PhilYabelli

Do you have the right to expect the manufacturer of the airframe to replace your engines, if the crash was the fault of the airframe?
No mentioning brands, no flame war, just the single question.

drdoom

My Feedback: (9)

I'm going to allow this until it gets out of hand than POOF! Griping on here has reached an all time high. Be good kids and go fly your jets you will feel better....

Dieselman1220

My Feedback: (25)

Good luck with that, I don't know of anyone who's had success with anymore than an airframe replacement. The radio manufacturers don't replace anything when one of their components fail.

drdoom

My Feedback: (9)

In the 50 years of R/C Ive been involved, We felt lucky if their was a trash can to toss your junk in...

AndyAndrews

Yes.

readyturn

My Feedback: (9)

+1

And Phil you are starting another backdoor approach to an already discussed item.... Let it be !

Rick

weazel1

YES!!!!!!!!

mikedenilin

My Feedback: (67)

That's a good question.

Let's add another question.

Do you have the right to expect the manufacturer of the turbine to replace your airframe, if the crash was the fault of the turbine?
No mentioning brands, no flame war, just the single question.

Mike

Area51.5

I hate buying overseas stuff period, but unless it has a US warranty backing it I wouldn't even put warranty in the same sentence as rc.  Most stuff you buy in those countries dont have any kind of warranty.  I have lived overseas and its not like here when you buy a tv or something it comes with a warranty.   That being said its real hard to eat the price of a jet

ianober

My Feedback: (12)

If you get anything at all, consider yourself lucky.

PhilYabelli

My opinion is no. You might expect replacement of an airframe if the airframe was at fault.You might expect a replacement engine from the engine manufacturer is at fault. But Idon't think it is reasonable to expect a replacement airframe if the engine is at fault. Or servos or anything else. That's my opinion. I'd like to hear from others.

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

I fly anything with the mindset that if I cant afford to replace it or lose it I don't fly it or buy it.
That being said if there is a fault with a product I will pursue any warranty or replacement with due diligence. Beyond that I just try to enjoy myself as much as possible because its a hobby.

Try to get a set of wings out of KMP! Even with photos showing NO GLUE and the landing gear relocated to the top of the wing it took me over 6 months to get a wing set at a discount!!! Ridiculous!!! A $75 set of wings at their cost LOST THEM A CUSTOMER FOR LIFE. Stupid business practice stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.

There is a reasonable expectation on the part of any consumer that the product they bought will perform as expected and advertised. There is a ton of legal precedent for this type of thing Im positive of that much. At this level of high priced products and slim margins (supposedly) dealers and manufacturers don't want to hand out products willy-nilly. So if you have to go the legal route things get out of hand quickly because small claims courts are limited to about $5000.

So DEALERS if your selling products you cant properly support, especially at this level, then you should really reconsider your position and reputation in the matter. You are the first point of contact and your reputation is tied into the products you sell and support. If your having the customer deal directly with the factory, like in China, then your not doing your job.

PhilYabelli

But what is your opinion on the actual question?If you buy an airframe, and it crashes due to a defect, should the airframe manufacturer be responsible to buy you a new pair of engines?Is that reasonable?

k_sonn

My Feedback: (32)

Not saying manufactures shouldn't be responsible for the quality of the products they sell, but if you can't afford to lose everything you've put into an airplane, then most likely you're financially in over your head regardless of what causes the crash or what you fly. Remember, this is a hobby and the cash you put into it is disposable.

Kirk

PhilYabelli

Yes...but the question is specific, in this case. If your airframe has a failure, is it reasonable to expect the airframe manufacturer to replace the engines too?

Christopher Ortenburger

Really good question. This can apply to any model, since control line up to jets. Even with a radio gear failure. How many times someone crashed due to any matter with electronic or a turbine flame out or when a glow or gas engines quit just after takeoff ??? No matter who or what the fault is. We would never get our money or proud back.

dubd

This hobby operates in a buyer beware manner. The only remedy is to not buy junk products.

PhilYabelli

Yes. ButIhave never heard of someone getting a replacement plane paid for by the engine manufacturer if the engine failed. Have you?

FalconWings

My Feedback: (57)

Ha ha ha happened to me, but of course it was different times.

Lost an Ace T34 to a fualty Airtronics VG6 transmitter. Sent it in, got a new radio and a new kit (same distributor).
Given it was a $65 kit,but it made my day. Flew Airtronics till I bought my first jet, 20 years later.

David

PhilYabelli

But what is your opinion on the question posed in this topic?If your plane crashes due to a defect, should be airframe manufacturer be liable to replace your engines?

dubd

How about we start with the manufacturer just replacing the airframe?

LGM Graphix

My Feedback: (22)

Ok, I'll step in and say no. I don't think so at all.
Here is why.

First of all, there are a TON of factors that could lead up to a crash, there are factors that could lead to a structural failure that are even beyond the manufactures control. If any manufacture stated that they would replace EVEN just the airframe after a "Structural failure", they would be bankrupt.

Lets consider a few things.

1. There are multiple different things that could cause a structural failure, from poor design, to overpowering, to previous damage in transport, a bad landing etc. How would you EVER prove where the problem came from?

2. There are dishonest people in this world, I know shocking right? Who's to say somebody "bored" with their model couldn't rig it to fail in flight, it wouldn't be hard would it. Hmmm, flown this airplane, didn't really like it, can't afford a new one, lets just crash it and let the manufacture replace it. If that idea worked you'd be able to insure your models against crashing wouldn't you?

3. What would it require for a manufacture to actually take responsiblity? Some kind of onboard black box? Every flight video taped from multiple angles? Or just the word of the owner?

Ok, lets be honest, this is stemming from Dubd's F14 crash. While I agree that FEJ handled the situation wrong, to be honest, I would say replacing the airframe the wrong thing to do as well, for the very reasons listed above. With no disrespect to Dantley, what if it wasn't him? What if it wasn't an upstanding member of the jet community but rather somebody new to the hobby that this happened to? What if there was no video? Would everyone say that FEJ was in the wrong and they should replace it?

When BVM had kingcat booms failing, they didn't replace airframes. The booms that were failing were, as I recall, failing primarily because of shock load put on the booms due to incoorect transport of the model. They sent out a fix free of charge to kingcat owners and changed new airframes. That is the most that a manufacture can be expected to do.

Now, lets again just for a minute say that (and I am not trying to defend FEJ here or discredit Dantley) but lets just say for a minute, that the F14 had the tail banged loading it into a trailer, it was visually checked and found to be ok, no real load. Now what if that hit being loaded into the trailer caused a fracture and THAT was the cause of the structural failure? Again, I am not even trying to suggest that this is the issue, it is my honest opinion that FEJ's airplanes are improperly designed and built, however, replacing an airplane sets a precident in this hobby where everyone can come up with a reason why it's not their fault and why the manufacture should replace it.

It is a slippery slope, nobody wants to get ripped off, nobody wants to lose an airplane, but unfortunately, due diligence falls on the modeler. Certain companies have proven themselves time and time again to have faulty products. The modeler needs to be smart enough to stay away from those products. We like to think that reps and "friends" in the hobby will be honest with us, but at the end of the day, reps and dealers want to make a buck. If they are selling a product that has been questionable over the years, make them prove that the product has improved. Make sure they are willing to fly THEIR models the way they SHOULD be flown. Flying something in circuits does not mean it's strong enough to withstand the rigors of proper flight.


So should manufactures replace airframes and all equipment? No, so many things can lead to a structural failure. Ask yourself this, if you were to sell somebody your airplane, whether you've flown it or not, and on the very first flight, or even on the 30th flight, it comes apart in midair, and the buyer calls you and says something failed, would YOU replace it all for the buyer? Would you foot the bill for his loss?

Airplanes400

My Feedback: (349)

When airframes start failing due to the same faliure, time after time, it is the manufacturer's fault. And the manufacturer should replace the airframe, as well as the damaged equipment.

Just as novices and amateurs should not be flying jets, neither should they be building/manufacturing jets.

In the case of jets, the manufacturer is held to a much higher standard than the manufacturer of a .40 ARF. A jet manufacturer should be well-qualified, employ someone with an engineering degree to design their jets and sub-structures, be consistently capable, and be able to produce a much higher quality product that is safe to fly, and has no design flaws. If they can't do that, they don't belong in the business of producing jets.

Additionally, the manufacturer should be engineering and testing their jets to meet the demands of a jet in high-performance flight. If the manufacturer is designing 200 mph, 50+ lb. jets with engineering designs and flaws, and building to the standards of a .40 or .60 sized plane, that manufacturer should not be building jets, and should be accountable for damages.

And you can bet that if that jet manufacturer is a US based company whose jet caused significant damage or personal injury due to faulty designs, a lawyer will add the manufacturer to the lawsuit being filed.

No one minds cutting into the monokote of a .40~.60 ARF to reinforce a joint. That is an easy repair. But when a manufacturer provides a painted jet, it is a reasonable assumption that jet is a FINISHED PRODUCT. Since the jet has been painted (even despite the typical orange-peel and pin-hole finish), the typical buyer would not want to rip into the wings, stabs and fuselage to check to see if the ribs have sufficient glue in the proper places. Mind you, I would not not hesitiate to cut through the typical paint job of the Chinese manufacturers to fix some things. However, if it were a high-quality paint job from LGM Graphics, I wouldn't want to cut into that ... nor would I have to, if the jet were built by him. He knows his stuff, and his paint jobs are like glass. I've usually only seen work similar to his on classic hot rods.

PhilYabelli

You have plenty of other threads going about your complaint. You can post more about your issue in those many other threads. You really don't need to derail every thread with your issue. Thanks.
The question is simple. What is your position.

PhilYabelli

The question is not should they replace the airframe. It is my opinion that they should, if it is a provable defect. The question in this thread is:
Is it reasonable to expect the airframe manufacturer to replace the damaged engines too?