ESM Models.......
 

I bought my 1st ESM model (Miss America) from VQ Models. Nice company.
But,, Very disappointed in the model. I have been in the hobby over 25 years and put together MANY ARF models.
This by far was the worst. Nothing is lining up, Parts have to be sanded and adjusted, colors don't match up.ETC
Missing parts.......... I can't believe the parts missing. Pull Pull assembly completely missing, exhaust stacks missing, the whole tail wheel assembly missing...... WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON???? The box was sealed.
I had to make up my own personal parts. I Contacted Tomas at VQ Warbirds and in no time he sent me out the parts I could not reproduce.
I also bought the ESM electric retracts (Version 4) the latest. Plugged them in and only 1 worked. "JUNK" Again Tomas accepted them back and sent me out Robarts. Much better......
If I didn't have the flaps and other parts started,,, I would have returned it. Most likely paying a $60-$80 shipping.
NOW MY BIGGEST COMPLAINT and the reason for making this post........ THEY SPELLED AMERICA WRONG!!!!!!! America doesn't end in a "c"....
In the future I will stick with the name companies,, Pilot,Great Planes, Hanger 9 ETC
VERY DISSAPOINTED IN ESM MODELS
Hoss

That is quite disappointing! I am planning on going to look at 2 ESM planes tomorrow (NIB from a non-flier), the P-39 and DO-335, I think I will check them very carefully before committing to the deal.

Thanks for the heads-up!

Rudi

Wow, that is pretty crappy! I’d heard that ESM kits require a lot of work, so not surprised by the ill-fitting parts. But the rest? Wow. Good on VQ for being so helpful.

I recently assembled a ESM 72" w/s Hellcat. The wing saddle was not level. Had to shim up one side with balsa sheet. Only 1/16", but still. The holes for the stabilizer tub was not horizonal. Had to open up hole land glue on shims/adaptors or whatever. The gear mounts were not even and had to work on those. Finally got it together and it looks and flys ok. I'd call ESM semi ARFs. Also had to redo the cowl mounts to get good airflow out the rear, but that is not unusual.

My last ARF was a Top Flight 60 size P-40. Found one left over at a LHS. Compared to the EMS it went together without a hitch. What a difference.

Too bad Top Flite doesn't manufacture that class of ARF's anymore. I was pleased with all of them for quality and flying characteristics.

Hi Guys,
ESM models are not the easiest models to assemble. I have built a the F6F, and Skyraider ESM models...I've also the F7F and P-38 all with Sierra Giant Scale gear, accept the Skyraider. If you're looking into a 30 size WWII fighter...they do have the best selection on hand. With out a doubt...Top Flight has the best flying wood built models and well built models too.. Yes its a shame Top Flight are not producing there .60 to .90 size models anymore...for they al fly very will with DLE 20 cc gas engines in stalled. I prefer the 30 size ESM models...they are not the easiest to assemble and the assembly instructions need a good bit of attention. But the models fly will...even at higher wing loadings.
Soft Landings Always,
Bobby of Maui

I had the 109 and the Spitfire and both had significant problems. I documented them and told KMP's owner at the time when he was distributing ESM but it didn't matter. The molds are bad, the fuselage masters are not symmetrical. I had to modify the 109 saddle to level the wing. I started to do that on the Spitfire then I said to heck with it and flew it as is. Both planes didn't fly well at all.
I had two Spitfires and one 109.
I examined my friends FW190 and Hurricane ESM kits and the same thing was going on there too.

Thats 4 different models with the same issues!

So so if your into paying to modify planes then go for it otherwise stay away, not worth the headache and loss of cash.

I scooped a Bonanza on the forums a while back from someone who changed their mind. Had a quick look for any damage when it arrived. Sounds like once I get it on the bench I will have some work to do.

I was toying with the idea of a Hellcat that popped up in the un-assembled state for sale. Think I'll pass.

hi all,
I like the ESM models, have had 8 over the years, they are a builders kit, meaning they need a few mods and quite a bit of work, they look very good and fly very well, once you ignore the recommended throws and some of the CofG's are criminal, the air undercarriage units are quite good, definitely better than Century Jet in my opinion, (I do have a set) have not tried the electric units.
my first was the 6' P-47, well over 100 flights, then a P-51B, criminal CofG but now I have it sorted it is great to fly, 2 of the 6' Spitfires, first one died, very nice to fly, a 6' Corsair, it was good but I had flutter problems in the elevators, it died as well, I bought a second hand Typhoon, it was a dog to fly, needed more power, then I bought the 85' Corsair, quite a build project but it would have to be my favorite model, flys like a dream, really like it, then I bought the 89' Spitfire, read on.
OK, that is the good bit, I bought the 89' Spitfire a couple of years back, it seems like they have stopped any Quality Control with their kits, it has been a Major problem, the ailerons did not fit the wing, where the flaps join the wing the top sheet had split, the elevators were a different cut out shape to the tail plane, at least you have Thomas to help you out we have someone in Australia that might answer the phone, does not know what you are talking about and is not interested, all problems have to be referred back to the factory, it took nearly 12 months to get another set of wings, they forgot the tail planes, that took another 2 or 3 months, then part of the deal because of all the problems I was to be sent a spare Cowl, the one I received almost 12 months later is such shoddy workmanship I wont use it and would be too embarrassed to try and sell it, where it is joined along the top the join is about 1/4 inch thick.
I have bought parts from Thomas on several occasions over the years, because the local bloke just says, we dont have it, I think he just used "drop shipping" for most of his kits.
my opinion of ESM kits after the Spitfire has gone from an 8 in the early kits to maybe a 1 with the Spitfire, a major part of my problems has been the Australian distributor.
just my opinions,
Oldtimer.

Hay Oldtimer,
I will agree with you that Century Jet retracts suck...and I ended up going with Sierra landing gear. I love Sierra landing gear, strong, well built and can take a beating. Sierra gear are more expensive then the junk C. J. sells you, and Darrell, at Sierra Giant Scale, will fix your damaged gear if you have a less then perfect landing.

I also agree that ESM kits take a bit of work to put together, but fly really nice. To me well worth the energy to put together. I also tossed out all the push rods and cables. The cables in the kit will fail...cheap junk, and I went with Sullivan and DuBro gear to replace what came in the kit.

I deal with VQ War Birds and Tomas...and I can't say enough good about this man and his customer service. The best in the business and a honest man to deal with. The F6F flew with a 35cc gas engine and came out to 20# with a repaint. It flew so well it surprised me...and the Skyraider I built was much more easy to put together. I also went with push rods to the elevator and rudder and dual servo's for the elevator. I toss out all the hardware in ESM kits...you do the same, its junk.

Soft Landings Always,
Bobby of Maui

Thanks for the replys guys......
 

I am in the home stretch on finishing my Miss America. I am happy to hear that they fly well..
Don't think I will maiden it until spring... Getting cold here in Wisconsin
I do have a question for the guys that have built ESM models........ The CG ??
In the crappy instructions it gives me a mark of a 137 mm from the leading edge IN THE CENTER OF THE WING.(bottom) Without being stupid is this where I will hang the plane inverted????
I have never seen anything like that before. Is it only on the Mustangs or is it on all ESM models that the CG should be check this way???

Again I do agree with Bobby that Tomas at VQ handles things well. Not sure if I would buy another ESM model again.....
Any information on setting the CG would be GREAT
Thanks Guys
Hoss

hi, if the Miss America is a 72" wingspan P-51, the 137 is way too far back, my 72" B Model P-51 has a CofG at about 110mm back from the center join of the wings, Move your fuel tank back over the CofG if you can, less likely to nose over with a full tank that way, mine has a DLE 35ra in it, it moves, mine also flies with a little bit of down elevator, 3/8 up travel will be heaps. have heard of people using a further back CofG than I do, but I find my Mustangs are nicer to land with with a slightly forward CofG, originally they came out with 150 something in the book, it was instant flip on take off.
hope this helps,
Oldtimer

Thank you Oldtimer.........
The "B" model and the "D" have 2 different CG points to start from.....
I am a bit nervous going back that far. I would really like to hear from someone that has had success flying the 71" "D" model on their CG point.
But PLEASE don't get me wrong.......... I thank you for your input.
I would like to know the CG on the Miss America.. Cripes Almighty,, and the Glamorous Glen
Thanks again OldTimer
Hoss

hello Hoss,
110 is nose heavy compared to 137, it will be more stable in the air with 110mm back from the front edge of the wing at the join.
cheers, Oldtimer

Oldtimer...........
I have a question. Is it possible that the Miss America needs 22 ounces of weight in the nose to balance it??
That is unheard of. I have NEVER need that much weight to balance a plane.
My CG point is at 128 MM
If I went to 110 MM I would have to back a cement truck up my driveway :cool:
I moved everything up to the front as much as possible and still nee 22 Oz of weight
Is this about what you added??
Thanks Oldtimer
Hoss

I had a TBM Zero that needed 5 lbs.

I have the ESM 89" WS Spitfire, it required 6lbs of lead in the nose to achieve CG at 143mm. In the manual the CG was listed at 153mm which was beyond the maximum CG for this ESM model. Never ever trust the CG stated by ESM! Always do the MAC measurement to find the correct CG!

Roger

hello Hoss,
something wrong there, my P-51B has no added weight at all, DLE35ra up front, 2 1500ma batteries for the Spectrum Rx, plus a 4 cell Nimh for the engine, total weight is just under 7kg, if it is over 7kg in Australia we have different inspection rules.
Oldtimer

How accurate are the weight estimates on the ESM planes??
My Mustang is suppose to weigh in at 14LBS
I just weighed it and it is 17LBS...........
Oldtimer,,, What could be wrong??
RX battery is in the nose and the RX.
I still added 2 LBS of weight to the nose.
Wondering if it matters,,, You are balancing a "B" model and mine is a "D" model
Not to happy with the flying weight of this plane.
I am flying a DLE 35

Thanks
Hoss

hello Hoss,
seeing I live in Australia, I would suggest you find one of the more experienced Pilots in your club, or one nearby, get them to check it over, I have found most of my 72" ESM models all fly with similar CofG points, even though the total weight varies a lot, depending on how long the nose is, my P-47 came in under 15lb, the Spitfire and the Typhoon were well over that weight, but still flew / fly well,
I have the electronic unit for the engine just behind the firewall, then the batteries up in there as well, the Rx is at the back of the wing as far away from the Engine / electronic unit as I could easily get it, all of the servo's are as far forward as I could get them, either side of the fuel tank, with the rudder servo just aft of the fuel tank. mine has air retracts, the servo and air control are at the front of the wing. the air tank is toward the back of the wing, that way all air parts are on the wing.
as to weight estimates by ESM, never had one or heard of one coming even close, their throws, CofG and weights are pure guess work IMO.
But having said that, once you get them sorted most of them are great to fly.
cheers, Oldtimer

Hey Oldtimer.............. I been flying and building for more than 30 years.
I have everything in front of the CG except a airtank
I am using Robart Electric retracts.
I am no a newbie in the hobby. I just can't understand why there is so much nose weight.
2 pounds on a 30 cc model is unheard of.
I guess when spring comes around I will see.
I will be a bit nervous putting the maiden on this plane
Thanks
Hoss

Hello Hoss,
My Apologies, I have been flying for about the same, My Typhoon was heavy, more than you are talking about with the 51, I only had a 30 in it, badly needed a 35 or even a 50, had to watch it if I got a bit slow, My 85" Corsair is over 15kg, but it is beautiful to fly, weight doesnt seem to worry it.
cheers, Oldtimer

My 72" Hellcat came out to 19 lbs. With the relatively short nose I did every thing I could to shift weight forward. Has a DLE 35RA. I built platforms inside the cowl to mount a 3,000mha battery for the RX and a 2,500 mha battery for the ignition. Also used a heavy brass Hamilton Hub and a heavy brass nut from Higley. I addition, I cheated and moved the engine and cowl about a half inch further forward. I still had to put about 9oz of lead shot in the lip of the cowl. Flies ok. The 35RA is enough, but not over powered.

I know you don't have room for the batteries in the engine compartment of the Mustang. However, with that long nose it surprises me that it is tail heavy. I have a 60 size Top Flite Mustang with a DLE 20. I had to mount one battery all the way back, just in front of the tail wheel to get the correct CG. Start out with the CG back 25% of MAC. That should be controllable and then you can adjust from there.

Well just for the heck of it I rebalanced my Mustang on a buddies balancer and came up with the same results. 2 lbs of weight In the nose.
We both looked inside to find a way to shift any weight forward. That is it........ Nothing else can go forward and no way of making the tail lighter.
As said in a earlier post,,, The CG should be 137MM from the leading edge. Found out from reading that is way off. I went a 128MM.
I suppose I could move it back to 130mm and lose a ounce or two.........
One thing I did do and must be making a difference is I had a friend turn me some new motor stand offs. Brought the motor back about 3/16's of a inch.
If I didn't do this the distance between the spinner back plate and the cowl would have been a 1/4 inch. It looked awful.........
I guess I will be flying a 17lb plane............ Thanks guys for the replies guys.......
Hoss