alanc

outline does not make substandard, which means cheap, shoddy, we deserve better, your issues have been noted right to the top of the chain, i only hope you give the same retort to other companys that you give us, again, i urge you, politly, to remove the substandard wording, i respect your stance on scale, but not this, this frankly sir, is wrong, and unjust

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Your definition of substandard is much different than the one most people use then. I posted what I mean by substandard, and I stand by it.

alanc

and i have posted my views, and i stand by those views, so stalemate i am afraid,

kormak

what the He-- are tanks doing on aircraft thread? Hope Fw -190 is closer to scale outline, want one

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

Given your background and experience, I think you should design an FW 190 and perhaps a 109G6 (all composite) that's better and since you are right in Massachusetts, I would be happy to help form your corporation and/or do whatever legal work is necessary to help achieve this end. I would be willing to forgo receiving fees for my office' work and get paid at the end of the project when it makes money. I would not however be willing to advance filing fees or other out of pocket costs.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Actually I'm already working on a Ta-154C/H for just this reason. Fuse will be composite, wing will be foam covered in 1/64th ply. I'm starting in 1/6th scale for now.

The Bf109G series are way overdone. Plenty of them out there.

Instead I'm doing a He-100.

ghost-RCU

My Feedback: (10)

Merlin, Where can I find a 1/6 Bf 109G ARF. I'd like to have one.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

No place anymore.

dragoonpvw

My Feedback: (7)

What an absolute load of rubbish. I know you are trying to be a smart Equus asinus and you are trying to wind everyone up, but come on.
This is not an FW190, you do realise that don't you. This is a fw190 arf. Therefore the standards that it would be held up to would be all other FW190 arfs. The only ones that come to mind are, the old Great Planes foam skin, ( how scale) the Giant Scale planes and the cmp nitro models etc. The KMP is better than all of those so not only would it not be substandard, by your own definitions it would actually be raising the standards. Unfortunately it hasn't been raised as high as the standard of the other kmp/yt kits but it is stll as good as others on the market so there you go. So unless you actually believe that this is a real FW190 your little dictionary definition has no place here. Perhaps a little too long at the round table while the mead was passed around. or perhaps just the evil part has to be satisfied. Sing us another song 'Myrddin ab Morfryn'
Good Luck
Paul

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Again, you are not hearing the words coming out of my mouth (um... fingers rather).

WHY DIDN'T KMP DESIGN THE PLANE THE RIGHT WAY THE FIRST TIME?

The excuse that it matches the 3-views they had doesn't hold any water.

The CMP/Nitro "model" doesn't even deserved to be mentioned (well other than the one that is being redone here: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5869761/tm.htm)

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

Believe me, we heard you. Your point was made several pages back (and I agreed with it), however, now it just sounds like fingernails on a chalk board.

They just didn't, what difference does it make why? If they came clean and admitted that they didn't do enough research would you be any happier with the final product? As has been said before, if you don't like it don't buy it. If enough people feel the same way then next time KMP will do a better job. If the airplane is a success then please just accept the fact that you got outvoted by the majority and go look elsewhere for a manufacturer that suits your idea of "right".

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

Where are the 109G6's at?

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

Can we get to some more important points please , for those who have purchased KMPs in the past , do you feel they are worth the price ? Not on scale outline (please lol) I am talking about there assembly , there flyability ect .
I seem to recall that there last release had some issues with the angle of the gear making it very difficult to take off .
I am thinking of taking the plunge with this new plane but want to know if the investment is worth from the following standpoint
1)overall strength or will I get the same tin can effect in the fuse that many arfs have ?
2)retracts - worth it or will I be spending another $300 to upgrade
3)do I need to reinforce everything like on my $259 arf jobs or are they built better ?

dragoonpvw

My Feedback: (7)

That is not what came out of your mouth (fingers).
You said it was substandard and used an illegitimate reason for saying so. So dont shout at me because you are trying to dodge that obvious point. Retract that and you can go on with your real tantrum.
Good Luck
Paul

jescardin

My Feedback: (1)

ESM/YT/KMP:

Please, produce and offer soon your Focke Wulf so we aficionados interested may touch, asemble and enjoy flying it and stop discussing nonsense matters. I will never consider using neither my actual 109 nor my future 190 for Scale Championships nor Top Gun, just for weathering and flying nearly most Sundays and for that a full composite machine with acceptable retracts for just arround $650-700 seems very acceptable for me.

If for contarcting a scale guru for getting a better scale outiline price should rise to $800-900 then I just will not ever consider it.

Then, of course, you all know there a lot of "knoweverything" people among us: those that go both on Saturday and Sunday to the flying field but never fly (and wneh they do it should be better they didn't) but always tell how things must be designed, built and, of couse, flown.

Some even may have designed top quality products that we general RC modelers didn't understand well and made the producer firms goes out of bussiness and then, of course, these experts try to teach successfull companies like yours how you should lead and direct your firm!......JUST AWESOME!.

And they exist all over the world: I know no one, two or three of these guys but a lot more of them. In the other hand I only know two great designers and it just because I worked with them and I never heard them critiquize others designs because they explained they knew well the great work, effort and illusion behind each model.

You ESM/YT/KMP pay your money and take your risk, please keep your job and supply we warbirds fan with a line that we never dreamed of becoming true having to build from plans, from small collectors expensive kits or from even smaller highly overpriced kits that aside the work needed for building them (no more of 15% are ever finished) most get horrible finishings and colour schemes.

Best Regards,

Jesus Cardin

nicostoffi

nothing more to say.

For this price and Quality, there is nothing else.
I'm the owner of a Me 109, P 38 and Ju 87 from this, and all are very beautyful and low price.
The 190 is ordered and I think she will also be a good model.If you want more scaler - you must buy a Sist or Airworld 190, but
you also must pay a lot of money more.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Once again, since some people are not getting it.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MO MORE EXPENSIVE OR DIFFICULT TO DO THE MOULDS FOR THE FUSES PROPERLY THAN IT DID TO DO THEM THIS WAY.

Understood?

Why is it so difficult to understand? I'm not asking for a scale masters qualifier (I'll build those), but I'm asking for ARF done better than this. The Bf109, Hurricane and Stuka have a better scale fuselage than the 190 does.

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

I'm getting it, in fact I made the same point waaaaaay back on July 20th in this thread: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_60..._5/key_/tm.htm
I expressed my opinion and moved on, something you seem unable to do. Either that or you're just trolling. Hmmmm...

Richard L.

My Feedback: (24)

This is the first time a KMP warbird has been discussed so much about due to its inaccuracies. Sure, the other KMP warbirds also have scale errors, but those errors are not noticeable and don't jump out at you. If the inaccuracies on this FW-190 are not too obvious, then we wouldn't be having all these discussions. Forget about scale, it sure would be nice to have an FW-190 ARF that looks "right".

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

Nico:

How does the Stuka fly. I've been thinking about getting it. I have a GP Stuka and it flies good. It was the second plane that I bought since becoming involved in the hobby.

My GP Stuka, KMP AT6 with a Saito 100 and my KMP 109.

Alan: will the re-release of the 109 have the same paint scheme and or any other changes from the previous issue?

alanc

the stuka flys better than our wildest dreams, its only problem lies in its low frontal area, so anything above the RCV series will stick out quite a bit, hookum, forum member has fitted, i think, a large YS motor in his, and it doesnt look half bad, nico has fitted the in-line SP motor, but hulking great gas motors may present a bit of a problem, our very first prototype, fitted with the lovley large cannons flew well with the RCV91CD,

indeed, at last weeks woodvale rally, near liverpool, UK, it aquitted itsef well, in company with 7xYT ME109s, it managed to get through to its target, the 109s fought off the 4 hurricanes, this was in a simulated ground attack, with pyrotechnics, bomb explosions etc,
after the fighters had landed, 2 lancssters at 18foot took off, together with 2 wellingtons, of 18foot span, and a lone handley page harrow, of 20foot span, targets where destroyed, in spite of being harried by the 2 remaining ME 109s, all fighters and the stuka where YT/KMP, bombers where kit built and yes, the kits of the Lancs are available

believe me, it HAD to be seen, SUPERB!!! video of the stukas maiden on indigbos home site can be seen on the r/cflyers forum, i will ask if it can be put on here

ticketec

My Feedback: (2)

Agreed with EM and Chad, but have done the same.....

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

Great. I would use a Saito 180GK since I have a few of them around here that need planes. What's the story on the re-release of the 109?

hookemut

My Feedback: (3)

Greetings alan, nico, and all,
Yes, alan, my KMP/YT Stuka flies very nicely! I have a YS-120 for power, which is more than enough power. Truly, to put any gas engine larger that 25cc would be a shame , in that the Stukas have very narrow cowlings and most gas engines would cause the cowling to be butchered.
These KMP/YT models are very sturdy with an external finish that seems invunerable.
KMP provides well-constructed models for those of us who look for 120-size warbird ARF's with reasonably believable lines. Their inventory includes ARF models of airplanes not available elsewhere. In the case of my Stuka, I did quite a bit of research. There are some minor areas with which I could quarrel but over all, it is quite accurate.
I have followed the 'why didn't they follow the correct lines' verbage for some time. While I understand their complaints, KMP/YT have selected designs which are realistic, produceable, buildable, and which fly wonderful. While on active duty as a Navy pilot, I did fly the Grumman F8-F Bearcat and while there may be some hiccup in the cowling lines, these are more than overtaken by the lovely overall lines! Were I able physically, I would not hesitate an instant to purchase the new KMP Bearcat!
Best to all,
hookemut

lownloud

when are these planes available and who has them?