Jim....you want to point out where in this thread my credibility is in question and why you want to do so?
If you have something tangible to contribute to this thread on the topic of the original question that was asked then do. This is what I have done.

IronCross

Kaz
To discuss Vmar's quality is one thing but to come out and say they are better then WM puts your credibility in doubt... Do a search for WM and the Vmar on here... Should leave no question as to which is prefeered... I have had 3 of the Vmar Hot Rods which I used for racing also... They are fast planes with an OS .46fx in them... However on all three I had to split the elevators apart to take the warps out, I had to reslot the ailerons to pull the warps out... It sat in the sun a couple of days and I had to replace the rudder it warped so bad... It wasn't even made of balsa... Some of Vmars funny wood.. I had to replace the 4 plastict T nuts they used for the wind bolts as they were too loose.. Thew all the hardware away.. Some was the wrong size. some just plane garbage.. I could go on, haven't even touched on the covering yet... The "square wheels" etc.... Once straightened out the plane flew like a bullet though...

NoFlaps

My Feedback: (131)

I bought a VMAR .40 size Pilatus againt the judgement of everthing I saw on RCU.
Upon assembly, I was mildly dissappointed with the seemingly cheesy faux wood laminate on the firewall, overall arf heavyness of the model and hardware that seemed a bit cheap/ clunky.
the wing had a crack in the sheeting and felt brittle as I used a hypo needle to inject CA under the covering.
On the other hand, I was very pleased with it's scale looks in the air and on the runway (up-close, the detail has a little overkill)...It was easy to fly and got a-lot of ohh, and ahhs at my field.
People were impressed with the detail and the cockpit area.
I had been impressing people with the plane for weeks, and grinning that my purchase was not in vain
Then judgment day came...I accidentially had my multiplane radio not set for the corrcet one on TO.

As it screamed down the runway w/ it's MVVS .49 on board, it began to lift at 100' dn the runway, When she was 5' off the ground it banked a lil' left and I THOUGHT I counter rotated.
Given the ailerons were reversed it acceleated the roll and within a nano-second, the air was filled with a plume confetti-like, psuedo balsa wood and brightly colored shelf paper.
there was little to be found in the aftermath but a 6' long divit in the ground and scraps of an incredibly brittle substance I can only equate to that of a vintage box which corn or produce would typically come in.

There was utterly nothing that could be salvaged accept one pilot... plane was a complete and utter gonner.

Although it was 100% pilot error, my take on it was that if I had built it or if perhaps it came from another company...It might have been salvagable.

Overall, I give VMAR:

looks= 8.99
Performance in the air= 8.50
Durability/ actual craft quality= 3.0
value= 6.25

I might buy another just for kicks as it flew great, but I'd know that it's a limited lifespan plane.

Those are my 2 cents.

ooooo

I've had my say about VMar and WM and you have had yours....I did not question you. Bad doggy Bad doggy.


To jrf (Jim)....since you had nothing to contribute to the thread and you question my credibility for no reason.....I don't believe you are too smart.
So read what I have to say slowly.....so you don't miss my point.....
It is my belief that VMar has improved ..... except for
their covering and that VMar is better than WM Seagull.

Cheers.


Edited for content

Campy

My Feedback: (1)

I have had/have several World Models ARFs. The quality is among the better ones out there. The ONLY complaint I have with them is the phillips head bolts they provide for the engine mounting and wing bolts. Why can't they provide socket head bolts ? The cost difference can't be that great.

britbrat

Interesting approach to communication Kaz --

Edited the content... bubbagates

Woody 51

Here's a pic of a friend's WM SS 40. Only a few weeks old and after a nomal landing, the complete front end just fell out. Why? NO BLOODY GLUE!!!!! So much for WM qualtity!!!

VMAR. Yes, they are using REAL Balsa now. But a good ARF does not have to use Balsa. I have an ESM F1Trainer and a PREMIUM PT-19. Both made from Obachi. Great kits and great flyers.

I have had several VMARS over the years. Enjoyed their PC-9. Hated their Chipmunk and their Stilleto , back in the mid 90's was a disaster. But my longest serving VMAR (A Ramrod, circa 1998) went to "God" a few weeks ago after 7 years service. Not bad for a "piece of junk!"

Would I have another VMAR? No. Not when one sees what Sporstman Aviation /Global and Phoenix are coming out with. Check out the new Phoenix Tucano- superb.

What about a WM? Great once, but no longer "kings of the hill" guys. The newcomers on the scene have raised the stakes and have done to WM what they did to everyone else years ago. Now it's up to WM to respond.