SunShyne

My Feedback: (68)

I have to disagree with you. ARF's come with instructions that state what needs to be done to get the airplane worthy of flight. I have never seen any where it sais "peel a layer of the covering away to see it is structurally sound" thats simply absurd!

Myron

I Agree that there should be some level of resposibilty of the retailer or the manufacture, but we dont have an NTSB to investigate the cause of a crash. Yeah, if we find a defect on the ground we should either fix and be happy with it OR be able to send the model back. Once the model is in the air and something happens it is hard to prove what REALLY happened...Lets face it guys, the mfg has an out on ANY model that gets destroyed because it is too hard to prove what really went wrong and who is to blame.... I just watched a video of a large model at an IMAC event loose the whole tail section during a snap... It was all captured on video and it was obvious that the tail came off.. WHO IS TO BLAME?? After reading the entire thread, the plane had a rough ride in the trailor("and was subjected to extreme force") long before the crash... The modeler could have blamed the manufacture, but the manufacture could blame the modeler for overpowering it, was it damaged in a previous crash hence weakend?, Mid-AIR?, Radio failure??? Who knows... The manufacture can go as far as calling the modeller a liar and say he just crashed it and is trying to get a new plane for nothing out of the deal..... I know of modelers who pull that crap all the time and I persoanlly feel that they should be kicked out of the clubs and the AMA and have their thumbs cut off..... I know for a FACT that I have lost planes do to structural problems, but it is really down to two people blaming each other... and that is ALWAYS loose-loose situation for both parties involved.... As LDM pointed out, instead of debating amongst ourselves we should figure a way to "gang up" on a manufacture and prove to them that they have built/sold a faulty kit, part, engine, electronic, ect.ect.... If enough people get on the bandwagon and can show that said model has a weak tail sections or like the China models KATANA that has wing webing going horizontle instead of verticle and there are MANY cases of wings coming apart... Enough people spoke up and the mfg has fixed the problem... NO they didnt send new planes to everyone that complained but at least they redesigned the wing....... I guess that is more than my 2 cents worth......

Myron

Skribnod

I agree with you also Diablo , there has never been anything in the instruction manual that states to add extra formers or epoxy to various parts of the airplane during assembly. What is the manual called?.....It is a ASSEMBLY MANUAL not a ALTERATION MANUAL !
I believe for my money spent I should have a airworthy and competent model to fly in a minimum amount of time. If i wanted to add new hardware or support to a airframe I would build kits. A !QUOT!ARF!QUOT! is intended for a modeler to get to the field faster and save money. I have read so many forums on RCU where the landing gear , wheel pants , firewall , wing roots ,tail wheels ,servo trays and many,many more things have been fixed or replaced at additional cost above and beyond the price of the arf. So should I figure in a additional 5-10 hours of build time and $20-$50 to finish a !QUOT!ARF!QUOT! the proper way in which it should have been done the first time?

cstevec

My Feedback: (1)

Not all that long ago we who fly RC planes spent months building from kits a plane that hopefully would be a good flyer when we were done. The kit contained a whole lot of wood (most of it useable) and a good (sometimes) set of blueprints and usually some wire to form the landing gear with. The instructions sucked, the cowls/wheel pants/control rods and more had to be built. The hobby was composed of a select group of dedicated people who had the patience for it. Nowadays, good kits are almost as complete as ARFs and it is possible to have a Carden Extra framed up and ready to cover in under a week if you are a competant builder.

ARFs have taken the real work out of building a plane but you still have to assemble the thing and install your own gear. There are 100's of threads here where modelers talk about chucking out all the hardware that came with the kits (ARFs) and replacing it with quality stuff. If they can tell that the hardware is no good why can't they remember to look at the wood they are screwing a part into and tell it's not strong enough to hold 88 oz. of torque supplied from a servo under deflection? A good modeler is going to look over the plane and re-enforce all the glue joints, make sure the firewall is secure/fuelproofed, iron down the loose covering and on and on and on. Sometimes even the best of us overlook something in our haste to get the latest hottie into the air. When I put together an ARF trainer for someone it usually takes about 8-10 hours depending on the kit. A aerobat like a 90-120 size Cap or Extra will take me 40-50 hours and if I am putting gas into a plane, it will take longer. I try to check everything and then I go over it all again.

ARFs aren't almost ready to fly, they are almost ready to assemble and most are starting to add the disclaimer that it is the modelers responsibility to look it over and reinforce/modify as required for our purposes. Those of us who don't feel the need to do that are usually the same ones who don't bother to pre-flight the planes before every flying session, skip the range checks at the beginning of the day and sometimes don't bother with between session maintenance/upkeep. Then too are the guys that just haven't learned yet, but they will.

Oh well, off my soap box now but I will leave you with one last thought for now. If you want a professional builder to assemble your .60 size ARF for you (and I will) it will cost you the price of the kit and all of the materials I have to provide or replace in the process. It will however be guranteed to fly,,,,,,,,,,once! I can't control how you fly, and I can't make you do the maintenance.

Skribnod

Welcome to GiantScalePlanes.com. GSP is proud to offer an exciting new line of ARC and ARF giant scale R/C airplanes for the discriminating flyer. These planes set a new standard for quality and workmanship in the radio control airplane hobby. Each of these new planes is constructed with only the highest quality materials, and to very exacting specifications. If you have always hesitated to move up to a large scale plane due to the large amount of construction time involved, wait no longer !
The ARC (almost ready to cover) planes come with fully built fuselage and wings. All you do is take care of some hardware and radio installation items, and you are ready to fly. It couldn't be easier.
The ARF (almost ready to fly) planes come fully built, and already covered ! All you have to do is install your radio equipment and motor, and off you go ! It's never been this easy to fly a really big R/C airplane !!





I went to RCU homepage and this is the ad that is on top of the page check it out...............fully built .........All you have to do is install radio and equipment and motor and off you go...................I dont see anything about reinforcing anything.

wildnloose

Well, in this case...I believe the fault is the owners. He assumed things would be done right....they were not...

While its true the manufacturer forgot to put in the ply sub-structure, this is something that can be easily checked, and it was not. Of course I am assuming he was the one screwing the servos in...

I'm fairly new to this hobby but I know that you should inspect every plane as thorough as possible (whether its an arf, second hand, or a kit you paid someone to build for you). We are all human, and mistakes will be made.

I have seen some terribly built planes that people have the nerve to fly....accidents waiting to happen. I even saw a plane whose engine was not mounted on anything stable (the guy calls it his in-flight thrust adjustment). I wont let him fly it while I'm around (I'm bigger than he is) but I'm not around all the time...

Bottom line, this hobby is dangerous. You are the one flying the plane. You should do all you can to ensure its safe to fly. Its your life (and the people around you) that is at stake....not the manufacturer.

SunShyne

My Feedback: (68)

I think we are starting to get away from the original point of the thread. Although the safety concerns being addressed are valid ones the discussion is customer service and GSP..I digress


taking into consideration that not all ARF's, even from top quality manufactures come out perfect we can usually send it back or have parts replaced once the fault has been identified one being with the manufacturer and not the modeler. i.e GP, or any of the other company. With that being said the response the Dr. got back from GSP is one that totally shrugs off any accountability and after doing a search here you will see that this happens quite often. At the very least he can offer to sell him a replacement part at discount or something! One of the major gripes with GSP is the lack of replacement parts and the total lack of customer support. I know there are just as many Happy clients with GSP but the number that are not is too high for my liking. This being evident from the email response.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

First of all, I want to say that it is refreshing to see that so many people are willing to take responsibility for their own actions. I have zero respect for the losers who think that everything that happens to them is somebody elses fault. But you know, sometimes it actually is somebody elses fault.

Given the facts as stated, that he installed the servo exactly as described in the instructions and there turned out to be insufficient structure under the surface to hold it, this case is the same as you purchasing a new car and the first time you go to fill the tank, the gas all goes all over the place and catches fire because there was no tube installed between the gas filler and the tank.

I'm sure cstevec always takes the time to peer inside the gas filler to make sure there is a tube in there before filling up, (what if the tube isn't connected to the tank?) but the rest of us pretty much rely on the manufacturer to do his part right.

And that's the law as well. The manufacturer (and the seller) is legally responsible for what the factory did, and the kit/ARF assembler is legally responsible for what he did. It's common sense, and for once the law agrees.

Here's something you might want to think about: If you alter or "improve" the manufacturers product in any way, you legally relieve him of any responsibility if your changes can be even remotely related to a later failure.

Jim

Stick Jammer

I don't mean to sound rude here but this thread is getting way of base from the simple fact that the end user installed a flight enabling component with total disregard for the integrity of the installation. Come on guys, when you put the screws into balsa without a ply backer it's pretty obvious. I'm sure if the modeler wanted to go thru the hassle of sending the ARF back at that point for a replacement, GSP would have been happy to do so, but all it would have taken was a couple of pieces of 1/8" ply and some glue to fix the problem. I'm not saying that anyone here does or doesn't, but this hobby certainly requires a large amount of common sense.

Who said anything about uncovering or disassembling? This is an easy fix by simply reaching through the servo opening and gluing in some ply.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

Like i said please give me your emails if your willing to take blame for ARFs that are mauufactured poorly I would love to sell you some . Matt is 100% on target , you are supposed to put your gear in per instrucstion that is it

Stick Jammer

And throw your common sense out the window, right? I don't think so.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

No this is what I meant , buy an ARF , take it apart , remove covering , reinforce all wing attachments, servo boxes, firewall , landing gear , controll horns, ect .Then when your done please give me your email so I can out you on my list of " its always my fault customer " . Yep I only wish in my world of sales I had consumers who would be so understanding and assume all liability . WIth 18 years in sales , as a Respected VP in my field I would never ask my consumers or retailers to take the blame that you are so willing to assume

tIANci

The LHS or manufacturer (e.g. GP GSP) will of course send you that 'Dear Valued Customer' letter. They will not openly admit that there is a problem. A good example is the Global Raven, not flyable at all. Of course all ARFs are dodgy, some less than others. Its is mass produced. They are heavier than kits but then heck of a lot cheaper. From what I can tell you one of the best ARFs are HANGAR 9, Phoenix and The World Models. For me GP is not really value for money bearing in mind its made in China! Hangar 9 planes are better built than GP ones.

This hobby is about trial and error. What we can really do is to ask/enquire more before buying a plane! The forum and other hobbyist will be more than ready to give some feedback. I learnt it the hard way with nitro cars and also a little bit when I started back into planes (I bought the Black Horse Sukhoi 40 and the Global Raven 40, both are not nice planes to fly at all). If I had been patient and not duped by looks I would have not wasted my money on those 2 planes!

If anyone wants an ARF that is 100% proven then go for Kyosho and EZ, you will never go wring with them but you will pay a premium.

RCAddiction

My Feedback: (87)

I don't condone Irwin's response, nor the lack of adequate support for the servo. His response was unacceptable. He should at least have apologized and perhaps offered a discount on a replacement or future model to show sincerity and that you are valued as a customer.

However.......it seems to be just common sense to check everything twice while building. Pull on hinges, test connections, etc. I don't think I've ever read a 100% honest review (note, I said "honest review" ) where an experienced builder did not come across some deficiencies in design or construction. In the case of balsa, even hard balsa, as a servo support, I have had this in ARF's from World Models as well as from others. There was no comment in their instructions to reinforce or do anything special, like wicking in some CA or reinforcing with small pieces of ply to give the servo screws something to bite into.

I've read many, many ARF reviews where this is done routinely by the builder. They also check visible glue joints, etc. Frankly, if the kit supplier included metal clevises, and one vibrated loose because the builder did not think to add threadlocker and/or a jamnut, and the manual didn't say to do so, is it the airplane mfr's fault? I don't think so. It's all just part of assembling a plane, that's all. If you use good servo screws and tighten them securely, it should have been apparent right away that the support surface was not secure.

Experience comes from making mistakes. I am very experienced.

Net: even though I am not a fan or GSP or Irwin, I would have blamed myself for this particular situation, and not GSP.

Skribnod

For all of you who think its the responsibilty of the consumer to add additional structure or alter things to work right........YOU JUST VOIDED YOUR AIRPLANE WARRANTY !!! Just ask the Great planes guys and they will tell you if you add any extra glue , epoxy or structure ..........you voided the warranty and Great Planes warranty.



We're sorry, but we can only state that building any Great Planes model airplane kit or ARF must be as dead-stock, that is, exactly as per the instruction manual.

_____________________________

Sincerely,

Bill Baxter, Manager
Futaba Service Center USA
Hobby Services
3002 N. Apollo Dr. Suite 1
Champaign, IL 61822
USA

Service Phone: 217 398-0007
Hobby Serivces Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.bestrc.com

SunShyne

My Feedback: (68)

I must admit that common sense cant be thrown out the window but take this into consideration:

Newbie has just got his wings and is putting together his 2nd plane by himself and has nothing more than the "official" instruction manual that has all this info and legal info in it. He starts and does EXACTLY as the manual sais and is not privy to avance techniques such as reinforcement etc. He puts it together and goes out to have a failure as described in this thread. Who is at fault? The only place where I know where user input is officially required are in "short kits" offered out there and no where else. Like the post above if you make any alterations to the plane you voided your warranty etc so I ask again..who is at fault?

Yet again its the manufacturer/retailer.

RCAddiction

My Feedback: (87)

Diablo, possibly for a newbie. However, the GSP plane in question was definitely not a 2nd plane, and in fact was the 3rd advanced plane from the same company. It is intended as a plane for experienced pilots/builders who are moving up to a larger aerobat. You are right on newbies. And that's probably why certain brand trainers, like the SIG Kadet LT40, as well as several other popular ones, tend to be highly recommended by experience pilots and instructors. The mfrs of those have typically done a good job to help avoid issues for newbies who may have very limited experience.

Skribnod - it's always convenient to place the blame elsewhere. Maybe it's even human nature sometimes. However, the Great Planes comment does not hold water. This is especially the case from my personal experience in relation to ensuring things are installed properly and reinforced well. GP is typically very, very supportive and takes good care of their customers in general. I'm certain that the response you quoted from Mr. Baxter was not to be taken unilaterally, but was case-specific to a particular untested modification someone made and did not refer to reinforcing a servo rail.

Great Planes repeatedly has had users modify their planes to address design or assembly issues, notably the 1/3 scale Pitts that had wing securement problems. They went to the extent that the user was asked to peel back covering, check glue joints, repair if necessary, and recover.

IMHO, this was a common sense item, as Diablo said. But heck, that's only my opinion. I don't care for ambulance-chasing lawyers and I try to take responsibility for my own actions and instill this in my kids. Of course GSP should have built it right, but often they are not. It's our job to check when we build, as we are putting a powerful spinning prop into the air, and putting others potentially at risk.

On the other hand, if the wing had folded in flight, while using an engine in the recommended range, and had been properly assembled, that would be a whole different story.

I'm begging out of this "contest" of opinions. These are only our collective opinions anyhow and none of them will address the unfortunate incident that occurred to the thread starter. With every crash, I've tried to learn something. Hopefully others might learn from this incident as well to check their servo mounting.

Skribnod

Rcaddiction you are right about great planes they are a good company to deal with , I was merely using Bax's statement as evidence that we are not to alter or modify in any way or it could void the warranty. I have dealt with great planes and they seem to be good people. No disrespect intended. Now as for your response to diablo you stated that the GSP is a good third or fourth plane? Well why does the BIG advertisement on RCU' s homepage state the "ARF" is already built and all you have to do is install radio and engine and off you go. Take a minute and go back and read it. Is the airplane in question not a "ARF" And yes it is easy for a newbie to not know what to reinforce when they are new to the hobby. I have some friends who recently started flying and I informed them on areas to watch out for and their response was !QUOT!but its a "ARF". Excactly what I expected since I was new a little while ago myself. i didnt know what to look for until I built the first 5 or so "arfs". Since then I have read so many forums it would make your head spin but I want to be informed on what I am doing and always willing to learn how to do it right.

cstevec

My Feedback: (1)

If you don't mind, why don't you post a link to the whole thread you cut this quote from. It is pretty obvious that some selective quoting was done here. You wouldn't by chance be a journalist would ya? !!

Skribnod

I know I just cut the part where bax said that you should follow the manual for assembly. The thread was actually about altering the whole airplane but this policy applies to any mods done to the airplane regardless of what it is. Stated in every manual I have read, just a way to help protect the company since some people may do mods that increase the chance of a hazardous occurrence.

cstevec

My Feedback: (1)

Sorry, couldn't help having a little fun here. Kinda like comparing Balsa and ply ARF's and Cadillacs I guess.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

Ok we are missing the point .
1) yes we will all use common knowledge and fix any thing we dont like with an ARF .
2) yes we should only buy planes equal to our experience levil so we can possibly detect problems
3) Experience will always help in seeing the unexpected
Ok all that being said ....It will never excuse the basic assumption that the plane was built to fly in a safe and reliable manner that would pass the club presendents view or any person with modeling experienced or AMA background .
As you all know we read post on wing ribs that dont touch, fiberglass that is simply to light for the load, engine bulkheads that were not designed correctly ect. If these planes are "Bid out " to three suppilers the US importer will hope he gets his planes to specs .If not you have to hope he has the ethics to reject the planes .
How do you think TOWER HOBBIES was started? It was the reject center for Great planes. Example , they had speed controllers made for the T-Max, all bad &rejected so the bought them for pennies, sold as tower , if three out of 4 -stick they made money , do the research,and you will find these statements to be fact . Good luck but dont accept poor quailty and you will see poor quality go away . Nothing made US cars better then quality imports , consumers responded and finally so did the US car manufacters after 20 years of watching sales on imports grow .

2alpha

My Feedback: (3)

Irwin Siner


That says it all! I had the misfortune to meet him a few years ago - what an a**!

just my $.02

tIANci

Okay ... alteration voids the warranty? This is new to me for RC planes. Let's say I add a hard wood block to strenghten the servo wells or to glass the firewall, does this alteration cause the failure? I know its splitting hairs but I am an ex-attorney. I think what needs to be done is for us to write to the LHS/Manufacturer (not factory) and let them know the short comings. If the consumer does not buy then the manufacturer will listen.

Also we cannot blindly follow the instructions, okay this is easy for experienced builders to say and not for the newbies. That is why some ARFs are better than others. You will know that a KYOSHO or EZ or even TT kits have good instructions and the kits are well manufactured. Of course GP planes are good too.

In short we get what we pay for ... hence the pros will always stick with a kit and not ARF.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

O.K., you buy a new car. The brake lines are easily accessible. So, the factory doesn't hook them up...since you can reach them by simply getting under the car. Did you remember to check those brake lines before pulling off the lot?