RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I have the 160 AT6 from CMP very nice plane flies very good looks are first rate instruction are an exploded view but all you really need. Retracts were a problem couldnt find anyone who made them so I modifyed the wing to except Robarts.Happy with the plane and price. Jet hobbies in Vancouver BC is a good place to buy from.

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

Heavens! How did an 18 month old dead thread get opened up?

Peter,

I have followed your posts for a while. You initially seemed to like the CMPro products out of the box. You also said you were so frustrated at building it that you trashed it before it was finished. What I don't know is if you have actually flown a CMP product.

I purchased my first CMP Corsair a few months back after reading a bit about them, including the post where you said it was a good band for the buck. Some of the hardware is unacceptable, and some is OK. The directions are the worst part. It seems someone must have used a basic language translator . For Instance, "Use to the shortest best fit". Also, parts shown in the "directions" may or may not be what is in the kit, if they are there at all. The Tailwheel on the corsair is utterly rediculous. I had to engineer something on my own, and I am not sure yet whether it will work over time.

If your idea of instructions is an exploded view, then this is your kit. This is my fifth warbird. I am using techniches from a great planes corsair I built a few years back. I could tell immediately that the finish was delicate. I coated every surface with a flat clear coat which has made it very resilient on the workbench.

It is really one very nice looking bird. The paint and finish is top notch for a bird of this price. But it really should be considered a fiberglass kit since you must engineer so much to get it together. One very interesting problem was the retracts. I did finally get those working. I'll let you know how this one turns out.

The build is flimsier (is that a word?) than the World Models, but the look is very nice. (forgive the spelling, in a hurry!)

Bob

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I myself have built 14 different ARF's All needing something to satisfy me! Could they be built stock some yes / some no. My own experience with these models is as most. Think they are a great Bang for the $ Yes, they are some work, but my ZERO 120 I love! Great flying plane. I have not finished the P-40 yet, but after checking it out seems like it will be another winner. I've had just as much problems with my GREAT PLANES STUKA with paint coming off as my zero. There is good and bad in all... We just have to figure out how to make them as "WE" want to make it to our standards. If you need A+++ out the box buy that $700 arf. I spent $800 to get my Zero in the air, not bad for a 72" wing warbird gas powered.

All I can say is ask questions, sort it out and have fun...

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I would say without a doubt............ NO.
I see they let you back in RCU and allow you to post again LoofwaffleOberst. Proof positive RCU is an equal rights forum and can forgive just about anyone.
Out of the 295,000 members here, only one guy seems to rub me the wrong way.

Hint? The middle Brady Bunch boy.

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I built two, and both were the same in the Poor Quality factor and Yes, CMP looks good in the box. I won't fly a CMP... I'm afraid due to the poor quality that the plane will not fly well. It seems that CMP makes planes so they won't last long. The faster people crash them, the more money CMP makes off of you.




My Hanger 9 J-3 Cub, and my 40 Pulse... I both used the Stock Hardware. And it flies great, and the measurements were right on... right out of the box. Sure I had to do some reinforcing, but that was all... and that is normal for all ARF's that I'm aware of.

Peter Dowling aka Luftwaffe Oberst
AMA District II # 865404
Aero Modelers Club
Pulaski, NY

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

What are the prices like between CMP and H9? I think we all complain too much. If its cheap then you can expect money to be saved on hardware. Heck, the Fliton Extra is not that cheap at all but they use lousy clevises. All planes have their own problems. I love H9 and GP stuff but its not cheap in Malaysia, CMP is cheaper. But to have to change a few items of hardware is not all that hard.

We are not talking about planes where you need to reinforce/modify to fit everything or where the covering comes off after 4 flights. If we want good stuff then we have to pay for it.

From what I have seen or heard the P47s (big and small) are nice, the C160 flies well, the big Zero is really nice, the new Lancair is really a stunning looking plane and is well manufactured and priced, my Quest did not need any mods other than to use normal hinges and to use better linkages/clevises (my own preferrence), the Swallow is well manufactured, Edge 540 flies well and is properly manufactured, Texan is really well manufactured, Giles flies very well with no build complains ... so is CMP really bad?

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

Compared to what I've built in the past? The answer is yes.


Peter Dowling aka Luftwaffe Oberst
AMA District II # 865404
Aero Modelers Club
Pulaski, NY

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

Well to each their own. I know many people who love VMARs ... You should see my Kyosho CAP, everything is coming off even before the engine has been fitted, the covering is total cr@p. Wing fits badly and that is a Kyosho. I saw the same problem wiht my pal's SU31, even his wing did not seat properly, he had to cut the notch and also the wing saddles.

CMP Quest 50 USD119.95 ... Fliton Extra 330 USD200.00 ... GP Super Sporster USD149.00 ... H9 Pulse XT 40 USD159.99

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

To get back to the topic . I can say that my CMP Spitfire was my second warbird I ever owned. It has outlasted many others and took a lot more abuse than any of my lighter built planes. I will agree that when you spend the money on certain ARFs you get what you pay for and they go together better with less mods and added hardware. But if you like to create something that is personal and uses a wide range of power sources , then the CMPs are a low priced alternative to the fully monokoted , lightweight but expensive ARFs.
They are not for newbies and do not fly like a UCanDo. They fly more like the scale kits which tend to weigh more and look better.
If you buy one make sure it say's CMP or GSP somewhere on the box. A few rip offs are out there.

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I bought a 120 size P-47 and from what I've seen just by opening the box and checking everything looks good,very well packed.I will probably replace some of the hardware but for 198.00 I don't think you can beat it..............;)

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I got my extra 330L 50 size from nitroplanes.com. i have to tell you, that it is a very good looking airplane! I have not started the build yet. The first thing I notice was a .46 size engine would not be enough power to do 3D with this plane. As reported on all the other treads on CMP models, the instructions make no sense. But the quality of the plane is impressive. I haven't decided what engine to use. I was thinking OS 61 or The new Evolution .52. I will post a video of the plane as soon as I fly it![8D

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

Peter,

I finished the corsair and have several test flights on it now. It actually flew very well. My Top Flight P-40 doesn't fly near as well as this. It is a very forgiving aircraft. I'll keep an eye on it and see how it holds up. Thus far, the only problem seems to be the aftermarket retracts which are giving me fits on landing. This seems to be due to the control rod flexing in the gull wing. It has to have a slight bend to make it through the wing, which creates weak points. On the long wing, I used nyrod thinking it would be the weak side. Nope! It is the side with the steel rod.

Bob

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I love CMP , ok first off try building a box of wood fiberglassing the fuse with panel lines for under $200 ...lol .
I have the hellcat , the 73" p40 and just received from Wifey/santa the spitfire . I am working on a willshobby Seafury as we speak , same concepts as CMP but less thought in the enginering . CMP seems to only get better , there latest release was the 73" p40 , look at the online comparison of the CMP P40 vs the basic skyshark P40 for $400-minimum very surprising to the reviewer and many on line is that there were differance but were they worth 2 to 3 hundred dollars(basic skyshark & upwards $400 on the delux skyshark kit ) ????

If you love to build but dont have time and you love to tweek and add details CMP is your plane !!!! They are coming out with a BF 109 in the spring , should be a winner .
I plan on getting the 75" corsair next its equiped with flaps and very nice detail .

As far as where you get CMP , the original store is in Pa(Giant Scale Planes ) , they had issues with major shipping charges , they lost interest in exclusive distribution(based on not being able to import volume as they once did ) and that is how ak and NitroRc /Raidentech/egrandbuy/Jaiderc got the rights to sell CMP .--Personally I would buy from Ak or Nitro ...ak is a great company with a long history of kits sales -most famous is the su27 super flanker , Nitrorc is cleaing up there act on RCU , they were the once famous Raidentch(and still use many of the names I have listed on ebay ) with one of the worse Ebay reps in the industry . Dont be fooled by the slight address change I have been to both , its the same company and Nitro cares about there rep on RCU unlike Raidentech .

I can tell you that CMP is in discussions with willshobby about all composite planes , first release will be sport then warbirds . Imigine all composite planes ...... perhaps someone will give the great quality and workmanship of the new KMPs planes a run on the budget side of the fence .
KMPS new plane are simply excellant I just wish the cost would come down :eek:

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

After reading many posts (both good and bad) , I just purchased a CMP Zero 50 from AK. I know that some people think that the H9 are the best flying planes out there, but then again, maybe not. I'm looking forawrd to this plane and detailing it out. For the price, you really can't go wrong. I think that if you use common sense in researching the various threads, yuo can build a good flying plane. I'll hold my judgement for CMP until after I have finished my first flight.

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

CMP, I've had two. First Extra 300 loved the plane until the fire wall came out. Second, Kat 50 the plane looked great in the box, it looked great on the runway. The plane never flew good. It was heavy-- flew like a rock. I will not buy CMP again. My last buy was SIG. Little more $$, a lot better quality. CMP makes a fair e-bay plane, just not for Me any more!

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

My corsair was advertised to fly at about 6 lbs. After balancing, I am more along the lines of 7.5 pounds dry. However, I chose retracts, and it still flies nicely.

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

The 73 in wing zero flys great... Just make sure you get the balance right on the 50 ZERO CHECK THE THREADS!!! From what I heard the instructions are not right on this one for CG.

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I have 4 cmp,planes,Quest 50,brand new not flown yet,a Magpie flys great,a Chipmonk decent too much +incodence and a lark with a ttpro61 also flys great.I never use their push rods.I use GP solid pushrods.Horns are good.Just STAY AWAY from the 40 size staudecher,real nice looking plane and kit had 2,the first one crashed,It was twitchie just flying level,when landing all I had was adverse Yaw.Not too much control - 40%expo,CG was good,elevator control was good,no snaps when looping.slight + incodence.The 2nd one had the same problem,I have been doing this for 35 years,so I'm not a novice,like the Giant scale.com rep called me at the wrams show.I have a total of 22 assorted planes ready to go.Thanks ed

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

In response to LuftwaffeOberst comments about CMP, I think that maybe he should rethink many of them . I finished my CMP .50 Zero and flew it for the first time today. My only mistake was during the landing when I hit a soft spot on the field and she flipped over on her back resulting in a little rudder damage. But please note, it was MY fault, not the plane. Like most ARFs, a seasoned bulider will make modifications to the exisitng plane (whatever brand it is). The CMP quality in the fiberglass and covering were great out of the box. The last H9 P-47 I built for a customer needed major work with fuelproofing, the covering looked like a 80 year woman's skin getting out of a long shower, and I found many loose pieces that were not glued on successfully at the factory. I've found as I read many of the comments about how bad the planes are, it really looks like the company needs to contact the modelers (set up a thread) to see what has gone right and wrong. But, a lot the bad comments result in modelers not asking the right questions or doing the right things. I'm sure that the folks that have had no compliants will be more than willing to share what they did to have successful flights.

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

bass , could not agree more . I just got the spit for xmas and the out of the box appearance is very nice .
MOst of my CMP tweeks dont go over $20, and that includes hardware , fiberglass and carbon fiber rods .
I glass the engine bulkheads -and retarct rails (common practice on many arfs )
I use carbon fiber to reduce certain "tin can " type flex areas in the lightweight fuse ---very common in these type planes .
and I replance the hardware -again very common in arfs .

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I have the 120 size P-47 just finished with a Saito 125 and it is way tail heavy,but for the price it's hard to beat.

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

I would agree with you. I'm surprised at all the positive comments on CMP planes in this thread.

There use to be a lot of CMP planes at my airfield - we are located very close to one of the major importers. Now I rarely see any, and they have a very bad reputation.

I bought a CMP 72" Katana. It was a couple of pounds overweight and it flew like it. Sure it would fly, but it always felt like it wanted to snap if I pushed it at all. And forget about 3D. Putting the plane together was also a pain, and I did replace almost all the hardware, which added about $50 to the purchase cost. No more CMP for me, no matter how inexpensive they are.

Malcolm

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

Malcolmm - all I can tell you is that myCMP Zero performed like a warbird. My assembly was pretty much straight forawrd - yes I threw away most of the hardware and replaced it with my own stuff, but I do that with most ARFs. I think that between my parts bin and new stuff, maybe $15. Attention to detail and experiance in building helps. I would not recommend my plane to someone that only has a couple of planes under thier belt, but experienced modelers should not have major problems. The fuse was of excellent quality - I could not do it that well. A lot of people also fail to think ahead on the build, like the CG. The average plane balances at the front spar, so if the instructions call for something behind that, experience should take over. I would much rather error with a nose heavy plane, than a tail heavy one. I can think of many model companies that market planes that need a lot to make them fly right. I will end up buying another CMP (not the Nitro or Radien Tech knock-offs) just for the scale apperance. But I will also remember the more scale something is, espcially a warbird, the harder they are to fly in the smaller scales.

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

The problem with many early arfs is that they made it to easy for people that simply were not reday for warbirds . No insults intended but many enthuistic flyers want to fly there favorite warbird and arfs made it easy . Problem is that many --almost all with the exception of the $500 and over KMP planes need to be tweeked .
No major big deal but , rails , firwalls, servos supports ect need a watchful eye as well as CG , wing incidence , tail incidence ect .The more time you take to ensure these elements are criticaly correct and you will really enjoy your CMP warbird .

The lastest version of the 73" CMP P40 has come a long way from the early CMPs . The quality is just getting better .

RE: CMP..Good or bad?
 

You are wrong with that statement. I haven't had to replace the hardware for Goldberg planes or my two Hanger 9s. I choose to replace some hardware for my Hanger 9s, not because I had too.



I suspect a few people in here have a contract to sell CMP Products. I do know some are dealers or a part of sales.

I was fooled by some of the people in here and bought the two CMP Planes. After I bought them, I found all the Negitive write ups on CMPs. Also, I noticed there wasn't any reveiws in any of the magazines that I subscribe to. If I had investigated CMP a bit longer, I would have bought a Goldberg, Great Planes or Hanger 9.

We live and learn, but one thing I don't do is to try to push anything that isn't good. I like to build and fly, and at times make friends. I warn people of bad kits often, no matter what... or who dosen't like it. To me, If you like your plane fine. If you feel a plane isn't for a beginer to build... say it. If a Brand is lacking compared to others, admit it. Other than that, the rest is all Dog Poo.

I like to talk about this Hobby without insults. I can agree to not agree, and would still wouldn't care if you are in the Pit next to me. And I don't kick my Cat because I didn't like what someone had Posted. When people start insulting or attempt to attack my well being in these forums... it's not me with the issues. And I'm not here to impress anyone, just to contribute and have a little Online fun.


Peter Dowling aka Luftwaffe Oberst
AMA District II # 865404
Radio Aero Modelers Club
Pulaski, NY