I own the VMAR Cesnna 182, Building went together fairly well. I did have to change a few step and threw the instruction book away as it was not written to match the plane. I have logged 23 flights with total of 4.7 flight hours. It looks as though I have flown it for 10 years. I will continue to fly this plane as long as it holds up.

I also own a Hangar 9 T-34. This plane has 3 times the flights and looks as though I just built it yesterday.

I own and enjoy the Vmar Aero Suburu,, added the flaps and the scale takeoffs and landings are very stable, and this plane tracks very nicely ,even in 15 plus mph winds i feel relaxed flying this plane,, // I have seven planes from Giant Scale to Global to Great Planes to Segull and i can find flaws in everyone of them,,but i prefer to fix the flaws and keep flying...My next purchase will be the VMAR TOMAHAWK.... Rich.

I just recieved my newly released VMAR Xtreme Stik which I ordered from Quantum Models. It's obvious that there is a marked improvement in quality over the VMAR Discovery I bought for a club trainer 2 years ago. They really are getting better. So let's back off on beating up on VMAR

I have built ARFs from Kangke, and Great Planes and found that I needed to beef up the areas around the firewall and other critical areas. No ARF is perfect though I must say that Kangke is close.

I hope you are right that they are improving, and secondly who is beating up on Vmar? All I have read is just folks stating there experiences whether they be good or bad. I wouldn't expect anyone to lie. If someone ask the question, then they deserve an honest answer, and that is all that most folk here try to do IMO.

I went to the source "Richmond RC ' . I asked an honest question ..."Dear sirs , I really want to buy one of your new prop jets but I am concerned over the quality issues and various post and history on RCU " .

There responce was as follows , " the only review we know of on RCU is that of our new F4 Phantom and that was very good "

There you have it , buy Vmar , because there are no bad issues , no bad features and no bad wood/covering ect ect .So for $329(Vmar) I was convinced by Richmond RC to do the right thing and I bought a Cermark prop jet for $279 , yes this is america and we are all free to research and spend/risk our money where we choose.
Good luck to all

Another VMAR thread ... well what can we say, democracy allows us to do what we want and how we want, capitalism allows us to buy what we want at whatever price we like. To each their own. What CK says is true ... all the negative comments are statement pertaining to experiences. It cannot be some conspiracy to hammer VMAR. Look at the Magic Extra, Funtana 90, Harrier 3D threads ... these are really good planes (yes they have come flaw here and there) but you will see 95% of the people sing their praises and only 5% is unhappy. Well for VMAR we know what the percentage is ...

Ti , your dead on , I sincerly wanted to buy a Vmar prop jet , so I what i wanted from Richmond was features and benifits of how and if they have changed . Example , yes our wood features and the benift is ..... our covering is ..... and the benifit is ...... it is built by ..... and the benifit is ...... wing loading is ..... benift is .......

I had concerns over my VQ P40 because RCM did a review on how the wing had bad wash out . Mike the owner of VQ addressed this head on , pulled the plane , redesigned it .He did not hide from it , as a result me and many more spent a very satisfied $259 on the VQ P40 . That is a sign of a well manageed company .

I dont know Vmar from the next guy , what I do know is that the % of negative comments from RCU regular guys like me and you is high on the negative side .

If you still have it,,ill take it off your hands and ill pay for the shipping,im in Virginia. Let me know, i love my Vmar planes..-- [email protected]

I have never read a bad review in ANY RC mag. Some say a few pros and cons, but they all fly great and all build well. Why would a mag. put a bad review in the book and risk a sponcer pulling its adds? I had a VMAR. the gear pulled out on the first landing. I guess I am one of the people that will never even think about a VMAR again. But then, H9 landing gear is no great thing either.

I hate to say this but literally all US mags are bad news in terms of reviews. This was evident when I was into RC cars, even the lousy cars were rated as GOOD. These are cars that we know for a fact to be under performing cars. When it comes to planes its so obvious again. Like what Jeffee says ... why risk the advertiser pulling out.

Reviews are basically just a big sales pitch IMHO. Very little useful information to be gained by reading a Magazine Review. The best review you can find is to talk to someone here in the forums or someone at your Club who has had the Plane. You usually don't have to worry about them holding back valuable information that may either influence you to buy or not to buy. A mag review is all about trying to get you to buy that sponsors merchandise.

CK - that is why I am here all the time and hardly buy any mags anymore. The mags I buy are the back issues that cost a fraction only.

I actually enjoy reading the R/C Mags, its just that I don't put much trust in the reviews within those mags. Mainly its just entertainment to me. I do however like some of the "how to" articles.

"A mag review is all about trying to get you to buy that sponsors merchandise. "

I will have to disagree with your statement. I have a friend, my instructor actually, who writes reviews in several mags. He will admit that they don't want you to rag on the model really bad, but he says you can get your shots in, you just have to be "politcal" in doing it. The actual selling of the plane never enters in the equation, just the charactoristics of the model. I believe we all know that no reviewer is going to come right out and say a model just plain stinks, handles like a piece of crap,, stuff like that. I've read maybe one mag that pretty much says what they think. MaximumPC.

I have to disagree with the blanket statement that all reviews are ads , MAN , yes you are probably correct , Fly Rc , yep , but RCM has sold me on the fact that they are differant .They nailed Vq on there original P40 release with the wrong washout , the model was pulled and redesigned .

Fly Rc did a review on the H9 corsair and missed every point on this site that needed attention . I emailed them , there responce " we will look into that and get back to you " yes 6 months later no responce , so I treat it like Playboy , I buy it for the pics not the content only when I feel like it , it trash
The same two reviewed the H9 eletric mustang like it was as easy as a trainer , there are so many reports about that plane flying like a brick on the standard set up its rediculous , they should never sell that plane as standard set up

LDM
You are correct that I should not have blanketed all Mags under the same roof. I must say that I have heard lots of good things about RC Reports reviews, and yes I have read a few descent reviews in other mags. What I should have said is that the majority of reviews are sales pitches, and it is hard, but not impossible to find a good review within a mag. Some reviewers probally do refuse to sugarcoat everything to keep their conscience clear. I must also repeat that I do enjoy reading most of the mags though, and I even like MA, and I just recently got a new subscription to RCM. MAN has some nice pictures, but they seem to be the most ad driven out of all of them IMO.

I know we are veering off topic, but I must say that I bought the little Parkzone Electric Decathalon to fly in my side lot when I don't have time to go fly my gas Planes at the Club, and it was actually a review here on RCU that basically said that upgrades would be needed to make the Plane a good flyer. I followed the recommendations in that review, and the Plane went from a not-so good flyer, to a good little flyer. So I was wrong in saying that there is no good reviews, but I will say that they are few and far between.

agree , no offense , I think we are all correct in assuming we need to consider the source , personally I dont even take stock in the RCU review unless its done by a regular guy -one of us who purchase the modle , the review on RCU on the Vmar F4 was in my opinion ok .
Look at the flight video and you will see that the planes looks sluglesh in certain patterns , I know the F4 is not a rocket but the video at time makes it look like there are moments of very slugesh controls responces .
I wonder how the weight of the F4 compares to prop planes in its size .

er... have you seen a new issue? I got my June issue, and started seeing the "Has RCM Folded?" thread. Nobody there has reported seeing newer issues...

Good luck,
Dave Olson

I emailed RCM and got a reply on 7/12/05 that said that they where in printing negotiations,and my July/Auguist issue would be mailed on the 24th and I still have not received it as off today ,so I hope they get there problems whit ther printers figured out soon that is the best magazine I have read they do tell it like it is in there .I also bought a V-Mar arf and I have some issues with it.Like the wing did not fit the wing saddle properly ,the fuel tank bung will not tighten have to use one out off diferent kit right now. I have not finished it yet so i have not flown it yet, trying to take my time on it to fix any problems before they happen. I hope to fly this plane in a few weeks will let you know how it goes.

I decided to hold off on the Vmar line , I spoke to a gut at my field who has the F4 , he had the same problem as the review model with the fin being off but his biggest complant is the covering and the overall weight and feel of the plane in the air .

Hi there,
I have a VMAR Extra 330L,great looking and flys well.
But......I had to do a bit of strengthening where the wing tubes go through the fuz,'cause afrte a while the tube holes wear and the wing becomes "floating",not good on an aerobatic aircraft,anyway,ply doublers and some epoxy fixed that.
Then.......the clear poly layer of the covering started letting go,bugger! I said![>:]
If they,VMAR could sort out these few Q.C issues that would = customers.

May all your landings be right way up!
Larry.

Well the prop planes are $299, and for that price range I think there is better value and quality for the money

i have now now set my 60-size stick away for a rest. logged nearly 500 flight's over 3 years. yes!!! you read right. now i enjoy my arrow 40, flies just as great. i love vmar, low cost, means low money risk and lot of fun. have to say, i also fly very expensive models, but the thrill of vmar is great!

I have to agree they do have sharp looking airplanes but their manuals and customer support are pretty much useless. I helped a friend of mine build a VMAR Cessna (which he bought direct from RichmondRc) and it looked as though the manual was made for another plane entirely. I suggested to him that he call RichmondRC and complain but when he did, he was not treated very well to the point where they were downright insulting. I don't know about anyone else but when I buy a plane, I want it to be from a company that supports the product instead of giving the run around or is insulting to its customers. I would say that their product pretty much comes with a taillight warranty. Once you drive away with it, your warranty is expired.