G'day Allen, here's my opinion—interspersed with some facts.

My first ARF was an early Oriental. After getting that model, I resolved to only buy ARCs in future because I was worried about sealing all the joints in the covering.

I have two ARC Vectors that I am working on from time to time—when the mood takes me. With my flying skills, there is no rush.

Engines—from my reading, others say the Brodak 40 is fine. For size, the Brodak 40 is a little shorter than the FP and the extra length of the FP means that you need a spinner with a backplate that wraps around the prop driver—like the Dubro item. That said, plenty of people are happy with an FP 40 and several years ago, Novice at the New South Wales State Championships was won with an ARF Vector powered by an LA 46.

I don't like the crimped tubes on the leadouts and the braided cable leadouts run direct on the nylon bellcrank. I've taken the bellcranks out of mine and replaced the leadouts with swaged terminations and the cable now runs through the bellcrank on pieces of tubing for bearings. I've also taken the opportunity to reverse the bellcranks so that the front line is up. Does it make a difference? I don't know, but plenty of championship winners tell me that it does. To remove the bellcrank and reverse it requires two holes in the centre sheeting on the underside of the wing—one to get to the existing bellcrank mounting screw, the other to permit drilling the bellcrank mount for the reversed bellcrank and to refit the bellcrank. I was able to cut the holes using a 1/2" dia gimlet pointed dowelling drill, turned backwards by hand. Mine are ARC versions so threading the leadout cables through the wing is easy. I have not replaced the leadouts on an ARF model but others have and should be able to explain the process.

You also need to check the leadout positions in the adjustable guide. One of my two had the leadouts reversed at the wing tip so the cables were rubbing on each other inside the wing at all times.

Everybody in my club has reinforced the landing gear mount with pieces of 1/4" square or triangular material to spread the pull-out load of a heaving landing into the fuselage sides a bit more.

Also, we have had a couple of Vector 40s break their backs at the back of the wing cutout after heavy landings. There is a failry large cutout in the bottom of the fuselage to allow the wing to fit and there is a filler piece to complete the fuselage. The fit of this part is not all that flash on mine so I will be taking steps to maintain the lower fuselage line and fill any gaps. However, to prevent the models breaking their back—and this has been done with a couple of Stregas as well—cut slots in the bulkheads at the front and back of the wing opening on the fuselage and the fuselage filler to accept 1/16" ply tongues. The wing is then glued in and the under-wing fuselage piece is glued to the fuselage sides with the ply tongues as well as just gluing the piece front and back. None of the models modified this way have failed in a heavy landing.

I'm happy with the front pushrod for a model of this type but mine have clevises at both ends of the flap–elevator pushrod and the clevis pins are a rattling good fit in the holes in the horns. I would bush the horns to remove all slop from those connections. There are plenty of people who will tell you not to use clevises—not negotiable. I don't disagree with them but I would say never, ever run clevises with pins of 1.5mm or 1/16" dia rattling in holes around 3/32" dia.

If you opt to replace the control system with ball links, replace the horns with others designed for ball links. I replaced the clevis on the front of the elevator pushrod of my Oriental—there was no room for a ball link at the back—and the front pushrod binds on the ball link limiting the amount of up elevator. The up elevator on the Oriental is adequate but I would like a bit more. The binding did not show itself until I had glued everything in. If you want to use ball links, Tom Morris can supply a flap horn to suit.

The cowls supplied today are fairly flimsy fibreglass mouldings which I'm replacing with conventional balsa cowls. I have a die-cut kit as well and the cowl sides were fairly badly crunched so I'm building three cowls simultaneously. It makes such mods fairly easy.

There are a few other cosmetic changes that you could make if you elect to go with an ARC model to set it apart from everybody else's ARC/ARF kits but that's up to you.

Flying Models October 2011 has a rather good article on building an ARC Vector where the nose was shortened to allow for the extra weight of an LA 46. Apart form the nose shortening, there is a lot of useful information about the build in the article so it's worth chasing down.

Hi Allen:

Having built both an ARC Vector and then the laser-cut kit Vector, and having seen lots of ARF Vectors (including one with a PA60/65 on a pipe), I vote for the ARC. The kit is really easy to build and the parts fit is very good, but there is no denying the time saved starting with an ARC, and when covered and finished nicely they will be indistinguishable. I used the stock bellcrank to flap pushrod with the Z bend at the crank end, but shortened it and soldered a threaded coupler on the flap end on which I threaded a 4-40 Dubro ball link. The flap to elevator pushrod can be carbon or fiberglass with a ball  link on either end. I use the stock Brodak horns, and drill and tap them for 4-40 bolts to attach the ball links. The flap horn is tricky but by putting the links on opposite sides and using the brass stand-off spacers that come with the links it will work and not bind. Use nylock nuts on the ends of the bolts since you will never see them again once the wing is glued in place. There is never enough room at the elev end so hatches need to be cut in the fuselage side. Newer ones may come with the hatches already installed.

The fuselage and gear mount definitely need upgrading, as noted. Especially at the high stress areas at LE and TE opening.

Depending on your budget, the BEST idea is to contact Tom Morris for a pre-built complete control set (leadouts, bellcrank, rods, horns). He has them for the common models and delivery is amazingly fast.

I think most on this forum would agree the B-40 is a better stunt motor than a FP40, and would also agree that far better still is a dead-stock LA46 with an APC 12.25-3.75 prop. Depends again on what you have and what your budget is. You will love any version of the Vector.

Is there a way to find that article from "Flying Models".  I'm not sure I've ever seen that magazine.

Just contact Flying Models directly.  That issue is shown on their website to still be available.  Contact info on www.flying-models.com

Allen;

  Take a look at this ongoing thread...  http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=29995.0

r/
Dave

Is there a way to find that article from "Flying Models".  I'm not sure I've ever seen that magazine.

You're missing out then.  In my opinion it's the best modeling magazine ever.  Unless the only thing you're interested in is Control Line, you may agree.

While they do end up covering the usual complement of RC toys masquerading as models, they also manage to cover real RC, CL and FF model building.  Nearly every issue has at least one construction article; two is the norm, and every once in a great while they make it up to three.

Allen, the ply tongues really don't need to be very big but I think I'm going to make mine about 3/8" narrower than the flats on the pieces that go under the wing and about 1" long—equispaced both sides of the joint. If I need to shape the front ones around the wing LE, so be it.

Most of the people in our club have just used 1/4" in the corners between the ply landing gear mounting plate and the fuselage sides.

If I remember correctly, the Flying Models article shows a pic of the reinforcement.

What are some longer landing gears I could use that would accommodate 12 inch props?

Would wrapping the crimped lead-outs with fine copper wire and soldering or JB welding, strengthen the crimps?

What are some longer landing gears I could use that would accommodate 12 inch props?

Would wrapping the crimped lead-outs with fine copper wire and soldering or JB welding, strengthen the crimps?

Crimping can weaken the cable, so wrapping isn't the answer. Don't EVER solder cable of any kind. It makes it a solid next to the stranded part, creating a failure point.

Nothing is more important than ensuring that the control system is safe and will last for thousands of flights. ARF/ARC stuff typically doesn't come close, so inspect it and make sure it's right.

Randy Smith has a wide assortment of CF landing gears, and since he designed the Vector 40, he should be able to make a good recommendation. It's not impossible to DIY a CF LG, either. Howard Rush and Bruce Perry make their own. If those guys can do it, you can too!     Steve

Allen...
Leadout wires are generally around twice as thick as control lines...there are many sources for lead-out material (Brodak, Tom Morris, SIG).
Many Brodak ARF/ARC's have been flown successfully with the supplied control hardware, BTW.

I now have most of my questions answered.  I was able to borrow the October 2011 issue of Flying Models.  I would have bought it but the $8.00 shipping for a $5.00 magazine didn't fit my budget.  An older gentleman who was a flying friend when I was a youth collects all the Flying Model Magazines. He lent it to me.  He built a Smoothie a long time ago which he eventually gave to me.  It was the best flying plane I have had but the controls pulled loose inside the wing on it's last flight and it became kindling for our wood stove - great stuff! I think the bellcrank assembly came loose.  It had hardwire leadouts and they definitely didn't tear loose.  This Vector is a replacement for that plane.

Thanks for your many helpful suggestions.  It's time to go build.

Allen
I have built 2 ARC Vectors in the past couple of years or so and I didn't change much at all on the first one.  On the second one I replaced the leadouts and made a new elevator pushrod which I sleeved with carbon fibre tube and used a better quality clip for the elevator.
I would be careful about doing anything that added any weight !  Lightness is extremely important for a stunt model - don't add weight !  Any mods you can do to save weight where you can are worth trying.  Carbon U/C is something you could try. Use light covering on the wings.
Both mine were excellent models and I'm sure you'll enjoy yours.
I used an LA 46 with a lightweight muffler and a 12x5 prop on 64' lines.

Jeff

4.5 ounces is enough for either a Brodak or a 40FP to get through the pattern. Also, they have the same bolt pattern so you can switch one for the other if you wish (I'd go with the Brodak). 

Aaron (oldest son) has a ARF Vector.  We changed the lead outs and how they attached to the BC, added new push rods, but cannot remember if we replaced the horns.  I used Minwax spray Polyurethane in the black can (oil based?) to seal the trim to the covering after going over the entire model with a heat gun and iron.

Now all we have to do is settle on an engine!

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

To me there is a big difference between crimps and swagging.   I will not use a crimped connection again.   

Tank size was an issue for me when using an LA46 in a Vector. Previously I had used an LA46 on a Tanager, running the engine very rich in a dead 4-stroke. At the top of the vertical eights it would burp a bit of 2 stroke. Same in the overhead eight. This is a very light plane, 38 ounces. Run this was the LA46 consumed every drop of the 6 ounces in a clunk tank set up for uniflo. A very useful stunt run that happened to use a lot of fuel. When attempting to duplicate this run on a Vector, I found I didn't have room for 6 ounces of tank capacity. Switching to the small FP40 venturi, a .257 (I think) solved the issue. 41/2 ounce will work with an LA46 if you you use a small FP 40 venturi. It is possible to fit a Brodak 5oz stunt tank without modifying the compartment much. 6 ounces could mean cutting into doublers and the leading edge of the wing.

Which clunk tank do you use?

G'day Allen, here's my opinion—interspersed with some facts.

.......I have two ARC Vectors that I am working on from time to time—when the mood takes me.
 
Flying Models October 2011 has a rather good article on building an ARC Vector where the nose was shortened to allow for the extra weight of an LA 46. Apart form the nose shortening, there is a lot of useful information about the build in the article so it's worth chasing down.

Very curious about this FM article.
No hardcopy at the bay.
Maybe somebody can post this article (pdf) or
send me (pm) papercopy, Paypal.

Thanks  Peter

Page 2

Page 4

Page 6

That's it folks!