Backwing

My Feedback: (3)

I just got my first one for Christmas. A 140 size Yak 54.
Did someone say instruction manual???
All I got was a 2'x3' roll out drawing of the plane. Not very helpful.

BUT. I did get this plane because of the good things I have seen about it here on RCU. I know I don't have a whole lot of room to talk because this is my first one, and haven't really started it yet, but other than the manual, it looks good.

What I wanted to say, is that I think what your are doing is excellent! I wish more people would do what you are trying to accomplish by improving a product by actually listening to the public; wether it be positive or negative, and try to fix a possible problem. My only concern is, that I hope the factory will listen, and try to work with you and make changes where needed.

DarkGreen

I have a 50 size Mitsubishi Zero ARF and I have a problem with the landing gear retracts supplied with the kit, namely how to mount the wheels supplied.

comes like this:
|
|
|
|

Needs to be like this:
|
|
|__

They expect me to somehow bend it perfectly in 90* with a pair of pliers (which broke without even moving the rod)

I would guess I need a mandrel bender just for that... Ugh! what a mess!

Other than that I had no problem putting the kit together, it is my first plane, so I have no idea how it will fly. I have a friend whose into this so he can help me get started. I am mechanically inclined so the kit was built easy, the canopy was somewhat sloppy, but I did what I could. I love the kit and the job I did putting it together. Just waiting on my engine to come so I can BLAZE.

Tyler Smith

AK Models

Hi Tyler,
CMP Zero 50 kits do not come with Retracts...
To make a 90 deg. bend you need to use wheel axels that slide on to LG rod. then you cut them to needed legth.
Good luck.

MaJ. Woody

My Feedback: (28)

I bought a 1.40 size P-40E and an F-6F from AK last week. I ordered them on Sunday and had one here on Wednesday and the other on Friday. Both kits looked awesome. Very well packed with no damage anywhere. FEDEX shipping is a plus as I have had bad luck with UPS crushing just about every box sent to me (not from AK).
I feel confident buying from AK knowing I'm getting genuine CMP products and support if needed.

Thanks!
Dom

kmp647

I purchased a giles 202 140 72" and it was shipped quickly and arrived in excellent condition. I am building it as an electric model with an axi 5320/28 on 10s. The only problems I see are the wing tube is a littleloose in the socket(fuse). I used some tape on it to make it fit tighter.
Nice plane and a great value.

Thanks

Volfy

My Feedback: (23)

I know at lot of folks don't like the "instructions" that come with the CMP ARFs. I can't say I blame them. It does look a bit skimpy compared to the typical step-by-step photo+text booklets that come with most kits and ARFs.

May be I'm just used to looking at engineering drawings, but I actually prefer the CMP line drawings. It is very concise and includes just about all the information an experienced ARF/kit builder needs to put together an ARF. Afterall, do I really need a whole paragraph of text and a couple of black and white photos to tell me how to epoxy wing attachment dowels? Best of all (and I think this is a big reason why the manufacturer does them this way), it is language independent.

I do think the conventional booklet style instructions would be very helpful for the more entry level ARFs, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to have them for the more experienced level ARFs either. I hope, though, that you won't do aways with the line drawings for those of us who prefer it.

Backwing

My Feedback: (3)

Volfy - I certainly see what you are saying now. Last night I started working on the plane, and the line drawing really isn't that bad.
I was just looking for a little more info that might avoid a problem. Some of the other planes I've built have stated specifically not to do one thing before the other, or you won't be able to finish the plane without cutting something up, and possibly replacing parts.

Volfy

My Feedback: (23)

Backwing, for me personally, the best part of the written text in most ARF instruction booklets are actually outside the step-by-step building instructions. I like to read sections such as engine recommended, the flight trimming sections, and flying tips (for example, H9's 3D manuevre instructions for their Ultra Stiks are a classic). Some scale ARFs even include a historical description of the full-scale plane. Those are the kind of things the written word is difficult to replace.

I have put together enough ARFs that I don't much need to follow along the instructions any more. I find myself going over the manual and scanning for bits and pieces of information I need (firewall to prop hub distance, thrust angles/offsets, CG location, tank & radio placements, etc.), and then just start building. Besides, half of the time I am bashing/modifying ARFs, and so I am deviating from the written instructions anyway. I'm 1/3 into putting together a GP Giant Big Stik right now, and I've only opened the instructions a few times to look for specific info I needed.

I do agree that a good instruction manual should include precautions and added descriptions for tasks that may be tricky or confusing. One good example is the elevator bellcrank system that World Models likes to use in some of their mid-size ARFs. It is used to transfer control from a single servo to two elevator halves. WM's instructions are also notorious for having line drawings only, and this one was no exception. The line drawing for the bellcrank was very clear, but darn it, I had the roughest time trying to figure out how the get all the linkages installed in place in the correct sequence without the parts falling off all over the place.

Sorry to digress.

racer8297

My Feedback: (13)

Getting Irwin out of the mix is the best thing. Improving the product should be secondary . All kidding aside, I do think that Irwin of GSP is most of the problem.

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

plane: CMP/GSP .50 Zero

Problems: CG is so far off the plane went in on first flight. After using another method of calculation, it was determined that the recommended CG is way the f@#$ off.

Customerr support is the absolute worst for any product of any kind that I have ever purchased. Jacquiline Shum at CMP ignored my emails and did nothing about a problem that was clearly caused by their negligence and or carelessness in testing and updating product information. I will be filing a lawsuit against them for the damages to the plane itself and all of the other incidental damages associated with my loss. I will be likely to name all of the US distributors of this product and let the defendants decide who has what % of the market share.

To avoid the lawsuit, I simply asked CMP (Jacquiline Shum) to replace my plane (I would eat the cosat of the other wrecked components) and make reasonable efforts to notify customers of this plane about potential CG problems and she ignored my requests and offers to settle. The problem here is not my plane but, that consumers are being misled and the product information as delivered.

Further, CMP's business perspective is backwards. By saving themselves a few dollars on cheesing out on customers problems, they sacrifice thousands in potential business here in the US. Americans are probably the largest consumer country in the world with the world's leading economy. They just don't get it.

Broken

WOW- If you are going to make the claims you might as well back them up.
1- How off was GC Fwd/Rear Did you balance the model right side up or upside down.
2- What did you do to calculate the correct CG.
3- Did you fly it with the new CG / If not how do you know it is correct?

Just thoughts- But my guess is your model came out tail heavy (as many fiberglass models do) and you crashed it on takeoff. There are way to many places that you could have made mistakes before your first flight. And threating a foreign company with a lawsuit is not the right way to get things done-

Also are you able to prove that every model of the type you purchased is defective? Do you plan a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone who has purchased a model from CMP.

Cubano8

I believe the CG was off on my P-40 too:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=375831

take a look at the last 2 pages where I calculated the CG after the crash.

And Please, can someone out here either dissagree with my final CG, or agree.

I would really appreciate some type of feed back on this, 'cause to tell you the truth, I've heard of more crashes than success with these small warbirds.

I would really like to see them flying

racer8297

My Feedback: (13)

Actually, about 1.5 years ago I was driving by the Giant Scale Planes store so I stopped by to take a look. Right up in the front was a Yak 54 72" (I think it was the 1.40 size). I met Irwin, the owner and asked him about the covering that looked so good. I thought that the colors were Ultracoat, at least they looked it to me. BTW, the fuse was fiberglass. Irwin proceeded to give me a lecture about how all coverings are the same chemical composition and if I thought that Monokote, Ultracoat and Chinacoat were different then I should go back to school and re-take chemistry. Made me feel like a jerk. But I really liked the plane so on an impulse I bought it. About 2 weeks after I brought it home I decided to start the model. It sure was pretty. There was an instruction sheet inside that had some drawings but did not have a CG listed nor control surface throws. And the instructions left allot of the assembly up to my imagination. So I called Irwin to inquire about the CG and throws. His response was "you shouldn't have got that plane if you can't figure it out". And he was very condescending and curt. I really should have tried to return it but instead I went on the internet and figured out the approximate CG. I used throws similar to another plane I had which gave me about 1" of elevator throw.

To make a long story short, the throws were WAY too much and I barely got the plane down on the maiden flight. During that landing the LG block broke. I was so disgusted with the experience that I turned to my buddy (xxspeed) and said here, if you want this POS then you can have it. Otherwise it's going into the garbage.

That is my experience. It does not reflect the experience of others. I think the CMP made a great product. Only to be destroyed by an arrogant US distributer.

varble4u

Wow, I thought Irwin was only known in the Heli world. I would never buy anything again from one of his companies. He as screwed so many people in the Heli field that his name brings disgust when mentioned on almost any bulletin board. I spent thousands with HHI and almost never could they get the order right, or Irwin would try and pull some crap and say "just make it work". I guess he will never learn and just keep alienating customers. Ken

Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

Yeah, after reading all the posts about GSP and Irwin awhile back I decided not to do business with him, and I tell others. There are several other companies selling CMP now. My only fear after them making a bunch of improvements is the cost going up comparable to KMP. I'm pretty cheap, the most expensive arf I've paid for was a Rascal 110. And I cant see me spending that much again even if it IS a perfect arf. I usually build but succumbed to the cheap prices to get me thru a dry spell and curiosity. I dont mind doing some mods to bring it up to my standards. Fortunately RCU is here to weed out the bad arfs that just cant be fixed.

Makes you wonder how Irwin stays in business. Fortunately I fixed my impulse buying. When I see a plane I gotta have I wack my hand with a hammer.
Edwin

DiscoWings

My Feedback: (76)

The paint is so terrible on the wings[&o] really good on the fuesalge but crap on the wings? Why not glass the wings also and make the paint permamnent? The new kits should be like the Warhawk where the decals are already applied on the fuse makes for a fast build.

Also hardware on the all the kits is bad and Some of the contruction is not fun:
I hate that wooden dowel pushrod nonsense. It would be so much easier to go with nylon tubes and metal push rods. Also on the 120 size warbirds use a Joiner wire for the elevator or give the option of dual elevator servos. Flap setup on the spitfire/hellcat and all other planes where you have to use the funky dual prushrod running off 1 servo is lame. Rather have 1 servo for each flap. The firewalls are not strong they need heavy renforcement and the wood doesn't stick that well to the fiberglass, I tried all sorts of epoxy and it would just eventaully come off (may be gorilla glue/probond would work)..

Discontinue the 40 size line, everything in the 40 size line is terrible, the 40 size planes come at 7.5-8 lbs! Serioulsy they suck and have terrible stalls and also fly like garbage.

Retracts... Why doens't CMP make some air retracts that would fit their planes? The century jets are just not that great and I hate cutting robostruts to match... I dont' like spring air design because you can't control retract down speed plus they dont' make a 90 degree rotating one; not to mention when you are done flying they stay extended... I'm surprised they don't have some nice 1/2 inch strut 2 ways considering how many warbirds they have.

desmobob

Alex,

You are an honorable man (and brave, too!) for starting this thread!

This thread helped me to decide to try a CMP ARF. I ordered the 1.40-size P-40 and it is due to arrive this week. I've assembled a bunch of ARFs by different manufacturers and look forward to comparing the CMP to them.

Happy New Year,
desmobob

AK Models

Thank you desmobob.
I hope others can stick to threads intentions (problems and solutions only) and not go in to other matters in great details.
Thanks to all that came with brief descriptions of their kits, problems and how they managed to fix them.
I also thought before problems become “official”, it would be nice to have problem confirmed by more than one or two guys. If anybody had same problem already posted, juts mention post number and mention that you had the same problem. Thanks again.

Cubano8

AK Models,

Have you test flown any or all these CMP planes? It would be nice to get some type of feedback from your exp. A video would be nice too. Something like Hobby Lobby has. When they come out with a plane, they take a video of it flying, and post it on there web pages. That way we could see the "Proof in the Pudding".

WarbirdMadMan

It's nice to see someone that wants to tackle and solve the problems rather than makeout they don't exist. I have built quite a few of the CMP planes for myself and others and generally they are good quality for the price we pay with a few minor issues and one or two major ones.

The major issue I have faced has been the internal wing structure.
I had one of the first Katana 140 size aerobats of which had a complete left wing failure in flight which destroyed the plane. The wing failure was due to the shear webbing being fitted with the grain in the direction of the spars giving no strength at all. I know newer versions of the Katana the wing issue was resolve and my plane was also replaced with a new complete kit which I was very grateful for. I have had no wing issue with the new one.

But I also have the CMP Zero 71" Warbird and after the retracts coming out a number of times on reasonable landings and having to beef up the retract area I found the shear webbing in this wing again in the wrong direction and splitting. I absolutely love the Zero. It is a beautiful flying Warbird and the fuselage has held up nicely but the wing is coming apart. Also the servo mounts for the ailerons in the wing are very weak and need to be strengthed. Mine were flexing all over the place. I hope that CMP take a look at the way they are building the wings on all their planes so there are no more wing failure issues as it is no fun losing a complete plane. Paint chipping off was also an issue on the wings of the Zero. Fuse was ok.

Another major issue especially for the newbie modeller is the dowl pushrods for rudder and elevator. With the length they have to be to reach from the servo tray to the tail there is a great chance of flutter if the rods are not encapsulated at the halfway point. I have seen this happen first hand with one of the Spitfires. Flutter on the elevator caused the rod to be flexing and hitting the sides of the fuselage at such a rate (sounded like a machinegun) that it broke the control arm off the servo ending with the plane crashing.There needs to be some mention of this in the instructions or a piece of ply added to the kit to feed the rods through which can then be glued to a former halfway between the tail and servo tray.

I have one of the latest P-40E 140 size and have found this to be excellent quality with only minor issues none of them being with the build but more to do with things like the shape of the spinner (more like a P51 spinner shape), the counterweighted elevators (not scale to the P-40E) and the size of the wheels (way too small for this scale). I know they are minor things and it hasen't stopped me from buying what is a great kit but it would be all the nicer with these few things corrected.

I know lots of people complain about the hardware and I am a little the same. I generally replace it, some if not all because I won't risk loosing the plane due to the hardware.

I really like CMP planes especially the Warbirds. They are great for a gas conversion like the Ryobi. So if some of the issues can be ironed out before we puchase them all the better.

Hope some of this helps,
Cheers Tim (KMM)

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

Thanks for your input. I balanced the model upside down on a GP balancer. I left it slightly nose heavy at the most forward reccomended CG. I have another that I built and is ready to be flown with my CG calculations.

The plane flew tail heavy but I was able to get it to take off OK. I could not however, get it in under control and without damage.

I would only offer to file a class action on behalf of other .50 zero owners with similar complaints. The larger CMP warbirds fly better. While there are likely similar issues with the larger planes, I would not want to worry about the certification of the class of plaintiffs.

SLJ2137694

My Feedback: (33)

Maybe the issue with this airplane is the weight of the aircraft along with the CG. A class action suit!?! Ya, that will fix them, they just won't import into the USA anymore and that will make everyone happy. Got to go, I just heard an ambulance go by!!!

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

Or, maybe just the CG. Genius.

SLJ2137694

My Feedback: (33)

Or maybe just the weight, Genius.

esacco

My Feedback: (30)

I have the CPM 120 Zero and so far it has been great! I did do a lot of mods before the first flight. Beefed up the reatact mounts and added supports in the fuse for the controll rods. Also had to re epoxy the servo trays as they were weak from the factory. I also repaced all of the clevises with DUBRO locks to be safe.

It flies FANTASTIC and has no bad trendencies so far I can see. I'm using a SAITO 180. I only have 6 flight so far so far so good!

Any thing else I should be looking for?