I didn't see the Vmar Extra mentioned. Mine's great, 300 flights, the covering has faded but the plane still does everything I know how to do. Very sturdy, very stable (well, for a very aerobatic plane.)

Two friends took my word, bought their own, they like 'em. I see they're on the website, but not featured in the magazine ads.

Good sturdy aerobatic plane. Pilot & canopy & instrument panel installed at factory. Covering is sticky back, seal it with CA.

Good luck,
Dave Olson

i have found they are kinda low quality. I mean, the ailerons are hollow, The gear cracked after 5 landings, the wheel pants were inconsistant meaning that the plastic was all milky, and in some spots you could see through it. They were also all melted and deformed. When i put them on, They broke they were so bad. The wing tape is the wrong color, The cowl is not even the correct shape let alone the color, The cowl is constantly cracking, The engine mounting surface on the heavy cheap aluminum mount supplied wasn't even flat so i bought a good one, their wheels are junk, The elevators are slightly warped, The servo tray's screws will loosten on their own and literally drill their way through the mounting holes, The clevisis are really bad and are impossible to get on twards the tail, The canopy has orange peel, There appear to be white tire marks going through the words "miss Oshkosh" on the left side facing from the back to the front, The wing mounting bolts are flimsy and dangerous to use, The ailerons were way too small, And the foam padding on my flight box managed to go through the covering. Another thing that went through it way too early on was a weed. The prop didn't efen throw it, it just cut the covering. Also, my big toe went through that stuff. so, i got a recovering kit and the colors don't even match. Evertyhing is at least 5 shades lighter, and the patching stuff they supplied is completely the wrong color. I mean it is so off that you would havfe a harder time noticing the glare on the packing tape than this. It's like orange on a black background. also the engine thrust line was an inch and a half too low, The holes in the fuselage to allow the wing dowels to go through were drilled at the wrong angle meaning we had to spend hours filing it down, only to find out that now where is too much play. The Cradle tape they supply sticks to the wing and dries, and when you peel the dried resedue off it takes a lot of the color with it. They say to check over it before you start building it or they won't replace the defective parts and stuff, But a lot of that only shows up once you have built it, or sometimes even used it. I was pretty unhappy with it, and the only reason i have not bought a diferent one is because i can do a knife edge spin really easily, and it tumbles very well.

SuperTiger I was glad to see you post... and Q-balls... I picked up a VMAR 540 edge from someone who got scared off by all the bad posts... He sold it to me Dirt cheap with a .61 2 stoke... I have most of the plane assembled... just worried about the thrust line push rods and wheel quality... Did you change anything from what was stock or the way they instructed and I will probably use a stock muffler and run it the way instructed. Yes I plan to buy different engine mount to save weight... Please get back to me asap I want it finished and in the air.. So far I'm very glad I baught it... Quality isnt the best out their, but much better then what I expected from reviews
Thanks BULL

Bull, i used most of the clevises and control rods, but i changed the motor mount and the tail wheel. and i also didn't use the spinner/ i also used nylon lock nuts on the wing joiners instead of the non locking nuts that came with the plane. just have fun with this plane its not the best 540 edge but it flys fast and true just a little heavy for good 3D flying. this plane handle more like a pattern plane

I used everything in the box except the motor mount.I never liked those kinda mounts that sandwich the engine.Other than that It's built completely stock with what they sent with no problems. The clevices and all that stuff got used.
Positives:
Nice flyer,Gets a lot of looks.It's a beauty.Fairly fast with a 70 4S.No speed demon tho'.
Negs: The covering don't like the sun at all. It'll bubble real bad if it sits in the sun very long.The plane is a bit heavy but that's ok as long as it flies well.The wings aren't as tite as they used to be although the screws are tite,theres still a little movement of the wings.Other than that it's certainly worth the 169.

I also didn't use the wheel pants.I've learned in the past that wheel pants love the bottom of wings.It would certainly look nicer but I'm afraid to take a chance as the covering can't be matched if something happens.This has happened on other planes so I just stay away from them.I have wondered whether to try them for one reason...The other planes that I've tried the pants on had wire Landing gear and did a lot of flexing on landing allowing the pants to flex back and hit the wing.On the other hand a plane with rigid l/g does not allow the pant's to flex much which lessens the chance of the pants putting a hole in the bottom of thw wing.Does that make sense to yall?? Just wondering.

I think it's a nice plane.Not the greatest ARF but for 169,it's not bad at all and if they had another style of plane that I like,I'd probably buy another.

Happy flying....Walt

i have my cap with a .91 four stroke. Don't use their engine mounts, The wheels are garbage, replace them all. Their spinner isn't much better. Other than that, most of the hardware is sound

Hello.
I consider buying the VMAR Cessna Skylane 182 for a 90 size engine and a 80” wingspan, but I have been discouraged by the various post in this page. The idea is to use it with an old Saito 120 and floats.

Anyone with experience from that model?

I have never tried any of the VMAR ARF´s, and consider spending the extra money on a Hacker Decathlon of about the same size instead.

Thoughts welcome.

I think it's all a matter of budget, taste and other things.
I have one of these little VMAR Challengers and even though it probably isn't a top quality setup, I have had it for a while and it flies well and looks good.
VMAR kits are also typically cheaper than many other kits, at least here in Australia, so I guess you tend to get what you pay for.

I wouldn't write them off. If you like the plane and the price is right, it is without doubt easy to reinforce the airframe where you feel it's needed and improve in many other ways. You tend to do that with most ARF kits anyway.

Best regards

A few guys at my flyign field fly Vmar - They love the planes - not just for their price but also the performance. I've seen 'em run and they are just as good as any plane out there. The covering isn't top notch...but that's not a big problem - I just consider it a ARC and re-cover it in monokote the way I like.

Their planes convinced me to get one too - a hotrod .40 - should be coming in this week. It's one of the new designs. I'll post here when I get it and let you know how it comes out of the box

Just to update on my Vmar 540 edge. I finished the plane and flew it 6 times... It flew pretty well at half throttle or faster.( .61 2 stroke instaled), but any type of low speed flying it would loose lift and tip into a dive... I know it's part af flying that type of plane but the VMar Edge is heavy and it's very easy to loose control if you are not an experienced pilot... You definetly have to be one step ahead of it. If I had to do it again I would have saved a little more money and baught a different brand. Just my pinion...

got about $20 more you can get anything from VectorFlight.com Im sure these birds are decent but VF planes are higher quality and just fly better. Just MO.

good luck

you can always get one and change it as is needed to accomedate you.

Well, I sure like mine anyway. One flaw - the fuel is eating the covering after 50 flights. Other than that it has been great. Went together extra easy, instructions clear, everything straight, and I used all the stuff in the box - clevis and all, and no problems in second summer of operations other than the darn covering shatters if you drop a screwdriver on it (did I really do that?) and as I said, fuel eats it. Oh ya, and the GMS 40 won't shut off - idles great, but even with mods I can't do anything to shut it off except pinch the fuel line or put a finger over the muff. But I think anybody who wants a plane that is a step up from basic trainer should consider the Vmar Challenger - I really like mine after two seasons.

Just purchased Beaver 60-90 from Quantum. kit looks in perfect shape. Vmar and Quantum ask you to check everything out BEFORE construction. You have opportunity to return for full refund w/i 30 days Operating surfaces hinged,canopy and windows mounted. pushrod for tail feathers installed. Most work will be servos(4 on wings, 3 in cockpit] it even has a pilot figure in cockpit. I would have preferred a Saito 100 on firewall.

how is the harvard not the harvard II but the just plan harvard in the canadian airforce scheme. is it a suitable low wing trainer. also how is the van rv4, thanx a lot.

Haven't the faintest idea. Suggest you EMail Kelsey at Richmond RC- she's smart and knows a lot about Vmar kits Shes smart enough not to run for Gov of California.

if your engine won't shut off, it is sucking air from somewhere, most likely through the carb casket. you need to tighten the set screw just below the carb. if that doesn't help, get a new seal. the problem with the check everything before you start building is that you don't notice a lot of the stuff until you build. for instance, my engine thrust line was an inch and a half too low. i never would have noticed that.

I have had a VMAR Arrow for about 3 years now and it has been the best, most reliable aircraft I have ever owned. I can do repeated snap rolls, outside loops, stalls, spins, knife edge et al. It is extremely responsive and very robust. From what I hear Vmar kits are horrible, but this one has outlasted every other kit I have owned.

Jays

it is nice to hear that someone got some good results from vmar, good luck on your continued success.

dennis

Today a VMAR Cap 231 crashed on landing, the plane came in hard and bounced and the plane's UC hit the underside of the wing. The plane uses STICKER and not proper covering. Man ... I heard a Beaver took off today and was returned to the LHS ... something broke. Oh well ...

i dont know what that covering they use is made of, but that polycote ecs stuff is really crap. it looks great and it is very detailed, but man, that stuff is so weak that when i pivoted my wing while i was replacing the ailerons that were way too small for my cap 232 anyway with bigger ones, my big toe went right through it. i did not kick it, nor do i have sharp toenails. it just went through as i pivoted the wing around the center of the aifoil to soak the other side of the ca hinge holes.

Oh well ... what can we say. Next time DON'T kick the plane!!! Hahaha ...

I called VMAR today and asked for details on their 90 sized PC-9, here is the response:

"It's the same as the 40 sized one but bigger, and no we dont have any pics of it...." there was a long pause and that seemed to be the end of the conversation.

She didnt seem to eunthused about the whole conversation so ill return the favor and not buy any of their junk. [:'(]

matt

Of course its YOUR fault, as an avid RC enthusiasts you shold have knows that the 90 sized plane is bigger than the 40 sized one. You see, you stumped her with your query. So please note that all 90 sized planes are larger than their 40 sized counter part!!!

And the 90 sz is heavier... with bigger spots that are not glued. With more of that crapy covering that can't be matched if you get a tear and try to repair. What's really cool about them is you get even more wood for the camp fire when it hit's ground and is destroyed... WOW I Love their planes... Maybe I will get A VMAR.