DASFlies

I currently have a Texan II from VMAR on order but they tell me that it wont arrive till the end of october.

I am torn between wating for the Texan II or changing to the Tomahawk. Im leaning more towards the Tomahawk because Ive never flown a model with flaps before, and im getting a 6 channel radio over the holiday season.

If I do get the tomahawk, I plan on putting a ST .40 engine in it
Is this enough engine?

Thanks
Dave Staples
[email protected]

MANFRED

My Feedback: (27)

Why don't you guys ever listen? Avoid these planes like it was west Nile Virus!!!

OUTCAST

Yep, what he said. ;'}

3DMike

Have you guys seen the New tomahawk from vmar. It actually looks really good. The covering is not sticky backed and the detail is excellent, a 40 would be a bit small, try a 46 at the least as its quite a large plane.

OUTCAST

You try it Mike, we'll all watch. ;-)

Sawyer692-RCU

My Feedback: (6)

I think it is luck of the draw. My LHS recently got 4 or 5 RV-4s in stock. My buddies and I bought all of them. Of the four, I had the only solid one. The wood was straight, the flaps and ailerons lined up, the covering was good, everything fit together and it was well built. Not so with the other ones. They had all sorts of problems. Theirs looked like they were thrown together in a Vietnamese sweat shop. Only a couple of them acually flew theirs. Quality control is definatly an issue, but if you don't mind doing a little surgury, I'm sure any of them could be formed into a good airplane.

Oh, also plan on fiberglassing the cowls. They are paper thin.

polarisRCU

Sooooo... I guess you're saying that the VMAR ARF's have a few problems ??? (busted out laughing)

Thank you ALL for your input on these. Like many of you, I was attracted by the new covering they have... However, many of you posed the situation about the construction being flimsy..... which means you'll eventually being tearing off the covering to do repairs...... which means that the look of the plane is short lived anyways...


Again, thank you all for your thoughts !

1Jimbo

My Feedback: (2)

rvd - So are you saying you woundn't buy one? Ha ha. Just kidding. I had one, PURE JUNK.

getme2

Hi HI i think the 40 is to small ( 76" ) wing i am putting a 4s 80 in mine when i get it lots of luck with it GETME

getme2

Boy whAT I here i think i will hang out with this plane getme

getme2

Hi Miniair i did not order it yet. but after hearing the bad stuff about the vmar planes not sure what i am going to do. I love the way the plane looks, flaps and size. I fly scale so i will not be hard on it.*********************Getme

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

"...Vmar has never used the shelf paper but used a covering that was actually designed and manufactured in Germany,

And your point is? Lots of JUNK has come out of Germany, Vietnam, etc. Regardless of the country of origin the VMAR stuff is not in the league of UltraCote/Super UltraCote (Oracover) which can take heat guns and irons, hence it gets the 'shelf paper' award in my book too. I did a VMAR P-51 and after a complete rebuild and recover it is a fine flyer. For little more in original cost, but less in 'regular flying' condition cost I have a Hangar-9 P-51. - Compare the two and see how they stack up.

VMAR?

quint

Miniair

My Feedback: (1)

.

Miniair

My Feedback: (1)

.

hattend

My Feedback: (20)

I got mine today. I am at work so I haven't unpacked it yet. I'll do that tonight and tell y'all what I see, how many mods I am going to have to make, rebuilding I'll have to do, etc.

Don

BTW: If you want a Tomahawk and don't want a VMAR you can get a nice Tomahawk KIT (not ARF) from Airsail in New Zealand. Just about the same size as the VMAR, laser cut and very scale outline. I picked one up in case the horror stories about VMAR are true...

motoadve

I have the Harvard 2, size .90.

Has 45 flights, super nice , looks scale and its easy to fly.
I put retracts.

Note:!!! On the 20th flight or so , when I was changing batteries I saw cracks on the underside of the wing, it was going to break for sure, I re inforced the wings with Fiberglass and its been perfect since then.
I was lucky I noticed the cracks

rvd

What's the idea with removing some of the posts ? People should be able to express and write whatever they want..
I don't want to hear about company bashing, if they would start making better S$$T then alot of people wouldn't *****..

hattend

My Feedback: (20)

I took a look at my VMar Tomahawk last night. It looks like it is very well constructed but like most ARFs it will need some Medium CA and some accelerator in some areas. There are some rather dry looking joints.

The Power Module is unique in that you can remove the firewall which helps get in behind the firewall to beef up some glue joint in there. I haven't decided if I will use the module concept yet or if I will just epoxy the firewall as normal. The module concept is you can remove the engine and fuel tank to change engines or do maintenance without a lot of work. It looks pretty neat but it allows an opening into the plane at the front end and I'm not sure if I like that. We'll see.

The wing roots look like some really light balsa was used. I didn't look at the wing joiner so I can't comment on it. If it is funky as some have said, I have lots of ply stock to remake one of my own. The servo tubes for the flap and aileron servo are pre-installed...that's better than some GP arfs I've seen. I like the rocket tube conduits so I thought that was cool. The wings look very solid.

The landing gear is pretty stout aluminum for the mains and the wire nose gear has some non-working scale detail similar to the Robart covers. The wheels are actually solid plastic instead of the normal foam wheels on most ARFs (which I usually exchange out with DuBros)

The hardware is usable but not up to my standards so I will be exchanging them out. For example, the pushrods are solid wire from servo to control surface with easy clamp-style connectors. The control surface clevises look solid with a metal pin, but I like what I like so those will be changed out.

The elevator servo is mounted at the top of the vertical stab under the horizontal stab so the connection is only 2 inches long...solid! They even include a universal servo wire extension for it...that's convenient!

It shouldn't take long to assemble this ARF. Looks like it will be a fine addition to the fleet. I may be a heretic saying this but this is my first VMAR ARF and I would buy another without hesitation. If there is a history of crappy constuction they seem to have solved a majority of it. Like any ARF, check the joints that you can see before assembly and you shouldn't have a problem.

Don

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

I would love to hear back after you've flown it regularly for a year and made a few patches, etc. Specially curious on your opinion of the plastic parts, covering and wood with regular use. I help many of our clubmenbers on building and repair and have seen the old and 'new' VMAR's out of the box and after service. - Just wondering what your opinion is after living with it a season or so.

quint

hattend

My Feedback: (20)

My flying season is only 4 months long so it'll take me three years to get one years of use.

I'll keep you informed. It's building season now. First flight will probably be late April or Early May 2003.

Don

OUTCAST

Hey at least it will probably last a whole season.

hattend

My Feedback: (20)

OUCH!

Well, I have quite a selection of planes up here right now, so unless the Tomahawk is the finest flier in the fleet, it will share stick time with the others.

Since it won't fly as much maybe it will last 2 or maybe even 3 seasons. WooHoo! :spinnyeye

Don

getme2

hi hi Miniair
i orderd the Tomahawk and they say it will be ship out nov 25 just wish they would told me it was back ordered but its ok i have time now to make room for it. (small apt.)********Getme

mvigod

To fully clarify this...

The manufacturer and the north american
distributor of the VMAR Tomahawk ARF have pointed out an inconsistency
between the release date of the first Tomahawks to the north american
market and comments contained in and/or referred to postings by
Porsche911.

As the moderators of this forum we encourage the exchange of
advice and information between modellers everywhere. When there is an
apparent discrepancy between statements and fact we carefully review the
information and then act to ensure that our members are not being
misinformed.

Accordingly, we have removed a number of postings related
to the north american release of the VMAR Tomahawk. We have taken this
step after confirming that the first Tomahawks for the north american
market were not available prior to Oct 11th and noting that Porsche911
was making comments related to various hands on attributes of the
Tomahawk more than 1 week before the Distributor had inventory. No
pre-production samples of the Tomahawk were released hence the moderator
felt that the information posted by Porsche911 was inaccurate or perhaps
should have been attributed to another item. We were unable to determine
what model Porsche911 was supposedly looping early in October but we
have satisfied ourselves that it surely was not a VMAR Tomahawk!

Lastly, we would like to point out to our members, real information about
POLYCOTE ECS is listed at www.richmondrc.com/polycote.htm and provided
with all VMAR models shipped by the distributor.

Glitch

For what it's worth ........
Just flew the VMAR Tomahawk.
Using a Thunder Tiger 54 4C with 11x6 prop. with a 4400 m.a. nicad up front for the on board glo. gave a c. of g. 2.56 " back from the l.e. (as specified.) Had to 'ease' a few gaps as some of the hinges were glued in with very little clearance (restricting control surface throw)
I know the 'box lid' says larger engines are recommended, but the Airsail kit version is the same scale and they suggest the T.T. 54 4C, claiming scale speeds at half throttle.
Well, the 54 4C was adequate, the ground roll was maybe 30 yards before the elevators were really effective, (they're not in the prop wash)
Initially a bit 'touchy' in pitch, 30 % expo settled it down nicely.
Rate of roll just nice with the recommended throws. As the nose gear is not that far ahead of the mains, I drilled another hole in the servo arm to reduce the travel and the ground handling was quite o.k.
looks nice and flies well, the flaps had very little balloon effect, the approach and landing easily controlled.
I know more than a few people don't like VMAR, but I've also had no trouble with their PC-9, still looks good after maybe 50 flights.
They are cheaper than a lot of the other ARF's imported into Australia, (the Tomahawk is AUD$299 (about 160 US$ ?)
Sorry, tried to send a pic, but the file size must be too big.