SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old May 15, 2010, 06:16 PM
Visitor from Reality
United States, VA, Arlington
Joined Dec 1996
12,788 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BB-Q View Post
Well, I've just bought an original (1970's) Wot 4 from it's builder and he tells me that you had the option of built-up wings then, which this one has.
Now there's a thing of beauty. Does he know what year the kit's from? I got into RC in 1979 and cannot recall if the WOT4 had been invented then, or when. My best excuse is that I was living in the north of Scotland at the time, and news travelled slow up there

Of course, given one wing panel, a built up replacement wouldn't take long

Always thought the low winged AcroWOT made up in looks for the WOT4's congenital ugliness though. It's just too much like hard work and cost to get one to the US though.
D
Dereck is offline Find More Posts by Dereck
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old May 16, 2010, 06:12 AM
Registered User
Joined Nov 2009
44 Posts
I think the Wot4 was a plan with foam wing when I started in 1983, then became a full kit. The original plan & wing had a different airfoil shape. The 'rip off' copy plan sold on thiefbay is this old plan copy given free with the vendors own substitute built up wing plan.

Prior to the Wot4 there was a 'What Not' (or something similar) as a plan from Chris Foss. Looked much like a Wot4. All this was in an article in an English magazine, RCME I think.

The built up wing Wot4's are likely to be homemade copies not kit built. They are usually lighter and fly just a little better. There are numerous modifications to Wot4s by Foss and others. Many different tailplanes, tapered wings, dihedral or none. All seem to fly just as well.....neither better or worse!

The AcroWot is better looking but many of them are overweight and don't fly quite as well as the Wot4 when they are heavy. Many AcroWots are built from scratch and without cowls which looks ugly but fly OK.
kdc. is offline Find More Posts by kdc.
Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2010, 10:41 AM
Visitor from Reality
United States, VA, Arlington
Joined Dec 1996
12,788 Posts
KDC
Good info, TVM. Not surprised about the AcroWot. I had a WOT4 briefly - bought RTF in a LHS back end of my time in England, re-sold not much later for a little more It struck me as having very good aerodynamics, but its structure was designed for fast and cheap kitting, to be easily built and massively overpowered. The one I briefly owned had a Merco 61 in it, and that was pretty trivial power by regular WOT4 standards - most of them had high end 60s with tuned pipes and I can't recall seeing one with a 40.

Would imagine the AcroWot was done similarly - but it was too expensive to buy as a kit, use as templates and then try to sell the kit.

Hard to avoid the 'look' of the WOT4 - there's a little parkflier thing in one of the realworld mags this month that's a third the size and recognisably similar. Not saying it's a crib, but it would be hard to do an aerobatic high winger around those parameters, fit the stuff inside and end up much different looking.

Funny old world, as the saying goes...

D
Dereck is offline Find More Posts by Dereck
Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2010, 12:27 PM
Registered User
Joined Nov 2009
44 Posts
Well a little research through my magazine collection produced an advert in Nov 1981 Radio Modeller for a Mark2 Wot 4 kit with foam wing so it dates back before that. ( during the search I came across the mags with Little Joanna and a Ford Flivver. plus a cover picture of a chap in a flat cap holding two thirds of a plane called Amy. Wonder whatever happened to him...... )
Most of the Wot4s in my club had 40 two strokes and were nicely powered. Mine had an OS 40 FP which was fine on an11 x 7. However the nose is too short for light engines and should be about an inch longer in my opinion to avoid using lead. I think it is still the ideal model when a trainer becomes too easy and something is needed to learn aerobatics. Built light you can get away with errors much more than with any other model.

Almost the same wing section is used on the Keith Humber Wight Crusader design for Radio Modeller but its half inch shorter chord with 1 inch more span and a mid wing. I have flown the Crusader for about 6 six years now and its a great model much the same as a Wot4 but looks much more realistic. Highly recommended.

It was common to see AcroWots with 2 little notches in the tailplane .......caused when the U/C bolts snapped on landing and hit the tail! Like the Wot4 I have kept a set of AcroWot templates!!!
kdc. is offline Find More Posts by kdc.
Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2010, 03:27 PM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,664 Posts
My Wottie also had an OS.40SF and I found that to be quite adequately powered, but some clubmates did have up to a .91 in there. The massively overpowered Wot-4s don't seem to be much quicker on the straight and level, the effect is more seen in the vertical performance.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2010, 06:42 PM
Visitor from Reality
United States, VA, Arlington
Joined Dec 1996
12,788 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdc. View Post
Well a little research through my magazine collection produced an advert in Nov 1981 Radio Modeller for a Mark2 Wot 4 kit with foam wing so it dates back before that. ( during the search I came across the mags with Little Joanna and a Ford Flivver. plus a cover picture of a chap in a flat cap holding two thirds of a plane called Amy. Wonder whatever happened to him...... )

<<< Didn't realise the WOTZ went that far back. Ford Flivver - blue and silver, low winged, short nose? Sounds familiar. Vague memories of 'Amy' - tore the skies up at Old Warden, according to legend. Designer wasn't bright enough to figure out that models needed tailplanes >>>

Most of the Wot4s in my club had 40 two strokes and were nicely powered. Mine had an OS 40 FP which was fine on an11 x 7. However the nose is too short for light engines and should be about an inch longer in my opinion to avoid using lead. I think it is still the ideal model when a trainer becomes too easy and something is needed to learn aerobatics. Built light you can get away with errors much more than with any other model.

<<<There's something about kits that promotes short noses and tail-heaviness. See other threads hereabouts on US kitted low winged types - at least two suffer this disease. Not like the solution requires a PhD to figure out. My custom design/build service always makes model noses a little longer, as its much easier to shift a CG back a little than move it forwards a little.

Boil it down to basics - a high winged layout is a poor aerobatic ride. It's static and dynamic balance is basically upside-down. If it has dihedral, it's going to be poor in inverted. If it has no dihedral, the high wing is as good as a little dihedral right side up and then it's top heavy inverted. Given that, the WOT4 is a better bet than the US's beloved Ugly Stik, which is a real high winger with a lower TL than the WOT4>>>

It was common to see AcroWots with 2 little notches in the tailplane .......caused when the U/C bolts snapped on landing and hit the tail! Like the Wot4 I have kept a set of AcroWot templates!!!
<<<Vaguely recall that about every club in UK had someone with a set of WOTemplates Keeping UC and model together on roll-out isn't that difficult. I learned a lot about that trick flying six pound electrics with 44oz nicad packs . It involves two three inch lengths of 1/2" x 3/4" alloy L sections epoxied into the corners of the lower fuselage above the UC, 3/4" leg on the fuselage inside faces. I don't use nylon bolts either - steel bolts don't break and if it ends up minus the UC, the rest is usually such worse shape that building a new one is called for

Lest I be accused of anti-social behaviour, I have to admire Chris Foss for sellling so many kits over the years. A clever trick indeed.

Regards

Dereck
Dereck is offline Find More Posts by Dereck
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 11:32 AM
Registered User
dover, kent, UK
Joined Apr 2003
415 Posts
I know this thread is dead and buried but I only just found it.
I have one of the original mk2 wotties, built in 1983 or 84 as a "carrier" for the then new OS 61 fs not the first exposed pushrod model but the one with the camshaft astride the crankshaft. I had an offer I couldn't refuse for the engine in 2010 and replaced it with a saito 82a which was fine.
I bought and built the wot artf and used my other saito 82a to power it, compared to the kit built model the front end was a dogs breakfast as I had to rework it. Anyway the point is that despite the built up wing of the artf it was 4 ounces heavier than the kit built one.
I never flew the artf one, sold it to someone in need as they sold like hotcakes at the time, it went with an OS 55 AX.
Most of the artf wot4s I have seen fly used 46 size two strokes, SCs, Irvines etc and go very well indeed, Personally i preferred the performance of the saito powered one.
Now the acrowot has been kitted as an artf and is proving equally as popular. I have two kit built acrowots and use saito 82as in both, this is a match made in heaven as there is almost unlimited vertical with a 14x6 apc and one can achieve it more frequently per flight than any electrocuted one which seem to run out of steam (though not smoke) after 3 or 4 vertical exercises.
I am now in the unhappy position of having to replace the 83 built wot 4 as the wood has become carrotified and breaks with ease. Personally I wouldn't entertain the artf for a 4 stroke due to the mods required and the fact that building the kit version only takes a couple of days longer now we have superglue.
Incidentally I've built about 6 wot 4s, the engines I've used have been a thunder tiger 42 gp which was v. good, an OS 46 FX which was much better, an MDS 48 which equalled the 46 fx, an OS 52 surpass FS OK, magnum 61 fourstroke, about the same as the OS 52 fs, saito 62a and saito 82a both excellent and, of course, the original OS 61 FS which was about on a par with the 52FS.
I also built and sold before I flew it a kit built mk2, identifiable by the V joint in the fuselage sides it had an HB 50 that was unused. I just love those wotties.
I've covered them with everything from solarfilm, tissue and dope, solartex and my favourite nylon fuselage and profilm wings, stab and vertical stab.
The one weak point the model has is the undercarriage mounting, this needs beefing up and use the original wire fabricated u/c as opposed to the fibreglass ones as it is much more forgiving ie buy the basic kit not the deluxe one.
Braddock, VC is offline Find More Posts by Braddock, VC
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Build Blog Page 21
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 07:07 AM
222 km/hr Parkjet flyer
solentlife's Avatar
Latvia, Ventspils pilsēta, Ventspils
Joined Jan 2010
8,973 Posts


Kit WOT4 ... foam veneered wing, liteply fuselage ....

ST61 ABC with Tuned pipe ...... true vertical out of hand performance ....

Here's the second one I built with same power set-up but suffered a shaft run ....



I would love to have them back again .... most fun in a model ever !

Nigel
solentlife is online now Find More Posts by solentlife
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 12:06 PM
Visitor from Reality
United States, VA, Arlington
Joined Dec 1996
12,788 Posts
Have vague memories of several rip-offs being strangled by Foss. The one with a four wheeled UC - two 'nose wheels' on a regular UC up front - was especially ugly.

In view of the WOT's popularity, am amazed there's not been a Chinese rip-off - perhaps if the genre was popular in the US? Or at least, an Internet freeby plan done by someone who spent countless hours creating a CAD plan and then giving it away to one and all.

Fond memories of those days when RC fliers all belonged to their local club, and every club had a WOT4 bolted onto the back of a tuned piped 60.

D
Dereck is offline Find More Posts by Dereck
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 04:50 PM
Registered User
United States, TX, Cross Plains
Joined Dec 2005
56 Posts
I have a Wot4 that I brought back from the UK. I have a Picco 60 in it. It has been a couple years since I have had it in the air but it does fly great. If the kits were sold here in the USA I would buy one just to have a back up.

Pete
modeltronics is online now Find More Posts by modeltronics
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 07:01 PM
222 km/hr Parkjet flyer
solentlife's Avatar
Latvia, Ventspils pilsēta, Ventspils
Joined Jan 2010
8,973 Posts
It really is a simple shape and design ...

Have to say that I had a serious powerplant on front of my 2 ... but when I flew a friends with a straight OS40 FSR bolted on - it was a sweet combo.
Mine with the piped 61 was brute force and ignorance ... his was balance and felt right.

Nigel
solentlife is online now Find More Posts by solentlife
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 01:39 AM
Registered User
dover, kent, UK
Joined Apr 2003
415 Posts
I just bought the classic kit to build, 81 posted. This version has wire u/c and an ABS cowl.
If I can figure out how to transfer pix from my phone I may do a build blog.
Anyway a little snippet from the instructions with the kit :-

"Wot 4 ...when the original version first appeared in 1977 it possessed those unique qualities destined to make it a classic in its own time. In 1981 a Mark 2 version was developed for kit production and soon became the market leader, setting the standards by which all others were judged."

Chris goes on to discuss the mk 2's 13 year life span which must put the Mk 3's birth at around 1994

All just for info of course!!!

The kit itself has finally caught up with the 21st century, wood selection is superb, the obeche veneered foam wing panels are also perfect and now have cutouts and lead holes for two aileron servos. All the ply parts are now routered out as opposed to being die-crushed.

The only thing that detracts from the overall quality is the instructions which have 11 pages of photocopies plus two addendum sheets for the new aileron servo arrangement and details for my "Classic" version as opposed to the Mk 3 tapered wing version.

I am well impressed and look forward to both the build and subsequent flying.
Unlike most of the readers of this section of the forum I have absolutely no intention of electrocuting it but will probably fit either a saito 82 or a laser 70. It'll probably be the latter as I fancy the wottie without the carbuncle of a muffler sticking out the side.
Braddock, VC is offline Find More Posts by Braddock, VC
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Build Blog Page 21
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 09:24 AM
Lipoly Killer
Frank Hurd's Avatar
Gulfport/Biloxi Biloxi Reg, Mississippi, United States
Joined Dec 2000
1,515 Posts
Wot 4

I really enjoy reports that the Wot 4 flies great. You don't have to convince me-I want one but-------You can't get them in the US! I don't want to rip Chris off, I just think that he should find a distributor here.
Frank Hurd is offline Find More Posts by Frank Hurd
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 02:59 PM
Registered User
Rural NW Essex,England.
Joined May 2005
302 Posts
Frank, try googling, colin usher watt four, and have a read. I have never owned a wot 4 but have the US "equivalent" an electriified Jensen ugly stik now 3 years old and flown..quite a lot! Everything is just as I built it even down to the same prop and the 8s a123's are still performing as well as ever. I would love to see a side by side test of the Wot 4 and Ugly Stik. I think they would not differ greatly but the Wot 4 would probably be better for knife edge.
Incidentally when the club hot shot wrung out my US his comments were " things haven't really moved on much over the years have they"

All the best Chris UK.
noblapod is offline Find More Posts by noblapod
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 03:24 PM
222 km/hr Parkjet flyer
solentlife's Avatar
Latvia, Ventspils pilsēta, Ventspils
Joined Jan 2010
8,973 Posts
i can remember the days when going to a fly-in ... WOT4's were so many - you could have thought it a WOT4 meeting !

As regards the tapered wing ... personally I think this was a cosmetic addition to satisfy a few ... as far as I know the classic wing and tapered were offered alternatives in mid 90's, the tapered didn't replace the classic.

What gave the WOT4 it's incredible range in flight was that deep symet wing .. boy was that wing fat !

I have in mind to create a total scratchbuild similar from memory ... I had 2 of them and for many many years - so the distinctiuve shape and wing is engrained in my head !

As regards plans ? I knew Chris years ago when he flew for Skyleader ... and I know he was extremely protective of his designs ... I know a few pirate plans did appear - but he soon stopped them. I don't blame him actually - it was a very successful design and he was in business.

Nigel
solentlife is online now Find More Posts by solentlife
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wot- 4 Twister 60 e-conversion leccyflyer Sport Planes 51 Jun 14, 2010 11:25 AM
Discussion WOT 4 Mk3 Build ben64 Fuel Plane Talk 0 Oct 10, 2009 06:21 PM
Discussion Phx 35 fluctuating WOT RPM Truglodite Castle Creations 0 Sep 08, 2009 02:20 AM
Magpie-Mega 16/15/4-18-20 amp WOT what prop and what gearing RBF Power Systems 0 Mar 09, 2005 10:54 AM
Wot 4 conversion bwoodencock Sport Planes 4 Dec 17, 2004 07:26 AM