High Sierra
Have you got a pic of the retract mount . Ace Hobbys do yoy no what the gold and whith curving is on the RB.

lee

Another "RareBear" bites the dust from Stab failure. Local man flying his last weekend when without warning "POOF! Down it came.

Based on what I've read regarding the stab failures, I believe the most probable cause is assembly error by the builder of the kit. When I fit the carbon fiber tubes in the stabs I found BOTH to be to long.

If one doesn't notice this during assembly and simply assumes the carbon fiber tubes are the correct length, the builder will damage the ribs within the stab and failure during flight will be the result.

Rich

Mine is sitting in the box, but very tempted to send it back after all the negative reports. I don't have time to waste on faulty craftsmanship. Rather wait till they work all the bugs out. Sounds to me that they have some serious problems. There's no way we should have to spend that kind of money then have to basically rebuild the ship!

I honestly think the only problem with this kit that need serious addressing is the retract mounts... but as for the horizontal stab... Im with Rbeav533.... I think alot of those issues are from assembly... Those tubes where a real tight fit on my plane, and it would be real easy to crack a rib trying to get them in, and if I remember right, mine also needed about 1/4 inch trimmed off (if someone just tried to make them fit as-is, I could see problems)... If I had it to do all over again, I would have used liberal amounts of gorilla glue on the tubes, inside te stabs, and epoxy where they join the fuse (as opposed to just epoxy which I did). When that gorilla glue foams and goes off, everything would become encapsulated inside in the horxiontal stabs....

All in all however, this kit does take more time to assemble than the average arf, and acctually does require a fair amount of thought (compared to most ARF's)....so for those people who just want a quick couple of evening of assembly.....This aint your bird..... But all in all, it's one sweet looking plane, and for $300 I'd call it a good deal considering what you get. Afterall, what fun would this all be if you didn't have to do some slight modifications... And fortunatly for all of you who are just getting started, there have been enough of us guinny pigs to show where the problems are (all 3 that i can think of.... H stab, retract mounts, and get as much weight forward as possible)...Flying wise, for a warbird, it's very good and no supprises.


Still haven't decided on my plan of attack on the retract mounts....still looking at that and thinking what;s going to be easiest to do without taking steps backwards (ie pulling the sheeting off)....

I will tell you what if they don;t solve the problem with the tubes in the stablelizer they have a real problem.for the money you pay for the plane you should;nt have any problems.in fact the hasel i had i wouldn;t take a free plane if they wanted to replace now after all the bull. i am a poor loser. have a nice day

hey snoppy doggy Bag i lost one also on real same problem sorry about that have a goog day.don;t buy from that manufacture again.

I'm with "HighSierra" regarding the value vs quality standpoints of this kit. I can tell from several of the post within this thread that a lot of individuals think the kit is over priced. My opinion is that you're all WRONG !!! Vampire stated in an earlier post that the spinner alone would cost about $75 from a supplier such as Tru-Turn. I believe it would actually be closer to $100 when cut for a 3 blade prop. In addition, the engine mount is a very nice copy if not the same unit marketed by Dubro. What's one of these cost today, about $25 ?? So if you had to pay for both of these items which are included components, you'd be looking at a cash outlay of $100-125.

When you look at the cost of this ARF kit and compare it to the E.Z. (Plastic Sheeted Foam Crap)kits that were first available about 20 years ago, this kit is an absolute STEAL.

IMO, if you don't want to pay for things like retracts or don't care to take your time and fit the parts correctly as outlined in the assembly instructions, stick with simpler ARFs or buy prebuilt models.

Just my $.02

Rich

It's people with opinions like your's that allow these manufactures to pass this junk off on other people. They will do what ever the consumers tolerate. It apears that the majority of people posting here accept this process as just the way it is. The bottom line is did you get what you paid for? In a few cases some people don't mind tearing off covering and fixing things that should have been done right during assembly. I think that this ultimately will be the case for truely fixing the retract issue. But I believe that the majority of people who paid $300 for this plane don't want to and feel they shouldn't have to do that stuff.
For a plane that was delayed as long as this one you would expect that when the kit finally shipped it would be right.
For those that don't think this plane is a steal, I recommend you to do something about it. Contact Ace and tell them what you want. If enough people are complaining they will have to rectify the problems.

The retract issue seems to be more of a problem if the builder installed oleo struts vs the typical wire based gear. It's a given that when installing Robostrut based gear, the retract mounts MUST be beefed up to handle the higher torque load that oleo strut gear transmits into the retract mounts. The retract mounts were designed for wire based gear, not those with oleo struts. If you read all the posts to this thread you might notice that this kit is the FIRST model some builders have built that requires retracts. So there is an obvious learning curve and those that chose to go with the Robart gear with oleos did suffer from sticker shock. One could install the recommended gear with a retract servo for about $50-60 vs about $300 for the heavy duty Robart setup. I'm installing Spring Air's with 3/16" wire that I have lying around. These are avaiable for about $120, are lighter, and far less complex than thge Robarts than many opted for instead. The real solution isn't building heavier mounts and structure, ideally carbon fiber flex mounts are what a builder should be using if they want to utilize oleo strut based gear. Bob Violet was an early adopter of this technology when he introduced his ducted fan kits with oleos. The Ducted Fan/Turbine manufacturers have this all sorted out, but you also pay a premium price (think $1000s) for this engineering.

Another thing that hasn't been discussed is the types of flying fields and the abilities of the pilots involved. For those lucky enough to have a smooth, paved, flying field, the stock retract mounts would probably withstand the landing forces from oleo based gear with nothing more than a coating of 30 minute epoxy around the mounts. Those that fly off grass fields should reconsider using oleos or resign themselves to modifying the retract mounts to suppoort the extra torque load. My guess is that we have people that are relative beginners and others that are experienced modellers building this kit. I fall in the later catagory and have been building/flying scale models and ducted fans for over 20 years, and this is what my opinions are based on.

As far as having to cut open the lower wing skins to modify the retract mounts. Every model I've built over the last 15+years with retracts has removable skins surrounding the retract area. I have personally ripped the gear mounts out of a couple of my models after converting from wire based gear to oleos, both fixed gear and retract. Based on this experience I now build using BVM carbon fiber flex mounts when using oleo based gear.

And finally, I don't consider this kit to be "JUNK" your words not mine. If you've been around R/C models for any length of time you should be familiar with E.Z. kits and the clones that followed. IIRC, most of the scale kits cost anywhere from $200 - $500 and they weren't easily repaired when damaged, looked like cheap toys up close, and they were not very scale. A kit like the Rare Bear, if it existed in the 1980's would have cost at least $600. Byron's Original is the only manufacturer back then that came close to producing kits like the TT Rare Bear in the 80's. They required quite a bit of assembly, finishing and painting, and typically cost about $1500 with all the bells and whistles, minus the engine and radio gear. When someone like me looks at the historical evolution of this hobby and compares what we had 20 years ago to today, it's like night and day. IMO, the guys that are complaining about the issues and price of this relatively complex ARF kit are spoiled cheapskates. I challenge any of you to buy an old Royal or Top Flite F8F kit and build it to the same level of fit/finish as the TT Rare Bear kit, complete with decals, retracts, spinner, etc. You'll then maybe have an appreciation for what you have in the TT Rare Bear kit.

Thanks for the bandwidth.

Rich

Rich,
I can understand your appreciation for the progression of this hobby and it's products. However I think that vast majority of people who've bought this kit expect to install the equipment and have at it. Most don't have 20 yrs building and don't expect to have to modify the planes wings to be sure that the gear doesn't rip off on the first landing. How many guys reading this do you think will bolt on a set of mechanicals or pneumatics and let her rip? That leaves the people who've not assembled their planes but have read this thread with the basic choices of getting rid of it, letting it rip or modifying the wing structure. In any case not much satisfaction for a $300 purchase.

The bigger point here is that obviously the manufacturer has got a product that doesn't meet up to the expectations of the people who bought it. How many RB owners do you think are going to be telling others to buy this plane because if they only fix the retract problem, be careful of the stab issue and oh yeah make sure you put the biggest engine you can afford in it so it balances w/o 4 ounces of lead in the nose, it's a Steal!

I think Ace should make good with replacement wings, flag the manual about the stab installation and offer a credit on those that want to return theirs before it's built. I will guess they will handle this in the same manner they handle safety recalls on cars for example. It maybe cheaper if they do nothing and everyone accepts it.

One more thing while I'm at it. These are the kinds of things people should be reading about in magazine reviews not just public forums. The fact is that these reviews can't be tell the whole story because the sponsors don't like negative reviews of their products. No sponsors, no magazines.

The average guy wants to know the real deal on these things BEFORE he lays down his money on them,not after.

I can see the new Rare Bear ads now, "New and improved gear design"......

DepDog60

..Have you built yours yet..if not shut up. There are some great sources of info on these threads. If you dont feel confident with your abilities, close the box lid. Send it back.
This is not a thread for telling people who read it that they must complain.

This statement from MANFRED was pathetic..."Rebuild the ship.." what is he talking about..!

" There's no way we should have to spend that kind of money then have to basically rebuild the ship! "

If you dont fit the recomended Retracts and Engine fine ...but beef up your mounts... and trial fit your tail feathers.

Great kit ....and it cost me $400 + over here ....i'd get another one tmorrow.

you must have been born in china. see yaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Hey folks....
I really enjoy this thread. I bought the kit AFTER reading about the troubles with the retracts. I would like to see this thread remain for it's intended purpose. To share in the building and techniques to beef up the kit and make the hobby more enjoyable for everyone. To me, half of the fun of this hobby is building and taking lesson from all of you in the upgrading of the kits. i appreciate your help.
I am putting Sierra retracts, Robart struts in mine....now, thanks to the tip, I'm looking into the BVM products and hoping to find something that will work with the wing and my retract setup. ( If you which product may work...let me know)
If you want to complain about the Kit...take it to Ace & TT. Leave the Forum for the constructive side of taking a problem and working toward a solution.
I'm new on RCU, and just glad to be among some long time builders. just started flying this summer. Currently have Ryan STA 1.20, GP Lancair, UcanDo 90, Predator and Viper Pylon planes, Nextar Trainer, & now I'm putting together the Rare Bear! Have a 12' trailer set up as a hanger/field workshop. Serious about the hobby.
Thanks guys....
Dudley

Dudley,

In my RB I did as Vampire suggested, I bought some hard balsa, 1/2" x 2" x whatever length my local hobby shop had in stock. I measured the distance between the ribs supporting the retract mounts and cut the balsa to fit. I then epoxied the pieces into position. Toward the front of the wing I used a single reinforcement, on the rearward section of the retract mount I installed two of these reinforcements, one after the other, laminating then together with a liberal coating of 30 minute epoxy. Rather than using simple wood screws to hold in the retracts I will install threaded brass inserts with a 6-32 internal thread and then use plastic/nylon screws to hold in the retract. The 6-32 screws are more than strong enough to handle normal takeoffs and landings. In the event you hit hard during a landing the plastic screws will shear off and hopefully prevent the retract mount from ripping out of the wing.

During new build up and when modifying during repairs is when I install flex plates. I've used flex plates designed for various BVM kits and I've also used the various carbon fiber products that BVM sells to fabricate flex plates.

Rich

dragracingcars,

Nope, I wasn't born in China, although I do work with some very intelligent and nice folks who originated there and chose to immigrate to the US and make this their home.

And just to set the record straight, yes I was born overseas, I'm half Japanese.

Good Bye to you, hopefully you'll go away as your posts are basically unintelligible and obnoxious at best.

Rich

Thanks Rich!
I'm posting a list emailed to me from Vampire (Kerry), summarizing his build of the RB. Thanks to you, vampire! I'm sure this may help someone who is new to the thread looking for answers as was I.
Regards,
Dudley

From Vampire:
1. O.S. 1.60FX engine on kit provided mount. (see RCU thread for details.)
A. modify the spinner by CA-ing the brass spacer into the spinner back
plate and then drilling out to 3/8".
B. Used 16 x 8 Master Air Screw 3-bld prop. The spinner will need very
very small amount of added clearance where the blade slots meet the
backplate to clear the t.e. of the blades. You will see what I mean when you
put the prop into the spinner.
C. Bisson OS-1.60 "pitts" muffler. (need to clearnce the firewall side
frames very slightly- see RCU thread pic's)
2. Springair retracts (85 degree)
3. Robart struts #660,(straight leg), length AS SUPPLIED. (do not shorten)
4. Relocated kit fuel tank (too low in fuse - see RCU thread)
5. Sullivan 3-1/2" "skylite " wheels.
6. Installed flush mounted 3/4" sq. x 1/8" ply horn mounting plates into
bottom of ailerons and recovered with Ultracoat film then changed out the
Aileron horns and pushrods to Robart Super-swivel horns w/ provided
clevises.
7. TOTALLY reinforced under the landing gear mounting plate with balsa
blocks. (My gear turned out of the wing on it's first grass landing - very
very little factory glue.)
8. Re-enforced firewall w/ 3/8" balsa triangle stock. (see RCU thread
pic's.)
9 The O.S. 1.60 is just a beautiful running motor and I have one in my
GP-GB-R2 as well and they have NEVER missed a beat.

DepDog60

I believe that some have set their expectations too high when dealing with kits like TT and Hanger 9 produce. I also believe that if one were to build the RB kit exactly per the instructions, using the recommended retracts and engines, that he/she would have a very nice flying stand-off scale sport model.

Sure the very early kits probably had manufacturing problems, but I also believe that TT has done some updating of the asssembly instructions (not enough though) to hopefully prevent future failures. Before I started construction of my RB kit, I read this entire thread from the beginning and the assembly instructions. I have taken note of the problems others have encountered and factored their experiences into my own RB construction. So hopefully I won'thave the same problems the early builders have had with my retract mounts. As I stated earlier I'm initially using Spring Air #116 with 3/16" gear legs. I will be switching to the 700 Series and Oleos at a later date.

Now the engine thing isn't TT's fault, but is a basic problem caused by the very short nose moment of the real aircraft. Almost all radial engined WW-II aircraft suffer from this when modelled. Personally I believe the best engine to counter this need for nose weight would be the installation of a Saito twin. The downside of this choice is cost and performance. I've owned a couple Saito twins and they're NOT known for being power houses. I'm installing an ASP 1.08 Redhead (extra engine not in use) with a Bisson Pitts muffler. It won't be as fast as some RBs with YS, Mokis, large O.S. etc, but it won't be a slouch either. However it's a large case design and relatively heavy, about 38 oz without the muffler, and should balance the plane nicely without dead nose weight although some here might consider an ASP 1.08 dead weight - 8&gt).

As you stated in one of your earlier posts, I think you're on the mark about notifying Ace. However rather than just complaining, the feedback should provide contructive criticism of the design deficiencies discovered. In Ace's defense they have replaced wings and in one case that I'm aware of, a complete kit at some minor cost, so it isn't like they have been trying to avoid the problems. I also wonder if the initial kit release was delayed while Ace and TT worked out design problems that were identified with the production prototypes.

Anyway, I'll report out my flying experience after I test fly in a couple of weeks.

Rich

Dudley,

Good to see another avid modeller that wants to learn rather than gripe/rant about the RB kit. Like you, I'm new to the RCU message board and find it to be a great resource. Based on your initial post I wouldn't be surprised to see you flying a Turbine powered model in a couple of years.

Don't let the complainers "Steal Your Joy".

Rich

Well I'd have to say i think i got what i payed for..(like said earlier...spinner and mount probably come close to $120 if purchased sepperatly....so for $180 you get one hell of a deal!!!.. But you're right.. considering how long it was delayed (all though from what i've herd the delay was due to licensing for the stickers...(ie. the name Rare bear and other companies), you'ld think they'ld have done some R&D....but it was proabably allready well into production......I do scratch my head and wonder what they where thinking with those skinny retract rails... Those things would be iffy at best on a 40 size plane....i'm also scractching my head thinking why i didn't reinforce it the way i just did when I first built it.... Oh well.. live and learn...(Even though I fly off brand new asphalt, tri-stock alone wasn't enough....just a word from the (now) wise)

Anyhow here's what i did to reinfoce, and I think it's going to be pretty bomb proof. First picture shows how much sheeting I cut away (probably could be done wthout cutting anything, but getting a good fit of the parts would be tough, and you'ld need some small fingers and plenty of patience. Then using 1/8 ply I cut a piect that laps under the rail, and has tristock on the 3 bottom sides where it meets the ribs and wing spar as you look at it from the pictures point of view. Then I use 1/4' ply to fill between the LG rails and the wing spar, finshed up with the the pieces of tristcok you see on top (acctually the bottom). re-sheet and give it a patch of covering....On the leading edge side, I just laped a piece of 1/4 " under the railand gave it tristock on both the top and bottom where it meets the spar running along the leading edge. I did all this on both sections between the ribs that support the landing gear..... i think that's as good as it's going to get, and should be able to withstand the massive mommet created by the grear (really have to try to 3-point land it so the gear legs are at less than 90 degtrees to the runway ... at leas that would be good thunkin)... It would have been pretty easy in the assembly phase to have made those gear mounts go all the way back & forward like I've done mine but all with one piece of wood rathger than having to piece it together like I did.... Maybe on the next production run if there is one. Can't wait to get it in the air again.....too bad winter has set in and there's snow on the ground.

As for all the gripes..... there's always those who expect to be able to just put it together and go...... and there's always people who go ape-s*it when something goes wrong (look at the Funtana 90 thread).....but the big manufactures will stand up for their productrs and set things right AS LONG AS you're not an ass to them on the phone.....think about it.... nobody helps a jerk. I'm with Rich....i remember the early arfs......Todays are an incredible deal (and all thanks to cheap labor in asia).... I've also yet to own an Arf that didn't require a little mod here and there. I think people that gripe about small issues (I consider the rare bear issues pretty small) should build a plane from a kit......It'll make you very appreciative of what you get for what you pay for in an ARF!

woops ....double post.

Desert Toad,

Did you get a chance to make the maiden flight over the holiday weekend ?? If so, let us know how it went and your impressions of the flight characteristics, and if the gear stayed in the wings.

Rich

Hey Rich,

Yes I made the maiden flight last Friday. Other than the vibration in my knees the flight went well. It took off very quickly and tracked real well. I made about 8 or 10 nice low passes and this plane looks awesome in the air!

As for the gear, I made a pretty decent landing and the front gear block glue joint to the leading edge popped loose just slightly, so at least the gear remained in the wing. It was complete lack of glue that caused the joint to give, it didn't even so much as crack any wood, the joint just gave away. It caused the plane to nose over and break a prop blade, but once again got lucky. The remaining two blades ended up pointing down and saved the cowl and valve cover of my YS 110.


I think it was slightly over propped with a Master Airscrew 14x9, I have a Graupner 14 x 7 I might try next time - any suggestions appreciated.


DT

I don't believe the issue of customers complaining is something to take lightly. obviously there is a problem with these kits! I still don't think you should have to put out this kind of money and get a product that does not perform to basic standards such as landing gear that don't rip or pop out without major modifications. Maybe our little Lord friend is used to this kind of shoddy workmanship, ( I know how English products can be as I have owned several cars and motorcycles of English origin ) but here in the US we have certain standards we have come to expect and one of those is that the product will perform as advertised and in this case that would be to fly and land without self-destructing! I too hope TT will do the right thing and order a recall.