Carlos Murphy

My Feedback: (72)

Anybody have one of these planes from NitroPlanes? Are they from Condor Model Products?

I'm looking at their 82" T-6 (retract ready) Pics look good as dose the price.

iamrandy

I have the Tiger Moth and the Long EZ. I have just about completed the Moth. A GREAT bargain, but you
d better know what you're doing if you get one of these. The instructions with this are minimal, so you'd best have good experience with models. I should be testing this plane this coming week. Powered by Magnum 1.2fs.

RCLT40

I have been looking at there Ultimate Biplane for my next plane. As you say they are great deals. But you know what they say about things being too good to be true.
Iamrandy, The web site says your Tiger Moth comes as an ARF. How much of a build did you have to do to get your Tiger ready for the field?

opjose

Got the Nitroplanes Ultimate.

Nothing wrong with it apart from no alignment template, and lousy manual.

The CM manual can be downloaded though.

da Rock

Actually, the 46 size has a couple of "wrongs". And they aren't minor wrongs.

The cabane structure is 2nd rate. The design that's used with the WorldModels version has fore-to-aft braces that aren't included in the NitroPlanes knock-off. Those braces increase the rigidity of the top wing a TON compared to not having them. And the struts that are included in the NitroPlanes version are bent in the middle, not close to the lower attachment points. That is actually a bad design decision as it makes the struts weaker not stronger resisting both compression of the top wing and tension of it. The nitroplanes design could have been much, much better at no difference in mfg cost, and tremendously better with very little extra cost. They obviously don't have much understanding of what they're selling. You really don't get what you don't pay for.

And their design of the aileron rigging system on the 46 size Ultimate also sucks. Unfortunately, so does WM's.

These aren't just cosmetic things. The cabane is going to allow freedom to flex under flight loads and increase the wear on what support there happens to be. The NitroPlanes model isn't going to stand as hard flying and isn't going to last as long as the WM significantly. And the lousy rigging is going to make both of them twitchier and less capable flyers. But hey, if it's more apt to snap in, then it's less apt to wear out, right.

Fortunately, an experienced modeler can easily fix both problems. It's just a shame NitroPlanes didn't have a few to consult.

da Rock

opjose,
If you're looking at the 46size Ultimate, you ought to do a search on these forums for a couple of long threads about that model. There is at least one thread on the aileron rigging. It's quite easy to use the silly hardware included for the rigging and modify it to rig the ailerons so they work equally. They don't come close otherwise. (might be why some people have found that model to be "snappy") And there is a thread (maybe two) that discuss the weak cabane design and how to fix that.

Fixing those two design flaws is easy. Matter of fact, the good aileron rigging takes less time to do and is also stronger.

RCLT40

One of our club members purchased one. He's comments on it was not go get one because of the lower quality. Anyway, I purchased a H9 Twist for my next plane. I'm just about half way finished putting it together.

opjose

Eh, I checked into this before purchasing the plane.

The WM .40 version bracing is identical to the Nitroplanes version. I think you are referring to the WM .60 version that does include the extra cross bracing.

In any event I had planned on fabricating a new cross brace as I thought that this was a good idea.


I'm missing something. The struts are no different than the WM .40 plane pictured on their site.

Take a look at the .40 pictured on the WM site.

Except for the missing alignment template, there is nothing different as far as I can tell, though w/o a WM to compare against I'm only going by the pictures and posts.


I see nothing wrong with the "quality" of the build...

Thanks to the excellent thread on this here, I was going to also tackle the rigging problem...

Now could someone PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE... upload a 1:1 scan of the aligment template, preferably done with the templates right on the scanner glass, and saved in jpeg?

It would be much appreciated.

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

Looks like "Talk isn't so cheap after all." [X(]

da Rock

Actually, I'm not really talking about the advertising pictures.

The WM 46 model itself (the model, not the pictures in the advertising) has diagonal braces and the bend in the cabane struts is located down where the bottom ends are attached to the fuselage. In a discussion with someone who has the cheaper version of that ARF, he didn't get the template, nor did he get the diagonal bracing, and the cabanes he got were bent in the middle (the least mechanical advantage).

Have you seen a WM 46 Ultimate that didn't have the diagonal bracing? Mine does, and I got one of the first they sold. I have seen pictures a guy took of his Nitroplanes Ultimate and it has cabanes like the advertising pictures. The two versions don't seem to be identical at all. The advertising pictures are identical, but the stuff you get out of the box you've paid for isn't. I got what you see in the attached picture (well, the MightyMouse decal wasn't in the box, but the struts were). Didn't you get what all those advertising pictures show? No diagonals and the struts bent in the middle (where the bend will weaken the structure the most).

The picture on the WM website is missing something.... reality. They are selling a better version than they are picturing. It is confusing unless you have seen the actual models or pictures of them.

BTW, the diagonal bracing that WM is using with their 46Ultimate can be improved. chuckle.... yup...... and it's worth doing.

They have the diagonals come from high up on the front crossbrace, down to the back brace, right below the bend in the cabane, to where the cabane is attached to the fuselage. Both braces go from the top of the front cross brace to the bottom of the rear cross brace. My attached picture doesn't show my later mod.

da Rock

Here is the way my WM 46 Ultimate looked right after I'd finished assembly.

Sorry I don't have a later picture. But the better design shown can be improved one of two ways. You can most easily run a brace from the top of the front cross member to the top of the rear cross member. Or one of the diagonals could be changed from it's front-top-to-rear-bottom diagonal, to be front-bottom-to-rear-top.

After flying the little sucker a couple of outings, it became apparent that the top wing is under some pretty heavy forces in flight and benefits from having both attachment points to the cabanes (the two bolts through the wing) as rigid as possible. And the rear brace isn't rigid at all front-to-back. The front brace is rigid front-to-back because of the diagonals. The rear can share that rigidity with a simple brace from it to the front brace.

opjose

OK, The lack of Might Mouse is the LAST STRAW!!!!

It's simply inexcusable!



Sounds like I'll be ordering the WM version after the first crash....

BTW: Except for the diagonal, my struts look the same as your picture.

da Rock

Then they don't look like the Nitroplanes' pictures or the WM pictures. There is a bend about halfway down the 4 "verticals" on the advertising pictures and in the pictures of a finished Nitroplanes Ultimate. My pictures show the where the WM Ultimate verticals are bent. They're bent almost at the fuselage. That gives the best stability to the structure. Having the bend in the middle is the place that weakens the structure the most it can be weakened. whatever........

is this what you're looking for?

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry, that was not meant for you. I received a PM from some wise guy and was hoping he saw that.

opjose

DAROCK: THANK YOU SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ruler was an inspired touch to permit me to rescale it properly!

Awesome...

Thanks again!

da Rock

No problem. Glad to help.

BTW, I have a guarantee on all my advice and help.

If you're not entirely satisfied, there will be no additional charge.

opjose

BTW: Any place you recommend to get the World Models version?

Thanks.

da Rock

I got it first from the US distributor for World Models. It's out in California somewhere. I don't have the url now, but it was fairly easy to find through GOOGLE. They also had a list of retailers who carried WM and my closest LHS was on that list.

I asked them if they'd get the 46 size for me and they said "sure, right away". A couple of weeks later, I asked about it and they said, 'hey, they require a minimum order and we're "working that up" and haven't sent it in yet' He hadn't mentioned that to me anytime that couple of weeks. [:@] I told him to cancel my order and I got on the phone to California. I got it in 5 days. About two weeks later, my LHS owner says, "I got that model you wanted. The delivery guy is unloading it right now." By then, I'd seen how good the sucker flew and figured it was worth having a backup. And no matter what the LHS owner's actions, I figured in his mind that I'd ordered it and since I'm good for my word, I just bought the 2nd one. It's that good anyway. However, I no longer ask him to special order for me.

da Rock

But hey, after seeing a couple of photos of the knockoff, you know what?

I think I'd buy the knockoff if I needed another one. I've yet to run into a Chinese ARF that didn't need some corrective engineering and I already know the problems with that knockoff. Also, I've already built a "primo mfg's" ARF and then it's knockoff. I assembled a KYOSHO CAP 232 awhile back and then assembled a knockoff of the same for a buddy of mine. Truth is, I did it for the friend partly 'cause he's such a good guy but mostly to get a feel for what you get with a knockoff. And the knockoff was almost as good as the KYOSHO (which had been VERY GOOD).

I figure that for an experienced modeler who is sure of himself, knockoffs are perfectly acceptable. Heck, they sometimes have corrections to their design or construction that wasn't in the original!!! But then, may have a few flaws of their own too...... But a good modeler can fix anything, can't he.

opjose

Yeah, I'm doing this backwards... I got the knockoff first and now I'm thinking of getting the WM version so that I can both fix the Nitro version and have a backup.

I should have done this the other way around though.

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

I really don't get these company's. I assume that some effort goes to designing their planes. If this is the case, why can't they wipe the spit off their safety glasses and make those things look more scale. That Large P-38 could be a nice looking plane but looks like it was drawn up by a 5 year old. The engine cowls look horrible and it does not have to be this way.

da Rock

Cyclic,
That's an interesting way to put it. And hit the bullseye.

A bunch of the ARFs are excellent in every way. Shape, design, construction. But almost always have one or two kinks that simply shout "SORRY BUT WE DON'T ACTUALLY FLY these things, we just 'design' and manufacture them" But there are a bunch of others that look silly when there is no excuse for it. There certainly is no reason the P38 has to look so stupid.

I'd suggest that the underlying reason is simple. The ARF factories are run by people who branched out of the toy manufacturing sector there in China. And they don't actually have any background in modeling, just in toys. But that's just a guess.

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

The reason all these "B"arfs look like they do, is people have little, or no pride in what they fly, and will actually buy the damn things. Too many guys shell good money for crap, so why should they make them any better looking?

cjtyped

My Feedback: (1)

I have bought, assembled and flown the Nitroplanes TigerMoth. How many of you commenters have ACTUALLY built and flown one of their products?
I an very happy with my purchase. Order online, get the aircraft within 7 days. Instructions are minimal at best; be prepared to figure things out ( we ARE men....who needs instructions anyway? ). The aircraft flies great. Will be using it for cross country games.

opjose

Well I for one bought one of their products, but because they do not supply the needed alignment jigs, which the WM do, and the Nitroplanes manual calls for, I'm unable to build the model I purchased.

Nitroplanes dismisses this with "we'll contact the manufacturer" when anyone asks, then never gets back.

This is SOP for them.

I'm not the first with this problem if you search the boards.