Ok everyone, time to play nice.

Guess bubbagates is being a biggot here...so I'll answer.....Canuck boy

No....my father is Dubya Bush and his wench is your mother Paul Martin.
Watch how my daddy stick it your mommy.

Cheers.

I'm betting 12 years old...

Ok I think we are getting a little distracted here. I understand that the earlier VMAR planes had some issues but the real question is are the newer VMAR models better? Have they improved?
What I would like to hear is from someone that has one of the newly released VMAR models.

I too would be interest to know if they have started using all balsa etc.. I have seen a couple new ones (PC 9) or something and they looked pretty good.. At least the first couple weeks and then the covering turned into a wrinkled up mess... Guess they couldn't shrink it back either.. They seemed to fly real good... It's funny, Seagull comes from the same factory as I understand it and they aren't half bad... I have there decathlon and really like it... No funny wood and covered real nice in Ultracote... Has aluminum push rod tubes and everything.. Really impresive for the price.....

[quote]ORIGINAL: Kaz

I've had my say about VMar and WM and you have had yours....I did not question you. Bad doggy Bad doggy.


No no no! Thats "Snoop Doggy Bag!" not "Bad Doggy Bad Doggy"!

MerlinL14 I'd suggest you double check your info source. Seagull, Phoenix and Black Horse certainly emanate from the same 'factory', having commercial as well as familial ties, but VMAR are an entirely separate concern sharing in common only that they too are "Made in Vietnam".

At this point in time, there is a huge difference in both design and production quality between Seagull et al and VMAR. If you aren't aware of this, then it would suggest that you've not recently inspected or assembled either brand.

As sport models, the former three have come a long way especially within the past 12 months, and the only logical justification one can now really offer not to buy most of their current line-up is obstinacy. Insofar as VMAR is concerned, at this juncture I am inclined to agree that they need to improve significantly before I'd give them a generalised "OK" nod.

Does a Seagull Arising Star or 2 month old Seagull Boomarang qualify ?? , or a Blackhorse Travel Air or a Blackhorse Tornado??
Any way, I still feel that VMar have moved on from their dark days. They have ditched the cotton wood for balsa and that is a great leap forward and cann't help but heal their cinderella past.

GRANT ED, I have two of their models that I think is new release? The DeHavilland Beaver that I'm impressed with as far as appearance, but have not started to put it together as I'm too busy flying other planes that I put on floats. I do strictly float/seaplane flying as water is my only source of runway. The Discovery came in at just over 7 lbs after mounting it on Falcon floats. It flies great,although it is a trainer, but I got it for $69. and wanted to test VMAR for float conversion. If the Beaver adapts to the floats and flies as well, I'll be sold on VMAR. I did have to laugh at both model's engine mounts and will use neither. On the Discovery, the only two mods, besides float mounting. that I did was the engine mount and converted the wings to bolt-on instead of rubber band mount. And I did use Golden push rods instead of their metal rods.

After 10 flights with an OS 46, the model has held. I've been pushing it harder each time to see what are the limits on the wings and so far so good. Snap roll, spins and loops under full power. Have not seen any signs of fatigue. The covering will shrink if the iron is hot enough. I did notice a warp to the tail wing, but it straightened after applying enough heat with an iron. Not as aerobatic as my Ready or Seamaster, but then it is a trainer and flies as well as any trainer I have flown.

I did detect small dimples in a few areas beneath the covering that I think are small splatters of glue and another area has a piece of balsa that I think was scrap that got trapped in the wing and has worked its way under the covering. It is about 1/4 x 1'' piece and does not affect any functions.

I'm currently enamored with the Ready on floats and too distracted to work on the Beaver. Love the looks of the Beaver. The Ready just surprised me as how well and easily it handles the floats and the sky, weighing in at 7 lb 10 0z.

v mar have two that are to be shipped in med march. had to take electronics from nextar from hobbico to get training at local field. nobody could control nexstarr with auto disconnected. put electronics in v mar hornet all has been well ever since

Well yes, of course they do, but with the exception of the Boomerang, the Arising Star is their super cheapie contact covered trainer, and both of those Black Horse units are really quite old designs. ie: suggesting they were actually manufactured when?

Having said that, Black Horse has been dropped as a brand by the single line distributor of those three products in this country, though I'm aware from the ads in RCM&E that it is still a high profile low end brand in the UK. Seagull and Phoenix have been retained. Like I said, their latest offerings, and I've a few, Decathlon, PC-9 (2x), Laser, Atlantis, indicate they've really lifted their game...and you can't complain about the price. FTR a Boomerang trainer costs just £40 over here!

If they have that's a very positive move. Possibly following suit due the others doing so? I 'fess to not having bought anything from VMAR ever, and though I've flown quite a few of their offerings, haven't flown anything NEW or recent from them apart from their colourful Extra. One thing that's good about the latest stuff coming from Seagull et al, is that it's balsa and laser cut so it self-aligns straight.

YES, they are improving, the planes look like nice quality in the adds, maybe not so as good when close up

sigrun, if you read the whole Tread you will see that in post #2 I already state that I believe that VMar are improving, so saying that "Possibly following suit due the others doing so?" is total bollocks.

IME Seagull and Phoenix were there first hence "following suit". The VMAR stuff we're still getting over here is still made from ersatz lite-ply, glued with a hot glue gun and covered in crap kaleidoskopic contact. But frankly, it's not worth putting up with you in discussing it further. [sm=kiss.gif] Have a nice life!

How else was I expected to interpret what you wrote. Every one of you replies in this thread has included "quotes" personally aimed at my replies. If you feel agreived by my reply then employ the "ignore user" function that is available. Personal attacks are so shallow.

i dont understanding how can modelers can buy VMAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Some of us have a very limited budget. We have a guy locally who searches trash cans at the flying fields. When he finds a useable wing or fuse, he does minor repairs, mates up the mismatched parts, installs his one old K&B 40 and Conquest 4 channel, begs, borrows or buys a tank of fuel and goes out to fly. This guy flys RC for well under $100 a year.

If you can scratch together just a bit more than that, you can buy a VMAR ARF that looks a whole lot better that a trash can plane. (At least for a while.)

VMAR has it's place in the market, and I would go so far as to say that it actually serves a worthwhile purpose, by keeping some people in the hobby who otherwise couldn't afford it.

Jim

Don't understand how buying a peice of junk can keep people in the hobby ?... Man, spend 69.00 and get one of World Models new planes... I don't think you can touch a Vmar for that price....

After all the negative posts I have seen on RCU concerning VMAR I have avoided them until recently when I decided to try out their engine test stand which happened to get a favorable review here on RCU. I figured the price was right so I went ahead and bought one.

It is definitely usable and the design is OK but the quality of the parts had me a bit mystified. The main mounting board that they provide looks like some sort of pressboard material. How this would hold up to glow fuel had me worried so I threw a coat of polyurethane on it before using it. The ply piece that holds the fuel tank was crumbling out of the box, various pre-drilled holes didn't line up quite right and the bolts they included were actually rusty!

For the price it is a decent product for the intended purpose, however, I'm not so sure I want one of their planes if there is a chance the quality is the same. Their ads for their test stand specify that it is usable up to "1.80 cu. in. or greater" but I'd be leary about putting that much power on it - although I haven't tried it, it could be just fine. Don't think I will try it, however.

In fairness to VMAR maybe we should be comparing their products the same way we compare other manufacturers products - by product and not by using blanket statements like "VMAR products are junk" since statements like this are rarely true. The opposite is also true of the more popular manufacturers. Just because a manufacturer may have a stellar reputation doesn't mean thay won't occasionally put out a dud. These kind of blanket statements will never tell the whole story.

In my experience with their test stand I see it as a case of you get what you pay for. For what I spent on the test stand I would say it was worth it.

Just don't expect 5 star quality at a 1 star price!

OOH!! This is fun!!

I just bought a VMAR Stick for my kid. I don't expect it to last very long anyway. For $59 I got a decent looking plane. I used some of the hardware, but couldn't make myself use the hardware on the elevator. Another one of the quicklinks was stripped from the bag. One wing was warped, the predrilled holes for the horiz stab were drilled crooked and the wing servo interferes with the Engine throttle rod. Oh, and its a little heavy.
All minor fixes (except the weight). I knew what I was buying. It flies like a stick and hasn't self destructed yet. The price diff between a hanger 9 stick alone paid for the Engine. The kid is having a blast and doesnt know the difference, and I won't cry when it meets it's demise. VMAR...Quality? Nope, but it is serving it's purpose just fine.

This old Vmar Stick I have has been around for ages. Everything is warped on it, the wood is garbage, its been fuel soaked, it is covered with old scrap covering, the landing gear is cobbled on it with wire, but somehow it has managed to survive countless flights, including some rough unplanned landings. Even though I have a ton of other more nicer planes, I love flying the old thing just for the fact that by rights it shouldn't have lasted two flights do to its poor quallity. I have included a picture. You will notice that I have added a cockpit to the top of the Plane with a Barbie that looks as bad as the Plne itself. I also added a set of engine cheeks to the Plane, and I have an ole worn out set of wheel pants on it.

Just last night I started on the Vmar Extra 330L This is the first Vmar product I've ever seen, but I've heard all of the complaints. My first impressions are somewhat mixed. The overall quality seems very good, but the hardware isn't the best, and the covering seems ok, just not what most of us are used to.

Have they gotten better? Well, I don't know what they USED to be like (Except for hearing the horror stories here at RCU). But I can honestly say that SO FAR I haven't seen anything that I would complain about.

MinnFlyer, does that plane have the removable powerpod? Does the "firewall" still look like it was made out of somebodies old countertop?

Seriously, on my Harvard II, it looked like they cut up some old countertop. It was a chipboard product with a wood-look melamine layer on top.

I'm wondering if they are still using that. The hardware was just horrible too. Even the nuts and bolts.

I find it certainly is hit and miss even amongst a given manufacturer. I see a lot of complaints about the TT Rare Bear, but my TT Decathlon is simply the most amazing ARF I've ever seen. Only $180, the whole thing is laser cut from quality balsa and lite ply, obviously jig built with adequate glue (hasn't fallen appart yet and I didn't reinforce anything). Two piece wing with a fiberglass tube that fits like a glove. Alumimum airfoiled wing struts with nice scale looking moulded end pieces, chromed tail braces. Amazingly detailed starburst covering using real covering, they even pinstriped around all the stars with black trim. I just can't stop raving about the thing.

When I compare it to the $150 I paid for that Harvard II, there's just no way I'd pay for a VMAR again. For me, the extra $20-30 goes a long way when you get a better brand. Heck, I had to buy all new control horns, clevises, wheels and spinner just to make it airworthy. Right there that was at least $20 just to fly it.

You really need to look around when buying ARFs. There can be MASSIVE differences within a given price range.

Wait till it has sat in some 100 degree plus sun on the flightline for a couple of hours..

RLefebvre
You said it, but Vmar seems determined to be consistant throghout there line... You like the TT DeCathlon ?. Been wondering about that one.. I have the Global and SeaGull Decathlon's. The SeaGull seems the best of the too and for only 139.00 is hard to beat...

Yeah, the TT is a little more expensive at $180, but it's worth it. Top knotch. I'm a pretty good builder, and I don't think I could build it. The covering is MUCH better than anything I could do. I used the included wheels, spinner, control horns, engine mount... everything. I used SIG CA hinges instead, and made some CF pushrods *just because*. No real reason.

It's taken some pretty hard landings too, as I get used to it. I seem to keep on stalling it about 1-2 feet off the ground. Bent the gear, but no damage to the wood. It flies great, snaps well if you want it to but doesn't do anything spooky that you don't expect.

The scale details are what really set it apart. I have a build thread you should look at. Pair it with the TT 46 it was designed for, and it's a great package. Engine mount holes are predrilled and the motor fits perfect. Balances perfect too with no weight, battery dead center.

I don't have tons of money to spend on planes. But I will definitely find an extra $50 for a great plane instead of settling for something that is just "OK".

I just got a Modeltech SE5a. So far I would call it "OK". The hardware is passable. The covering is not good at all. It's not horrible, it's smooth. But the trimming is terrible. I don't regret it, but I wish I'd been able to look at it before ordering. Not that I had much choice in a 40 size WWI bipe... Well, I guess I could have gone for the Kyosho Tigermoth which looks great. But I think that thing might be $250 right? In that case, compared to $65 for the SE5a, I don't feel so bad.

For me, the TT Dec at $180 set a whole new benchmark for what is possible.