RCU Forums - VMAR MODELS

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)

- ARF or RTF (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/arf-rtf-75/)

- - VMAR MODELS (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/arf-rtf-75/2976957-vmar-models.html)

TO ALL
WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT VMAR,I HAVE HEARD HORROR STORIES ABOUT VMAR ----IM INTERSTED IN THE ESCAPE MODEL---AND I READ SOME POSTS WHERE THEY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE IMPROVED AND IT IS GOOD MODEL.IF ANYONE HAS HAD THE ESCAPE---------WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AS WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF IT
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
LEN

hi
VMARare the best rc model just when the are stay in ther box
if you want to fly one so go buy your self another brand
udi
israel

I have put many of their planes together, thank God for other people and not for myself. Just one word about VMAR products..............Junk.

Steve

Well. I recently reviewed their Extra 330L and it was excellent. They have new people in charge now and the products are very good, I cannot speak for the Escape as I have never seen one, but don't judge Vmar by their past reputation. They HAVE improved

Can't speak to the "Escape" but from my experiances Vmar = Junk.. There are so many better brands to choose from out there..

Three years ago I won a VMar Avenger 60 at a funfly. Not having a need for it, and not trusting their reputation I promptly traded it to another modeller for a used US41. I did however inspect the kit fairly thoroughly before making the trade.

The wood they used for the firewall was not acceptable. Much of the hardware was junk. But the wings and fuse were built solid and straight. I'm not sure what the covering material was but it did seem up to the task.

The fellow I traded it to did cut himself a new firewall and upgraded most if not all of the hardware. It has been his main flier for the past couple of years now. Its flying characteristics are excellent even if it is beginning to look a bit ratty.

Sounds like a plane I do not want:D

I have seen carefully almost all the VMAR planes, even some that US distributor does not have. I cannot believe if anyone can really say that the plane is good. Yes, they fly fine but after 10 flights it all falls apart, it is best flown in the dark where there is no sunlight, also do not use any fuel as the exhaust will cause adverse effect on the covering ... if you can please ensure that the motor has no vibration as it will shake everything loose.

Its a pretty good plane I guess ...

I consider Black Horse planes to be cheap stuff but VMAR is cheaper!!! VMAR/VQ etc have the same quality issues. Cheap quality ...

I have flown 2 friends Vmars. Both excellent flyers and no structural problems. They have improved a ton..... Really, they are not bad for the money.,

Check out Seagull or World Models ARFs instead. They are both very reasonable in pricing and the quality is very good. [8D]

Yeah, World makes ok stuff, but in my newer and improved opinion on Vmar, they are not any worse than World or Seagull. Kange is junk for the $ if you ask me. The last 2 Kange planes I have seen looked like they were cut out with an AX, and then the cowl was made by kindergarten kids with modeling clay..

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Dart373

Yeah, World makes ok stuff, but in my newer and improved opinion on Vmar, they are not any worse than World or Seagull. Kange is junk for the $ if you ask me. The last 2 Kange planes I have seen looked like they were cut out with an AX, and then the cowl was made by kindergarten kids with modeling clay..

WOW, we must be on differant planets.. Vmar is on a par with WM ?... Good grief... I have had those warping, wrinkled Vmars and I have had a lot of WM ARF's . They Vmar's don't even start to come close in quality... As for Kange.. I am in the process of assembling there Monocoupe and it is a beautiful ARF.. Right up there with the best IMHO.. I also have a Seagull Decathlon... It's quality is way above Vmar but not up to WM standards.. Still a good buy for the money..

Iron Cross - you are nasty! Hahahaha ...

I have to stand by what I said earlier. I have both the VMAR Extra 330L and the Seagull Decathlon. They are both of equally good quality.

VMAR did put out some junk in the past, but they have improved by leaps and bounds.

Their new stuff is VERY good.

I'm gonna buy a dang VMAR just to satisfy my curiosity based on all these hundreds of threads! :D

Have fun and please keep us informed. We are always glad to hear if quality standards have changed, both good and bad. [8D]

I have seen the escape, and its a great plane, a buddy and I have F4's, another great plane! A friend has their mc9 or whatever its called, and its a nice flying plane and he loves it... Sounds to me they have improved alot. I say give them a try.

Well, I am not saying it is in Hangar 9's league or anything, but the Vmars I have seen built in the last 2 years or maybe 1.5 years, well, not too bad..FOR THE MONEY as said above... Keith

TO ALL
THANKS FOR YOUR REPLIES, AFTER DUE CONSDERATION----I DECIDED TO TAKE THE PLUNGE -----WITH VMAR ESCAPE
THANKS
LEN

Quote:

ORIGINAL: flyman1

TO ALL
THANKS FOR YOUR REPLIES, AFTER DUE CONSDERATION----I DECIDED TO TAKE THE PLUNGE -----WITH VMAR ESCAPE
THANKS
LEN

For your sake, I hope they have improved! Good Luck!

Let us know how it turns out.. Interesting to see if they are now all balsa or still part "cotton wood" or what ever that warping junk is/was... Also how the covering stands up.. A few days in the 100 plus sun here and they all seem to end up looking like prunes.. Looking forward to your report...

You guys sure are positive...:eek:

I am sorry for sounding negative.[:o] Here is something positive.:) At least you are only going to be mad you spent $100 instead of $200.;)

Well, it has been 11.5 years since the last post. I just purchased vmar's version of Phil Kraft's awesome "Das Ugly Stik" Ja! Perhaps after a decade will result in a better plane!? If not, it only was 83 and free shipping. Will keep you posted!

I've built several VMAR planes. First one was the L-19 Bird Dog that HobbyKing sold for a long time.

It went together easily and it flies very, very well. It's built VERY light so don't expect it to survive much abuse, but it flies exceptionally well on a little 250 watt bell motor and flies forever on a 3S 2200. It's one of the few planes I trust to get low and slow and it's right at home there. It has a fully-radiused fuselage which was surprising to me. No square, boxy fuselage here.

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/...psrazlabfs.jpg
http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/...psl0j4m8tl.jpg

The 2nd I built was their 'new' 1300mm Cessna 182. It is hands down the most scale Cessna 182 in balsa in this size class. It builds light (but heavier than the foamies) and like the L-19 it's lightly-built so don't expect it to survive a lot of abuse. It's gorgeous, though. Again, fully-radiused fuselage, no square box. A very pretty model that looks great. I flew mine on an EFlite 1020kv Park 480. Needed 0 trim and the flaps were extremely effective. She's a touch-and-go princess. She quickly became my favorite plane.

Unfortunately she was lost to a radio failure on the turn into final. The US distributor has them marked out of stock. I'm desperately hoping and praying they come back in stock. I'm being 100% honest when I say I've never lost a plane that I was upset about for weeks after the crash.

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/...pssc2tylyv.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/29zy2px.jpg

Third is the Twin Otter. I'm actually putting this one together right now. It's the newer revision with the proper landing gear fairings and wire gear instead of the stamped metal main gear. So far everything's going together great. The airframe is extremely light and like the others it's properly radiused, even though the nose isn't exactly scale (especially for a Series 100...). But the wingroot fairings and the likes are very well done. I don't know how they've got it so light. I'm going to power this one with 2 Turnigy 1050kv Park 450s with APC 9x6E props and a 3S 3300. Should be plenty of power. Will post pictures of her soon.

4th is the Ugly Stick which I haven't started putting together yet.

Some things I've found in common on all 4 planes.

1) They're very lightly built. They're strong, but very light. Don't expect them to survive much hangar rash. Let alone a serious crash. The Cessna survived a few hard landings while I was learning to land her with no damage, but don't expect to have much left after a crash. I didn't.

2) The covering, while it looks great with the panel lines and everything printed, is thin, somewhat transparent and not easy to get wrinkles out of. I fiddled around with heat settings on my Hangar 9 iron with a hotsock and couldn't find 1 temp that worked. I had to fiddle with it but eventually was able to get wrinkles out and once they're out they stay out.

3) The stock hardware sucks. Don't plan on keeping wheels or control horns. Pushrods will likely need some lubrication because they're flexi-rod style and tend to be pretty tight. Clevices are neat. They're anodized metal and work really well. Wheel collars are blue anodized and work really well but don't overtighten them. They will strip out. Same for the blue-anodized EZ connectors. They work really well but are easy to overtighten and dig the threads out.

4) Every single one of them has had some warping on the h-stab. The Cessna had a pretty badly warped h-stab that I was able to mostly correct with heat. The Twotter has a warped rudder and a warped aileron that I should be able to straighten with heat.

Overall, I've been very happy with VMAR models. Because I go into the projects expecting $70.00 ARFs, not $170,00 EFlite ARFs. At the same time, they're lighter than EFlite ARFs. The Cessna 182 built WAY lighter than my EFlite Cub 450. It's nowhere near as solidly built, but it did fly SO much better.

Just putting this out there for anyone that's curious about the products as they stand today as opposed to many years ago!