Topic: Wots the story?

Just ordered a couple of Wot4 mk2's for myself and a mate so we can join in with our club fun days this year. Bearing in mind a few problems I discovered with the Wot trainer I put together for the club a couple of years ago, are there any areas which need correcting, beefing up, etc on this model? I gather it is quite popular! I shall probably power mine with an Irvine 53 2-stroke, and it will be on Futaba 2.4, using a Futaba rx (cheapest they do!) Anyone come across stuff they would have altered?

not from personal experience but i believe the tailplane seat needs beefed up

Hi Bob

You asked, so here goes.....

The supplied wing bolts are rubbish. The tank is Carp. The supplied wheels are awful. The tailplane mounting is weak, and relies completely on the 1/8 fuselage side for glueing area. I opened up mine in the tailwheel area and added doublers. It doesn't seem strong enough otherwise. I replaced the elevator pushrod in my example, as the supplied item wasn't long enough. My replacement has a thicker pushrod (M3) at the elevator end. The standard of the covering isn't the best, but apart from that everything is ok(ish) for the money. Personally, I wouldn't buy another. I'd even hesitate before I recommended the artf W4. A shining example of the state of the artf art it definately is not...... but the price does reflect this.

If I absolutely had to have another Wot 4, I'd buy the kit instead......

Hi Bob

You asked, so here goes.....

The supplied wing bolts are rubbish. The tank is Carp. The supplied wheels are awful. The tailplane mounting is weak, and relies completely on the 1/8 fuselage side for glueing area. I opened up mine in the tailwheel area and added doublers. It doesn't seem strong enough otherwise. I replaced the elevator pushrod in my example, as the supplied item wasn't long enough. My replacement has a thicker pushrod (M3) at the elevator end. The standard of the covering isn't the best, but apart from that everything is ok(ish) for the money. Personally, I wouldn't buy another. I'd even hesitate before I recommended the artf W4. A shining example of the state of the artf art it definately is not...... but the price does reflect this.

If I absolutely had to have another Wot 4, I'd buy the kit instead......

Thanks! Too late now, they are on their way. I shall look at those bits. Wing bolts are not really a problem, tank I shall replace, tailplane mounting, well, being a belt and braces person, that will get my full attention. This size model I always use a Y pushrod to elevators and closed loop to rudder- I have heard that that needs attention, too! Wheels- hmm- they will get a bit of stress on our tarmac, so thats something else! Phew!

Bob

I replaced the supplied tank with an 8oz Dubro item as the original burst it's bung. The supplied wheels won't last very long on tarmac as they're foam, hence my earlier comment. I just remembered plastic clevises are also supplied. I won't use these at any price, so replaced those too. You don't need a "Y" pushrod for the elevators. Just rip the thin wire end from the existing pushrod and replace with a thicker M3 rod and clevis, and it's job done. The wire elevator joiner wasn't bent accurately in mine Bob, and needed tweaking, otherwise it would have screwed out of every loop. Best check yours.

And yes, do look at the tailplane mounting, as It isn't so good the way it is. It's good to see the tailplane has the hardwood spar integrated though, as this was an early mod which was found to be necessary. An early Foss design weakness I think. I've heard some stories about the supplied engine mount fracturing too, but so far mine's been ok. I use an Irvine .46 with an APC 11.5x6 prop.

Yes, but its a pet mod of mine, to prevent any screwing out of loops, I always use a Y pushrod. (nothing is stronger than a triangle!) Plastic clevises are another no no for me, although some people use them without problems. Engine mount problems may be from using unbalanced props, but thanks for the heads up! I suppose you cant expect a Rolls-Royce for what we paid!

No Bob you can't, and a Rolls Royce it aint. But when you've assembled a couple of Hangar 9 Pulses as I did, then put the Wot together, the contrast is a stark one!

I saw an attempt to fly a new Wot 4 artf yesterday.  On the take off run, the undercarriage pulled off the fuselage - what was left flopped into the grass at no great speed and turned to face the way it had come.
On collecting the tailplane had become unseated -knocked sideways. Not much damage because not much glue holding either part in place.

disappointing though. I don't know what they cost but I can't see one lasting like the original 'box of sticks ' version
stu k

if the tailplane had just 'come unseated', could it have been the amount of glue used by the end user/builder? i have seen quite a few crashed models (mainly artf) that have crashed and the immediate fault was poor build at factory. on closer inspection the 'assembly' glue joints failed before factory ones

this might well be the case but worth thinking about. i always make sure there is plenty of glue in the assembly joints as i cant be sure it is glued correctly as i didn't build it, merely assembled it

Part of the problem here is that almost all artf designs are built by non model flyers, and built on an incentive basis ie: time and motion, or similar. A result of which is the glue used tends to be applied rather sparingly in all areas to keep assembly costs down. Hence we sometimes see engine bulkheads and undercarriages come loose.

The answer is of course to build the model yourself. That way, you have ultimate control over the quality of the finished item. Now there's a novel idea!

It's hard to believe it now, but we all thought nothing of it once over. The only way to get a model was to build it yourself. There were no artf's!

Bigger ailerons 

I learnt to prophang on a Wot 4 MkII years ago and one of the biggest difficulties was the ailerons were not quite big enough so it took nearly full aileron to stop is torque rolling with next to nothing in reserve. Given the size of the elevator and rudder which are quite effective at slow speed the ailerons were always very soft at slow speed 

But in all fairness Sizzling, the Wot 4 was never designed to perform 3D.

It is/was a good sound design when used as intended though....... Although as I mentioned earlier, there are better designs out there now.

It seems odd there are numerous unofficial mods for the Acrowot to improve it's handling and flying qualities, but none I've seen/heard about for the Wot 4, the artf shortcomings aside.

But in all fairness Sizzling, the Wot 4 was never designed to perform 3D.

But prop hanging has always been a manuever advertised on the box and instructions on how to modify the wings for bigger ailerons have always been included, certainly on all the kits I've had, 4 in total, first in 1988 right upto the one I'm just about finished building 

I'm not aware of any mention of prop hanging being made in the artf instructions Andy, so that's news to me. To be honest, I don't have a huge amount of "Wot" flying experience. Those I have flown before now have always belonged to others, and I've been the test pilot! A couple of scary moments spring to mind over the years though. The first was a fin breaking loose on a Uno Wot I was maidening, the second being a tailplane fracturing on an Acrowot about 20 odd years back. The hardwood spar mod at mid tailplane chord sorted that one though. I think most "Foss" designs have it now too.

The only variants I haven't flown are the WotsWot biplane and the ExtraWot. I now have a kit for the former in my stash. The latter I probably won't bother about.

I'm not aware of any mention of prop hanging being made in the artf instructions Andy, so that's news to me.

I am refering to the proper one, not the second rate ARTF offering, and prop hanging has always been advertised on the outside of the box.

But in all fairness Sizzling, the Wot 4 was never designed to perform 3D.

I don't really class prophanging as 3D  it a skill required to do 3D. Even if prophanging is not your thing I believe bigger ailerons would help the slow speed handling. The ailerons just haven't got the same power at slow speed as the tail surfaces imo 

I saw an attempt to fly a new Wot 4 artf yesterday.  On the take off run, the undercarriage pulled off the fuselage - what was left flopped into the grass at no great speed and turned to face the way it had come.
On collecting the tailplane had become unseated -knocked sideways. Not much damage because not much glue holding either part in place.

disappointing though. I don't know what they cost but I can't see one lasting like the original 'box of sticks ' version
stu k

The only mod' that I've made to my ARTF WOT4 (apart from a 4500 4S LiPo behind the firewall and a big outrunner on the front) was to epoxy a double layer of glass cloth to the floor to reinforce the u/c mounting points and the firewall - result that following flying into/through the top of a small cupressus and then falling vertically sufficiently hard on to one leg to fold it through more than 120 degrees -  nothing broke or came adrift.
Like most folks I tend to look for and correct ARTF potential weak points, different airframes different weak points but I invariably reinforce the floor where the u/c mounts and the firewall/fuselage joints.

Remember to pin the ailerons Bob. In fact pin all the hinges. Seen so many pull out... luckily most have been noticed on the ground.

...will be on Futaba 2.4, using a Futaba rx (cheapest they do!)

The cheapest they do is the 6004 park fly. I'd stick a 617 in it. But I think thats what you meant
But another option is the Frsky FASST (aka Orange FASST, same thing) which is selling like hot cakes with not a bad word spoken about it.  You could say its better than a Futaba rx in that it has failsafe on all channels.
Cheers
Phil

Hmm- some interesting stuff! I shall take all on board, but the 3d stuff just aint me, as I said, we are having these models simply because our club does  fun fly events every couple of weeks and our normal petrol jobbies just arent suitable. We always feel a bit left out, so its back to glow sport models for a bit of fun. Thanks for all the help, chaps!

But prop hanging has always been a manuever advertised on the box and instructions on how to modify the wings for bigger ailerons have always been included, certainly on all the kits I've had, 4 in total, first in 1988 right upto the one I'm just about finished building 

I built 2 original Wot4's and never remember any mention of prop hanging or aileron modification ...

As to torque rolling ... my party piece with the ST61 tuned pipe set-up I had was to hold it by tail ... open throttle and let her go out of hand vertically ... she torqued rolled of course but slowed as she climbed. One of the big advantages in the Wot4 for this trick was that huge chord wing - not the ailerons as they need airflow ...
I don't do 3D - not my scene but I have a 3D machine at home waiting set-up. I note the huge surfaces on it to control in just basically prop blast ... I can well believe in normal flight the model would be a real handful and need serious reduced dual rate to keep steady ! The Wot4 is no where near such incredible size controls.

I find it sad that such an Iconic model that put many people up in air and flying basic aerobatics etc. should be rendered in new form with such faults as reported here.

I think the ARTF Wot4 is great value for money and consider some of the comments on here to be completely OTT for what is a budget cost sports model.

I have two of them, one with a 2 stroke ASP52 the other with an OS52FS and have flown both lots!

Would agree with a few comments. Plastics are not great, wing bolts and u/c bolts should be binned. My tailwheel and one half of the T bar engine mount cracked in the recent sub zero temperatures, otherwise no issues.

My advice- dont pay extra for colour schemes- buy it as cheap as possible and enjoy it.

I'm not aware of any mention of prop hanging being made in the artf instructions Andy, so that's news to me. To be honest, I don't have a huge amount of "Wot" flying experience. Those I have flown before now have always belonged to others, and I've been the test pilot! A couple of scary moments spring to mind over the years though. The first was a fin breaking loose on a Uno Wot I was maidening, the second being a tailplane fracturing on an Acrowot about 20 odd years back. The hardwood spar mod at mid tailplane chord sorted that one though. I think most "Foss" designs have it now too.

The only variants I haven't flown are the WotsWot biplane and the ExtraWot. I now have a kit for the former in my stash. The latter I probably won't bother about.

Hi , the Wots Wot is the best of all Fossy designs, it is brilliant, you will love it !

Regards
Chris.

Thanks for that Chris.

I did have one about 13 years ago, but foolishly sold it on before I actually flew it! 

I have an acrowot that I bought off e.bay,, now presentable a year on after recovering,straightening control surfaces etc.. Now it flies like on the proverbial rails and must have had 50 or so flights, so i thought I would invest in a Wots Wot,, told the kits were scarce,, I found one at Dave Webbs,, de-lux version £140.. great service arrived the following day.. As for the kit well folks complaining about wheels coming off wot 4,s.. the de lux kit includes a very nice cowl and a fibre glass undercarriage but no wheels,tank,engine mount,poor plastic clevises,, I reckon by the time film and glues are added it is £200 plus or the price of 3 ARTF,s,s.. As advised i have put in duel aileron servo,s,, and replaced the flimsy brackets between the interplane struts.. Wot an advert for British kits Wood for ailerons too short,hard sheet for rear curves..Instructions that fail to add up.. i.e. fus from trailing edge to tail leading edge,if formers are added as instructed measurements  they fall short by an inch. I love the flying instructions to quote if at high speed the model stops suddenly it is the wing lifting due to poor quality or not enough rubber bands.. They enclose an A4 sheet with instructions as to how to fit extra alloy braces  that bolt to the wing.You have to go out and buy Alli angle to make them. ( in my case the greenhouse may fall down )
However after the sweat and tears ,if it flies like the accrowotI can,t wait :UK:

Just ordered a couple of Wot4 mk2's for myself and a mate so we can join in with our club fun days this year. Bearing in mind a few problems I discovered with the Wot trainer I put together for the club a couple of years ago, are there any areas which need correcting, beefing up, etc on this model? I gather it is quite popular! I shall probably power mine with an Irvine 53 2-stroke, and it will be on Futaba 2.4, using a Futaba rx (cheapest they do!) Anyone come across stuff they would have altered?

I had 15 or so flights before i lost radio on mine.  I built it using everything in the kit, it went together fine.  However it was just shite at flying.  whats it supposed to be?  it was sh it at sport aerobatics, wasnt a true funflys backside, didnt really do anything well, and looked ugly as sin.  I resorted to try and make it explode by full throttle blenders.  I think something must have come out the rx asa it flew off and went in full threg.

Utter, utter toilet plane, i cant imagine how bad they are when people rock them out at 6-7 lbs.

enjoy 

CM

Part of the problem here is that almost all artf designs are built by non model flyers, and built on an incentive basis ie: time and motion, or similar. A result of which is the glue used tends to be applied rather sparingly in all areas to keep assembly costs down. Hence we sometimes see engine bulkheads and undercarriages come loose.

The answer is of course to build the model yourself. That way, you have ultimate control over the quality of the finished item. Now there's a novel idea!

It's hard to believe it now, but we all thought nothing of it once over. The only way to get a model was to build it yourself. There were no artf's!

I dont know what ARTF's you have seen but in my opinion they are awesome.  They superbly designed and built and far better than i could ever do myself.

I dont have time to build, in fact i find it very tedious and i'm not very good at it, i love flying  though plus i'm not bad at that side of things.

CM

Doc
If you reckon that you are not very good at building, then to say the ARTFs are better built than you could manage surely isn't all that hot a recommendation?
I had a Thunder Tiger Champion where the bulkhead pulled out on starting the motor for what would have been its seventh or eighth flight. All its flying had terminated in good landings, the prop had never been stubbed into the ground, etc. On examination - which was impossible before the bulkhead went walkies. -  there was hardly a trace of glue. The front face of the bulkhead had been painted black - and there was black paint on the edge of the bulkhead and the mating areas of the fus sides. Clearly the simple act of applying the starter several times had caused the joint, such as it was, to fail. I got my money back and the company accepted it was  a design fault and promised to put it right on the next patch - don't know if they ever did.
I had an early Vmar kit - never again. Heaven knows what it was built of, but the first less than perfect landing saw the fus simply fall apart - it had longerons and spacers with sheet sides, top and bottom. Scarcely any of the spacers were glued to anything. The wood used for sides etc., was extremely brittle and simply exploded on impact. OK the landing wasn't too good - by my O/D modesl survived far worse with nary a scratch.
I am not decrying the whole industry on the basis of a couple of examples, and I have purcheased severl ARTFs since, but only where I could have a damn good look at the strucutre first.
Mike

You get what you pay for with ARTFs. They are built very cheaply for a market which is hungry for the stuff. It is all right bemoaning the demise of the 'cottage industry' kits we used to buy, but as said, they mostly tended to be very good designs with sloppy kitting, not just Foss, Reeves and many others produced kits which you mostly had to replace all the hardware, buy wheels, find that some parts were not cut anywhere near correctly and with instructions which make chinese stuff legible. As well as that, there was always a load of advice needed when building one, the problems with the Wots Wot are well known. And you still had to build the bloody thing, for twice the price of an ARTF. The kit manufacturers had it easy, we bought the stuff because we knew it would fly well, and put up with the rubbish kitting. If you bought an ARTF and it had no wheels or tank, you would complain. Well, maybe if they pull their socks up, we will go back to building kits! (But I bet if I bought a Gangster kit today, it will not have been upgraded since it was first produced, and I would still throw away the hardware pack......)

the hole where the tank goes is an ideal fit for a 9 oz slec - fits a treat - cut sume triangular foam bits to go under it for a seat and jobs a good un - good engine run as well (although the mention of slec tanks normally starts another agrument., they dont survive mid air collisions very well or radio failures (thats how i lost my two ) would i have another - possibly - but ive got the kit to make a proper one which is much the better option if you have the time - theres a very good build threat on the site somewhere.

Just ordered a couple of Wot4 mk2's for myself and a mate so we can join in with our club fun days this year.

Just to clear up a minor issue (because people seem to be making different assumptions here)...

Do you mean the Ripmax ARTF(wood) Wot 4 or them Chris Foss Wot 4 kit? I ask because (a) they are very different animals, and (b) virtually all the coments I see on here only apply to the ARTF one.

The Kit one is essentially good to go with no modifications at all. If you're treally addicted to full-throttle vertical dives and intend to fit a hot, piped 61 2-stroke on a "speed" prop (ie 11-8 rather than 12-5, 13-6 etc) then consider a tailplane spar and some fuselage reinforcement around the front of the tailplane, but for normal flying they're just fine.

The kit one is a FAR better machine that the ARTF, but it is more expensive (you get what you pay for).

PDR

Hi Bob

You asked, so here goes.....

The supplied wing bolts are rubbish. The tank is Carp. The supplied wheels are awful. The tailplane mounting is weak, and relies completely on the 1/8 fuselage side for glueing area. I opened up mine in the tailwheel area and added doublers. It doesn't seem strong enough otherwise. I replaced the elevator pushrod in my example, as the supplied item wasn't long enough. My replacement has a thicker pushrod (M3) at the elevator end. The standard of the covering isn't the best, but apart from that everything is ok(ish) for the money. Personally, I wouldn't buy another. I'd even hesitate before I recommended the artf W4. A shining example of the state of the artf art it definately is not...... but the price does reflect this.

If I absolutely had to have another Wot 4, I'd buy the kit instead......

Hmmm, apart from that then, it's ok yeah ?   He he he.
Ray.

It's as PDR says Ray. The kit is of far superior quality, with the wood and supplied accessories being chosen by Chris Foss himself. Ok, Ripmax have told us all Chris Foss has stood over the artf production line, and has personally approved what (Wot) he's seen, but the result is still an £85 artf of indifferent quality. That said there is a market out there and Ripmax spotted it, so Brownie Points to them.

The artf Wot4 has fulfilled it's aim well enough, but the kit is still king for me personally.

I had the pleasure of owning a 30 year old mk 2 and built the artf version, each had a saito 82 fitted and eachwas the same weight (just a smidgen under 5lbs) I sold on the artf as somebody made me an offer I couldn't refuse though it was sold with an ax 55 rather than the saito. I altered the u/c mounting on the artf, and it required major additions to get the 4 stroke to fit. I'm also pretty sure I put ta wedge of1/8 or 1/4 balsa underneath the tailplane mounts on both. I've never heard of the hardwood spar in the tailplane and recently threw several undamaged rear ends out where the fus had snapped just ahead of the tailplane mount and the same thing has happened to my kit built mk 2 but I shall repair that.
One thing to watch with 30 year old models, the plastic hinges degenerate with age(don't we all  ) and snap and glued joints have a tendency to delaminate.
I think the artf wottie with the likes of an sc 46 has swamped flying fields and introduced many flyers previously seduced by bright boxes to a real flying machine, I've since bought but have yet to fly the foam e mk 2.

My first Wot 4 was a plan-built mk1 (circa 1977?) and my second was one of the first batch of kits that were designated the mk2 - both were powered by a mk3 Merco 61 driving a graupner 12.5-6. The mk1 weight 5lbs and the mk2 weighed 4lb 10oz (mainly due to using tissue rather than nylon covering). Both could do the vertical launch thing and both were superb, long-lived aeroplanes although the mk2 was subsequently re-engined with  Webra Champ 61 (for better throttling and lower tick-over). I'm sure that both would still be around today were it not for the house fire in 1982 (bizarely not caused by lipo-charging, but then I suppose there's always a small chance that major conflagrations could have other causes). In 1983 I built a super-light mk 2 (4lb2oz) that was flim covered, had lightening holes and was powered with an OS61FSR, but still on a 12.5-5 prop. This was for a new interclub event that became "funfly" - it achieved 21 touch-and-goes in 30 secs and over 40 limbo passes (3 foot bar) in a minute including take-off and landiong from a seperate runway. This one met it's end when a limbo pole stapped three feet sideways and pushed the engine back through the rudder in an envy attack.

I've built others since, including one with retracts in the upper surface of the wing and a tailwheel on the top of the rudder, but these were sold on to make space when I started racing. All of them were kit-built because the quality of the kitting made it too tempting to take the easy route rather than cutting out my own parts. I haven't owned a wottie for about 20 years now, and have a hankering to do another one that would have my trusty Axi 4120/18 on 6s turning a 14-6 (which I think would suit it very well).

From what I've seen the ARTF versions are probably good value, but they aren't a patch on the real thing!

PDR

Just to clear up a minor issue (because people seem to be making different assumptions here)...

Do you mean the Ripmax ARTF(wood) Wot 4 or them Chris Foss Wot 4 kit? I ask because (a) they are very different animals, and (b) virtually all the coments I see on here only apply to the ARTF one.

The Kit one is essentially good to go with no modifications at all. If you're treally addicted to full-throttle vertical dives and intend to fit a hot, piped 61 2-stroke on a "speed" prop (ie 11-8 rather than 12-5, 13-6 etc) then consider a tailplane spar and some fuselage reinforcement around the front of the tailplane, but for normal flying they're just fine.

The kit one is a FAR better machine that the ARTF, but it is more expensive (you get what you pay for).

PDR

No, the OP was about the Wot4 mk2 ARTF. Got it at very good price from KLMS, (excellent service too) and found no major problems assembling. Fitted an Irvine .46, plenty of power as this is a light model, far lighter than the kit version. I'm afraid I have sold the model on, as this was a mistaken foray back into the world of glow, and just did not do it for me. The model itself flies as you would expect, chucked about a bit by the wind as it is so light, lands very lightly and only a ham-fisted landing would worry the u/c. All aeros are performed reasonably well for a small model, and I actually set it up on buddy as a trainer for a while. It is very much a 'sport' model, ideal as a follow on from a trainer. I found no weak spots anywhere, and I did throw it about a bit. It is very much 'good value for money', and I would certainly recommend it. The original Wot 4 kit was a typical 1980s style foam wing kit, the one I had was not great, but was par for the course. Poor hardware, average quality wood, quite nice foam wings. It flew like the brick outhouse it was, but I did take my B with it back in 92. It was a model you could fly in any conditions, even a howling gale. Cant remember what engine I used, but I have never been one to put huge engines in models- my Acrowot had an Irvine .46 with an Irvine mini pipe and could go vertical out of sight! 

Doc
If you reckon that you are not very good at building, then to say the ARTFs are better built than you could manage surely isn't all that hot a recommendation?
I had a Thunder Tiger Champion where the bulkhead pulled out on starting the motor for what would have been its seventh or eighth flight. All its flying had terminated in good landings, the prop had never been stubbed into the ground, etc. On examination - which was impossible before the bulkhead went walkies. -  there was hardly a trace of glue. The front face of the bulkhead had been painted black - and there was black paint on the edge of the bulkhead and the mating areas of the fus sides. Clearly the simple act of applying the starter several times had caused the joint, such as it was, to fail. I got my money back and the company accepted it was  a design fault and promised to put it right on the next patch - don't know if they ever did.
I had an early Vmar kit - never again. Heaven knows what it was built of, but the first less than perfect landing saw the fus simply fall apart - it had longerons and spacers with sheet sides, top and bottom. Scarcely any of the spacers were glued to anything. The wood used for sides etc., was extremely brittle and simply exploded on impact. OK the landing wasn't too good - by my O/D modesl survived far worse with nary a scratch.
I am not decrying the whole industry on the basis of a couple of examples, and I have purcheased severl ARTFs since, but only where I could have a damn good look at the strucutre first.
Mike

Thunder tiger and vmar says it all really.  How about trying Hanger 9, e-flite, precision aerobatics, pilot, goldwing, kyosho extreme flight.  The new offerings by black horse and seagull are awesome, and my most recent one, yt international seems pretty good too.  At the very top end of the scale you have comp arf and the many composite f3a types.

CM

As I said, I am not decrying the whole industry - just being very careful in what  I buy.
Mike

Over the last 12 months I have had two ARTF Wot 4's. The first one was assembled at the beginning of 2011 and quality control was appalling. I phoned the supplier who put me in touch with Ripmax and I voiced my concerns with them.

The main concerns were poor alignment of wings, aileron hinge slots not centred on hinge and slot for the horizontal stabilizer that I could through a small brick through and it was also not aligned, I do have a post on here about it somewhere.

However after I tried drilling to the centre of the earth with that one, I bought another in the second half of 2011.

Ripmax had quite clearly listened to all their customers who had provided feedback.

New tank design, better larger wheels, the tail area has been beefed up and generally a much better kit.

For a budget play plane its excellent value for money and the fact that the artf design is evolving is good news for a so called cheap airframe.

Top marks to Ripmax in my book and only 6 months before I was calling them all sorts of names.