Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom    Gallery
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
    Search This Thread  
 
Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> ARF or RTF >> Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom
Page: [1]

Tower Hobbies Get Coupon Codes Brands  
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 8:03 AM   
fixedwing71


 

Posts: 28
Score: 100
Joined: 11/21/2004
Last Login: 7/6/2012
From: Rocky Mount, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Hello everyone, first post.

I've been in R/C planes for about 6 years now and got into planes after racing off-road cars for about 10 years. I have earned the name Arf Man from my fellow club members here in NC, and a title I'm proud of!

Anyway, I've been waiting for someone to come out with an F-4 Phantom ARF and a friend passed along the link to Richmond R/C where they are selling the Vmar F-4 Phantom. From the pictures it looks great; a lot better-looking than that funny-lookin' thing Lanier makes. I searched the forums here before posting to see if anyone had opinions or experience about the F-4 and didn't really see anything. I did come across a lot of negative posts about Vmar, but like any manufacturer, there will always be problems at some point (I'm never going to buy a Great Planes ARF again as I had two and I had nothing but problems with both of them).

Does anyone have this plane? If so, what do you like/dislike about it? The guy I spoke to at Richmond R/C wasn't very nice or helpful, but I guess he was mostly in the business of doing business, not helping out a potential customer. Is Vmar really as bad as people state here or is their quality getting better?

Thanks for the help everyone!

Hide Signatures
       Post #: 1

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 8:15 AM   
tIANci



Posts: 10489
Score: 116
Joined: 1/15/2004
Last Login: 9/16/2011
From: Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
Status: offline 		VMARs are that bad ... relatively, but for the price what can you say. Seen the F4 fly, it flies easy enough for an intermediate flyer. However, the the engine bay is too small for anything bigger and it does need something bigger if you wanna fly slightly fast. Stock motor size will fly it but forget trying to do some decent loops. The plane looks nice in the air. Don't worry about landings ... she is not that bad!

_____________________________

Its nice to be important, but its more important to be nice ...
Revver Brotherhood No. 232

Hide Signatures

(in reply to fixedwing71)
       Post #: 2

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 5:26 PM   
fixedwing71


 

Posts: 28
Score: 100
Joined: 11/21/2004
Last Login: 7/6/2012
From: Rocky Mount, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the reply! When I called the guy at Richmond R/C he said that a .61 will fly it fine, they recommend a .75, and a .91 is if you want to burn holes in the sky. I have a Cermark F-16 that has a very draggy airframe that flies fine with a .61 FX. The specs for the Vmar F-4 is 9.5-10 lbs., and my F-16 is just over 9 lbs. I'm not interested in "burning holes in the sky" with this plane, and my humble opinion is that a .91 is probably too much power. My plans are to take the .61 off the F-16 and mount it on the F-4 and if it flies it fine, then I'll get one for it. If not, then I'll look to something else.

Didn't know if anyone had flight/stick experience with this plane and can give me any additional insight....

Hide Signatures

(in reply to tIANci)
       Post #: 3

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 7:30 PM   
Dai Phan



Posts: 1248
Score: 135
Joined: 8/27/2003
Last Login: 4/24/2013
From: Blythewood, SC, USA
Status: offline 		Hi Fixed Wing,

Vmar planes are economically priced and they fly fine but they will not last long. Eventually, the covering breaks down and the planes will age pretty fast. It is too bad that you have problems with GP, but I believe that their ARFs are very, very good in terms of workmanship. Of course, there will be some lame ducks but overall, they are very very good. Look at the Fokker, Super Stearman, Chipmunk, P-51 arfs; their workmanship is nothing short of amazing.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to fixedwing71)
       Post #: 4

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 8:13 PM   
DocYates



Posts: 3142
Score: 135
Joined: 1/2/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Killen, AL, USA
Status: offline 		If you did not like the Great Planes ARF, then the VMAR ones certainly will not fluff your skirt. At one time I "took up" for VMAR and even stated publicly that their ARF's with a little work, made a nice flying airplane. I have lived long enough to have to eat those words. I have flown many of their planes, I have a friend who is a distributor and can get them at a discount price. The covering on these things is similar to shelf paper. If you have to reapir it, you will not find any way to make it look decent, and in order to recover it, you will have peel this mess off leaving a sticky residue. What you find underneath has no resemblance to balsa wood. THe engine mounting, nose gear mounting, and tank mounting is primitive to say the least. The included hardware really needs to be replaced. WHen these things could be bought for $99, I would have said it might be worth it just to get something in the air. Now however, they are asking for $229 for this plane. I have flown the LAnier F-4 and with a little modification you can make it a very nice flying and looking plane. It is very light as well.
I am not here to bash the VMAR kits, becasue as I said, I have publicly defended them before. I am stating that I nor any of the guys I fly with have had much luck in getting these things to fly well or hold up for very long.
Tommy

< Message edited by DocYates -- 11/22/2004 8:14 PM >

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dai Phan)
       Post #: 5

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 8:42 PM   
tIANci



Posts: 10489
Score: 116
Joined: 1/15/2004
Last Login: 9/16/2011
From: Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
Status: offline 		Fixed ... the plane that flew was on a 91FX I think I will check and let you know tomorrow. I think you are asking for too much from a 60 2C for a 9 lbs plane of that sort. If it were like a Cub then no issue at all.

< Message edited by tIANci -- 11/22/2004 8:46 PM >

_____________________________

Its nice to be important, but its more important to be nice ...
Revver Brotherhood No. 232

Hide Signatures

(in reply to fixedwing71)
       Post #: 6

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 8:48 PM   
tIANci



Posts: 10489
Score: 116
Joined: 1/15/2004
Last Login: 9/16/2011
From: Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
Status: offline 		Doc ... my pal's Stiletto had its covering coming off from the cheeks and then the wing covering tearing on its own after like 15 flights ... he gave it away. The next guy who had it says the covering glue keeps off coming off the plane, finally the covering from the trailing edge came off, about 2/3 of one side of the wing.

_____________________________

Its nice to be important, but its more important to be nice ...
Revver Brotherhood No. 232

Hide Signatures

(in reply to DocYates)
       Post #: 7

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 8:54 PM   
Dai Phan



Posts: 1248
Score: 135
Joined: 8/27/2003
Last Login: 4/24/2013
From: Blythewood, SC, USA
Status: offline 		I would recommend you stay away from Vmar because I believe the hassle of repairing it is not worth the time and the investment. Dai

Hide Signatures

(in reply to tIANci)
       Post #: 8

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 10:01 PM   
fixedwing71


 

Posts: 28
Score: 100
Joined: 11/21/2004
Last Login: 7/6/2012
From: Rocky Mount, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Doc, the two GP planes I had were the "Legendary Warbird" series planes. I had the P-51 and the FW-190. I heard not too many good things about these planes (long after I bought them, of course ) and I never got them to fly well. I sold the FW for $100 - considered myself lucky to get that much - and broke the P-51 in half on a botched landing approach. Saying that I would never fly a GP anymore may be too strong of a statement because I have heard mostly good things about them. Mine was probably an isolated experience, at least I hope so.

Anyway, you all have very good information and good points. Has Vmar been any better about their quality? The F-4 is a faily new plane is why I'm asking...

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dai Phan)
       Post #: 9

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 10:46 PM   
Dai Phan



Posts: 1248
Score: 135
Joined: 8/27/2003
Last Login: 4/24/2013
From: Blythewood, SC, USA
Status: offline 		The FW-190 and P-51 belong to the ARFs in the early days where they were built from plastic/foam/balsa materials that are IMPOSSIBLE to repair. Nowadays, these types are being phased out fast and replaced with ARFs being built with balsa/iron on covering like kits. Every now and then, you would see these old types appear but look at today's main stream ARFS, you will not be disappointed especially from GP. Those types that gave you much headache are from those "old days".

Hide Signatures

(in reply to fixedwing71)
       Post #: 10

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/22/2004 11:17 PM   
Dai Phan



Posts: 1248
Score: 135
Joined: 8/27/2003
Last Login: 4/24/2013
From: Blythewood, SC, USA
Status: offline 		Regarding Vmar, I would not waste the money since they are not of good quality. Take your money and invest on known brands like GP, H9....

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dai Phan)
       Post #: 11

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 11/26/2004 1:46 AM   
Drew 247


 

Posts: 15
Score: 100
Joined: 9/24/2004
Last Login: 6/30/2005
From: NJ, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		What can you say about VMAR. For the price they look good...a little on the heavy side....BUT>>>>>>>>>>>
The customer service SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!. I waited 2 months for a replacement cowl for the Subaru.



I would not invest in VMAR Products any more....I think the F-4 for $299.000 is a little over priced especially if you need replacement parts........stick to Lanier

BDREW (BiG Drew)

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dai Phan)
       Post #: 12

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 10/27/2005 3:18 PM   
BaldEagel



Posts: 9354
Score: 118
Joined: 10/12/2005
Last Login: 5/25/2013
From: Wychling, Kent, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		Dear all
I have one of the VMar Phantom's flying on a Picco 60 with a Weston quite mini pipe, as to quality, I am old enough to know that you get what you pay for, as for the hardware any American kit has to have all of its hardware binned as its in inches not metric so none of your hex heads fit or any of your metal clevi, even undercarrige legs are not the right size for metric collets or retract units, Robart are unavailable here. VMar are OK in my book, not as good as H9, but then not as expensive.
Mike

_____________________________

No matter what anyone says 100% is the maximum you can get.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Drew 247)
       Post #: 13

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 12/20/2005 5:55 PM   
BaldEagel



Posts: 9354
Score: 118
Joined: 10/12/2005
Last Login: 5/25/2013
From: Wychling, Kent, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		I note that Fly RC in the Jan 06 Edition have tested the VMar Phantom F4 to a rave review, and I agree with there conclusions about this aircraft, I'm seriously considering getting a fleet of the rest, next I think the Mig 21, but this will be after I convert the Phantom too electric.
Mike

_____________________________

No matter what anyone says 100% is the maximum you can get.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to BaldEagel)
       Post #: 14

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 12/21/2005 6:45 AM   
Cyclic Hardover



Posts: 7292
Score: 100
Joined: 5/7/2002
Last Login: 5/12/2013
From: New Mexico, , USA
Status: offline 		My main reason for not getting any of the Vmar prop jets is their lack of front end style. However, out of the whole line up, the F-18 looks the best up in the nose area. But if I did get it I would do what i do with all my other arfs which is strip it down and rebuild as necessary and recover. it would still svae time inthe long run.

_____________________________

Retired Army Aviator - Where the heck have I been?

Hide Signatures

(in reply to BaldEagel)
       Post #: 15

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 12/24/2005 1:41 PM   
BaldEagel



Posts: 9354
Score: 118
Joined: 10/12/2005
Last Login: 5/25/2013
From: Wychling, Kent, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		Cyclic
A prop jet is never going to look that good compared to a real turbine, but I think I may be doing the next best thing in experimenting with high power electric, I have an Extra 300L @ 72" span flying on an AXI outrunner at the moment which I plan to install in the Phantom early next year. At least it gets rid of that ugly silencer hanging down.
Mike

_____________________________

No matter what anyone says 100% is the maximum you can get.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Cyclic Hardover)
       Post #: 16

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 12/24/2005 10:53 PM   
BBW Walt



Posts: 962
Score: 105
Joined: 1/13/2002
Last Login: 5/10/2013
From: NWest, IN, USA
Status: offline 		I built one, put 2 flights on it before this winter set in. Starting over I'd pass on it. The covering and finish is as is and is not repairable. Balance it according to plans. If not and the rates are as manual suggests the plane will not flair on landings. Ours was a tad nose heavy with the OS 91. If you fly off grass you will have issues with the mains cracking the mounting rails, sheeting, and covering. Bigger wheels would help. We did not go with retracts. Lots of issues with the control rods and cleves's. In the air it fly's pretty good, till it literally falls apart which won't take long. My experience with the Vmar F4...

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

Nothing is impossible for those not doing the work

Hide Signatures

(in reply to BaldEagel)
       Post #: 17

RE: Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom - 1/2/2006 8:12 PM   
BaldEagel



Posts: 9354
Score: 118
Joined: 10/12/2005
Last Login: 5/25/2013
From: Wychling, Kent, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		No Glo
All covering is repairable in some manner or other, All the flight reports you read on this aircraft and my own experience with it you have to put lead in the tail to get the correct C of G this is obvious with the long nose. All models including H9 need to be beefed up in the undercarridge department if you fly off grass including my H9 Miss America, Most ARF need the clevis's and push rods binned.
Your oppinion has been clouded on VMar products by the many negative reports always on rcu, I do not have a problem with VMar at the price you can get them for they are one of the best value ARF on the market.
MIke

_____________________________

No matter what anyone says 100% is the maximum you can get.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to BBW Walt)
       Post #: 18

Page:   [1]
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> ARF or RTF >> Vmar/Richmond R/C F-4 Phantom
Page: [1]





Jump to:


 
Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

RC Universe is a service of Internet Brands, Inc. Copyright © 2001-2013.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America


0.578RCU1