Anyone had problems with lack of glue used in the WM ARF's?

How about lack of final sanding, and fit of parts?

This is my first WM ARF and I have read nothing but good remarks, in fact under the RCU's user review this kit recieved 4 out of 5 stars.

I would give this kit about 2 stars myself.

They are not normally perfect, but they are very good, if it is really bad have you tried to call airborne models they are the distrubuter.

Which plane?

Last year I bought a WM 27% Ultimate. It was the worst piece of junk I've ever had. I gave it away after 10 flights.

World models are very good planes. I have several and plan on more in the future. But as with any arf regardless of brand, you need to beef up areas like firewalls and landing gear blocks etc. Slap some glue here and their as your assembling the thing just for aggravation.

They're one of the better ARF importers, but all ARFs are a gamble nowadays. It's just less of a gamble with the better ones.

Wow that's too bad.

The .40 version Ultimate is pretty good.

Mine has taken substantial abuse with aplomb.

What was so bad about yours?

I've built only two WM planes and both went together well and had plenty of glue on the joints.

Mike

I've had 2 WM Planes
The .40 Ultimate I had was a piece of junk as far as the lack of glue was concerned. It lasted 6 flights before I retired it to the garbage (I'd rather spend my time on a decent quality ARF). None of those flights was a crash, the closest was a deadstick landing in some long Pasture.(4" high which is long pasture by Australian standards). The amount of airframe components that came loose in those flights was abysmal at best and it got to the point where I didn't trust it at all.

I currently have a 26cc Extra which I have just maidened. It is built a little better but at least it is large enough to be able to reach in and do something about it.

Having said that, Both planes actually flew well with the CoG and deflections set as per the manuals.

I just had a world models go in, the thing about the firewall is that it holds up during normal usage but when ever I have had a crash with a WM plane the firewall gave way and saved the engine. People tell me that they should be stronger but in these cases the lack of glue saved me having to buy new motors.

James

i have 2 world/airborne models arfs and both have been very well designed and fly very well. the gluing also has been fine. the canopy on one plane cracked early. other than that they are very good planes. they are better than the hangar 9 plane i had.

the hangar 9 plane looked a little better as far as finish and covering was smoother on the hangar 9 but the hangar 9 covering peeled off the front of the fuselage and leading edges of the wing. Also on the hangar 9 the wing did not fit the wing saddle - so I had to modify the fuselage sides to get the wing to fit. fortunately I guessed right on how to fix the fuselage saddle and it flew very well.

Ed

As I have posted elsewhere on this forum, I had a Groovy 90 which was the worst pile of badly build rubbish that I have ever had and an Extra 300s 160 size which was poorly sanded all over and a very poor flier.

I returned that WM ARF for a full refund.

In all I am just shocked because I read a lot of good hype in the magazines, and forums about WM quality, and value.

Plus reading the user review that several people had rated this kit here on RCU with an average score of 4 out of 5.

I was going to rate it based on my experience but RCU stipulates that you have to fly the model to rate it.

I wonder how many other people have returned kits based on poor quality but have been unable to convey this in the rate it section.

One last thought the plane pictured on the box sure didn't match what was inside the box, maybe the picture had been airbrushed?

I have had several WM models over the last few years and I feel that their quality has definitely gone down hill. I have recently taken delivery off an ARF from another manufacturer in China (same sort of price) and the quality is much better, both in types of material used and the covering. It is a shame because most of their range seems to fly pretty well, my mates 120 sized Ultimate is very nice, but my 50cc
although great fun does have several aerodynamic issues!

There is a lot of competition out there and I feel that WM is falling behind.

Don - a friend got the 27% Ultimate and he said it was bad ... the 90" Extra also had similar complains.

Their best flying planes are still the Sky Raider I and II, SS40, Super Stunt, T34, Super Chipmunk, SS Senior and a few more. I did not like the Groovy, the Velox was nasty too ...

You must have received a "Friday night" plane.

I've purchased three of these and all were well built. As a rule I ALWAYS apply a fuel proofing mixture to re-inforce and protect all exposed wood as well, and reinforce the gear blocks, something which I feel should be done with all ARFs.

These planes have survived substantial abuse with aplomb and w/o problems.... including cartwheeling across the airfield, etc.
After several such incidents I've had people come up and ask about these planes as they were quite surprised about their durability.

The biggest problem I've had has been with the covering trim coming off when exposed to glow fuel.

That has been easy to remedy with an application of Top Flite clear Koat spray.

I am another one that thinks something is "fishy" at WM

I found problems in the wing of the Sky Raider Mach II, the shear webs were not glued to the top spar, only the bottom. I found this out by giving the wings a slight twist to see how stiff it was, it felt sloppy. Since I am not a fan of that cloth like pattern on the covering, I ripped it off and found the shear web problem, a bit of glue and new covering and it is now nice a stiff in twist. Why did I check that?, don't want to bust a wing while racing! (Club 40)

Later I got another plane as a backup, recovered it to match the first and found the same problem in that one too. Since then, 3 other Sky Raiders at the field have had the same problem.

Where is gets interesting is, I got a wing from a crashed one as parts, this wing came from an older plane. One mid-air later and I am using the right wing panel to fix my #1 plane. The shear webs on the donor wing were well glued. Humm......

FWIW!

Later!

There was a time a few years ago where many of WM planes also came as an ARC. The 40 P-51 and Midget was one of them.

The kit I bought (48 size Clipped Cub) and returned had very little glue in the fuselage area. The lite ply doubler was actually not bonded to the balsa wood in many areas. There was no sign of glue at the firewall, they did use triangle stock in the corners but the glue joint looked dry.

I could have solved these problems in about 15 min with CA and epoxy no problem.

But like your wing on the Skyraider Mach II there are places you can't get to unless you uncover the structure.

One thing I thought looked really terrible was the formers that made up the turtle deck behind the wing were poking out through the covering.
What happend to scalloping formers? In my opinion this really detracted from the looks of the plane. You couldn't make out this feature from the box photo, or wraped in plastic sitting in the box.

Then the parts fit was bad also, with the wings slid together on the aluminum tube joiner, the trailing and leading edges were off about 3/32 to 1/8 inch. When I tried to set the wing on the fuselage it didn't fit well on one side of the saddle and that was going to need work as well.

It was at this point I threw in the towel and neatly packaged it back up for the return.

Going from very excited to get a new cool plane, to being relieved to get rid of it was the real bummer!

it's sad to hear that WM is having some bad reviews. when i bought their planes, and i had half a dozen of them, they were literally the best ARFs i'd put together. i really hope that they can stay at the top of their game. i can imagine that it would be difficult, though. their factory is not too far from ours and with the turnover that the hot economy has brought on the shenzen area, it's not surprising that quality would suffer. i will be getting back to flying soon... i only hope that the next WM i purchase will be as good as the ones i've previously owned and loved.

I just want to say that I have a World Models P-51 Miss America and I think it's best plane I have ever had. Don't be to hard World Models I think they have good quality Arfs. I had a Diego Red I flew the heck out of it. I finally got tired of it and sold to another Club Member and unfortunately he crashed it on a dead stick landing. Oh well thats the hobby for you.

Tailspincharlie

I have had two W.M. P-51's. These not only flew very well, but were well built, light and held together. All ARF's need attention...some where. I've known half a dozen men with W.M. P-51, all with good results. To me the W.M. P-51 set the standard for airworthness, and construction, for the ARF Mustang. Their F-82 is probibly the best WWII fighter trainer twin made. The F-82 not only has a striking presents in the air, but it handles an engine out better then any other twin on the market I know of. These two models are the only W.M. airframes I've owned. And I have only good to say about W.M.

Soft landings always,
Bobby of Maui

See my review of the Groovy 90 f3a on this site. It is honest and unbiased I promise you.
The model that I replaced it with (Pro-Build Infinity X) was larger and a whopping pound and a half lighter with the same equipment on board.