mirwin

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks. I'll come to AK when I'm ready to buy.

Mike

sfsjkid

Proulxlaw thanks for your comments. I was really tempted in getting a couple of their 70"'ers, but since you had problems with the CMP kit, and AK is not helping. possible problems with copy cat manufacturer's and not so great dealers, I think I'll wait until I can see one at the LHS. By that time they'll probably be as expensive as everyone else and end up staying with the established ARF makers. I know GP, Horizon have great customer support, and they may not admit any design or manufacturing problems, they sure do resolve things like it was.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

A couple of things that may clear things up in general
1)Raidentech does carry real CMP planes but they also like Ak said carry copies .They offer a 64" P40 yet they use the exact same box graphics as the 73"cmp and they use the 73"photos in there ads . IN many cases Raidentech post the wrong pictures on there planes . I emialed them many time on this fact because you never know exactly what you will get unless you get it confirmed . Perosnally I would not buy from them unless I could drive to the place and see it .
2)Some of the CMP planes are not copied yet , The hellcat for example, CMP/Flymodels makes this plane . YOur safe on this one .
3)The smaller CMP planes are all squarly , the only one I have read success on is the P47 posted by zaprc . However I have never ever read anything but good commenst on the larger CMP planes and recently the new 73 " P40 also came back with raves reviews (see warbirds section ) .
4)when in doubt with CMP -post question on size , wing loading , settings ect because many RC will use same size planes for giudeance because many of the CMP planes instructions lack accurate or ideal settings for flying .
5)Real CMP planes are some of the best values in WW2 planes that you will ever find

BDREW

I have the .40 size P47. It fly nice with a .91fx in front. It got clocked at 83mph. Tough plane...but like any small plane it needs a lot of expo with low rates.

AK Models

On Raidentech Hellcat:
Flymodels and CMP has nothing to do with each other, two separate companies.
I have both CMP and Flymodels kits of Hellcat, they are not the same.

proulxlaw,
What would you think be fair for CMP to do in your case?

sfsjkid

LDM, your observations are appreciated. But you know, one thing I realized in trying to decide the plane to buy was that if I'm going to a 72"ish model, I might as well try to find one with and 80" span. Otherwise I'd still be looking for a plane to fly in giant "scale".

mirwin

My Feedback: (1)

Now that would be nice! Have you found an 80" F6F ARF?

Mike

sfsjkid

Mike, I want to ask you the same question I think at the moment we are stuck with building, which I'm not opposed to. However, after reading this thread, my plans are to buy a WM GS Mustang, or Zero, possibly a GP Chipmunk, while I build not a Hellcat but a Wildcat with working gear. Problem is that I'm also building a Pica Waco, Palmer BD-5, Wing P-38, and have plans for many more/

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

AK:

I think it would be fair for CMP to offer to replace my plane with one of their planes of my choosing and agree to do further research and make necessary changes either to the product itself and/or literature distributed with the zero regarding the CG of the .50 zero. While I didn't buy the plane from CMP directly, it is their product and was placed in the stream of commerce here in the US.

I would prefer to have my zero replaced with a bigger zero, spitfire or FW190. Each of the bigger planes have a number of reports that they fly well at the reccomended CG. I spent a total of about 20 or more hours setting the plane up plus it wasted a new set of Robart pneumatic retracts as both nylon housings on each were broken on the second crash. I think the additional cost of a larger plane is fair considering the additional time, energy and expense that I have incurred as a result of the loss.

I want CMP to do more research on the .50 zero to potentially prevent others in the future from experiencing the same frustrations that I have experienced. Fortunately, here, the only loss was of personal property. I am happy to report that while it could have created a dangerous situation, noone was injured. This research doesn't have to be extensive by any means. They could simply ask for a half dozen or so experienced builders/flyers that have a good understanding of CG to build the Zero arf and ask them to come up with the best CG from the leading edge of the main wing at the fuse using the same balancing tool (e.g. Great Planes balancer) and take that information and develop the best range or at the very least a safe range. Further, if it is determined after further research that the CG may need to be different from the current recommended range they would need to make reasonable efforts to inform the consumer of those changes in the form of an addendum to the instruction manual and/or a notice on RCU or one of the major magazines and I would like to be copied on that correspondence.

If you have any influence with CMP or could help accomplish this, I would greatly appreciate it.

Bob Proulx

I just used this calculator: http://www.palosrc.com/instructors/cg.htm to calculate the CG on the .50 Zero and the calculations indicated that the CG should be between 68.89mm @25%MAC and 88.8mm @33%MAC. Quite a bit different from 95-110mm as recommended in the instructions. Attached is a pic that contains the data. In order to read the data you will have to save the pic to your desktop and open it there as it will not be big enough to read the data if you open it up here.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

AK , are you sure on the Flymodels/CMP . on there site in China the Flymodels hellcat pictured looks exactly the same as the CMP .
I took there virtuall tour , wanted to import CMP and others , got prices , containers ect ect .
I figured it would be easy based on the GSP shipping problems .

As far as 80"vs 72" you are correct but it seems like all the 80ties you have to build and you get into special equipment in many cases on servos , wheels ect .Cost go way up when you jump from 11lbs/14 lbs to 16 lbs/18 pounds

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

BDREW:

CMP makes some of the best LOOKING warbird ARF's out there. Have you had any problems or needed deviations from the recommended CG on yours?

I have an AK Models .40 p51 (in the pic) that was clocked by the cops on their radar gun at 92 mph full throttle in level flight. The plane only has an OS FL 70 4 stroker (the cheap one). This p51 isn't the most scale looking but, it is perhaps the best flying warbird that I have ever owned/built/flown. I can knife edge it around the field almost like my Goldberg Sukhoi. The final weight of my p51 with the FL 70 and a 14 oz. fuel tank and everything else stock, is 6 lbs. 14 oz. I have about 200 or so flights on it. I have had so many mishaps (mostly pilot error) that the plane looks like a patchwork quilt with all of the covering patches it has on it. When I finally wreck it, I will buy another one and put an FS 70 or a Saito 82 in it and see how much faster I can get it to go.

US185Damiani

I had onbe of the small CMP planes, the Thunderbolt. the silver and OD plastic film and painted fuselage version. It flew fine. It too 12 ounces of lead in the fromt of the cowl to Balance. they are extremely pitch sensitive. as will be the Zero since they have large control surfaces and short fuselages. I never had any trouble with the. 40 jug the Zero should be the same.

mirwin

My Feedback: (1)

Don't see many Wildcats although they're really nice models. The main gear is so close together that they're a bear to handle on the ground. But it's a cool looking main gear if it's done right. Good luck.

Mike

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

BDREW: Was the reccomended CG where you balanced the P47 and if not what CG did you use?

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

AK:

I would be a customer for more CMP planes if they are willing to make me happy with the zero. You have quite few on your site and your prices are great also. I will not however, buy another CMP anything if they do not acknowledge and deal with the problems that I have had with the zero. I still as of yet have not received a reply from the email that I sent them about a week ago.

I am an attorney and if they simply choose to continue to ignore me, I will file suit, get a judgment and find some assets of theirs to attach somewhere here in the US. I am responsible myself for 249 active files in my office and have plenty to do without having another case to file, discovery, etc. but, I will file a case against them if they don't deal with this problem and while I'm at it, I will place an add in Fly RC or Airplane Model News or both and find every other person who has had a similar problem with this plane and add them as a Plaintiff to make it more interesting and profitable.

lownloud

perhaps someone should tell you that if you put a plane into a dive you can tell if the CofG is off. Not too hard to figure out. If you are flying warbirds, you should be that advanced. if not, I'm glad you dont fly at my field.

let me get this straight, you are going to file suit because the manufacturer of your toy plane has the wrong CofG?

your parents probably busted their butts to buy you that education.....
move on.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

Unfortunitly most of the CMP planes do not post accurate cgs or control settings . Most are warbirds purchased by middle to advanced pilots . We use the formulas from our files or similar planes . I am not an expert in legal matters and I do wish you resolution to your matter but I feel your lawsuit would be based on final use and not manufactured liability .
What I am trying to say is that the plane was manufactured without flaws , solid frame , engine range was normal, radio up to FCC specs ect ect , then your issue was based on after market use and not a manufactured defect . The modelers who owned the original H9 corsiar have a better chance of winning a suit .
Remember Cg and control setting will vary based on engine , battery , retracts ect . Lastly there is not one post on the smaller CMP planes that would make me purchase one .I think the wing loading is heavey when compared to planes in the same size range .
Most warbord pilots will error to the nose heavy side until they fly the plane and ring it out . Again I am not an expert but I now have about 7 warbirds under my belt and I know that none of them were set to the exact CG range but all had variances in the range .

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

Your advice assumes that there will be a second flight. When a plane is that tail heavy there is not usually a second flight.

Second, if you took the time to review the rest of the thread rather than to jump in and offer your worldly advice after reading 1 or 2 posts you probably wouldn't have posted the above comments.

Third, while you consider the plane a toy, it could cause serious injury as a result of CMP's lack of dilligence in testing the information it provided to the consumer.

Fourth, if someone whines loud enough, CMP might be pursuaded to make the information more accurate so that even geniuses like yourself can be assured of putting a safe product in the air. I can afford another plane or a dozen if I choose to buy them. What I can't afford is wasting the time to put another one together because CMP didn't expend enough effort to provide reasonably accurate information.

Fifth, when one company is sued and loses, it raises the bar for all and forces them to provide a product that is an ARF when they advertise and hold their product out as such.

Sixth, think your advice through before you write.

mirwin

My Feedback: (1)

Proulxlaw, I've been following this thread from the beginning. Although I don't ordinarily get involved in contentious topics such as yours, preferring to enjoy our hobby and the others who so enthusiastically participate in these forums, your postings compel me to respond.

We don’t know you, Proulxlaw. We have no idea how proficient you are at building an ARF, and we don’t know if you are a rooky flyer or an experienced flyer. We don’t even know if you have ever held a transmitter in your hands before.

There are dozens of reasons that a model won’t fly correctly. For example, I have a Goldberg Tiger 2 that, despite the fact that it was built and set up by one who has built 98 model kits, it just won’t fly well. Is it Goldberg’s fault? The builders? My flying abilities? Sun spots? Frequency interference? A vast right-wing conspiracy? I don’t know, and I don’t really care. I’ll eventually figure out what’s wrong, and fix it during the winter. And I’ll have a little fun while doing it.

Go ahead, and file suit if you can’t accept that we participate in a complex hobby and that sometimes – as in our daily lives – things just don’t work the way they’re suppose to. As the truckers say, “Sometimes you’re the windshield, and sometimes you’re the bug.”

But please take your rantings somewhere beyond the RCU forums. We just aren’t interested.


Mike

lownloud

I have a 1932 Ford Coupe with a 400hp motor, I call that a toy as well. I guess if I stuck my finger in the fan blade when it was running I could hurt myself, but its still a toy.

honestly man, I think it sucks that your plane crashed on its maiden but filing a suit against a Chinese company over a plastic Zero is a sad waste of the time you claim to hold so dear. It takes just as long to build a small plane as it does a big one and I know it is not cool when you lose one. However, the toy police are not going to stop shipments of CMP planes at the Long Beach harbor because some jack***** in China wrote the wrong CofG on an instruction manual which was brought to our attention by a ground breaking law suit filed by you.


I've thought it through, move on with your life.

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

mirwin:

I respect your right to voice your opinions and say whatever you want. I don't have to agree with it but, I respect your right to say it. I also have the right to say what I want and there is an appropriate time, place and manner for such statements and here on RCU is the appropriate place for complaints, etc. relating to this hobby. If you don't like what I have to say, don't spend your time reading what I write.

As far as my plane's setup, my skill as a builder and my skill as a flyer, suffice it to say that I have built and flown a dozen or so warbirds successfully and other than an occasional crash, I fly most of them regularly. This problem is not simply that the plane flies crappy. If that were the case here, I would have simply chalked it up to experience and moved on. CG is an important piece of information that a builder needs to properly/safely balance a plane to fly. If a manufacturer does not take the steps that a reasonable manufacurer would under the same circumstances, the case is a slam dunk from a products liability standpoint. All that is really needed for a plaintiff to prove his case is 1 or more persons and an expert to testify that this standard was not met.

It's these kinds of cases/suits that cause manufacturers to build better/safer products. The point is that this problem is a much bigger and far reaching problem than my plane crashing in jerkwater USA. ARF's are advertised and held out to the modeling community as just that ARF. If the manufacturer advertises it as that then they need to meet the needs of the audience to which they advertise and sell their product and as I see it, at the bare minimum, provide correct information to allow the modeler to fly and control the plane without potential for disaster. Modeler's expectations who buy/build/fly planes built from kits are far different than those of a person for an ARF.

Building mistakes by the modeler can obviously cause a plane to be unsafe and or just to fly crappy but, the manufacturer of an ARF cannot hide behind the experience or lack thereof of the modeler buying an ARF for causes in product deficiencies that they can easily control. The bottom line, modelers should and have a right to demand that the manufacturers deliver as advertised and at the very least a product that can be used safely.

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

lownloud:

Your point is well taken. While I disagree with it, I respect it and support and encourage you to post it here. This is what makes this a worthwhile forum to explore. Differences in opinion are what sometimes spurs creativity and growth in all of us.

If I have offended you or mirwin in any way, I apologize. It was certainly not my intention to do so.

This whole issue has just really irritated me. I have built numerous planes by Great Planes, Hangar 9, Kyosho and a kit by Goldberg where the CG is either right on where the manufacturer says it should be or minor corrections are needed after flying the plane inverted, etc. to get the plane to fly best.

If consumers accept crap from manufacturers then that's what manufacturers will continue to deliver.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

My advice if you bothered to listen as oppose to just continue with your arrogance may have helped you .....did you miss the part about "I do wish you resolution in this matter " I love people like you . We are truly trying to help you but you are so angry that you continue to rant and rant . I spend most of my time in negotiations for a living and fortunately I do very well in my line of work .I love negotiating with people like you because your so easy to figure out .Its all about you , there is no way there is two sides to this , CMP is wrong , they should liable and you are 100% correct , yep end of story . IN reality you posted your problem on a post that was cleary about Where to buy CMP planes -it did not say where to cry about CMP planes .If you have that bad of an issue start a separate post on just your issues considering the world revolves around you and only your problem . Then the rest of us can go back to being great friendly RCU members who will discuss where we can buy and fly CMP planes very successfully . Lastly how is replaceing your plane with the bigger version fair ?? Sounds like a good deal to me , lets see , i will buy the smaller P40 , crash it , because its out of balance , then file a lawsuit against CMP so I can get the larger one . Hey that is a good deal and that is one reason why we pay so much for insurance in every aspect of our life . Lawsuits with zero merrit .
Have a great day , keep smiling , help an old lady today and forget about your anger and you will feel so much better ....lol [:-]

proulxlaw

My Feedback: (3)

You are completely missing the point and I've spent way more time on this than I care to. Insurance rates for modelers aren't increased by lawsuits against the manufacturers of bad planes. Forcing manufacturers to produce better/safer planes would have the opposite effect.

If you think it's ok for CMP and other manufacturers to deliver a product and relevant information to the consumer when they knew or should have known that the information that they provided was inaccurate or could be potentially hazardous to the modeler and/or spectators, you are absolutely wrong. You benefit every day from similar cases brought against manufacturers of other products that are/were unsafe or potentially unsafe which force manufacturers to produce a better/safer/more efficient product.

If you don't like the subject matter that I choose to post, don't read it.

If you were paying attention in Astronomy, you would most certainly have learned that the world DOES revolve around me. I got an A in my undergrad Astronomy class, that's how I know.

Keep smiling and have a nice night.

270win

My Feedback: (14)

CMP should make it right. This thread has led me to choose not to purchase their airplanes. I purchased a Skyshark FW190 kit on ebay... turns out it was a Heritage (pre-Skyshark) kit, the balsa was very brittle and the kit was totally worthless. I called Skyshark and explained the situation to see what could be done. (not expecting much) They sent me a brand new kit!! I'll buy from Skyshark again and again because they care about their reputation and the people who buy their planes. There are many many model manufacturers. Buy from the ones who give a rip. Let the hackers die from lack of business.

This is just my personal opinion....

270