proline8000

My Feedback: (12)

Roby,
I have known you for over 20 years and worked with you for over 13 years what do you think if we were in a product review and we had a question on quality and we stated:



2. "Is there really any evidence of quality there, or is it strictly geared to the bottom line of Hobbico, and therefore the company song that you feel the need to sing?" I guess the evidence of quality is in repetitive sales and the existance of the company--I mean, there is a building, a warehouse, a parking lot for all the employee's cars and lots of people inside that have jobs to go to every day. None of that would exist if it wasn't for a product that had a demand and customers who purchase those products. To take your question to the extreme, I guess that isn't necessarily evidence of quality, but I believe it is.


We would be fired. If you have this attitude in R & D you have no chance of ever turning out a quality product no mater what you design. Now we know why ARF's are of so little quality...... I have a few ARF's and one thing they lack is quality. They fly well and assemble quickly, and mostly are cost effective


Mike

Roby

Hi Mike ,

I didn't know you were following this thread. Haven't seen
you for awhile . How's the new job ?


By the way.......WELL SAID.


Regards,
Roby

rceric

If your like me you are willing to accept that the ARF may not be the best example of quality. I am a flyer not a builder.. Why? Because I suck at it and I don't have the time or patience. I am willing to accept this "lack" of quality because it is better than anything I can build. I just got my Giant and it sure looks good to me. I can't wait to put her together and the little bit of extra work to get things fitted and fixed up right is just the right amount of work for me to make it feel like my own.

Just my 2 cents...

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Proline and Roby:

1) The "quality" level, by any reasonable definition, varies dramatically among the available range of ARFs.

2) Quality has a different definition for every user of the word.

Please give us your definition of quality so that we can understand where you are coming from.

Jim

pilot727

ARF's sure are much better then ever before, im not a builder either and i love my arf's, some are great some are not but you must admit most are pretty well made, no doubt a kit is better if the builder is a good builder but the time spent on them, well i will stick with the arf and be happy they make a plane for the non builder, i bought a great planes cap 232 and it is top of the line, strong landing gear and a very beautiful airplane and the price is right

Roby

RCERIC

I'm quite sure it will fly very nice for you and I
wish you well with it.

Let me suggest just a few "simple" items that may make
this airplane a bit more durable.

1. glass the indside of the paper thin cowl.
2. add a wing saddle doubler of 1/4 hard balsa
(this need to be done in 4 pieces ,F3 gets in the way)
3. add 2 pieces of 1/4 square hard balsa to F3
(one each side)you then use it as a handle when the
fuselage is inverted and it won't break.
4. use good quality 4 inch (min) tires on the main gear
(you won't be able to use the pants)
5. unless you feel like doing a little work your stuck
with a poor excuse for a tail wheel assembly.
6. add some triangular stock to at least F2 and F4
on both sides and to F3 on one side.

The reasons:
1. if you don't do #1 you might be replacing or repairing
it because of item 4 (nose overs)
2. items 2,3 and 6 will keep the sides of the fuselage
from flexing like a wet noodle.
3. the tail wheel mounting is weak (typical of most ARF's)

That's the simple stuff that shouldn't take too much effort.

By the way ,once you install the servo's in the tail, chances are
your antenna wire won't go past the end of the tube. The servo
is in the way. Easy fix , slide back the servo, push in the antenna.

I've spared you the nasty stuff.

It fly's great, have fun

Regards,
Roby

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

So if I fly from a hard surface runway, I don't need to do those things and I can save the weight?

Jim

Roby

JRF

I guess so. If you are really concerned about the
small amount of weight that would be added
and you want to keep weight down then let me
suggest the following;

Skip the spinner,cowl canopy,and pants.
As an added bonus then go to smaller wheels
all around. For extra credit you can get some
5mm wire,(3/6) and bend up a new landing gear
set that uses on 1 leg instead of 2.

As for me I'm actually adding weight on the CG
so my plane will have more mass. It's too light.

I guess it all depends on what you want.

Roby

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Wow, never heard that one before! (Except for slope racers.) Do you fly in a very high wind area?

Anyhow, you and Proline made some fairly broad statements about the quality of the Giant SS, which seem to be at odds with the majority opinion. I'm just trying to find out what the basis of your statements was. Maybe the rest of us are missing something.

So far, you feel that the main wheels are too small and the tailwheel is too weak for grass fields, and the cowl is too thin to survive noseovers. Oh yeah, and it doesn't have a handle so you can carry the fuselage upside down with the wing off.

What was the "nasty stuff"?

Jim

gnirwin

My Feedback: (25)

I bought a DL 50 earlier this summer and I followed the manufacturer's recomendation of mounting the engine on an airframe while breaking it in. I mounted mine on a rather large airframe that has airfoiled tail surfaces and the engine literally shook the hell out of the plane for quite some time while I ran about 2 gallons of fuel through it. I could only imagine how a smaller and a little more fragile plane like the SS would do under those conditions and if the tail blew off after a couple of flights how could anyone blame it on "poor quality". I just don't think a plane like this was ever designed for that kind of abuse.

SBrian

So, Roby, do you work for Hanger 9. The way you bash the SS makes it sound like you work for the competition!

SBrian

Help me understand why you would put a DL50 in the SS? Manufacture recommends 2+ HP motor and from what I'm hearing from this forum guys are stuffing 5HP motors in the SS? I would think it would pull the plane apart! Help me here would you...

Steve

krproton

(gnirwin, hello. The largest spark-ignition the giant Super Sportster is rated for is 32cc. I guess you weren't necessarily suggesting putting that 50cc engine on a giant Sportster, but just in case...)

Tim

gnirwin

My Feedback: (25)

no. i wasn't suggesting it, like I said, I think a 50 cc engine would be "way over the top" but people are going to do it no matter what i or anyone else is going tell them and when they do I hope they at least go in and beef the plane up.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Back in post 238, CB36 said he is going to put a DL 50 on the Giant SS. What do you think? Did you test it with a 50cc? Why not?

If it shakes, blows, scares the tail off, I'll bet your customer service people get an irate call about the lousy "quality" of the Giant SS.

Jim

SBrian

gnirwin, Would the Evolution G35 be a good choice for the SS? It is lighter than the Fuji and has more HP... This would eliminate the need for the extra weight in the tail... Let me know what you think.

krproton

Hi Jim.

What do I think about somebody flying the giant Super Sportster with a 50cc engine? Well, the largest engine specified for that model is 32cc. So what I think is that they are flying the plane with an engine that is too big, and all that it implies. I guess that answer is obvious and oversimplified, but that's what I think.

And no. The giant Super Sportster was never tested with a 50cc engine. As for why, I'll refer you to another post I wrote about a similar question...[link]http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6708558[/link]

If the link doesn't work or if you don't feel like reading it right now, I guess the answer to why we didn't test it with a 50cc engine is because a 50cc engine is too big for that plane. It isn't meant to fly the way it would if a 50cc engine was used and the structure isn't strong enough. (Said another way..."a 50cc engine is too big for the giant Super Sportster." )

And I hope I'm not coming across rude or short, but it's just that simple.

(Oh, I get it now, you were just trying to get me to make your point for you...clever )



Tim

krproton

Ten-four. I'm with ya! [8D]

Roby

Good morning everyone.

Nope, I don't work for Hanger 9. Although I did
for many years work in a LHS on a part time role.
I used to get to look and touch many of the products
that were being manufactured at that time . Seen alot
of stuff , some good ,some bad.
I wouldn't sell anything to anyone that I wouldn't fly
myself.
AND yes, I did sell many ARF's that came along with some
personal advice or tips to enhance it's durability.

The Nasty stuff:
I would like to avoid this so I'll only mention a few items that
typically apply to many of the ARF's not just the GSS.
1. The firewall , when will they start using a good grade of
plywood ? I suspect never.
2. When do you think the firewalls will be attached to the fuselage
a little better. A few more gussets here and there would'nt hurt.
In my many years in this hobby I've seen many firewalls torn
out of fuselage's. It seems that for what ever reason the kit built
stuff stay's together better. I wonder why ?
3. Like many of the ARF's I've assembled for myself or others it
seems that the gluing absolutely the neatest ,cleanest I've
ever seen. I would be hard pressed to do better. Well, from
what I've seen it translates into minimal or not enough glue
in many of the joint areas.
4. Tail wheels on ARF's have always been weak. Usually when
they break the fuselage needs a fair amont of work to repair.

That's enough, no need to go further.

Now , as far as adding weight.
This is dependant on your fying style. (I don't do 3d) Anyone who
has flown gliders for any amounrt of time knows about ballast
and how to determine a good "flying weight".This "flying weight
doesn't only pertain to gliders.

I think that several years ago either MA or MAN did and an
article on "Flying Weight" . It's worth reading. You might be
surprised how some models will fly better with some added
weight.

FWIW ,the ARF's I have done recently for myself .
GP Ryan STA , GP Pitts (talk about issues) and now the GSS.
They all flew quite well for a long time once I got them
reworked to a point I felt comfortable that they were corrected.

That's it. Anything else I can help you with today ?

Regards,
Roby

CB36

Yup, I was going to put my DL in the SS, maybe not now.

I asked the forum about this before I purchased the motor and got many positive responses, (certainly not blaming anyone!!). My intentions were to get into gas with this in my SS and then eventually use the motor in something in the 50cc category. I was intending to use my left thumb sparingly and not go out to rip up the sky.

Now I'm thinking that maybe I should shelve my DL for the future and put something else into the SS, (Fuji 32EI?). I don't hear many favorable things on the Fujis, but that's the least of my worries. The biggest is how to tell the better half that I screwed up and bought the wrong motor and I need to spend $ on something else! This will most likely be met with less than enthusiasm!!

Thoughts????
Thanks all.
CB36

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

CB36: Reinforce the firewall and the landing gear, install bracing wires on the tail and use a low pitch prop. (No more than 8 pitch.) Make sure all of the glue joints that you can see are solid. Use Robart hinge points, seal all of the hinge gaps, use metal-geared, high-torque servos and 4-40 pushrods with heavy duty clevises or ball joints.

Then when you first start the engine, check to see where the airframe is flexing at idle (right in front of the tail, someone said) and reinforce that area.

Doing those things will probably make the Giant SS last for a while with the 50cc on it.

Or you can buy a 26 to 35cc engine and fly it the way it is.


Roby: The need to reinforce the airframe for an oversized engine does NOT mean that the quality is no good.

Jim

Roby

jrf

In this case of the "oversized" motor situation .

I totally agree that the mods you suggest have
nothing to do with the quality or lack of it.

In order to be fair ,perhaps many of the firewall
failures that we either see or hear about might be
a result of the "oversize" motor.

At any rate , if anyone is interested I'll keep you
posted as I increase the weight on my GSS.

It is a great flying airplane.

Regards,
Roby

gnirwin

My Feedback: (25)

SBRIAN, in response to your question to me: I fly my SS with a OS 1.60 and it flies very nice, all the power it needs and then some. I think the OS 1.60 is probably comparable to a 30 cc gas engine so the Evolution 36 should work but if there is alot of vibration throuigh the air frame I would try to beef the tail and the firewall up.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

I think you are underestimating the power of the OS 1.60 glow engine. I would think it would be more comparable to a good 40cc gas engine. Gas engines are much weaker than glow, especially when the extra weight of the ignition system is factored in. Just my $.02 worth.


Ed Cregger

Roby

Me again,

I'm flying my GSS with a 1.20 4 stroke with a pump and
it seems to have more than adquate power .

I have several 1.60 2 stokes on some of my bigger
and considerably heavyer planes. I won't even
consider putting one on the GSS unless I wanted
unlimited vertical etc.


Regards,
Roby