Alex,

I know I am coming to the party a little late on this issue, but I also had a problem with a CMP P-47 40. I recently built one with a Saito FA-72. I balanced the plane inverted on the CG specified in the instructions, but put her in hard during the first flight. Once I got it up in the air it nosed straight up then went into a full dive and went in hard. Some very experienced builders/fliers who were at the field and witnessed the short flight agreed that it looked as though the plane was very tail heavy. Has CMP ever acknowledged this problem? I like the plane, but am not willing to shell out another $100+ to potentially experience the same fate. I wish I had read the other threads here before I took her up. I currently have a CMP Giles 202 50 which I like very much.

Thanks,

Mark

The bottom line here is that the CMP .40 size warbirds suck and CMP could give a rats ***** about it's customer base. I bought 2 CMP .50 size zero's and each had the identical first and second flights as you describe above. I sent numerous emails to Jacquiline Shum at CMP and she yanked my chain with bulls!!it for weeks and did nothing to help correct the problem or to help get me another plane. They know the planes suck but, are happy to continue to fleece unsuspecting and/or uninformed consumers.

I think the only thing that can be done is get the word out that their stuff is crap and don't buy anything else made by them.

I have built and flown more than a dozen warbirds and aerobatic (Sukhoi's and Extra's) from .40 size to 1.20 and have never had any of these kind of problems with any other plane.

I patched the zero up for the last time enough so that I could fly it one last time and I let my nephew shoot it down with his paintball gun. He had a blast and I was happy to see that piece of crap finally hit the deck for the last time. I walked over to it after the crash and stomped on it and then laughed like hell.

Good to see someone else from MA on here. I live in Taunton and fly at Beattie field in RI. I have a good friend that lives right on RT. 28 in Centerville down your way.

Hey guys, sorry to hear about all the bad luck. I have the CMP .90 spit and was wondering if anyone knows the correct CG on this plane. manual says between 120-130mm, so I set it at 125mm and took her up and she was so tail heavy i almost didn't get it back, i then added 3oz. of lead in between the screws that hold the motor down and this hel;ped a little. With motor,cowl spinner etc. in place it still needs about 5-6oz.'s to level it out. baterries (2 6V)are right behind the firewall. Using the rcv .91cd.

thanks Shane

I am building the Giles 1.40 - I really like the construction of the plane, it has some really nice features, and is one of the better looking giles 202's on the market.

The hardware - control horns aren't too bad - I will use them on something else in the 60-90 size, but I tend to use heavier duty stuff on my planes in this size. The pushrods are in the same category. They were bigger than 2-56, but smaller than 4-40. I won't discard these, but just not using them on this plane. CA hinges are a joke on a plane this size - and an even bigger joke when there is a notice in the box that says DO NOT USE THE HINGES IN THIS KIT. I drilled and mounted robart 3/16" pivot points. I installed a sullivan Tailwheel bracket - I don't like the stock setup on this plane, but again the parts might find their way onto another plane down the line.

My kit didn't include some of the lite-ply parts like the throttle servo mounting tray. Not a big issue for me, but may be to some.

Motor box seems like it can use a lot of reinforcing - I'm going to add tri stock in several areas, and then wrap the box in fiberglass cloth for stregnth. (Installing a small gasser on it - don't want it vibrating apart.) Also the anti-rotation pins for the h-stab were a joke - I glued a 1/4" hardwood dowel through the fuse instead.

Fiberglass on the canopy/hatch cover covered up the holes for the front hold-down pins. I re drilled the F1 former and the cover and epoxied in longer dowels to keep the canopy on at speed.

I have heard such bad things about the carbon fiber gear that I didn't even install it - I went with the aluminum gear that Chip Hyde sells for the Cap-X.

Instructions are little more than a 1 page exploded view of the plane and a few small sub assemblies - poster-style - wasn't an issue for me, but a novice builder might
have problems.

I really like the covering job - but so many mention that the covering is low quality, I expect to probably recover the plane in a season.

with a few small tweaks to the assembly/hardware, and real ultracote or monokote covering, this plane could have easily been a Hangar-9 or Great Planes offering - but then it would have sold for $300 instead of $200.

Has anyone build & flown the CMP GEE BEE 71'. It looks nice on the pictures and is about $80 cheaper than the GP ARF, but don't know if the flight characteristics are good?

Buy the GP plane! At least if you wreck it and it's demise is caused by a problem with the manufacture of the ARF you have a chance of having someone stand behind the product.

CMP will not.

Hello, RE: Super Chipmunk 46.
Why do you want to commit financial suicide with CMP models.
I Build ARF planes for a living and the CMP Models are the absolute worst models in the ARF Market.

SUPER CHIPMUNK-46

PROBLEM
1.Instuctions : What instructions?
SOLUTION: Put an Ink Cartridge in the copying system, non of mine had any ink on the instruction manual?

PROBLEM:
2. Hardware, 50% incomplete, landing gear is different in height by 1/4"
SOLUTION: Throw all the Hardware away, Start from scratch

PROBLEM:
3. Fuselage, is only about .040 thick and when you pick it up, it compresses in your hand
SOLUTION: Fiberglass the former just aft of the wing bolts all the way around, also fiberglass about 5" from this former towards the aft section of the airplane with 2" of fiberglass, one on the top and the other 2 on each side of the fuse. Use slow curing epoxy?

PROBLEM:
4. Wing bolts to small and inadequate
SOLUTION: Replace with 1/4 Tee nuts and nylon bolts.

PROBLEM:
5. Landing gear, one side is bent 1/4 longer than the other.
SOLUTION: Re-bend landing gear.

PROBLEM:
6. Wing, don't use it in the sun. The covering wrinkles like curly fries and it is impossible to get the wrinkles out.
SOLUTION: Don't use yhe plane in the sun or recover the wing in the covering of your choice.

PROBLEM:
7. The landing gear does into the wing and that area of the wing is just made of Balsa wood.
SOLTION: Drill the wing out for 1/2" dowel rod, then insert the landing gear.

PROBLEM:
7. The cowl is also extremely thin and the holes you drill for mounting it crack out the sides.
SOLUTION: Use a CA hinge on the inside of the cowl then the holes will not crack out on you.

I think that will do it for now, I have about 80 hours into this plane so far.
Worst ARF I have ever built

To all who writes in this thread. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE be absolutely sure that plane you are talking about is CMP kit.
Not all fiberglass fuselage kits are CMP kits (in fact most kits are NOT CMP and sold by many different companies like AK-Models, Nitro-Models, Raidentech and many others on eBay).
Thread above on Super Chipmunk 46 sounds like it is not CMP kit as all CMP kits have good quality print manual (please note I did not say good manuals, just, good quality print manuals). Also, CMP DOES NOT MAKE GeeBee kits, so reply "go with Great Planes" is not valid.
If CMP kits deserve critic, I just want to make sure they get criticized for CMP kits only not for all ARF industry.
Thank you to all that came with valuable feedback and solutions.
Alex @ AK-Models.

AK Models: Do you handle a 1.4 size Giles 202? It is a CMP Arf I believe? I did not see it on your web-site? But maybe I did not navigate right!!! Thanks Capt,n

Anyone have any recent experience with a CMP P-26 Peeshooter. Given my recent bad experience with the CMP P-47 50 I would like to gat any input before I purchase one. I have also purchased a CMP Giles 202 50 and it is a great flying plane and I have no complaints with any of the hardware, but once bitten twice shy. I do not know of anyone else who makes a Peeshooter ARF and the CMP offering looks nice, but .................looks can be deceiving?? Any feedback on the Peeshooter would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark

Will have 20 kits coming around July 9th, pre-sale will be offered in about 1 week due to limited number of kits, we'll also have all colors covering available for small repairs for all CMP kits.
Thanks.

AK Models: When will you get the Lancair 52 into stock?

Same as above, also will offer pre-sale.
Now, let's get back to thread's intended use: Problems and solutions ONLY.
Thank you all for your feedback.

Still looking for the proper CG on the CMP .90 SpitFire. The manual says 120-130mm Just wondering if anyone has had this model and if the CG is correct.

Thanks Shane

Guy at my Field has CG on Spitfire 90 just in front of main spar, maybe 1/4 or 1/8. He also added 1 degree of down thrust.
I will confirm this for you. He used to hate this plane until he figured CG, now it is his favorite plane to fly!

I'm building the CMP Zero 50- I need the offset spec for the motor. It is noted in instructions: it says use the mark on the firewall. But there's no mark. Please help.
Thanks

AK Models,
Thanks alot. I have been documenting everything I've done, so in case I can help anyone the info. will be there.


Shane

mmontella,if you bought a peashooter from CMP please go back and read EVERY POSTING in this thread plus do a search in EVERY OTHER THREAD about this kit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it will serve you well.
on mine, i reglassed the fire wall and wing saddle area, recovered the elevator and wing with century 21, used dubro hinges and clevis's threw out most of the kit's hardware, made aileron servo mount plates from 1/8 inch plywood, bent the main gear forward 40 degrees at the spot weld to place the wheels in front of the leading edge about 1 1/2 inches, moved the cowel forward 1/2 inch from the plans spec, and still had to add 27 oz of lead to the motor mount to make it "balance" plane came in at 10 lbs even, and i am afraid to fly it... LOOKS GOOD THOUGH. MIKE

She does look good. Thanks for the input. I may have to hold off a little until I hear some more positive feedback. Hopefully CMP is listening and is improving their products as they receive this type of feedback. It is a sweet looking plane, but I am not real comfortable with throwing down the $180+ for a plane that does not perform well.

Thanks!

Well alot of the stuff CMp sell's is not all there own construction, However they do sell it and should stand behind there stuff but as most of you have found out they could give a F.... about the dealers as well as the pilots. As if CMP arent bad enough now there are other people that are nocking off other "CMP" junk and People like nitroplanes ,riadentech GP and even AK himself will tell you that He and all the others have no problem takeing your hard eand $ for stuff that Has to be re-engineerd right... wrong, I quit buying there stuff when Jacky broke my contract and would not stand by there products. Damaged canopy's missing cowelings etc. so I only go to shows and tell buyers be aware! Some are good, Hellcat, Giles,FW190, su 31 Katana, Yak all of these being 120to 140 sizes etc. good luck Iknow I catch hell for this letter so Keep it to your self I have a brain tummor.

Joe

So....you've had the displeasure of dealing with Jekyl also? She is a piece of work.

CMP should either discontinue the .40 size planes and/or re-engineer them and take care of the problems that modelers have had to date with them. I don't think that Chinese and other vendors from outside of the US understand how much more sales would be generated by standing behind the product here in the US.

The .90 size spit is no gem either. Both ail. the rudder and 1 elev. were all warped upon furhter inspection and it has'nt even flown yet. from everything I've read I won't bother trying to remedy this and just cut my losses. Should've gone with Kyosho's Spit instead. Oh well live and learn..


Shane

Hi Alex,
Just came across your thread. I'm currently building the 54" P-40 and have read alot of people
have had problems with the C of G. Jacqueline@CMP states it should be 80mm from the
leading edge. This seems a bit far back. I read that an RC magazine in Australia did a review
on this kit and found the C of G to be more like 55mm back.
I was hoping you could get some clarification on this.
Thanks Alex,
Roy

Hi Roy,
I would go with 55mm CG,
this way you would be on safe side.
At this time I could not give you more spesific CG as all info I have is same as CMP.
Once you confirm CG please let us all know.
Thank you.

Don't believe a word Jacquiline says. She's full of it.