Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
07-17-2013, 05:18 AM
#76
My Feedback: (102)
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
Gasser,
I think, at least for myself, that when flying a turbine you have to be cautious of the weight issues and carrying the large amount of energy that one carries with these heavy jets. Remember that the weight applied to the aircraft increases exponentially as the bank rate increases, so a gallon of fuel, wieghing about 6.8 pounds will exert up to 40 pounds or more of force in a single point in a steep bank. The large IMAC type of planes you fly are lighter and engineered to take high G maneuvers and extreme banking, but you are not carrying the kind of fuel and central weight like in the turbine aircraft, since the aircraft engine is mostly located in the front of the plane. Most of the larger 3D aircraft are built strong but lighter with the engine in the front, not sitting right over the main spar of the wing. That i snot to say there are not some 3D capable jets out there, but something like this big Hawk should not be flown in that manner, IMO. Of course it should be capable of maneuvers similar to the real aircraft, which is usually limited to what the full sclae pilot can handle. If you wanna do really high G maneuvers with a turbine go with something in the sport class, most of those can handle about anything you can throw at it.
I think, at least for myself, that when flying a turbine you have to be cautious of the weight issues and carrying the large amount of energy that one carries with these heavy jets. Remember that the weight applied to the aircraft increases exponentially as the bank rate increases, so a gallon of fuel, wieghing about 6.8 pounds will exert up to 40 pounds or more of force in a single point in a steep bank. The large IMAC type of planes you fly are lighter and engineered to take high G maneuvers and extreme banking, but you are not carrying the kind of fuel and central weight like in the turbine aircraft, since the aircraft engine is mostly located in the front of the plane. Most of the larger 3D aircraft are built strong but lighter with the engine in the front, not sitting right over the main spar of the wing. That i snot to say there are not some 3D capable jets out there, but something like this big Hawk should not be flown in that manner, IMO. Of course it should be capable of maneuvers similar to the real aircraft, which is usually limited to what the full sclae pilot can handle. If you wanna do really high G maneuvers with a turbine go with something in the sport class, most of those can handle about anything you can throw at it.
07-17-2013, 05:20 AM
#77
My Feedback: (49)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SANTA ANA, CA
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
Personally, I didn't see flutter. I just saw a weak stab undergo too much stress, crack first, which allowed it to flex once or twice, then break fully. Notice that the pilot has a fairly large amount of up elevator input just prior to the separation, but the jet is not responding. At the increased speed of the dive, boom! What happened after, is the scary part!
The full scale Hawk is not a speed demon and most large R/C Hawks aren't either. That failure was entirely speed related in my opinion. VNE was exceeded in a slight dive! That proves this jet was likely never fully tested to a full flight regimen. Coming out of the bottomside of a split S would easily exceed the speed at which you saw failure.
David S
On a more positive note: That SM F-104 is DA BOMB!
Really enjoyed watching it!
The full scale Hawk is not a speed demon and most large R/C Hawks aren't either. That failure was entirely speed related in my opinion. VNE was exceeded in a slight dive! That proves this jet was likely never fully tested to a full flight regimen. Coming out of the bottomside of a split S would easily exceed the speed at which you saw failure.
David S
On a more positive note: That SM F-104 is DA BOMB!
Really enjoyed watching it!
07-17-2013, 05:40 AM
#78
My Feedback: (84)
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
ORIGINAL: DocYates
Gasser,
I think, at least for myself, that when flying a turbine you have to be cautious of the weight issues and carrying the large amount of energy that one carries with these heavy jets. Remember that the weight applied to the aircraft increases exponentially as the bank rate increases, so a gallon of fuel, wieghing about 6.8 pounds will exert up to 40 pounds or more of force in a single point in a steep bank. The large IMAC type of planes you fly are lighter and engineered to take high G maneuvers and extreme banking, but you are not carrying the kind of fuel and central weight like in the turbine aircraft, since the aircraft engine is mostly located in the front of the plane. Most of the larger 3D aircraft are built strong but lighter with the engine in the front, not sitting right over the main spar of the wing. That i snot to say there are not some 3D capable jets out there, but something like this big Hawk should not be flown in that manner, IMO. Of course it should be capable of maneuvers similar to the real aircraft, which is usually limited to what the full sclae pilot can handle. If you wanna do really high G maneuvers with a turbine go with something in the sport class, most of those can handle about anything you can throw at it.
Gasser,
I think, at least for myself, that when flying a turbine you have to be cautious of the weight issues and carrying the large amount of energy that one carries with these heavy jets. Remember that the weight applied to the aircraft increases exponentially as the bank rate increases, so a gallon of fuel, wieghing about 6.8 pounds will exert up to 40 pounds or more of force in a single point in a steep bank. The large IMAC type of planes you fly are lighter and engineered to take high G maneuvers and extreme banking, but you are not carrying the kind of fuel and central weight like in the turbine aircraft, since the aircraft engine is mostly located in the front of the plane. Most of the larger 3D aircraft are built strong but lighter with the engine in the front, not sitting right over the main spar of the wing. That i snot to say there are not some 3D capable jets out there, but something like this big Hawk should not be flown in that manner, IMO. Of course it should be capable of maneuvers similar to the real aircraft, which is usually limited to what the full sclae pilot can handle. If you wanna do really high G maneuvers with a turbine go with something in the sport class, most of those can handle about anything you can throw at it.
ORIGINAL: David Searles
Personally, I didn't see flutter. I just saw a weak stab undergo too much stress, crack first, which allowed it to flex once or twice, then break fully. Notice that the pilot has a fairly large amount of up elevator input just prior to the separation, but the jet is not responding. At the increased speed of the dive, boom! What happened after, is the scary part!
The full scale Hawk is not a speed demon and most large R/C Hawks aren't either. That failure was entirely speed related in my opinion. VNE was exceeded in a slight dive! That proves this jet was likely never fully tested to a full flight regimen. Coming out of the bottomside of a split S would easily exceed the speed at which you saw failure.
David S
On a more positive note: That SM F-104 is DA BOMB! Really enjoyed watching it!
Personally, I didn't see flutter. I just saw a weak stab undergo too much stress, crack first, which allowed it to flex once or twice, then break fully. Notice that the pilot has a fairly large amount of up elevator input just prior to the separation, but the jet is not responding. At the increased speed of the dive, boom! What happened after, is the scary part!
The full scale Hawk is not a speed demon and most large R/C Hawks aren't either. That failure was entirely speed related in my opinion. VNE was exceeded in a slight dive! That proves this jet was likely never fully tested to a full flight regimen. Coming out of the bottomside of a split S would easily exceed the speed at which you saw failure.
David S
On a more positive note: That SM F-104 is DA BOMB!
Really enjoyed watching it!
07-17-2013, 05:43 AM
#79
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
Concur. The stabs appear to fail downward from loading due to the aft (up) stick input.
IMO though, the jet was nowhere near what should be the Vne of this jet...or more correctly, 1.15 Vne. But clearly, the Vne for this model was exceeded.
Now granted, one should not expect this jet - or any "scale" jet - to hold up structurally if flown like a Shockwave, for example. If it can, great. But, it should be able to handle 6.5 g's, and have an ultimate load around 10 g's. That is not unreasonable at all, and is "scale." The way this particular Hawk was being flown, I would be surprised if a 4g load factor was exceeded.
However, by the conclusion of JOK we were assured that the cause of this structural failure had been discovered, and will be/has been rectified by FEJ engineering. So, not to worry, all is well.
Sluggo
IMO though, the jet was nowhere near what should be the Vne of this jet...or more correctly, 1.15 Vne. But clearly, the Vne for this model was exceeded.
Now granted, one should not expect this jet - or any "scale" jet - to hold up structurally if flown like a Shockwave, for example. If it can, great. But, it should be able to handle 6.5 g's, and have an ultimate load around 10 g's. That is not unreasonable at all, and is "scale." The way this particular Hawk was being flown, I would be surprised if a 4g load factor was exceeded.
However, by the conclusion of JOK we were assured that the cause of this structural failure had been discovered, and will be/has been rectified by FEJ engineering. So, not to worry, all is well.
Sluggo
ORIGINAL: David Searles
Personally, I didn't see flutter. I just saw a weak stab undergo too much stress, crack first, which allowed it to flex once or twice, then break fully. Notice that the pilot has a fairly large amount of up elevator input just prior to the separation, but the jet is not responding.
The full scale Hawk is not a speed demon and most large R/C Hawks aren't either. That failure was entirely speed related in my opinion. VNE was exceeded in a slight dive! That proves this jet was likely never fully tested to a full flight regimen.
Personally, I didn't see flutter. I just saw a weak stab undergo too much stress, crack first, which allowed it to flex once or twice, then break fully. Notice that the pilot has a fairly large amount of up elevator input just prior to the separation, but the jet is not responding.
The full scale Hawk is not a speed demon and most large R/C Hawks aren't either. That failure was entirely speed related in my opinion. VNE was exceeded in a slight dive! That proves this jet was likely never fully tested to a full flight regimen.
07-17-2013, 06:27 AM
#80
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lost Wages,
NV
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
gjhinshaw, If FEJ is so good to you and they make such a good product, Why are you selling your NIB FEJ AT3? If FEJ products are so good, why are you advertising that it has a bunch of carbon fiber and glass upgrades, why does it need upgrades if its NIB? Good luck selling your time bomb and if you manage to find a noob to buy it, will you feel bad when he takes it out the first time and it self destructs?
07-17-2013, 06:36 AM
#81
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: MIRAMAR, FL
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
I'm not a die hard jet guy, I fly larger EDF's and have a total of $40K invested in the 6 I've built and flown but I don't believe any expertise is required to state what I feel is the primary concern; That jet went in like a missile and with no warning and it didn't appear to be caused by overstressing the airframe. So unless confirmed to be mechanical (linkage, control horns/arm or servo spline/gears) or electronic (servo motor, receiver, wiring, power or signal loss) then design, engineering or construction has to be considered the cause and everyone, from the manufacturer to the pilots to future event coordinators, should be concerned that it is addressed properly. I personally don't like the back-and-forth but can understand all points, even the manufacturer's points to some degree but this is about more than money.
I suppose some of the issue can be attributed to communication, compounded by the language barrier that is probably adding to the time it takes for someone to make a serious and articulated point and the factory, to fully understand, if they are in-fact attempting to understand. The complexities and nuances of translating technical specifics, not to mention when slang and irony are thrown in, can't help either. Perhaps the only fair thing to do is expect any manufacturer to prove air worthiness with a certain number of hours of flight time before production or specific maneuvers performed and listed as "tested" or a G-rating? Before you scoff, there is a fair amount of difference between the various manufacturer's engineering, design and construction methods and flight testing practices, maybe voluntary compliance to at least some pre-determined minimum standard is in order...
Jack
I suppose some of the issue can be attributed to communication, compounded by the language barrier that is probably adding to the time it takes for someone to make a serious and articulated point and the factory, to fully understand, if they are in-fact attempting to understand. The complexities and nuances of translating technical specifics, not to mention when slang and irony are thrown in, can't help either. Perhaps the only fair thing to do is expect any manufacturer to prove air worthiness with a certain number of hours of flight time before production or specific maneuvers performed and listed as "tested" or a G-rating? Before you scoff, there is a fair amount of difference between the various manufacturer's engineering, design and construction methods and flight testing practices, maybe voluntary compliance to at least some pre-determined minimum standard is in order...
Jack
07-17-2013, 06:39 AM
#82
My Feedback: (54)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Clinton Township,
MI
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
ORIGINAL: YellowAircraft
Giginshaw, this was for you:
Hi,
I don't know you personally, and I have nothing against you personally (or any other way for that matter) but I have to say that this post was simply jaw-dropping. Your feelings on the 'dog-pile' notwithstanding, the idea that all of these planes are pretty much the same.... but what the end user thinks to modify is what makes the difference between an airplane and a smoking crater is profoundly naive and disingenuous in my opinion. I would be very interested to know what other ARFs you've personally assembled and flown (to know what you're comparing the ones you're talking about to). There are, in spite of your proclamation to the contrary, PLENTY of examples of ARF models where the buyer can confidently expect the airplane (and its components) to reliably do what they're designed (and, more importantly, SOLD) to do. Your statement completely ignores all of the firmly established, IMMUTABLE evidence of a fatally flawed design. When you have a fatally flawed design paired with sub-par craftsmanship/manufacture.... no amount of 'glue here and there' is going to solve the problem.
I definitely think some of the anti-FEJ people and comments have crossed the line and have become unnecessarily tribal and incendiary, but there's an overarching point here that's valid. YOU and some others need to look at a bigger picture and not just see this in terms of US vs. THEM. You might be the feather that tips the scales in a new customer's mind as to whether or not to pull the trigger on a purchase. You convince him that there's nothing wrong but just a bunch of angry guys unfairly attacking your 'perfectly fine' models... then what?? Do you take any responsibility (financially or morally) when HIS airplane goes down? It's not like there isn't compelling evidence that you are.
When faced with evidence of a recurring problem, shouldn't you at least consider slowing down and taking a closer look before you encourage someone else to go spend their money on something? I currently have a couple of F-22 customers to whom I'm NOT selling Y/A F-22 pipes to. Why? Because it's been reported to me that several of them had some potentially dangerous failures recently. My own experience with them was totally different, but I either have to pretend that we don't have a run of bad pipes (for ego's sake?) or stop representing to people that there's no problem. One of those actions is responsible.... the other is not.
I'm biting my tongue a lot on this whole issue because I have a couple of good friends who stand to be hurt by this whole situation, but some of these comments are hard to ignore...
ORIGINAL: gjhinshaw
In ALL Seriousness, If one of those jets FROM ANY FACTORY Harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT! NO ONE is immune to crashes so why in the hell do you point everything to one factory?? All airplanes are subject to crash not just one factory. What its all really about is to bash a company that is trying to do better! YOU can not say they aren't trying as they have came a long ways!
In ALL Seriousness, If one of those jets FROM ANY FACTORY Harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT! NO ONE is immune to crashes so why in the hell do you point everything to one factory?? All airplanes are subject to crash not just one factory. What its all really about is to bash a company that is trying to do better! YOU can not say they aren't trying as they have came a long ways!
ORIGINAL: RCJetBazz
This is what it's all about!
ORIGINAL: DrScoles
.................
In all seriousness, if one of these planes harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. It is beyond easy to display that FEJ has a track record of problems with elevators. Lawyers would eat this up. Where do you think FEJ will be? Laughing their asses off in China, untouchable.
.................
In all seriousness, if one of these planes harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. It is beyond easy to display that FEJ has a track record of problems with elevators. Lawyers would eat this up. Where do you think FEJ will be? Laughing their asses off in China, untouchable.
Giginshaw, this was for you:
Hi,
I don't know you personally, and I have nothing against you personally (or any other way for that matter) but I have to say that this post was simply jaw-dropping. Your feelings on the 'dog-pile' notwithstanding, the idea that all of these planes are pretty much the same.... but what the end user thinks to modify is what makes the difference between an airplane and a smoking crater is profoundly naive and disingenuous in my opinion. I would be very interested to know what other ARFs you've personally assembled and flown (to know what you're comparing the ones you're talking about to). There are, in spite of your proclamation to the contrary, PLENTY of examples of ARF models where the buyer can confidently expect the airplane (and its components) to reliably do what they're designed (and, more importantly, SOLD) to do. Your statement completely ignores all of the firmly established, IMMUTABLE evidence of a fatally flawed design. When you have a fatally flawed design paired with sub-par craftsmanship/manufacture.... no amount of 'glue here and there' is going to solve the problem.
I definitely think some of the anti-FEJ people and comments have crossed the line and have become unnecessarily tribal and incendiary, but there's an overarching point here that's valid. YOU and some others need to look at a bigger picture and not just see this in terms of US vs. THEM. You might be the feather that tips the scales in a new customer's mind as to whether or not to pull the trigger on a purchase. You convince him that there's nothing wrong but just a bunch of angry guys unfairly attacking your 'perfectly fine' models... then what?? Do you take any responsibility (financially or morally) when HIS airplane goes down? It's not like there isn't compelling evidence that you are.
When faced with evidence of a recurring problem, shouldn't you at least consider slowing down and taking a closer look before you encourage someone else to go spend their money on something? I currently have a couple of F-22 customers to whom I'm NOT selling Y/A F-22 pipes to. Why? Because it's been reported to me that several of them had some potentially dangerous failures recently. My own experience with them was totally different, but I either have to pretend that we don't have a run of bad pipes (for ego's sake?) or stop representing to people that there's no problem. One of those actions is responsible.... the other is not.
I'm biting my tongue a lot on this whole issue because I have a couple of good friends who stand to be hurt by this whole situation, but some of these comments are hard to ignore...
07-17-2013, 06:56 AM
#84
My Feedback: (30)
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
ORIGINAL: DrScoles
Forgot to add, my wife is a personal injury attorney and I have been sharing this story with her since Dantley lost the F-14... I'm not just spouting unwarranted S*&t here...
ORIGINAL: RCJetBazz
This is what it's all about!
ORIGINAL: DrScoles
.................
In all seriousness, if one of these planes harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. It is beyond easy to display that FEJ has a track record of problems with elevators. Lawyers would eat this up. Where do you think FEJ will be? Laughing their asses off in China, untouchable.
.................
In all seriousness, if one of these planes harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. It is beyond easy to display that FEJ has a track record of problems with elevators. Lawyers would eat this up. Where do you think FEJ will be? Laughing their asses off in China, untouchable.
Forgot to add, my wife is a personal injury attorney and I have been sharing this story with her since Dantley lost the F-14... I'm not just spouting unwarranted S*&t here...
How would one prove the pilot KNEW an aircraft would be dangerous?!
Unless someone lurk boards like a crack addict or the manufacture sent out some notice how is a person supposed to know that an aircraft is more dangerous than the rest?
Thx in advance for any input
07-17-2013, 06:57 AM
#85
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
While FEJ has certainly been in the spotlight lately, looking back over the last few years, it does seem that, in general, scale jets with stabilators have had many more structural problems as compared to jets with a fixed horizontal stab/elevator configuration.
Sluggo
Sluggo
07-17-2013, 07:06 AM
#86
My Feedback: (102)
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
erh7771
I work in a profession that is rife with litigation. ignorance of the liability will only carry you so far when you are on the witness stand. The first question that will be asked of you on that stand is "Mr. 7771, are you aware that there have been incidents of flutter involving this manufacturer in the past, and that this flutter liekly led to a crash? If you answer no, you would be lying, and if you answer yes, the next question will be whether or not you did anything to negate that chance of of failure. They will then go down the list examining everything you did and whther or not you were qualified to do it, if the manufacturer recommended it, and if somone signed off on it. It is not a pleasant experience by any stretch of the imagination. If they want to fry you, they will find a way to do it.
I am not being a hard ass on FEJ, they make some beautiful planes, but I think there is something wrong here that needs to be addressed. There defintely appears to be some lack of after purchase communication unless you are on the inside with these guys. I have purchased products from Skymaster, BVM, Jet Legend, Dreamworks, Jet Central, Kingtech, Simjet, and other notable companies and I have never had that experience. I will admit that there have been issues in the past, but everyone of those vendors have always attempted to resolve the situation, or make changes that addressed the deficeincies of their product.
My concern would be if one of the large planes lost that horizontal stab as it turned into the crowd and what it would have done to the pit area or the tents.
I work in a profession that is rife with litigation. ignorance of the liability will only carry you so far when you are on the witness stand. The first question that will be asked of you on that stand is "Mr. 7771, are you aware that there have been incidents of flutter involving this manufacturer in the past, and that this flutter liekly led to a crash? If you answer no, you would be lying, and if you answer yes, the next question will be whether or not you did anything to negate that chance of of failure. They will then go down the list examining everything you did and whther or not you were qualified to do it, if the manufacturer recommended it, and if somone signed off on it. It is not a pleasant experience by any stretch of the imagination. If they want to fry you, they will find a way to do it.
I am not being a hard ass on FEJ, they make some beautiful planes, but I think there is something wrong here that needs to be addressed. There defintely appears to be some lack of after purchase communication unless you are on the inside with these guys. I have purchased products from Skymaster, BVM, Jet Legend, Dreamworks, Jet Central, Kingtech, Simjet, and other notable companies and I have never had that experience. I will admit that there have been issues in the past, but everyone of those vendors have always attempted to resolve the situation, or make changes that addressed the deficeincies of their product.
My concern would be if one of the large planes lost that horizontal stab as it turned into the crowd and what it would have done to the pit area or the tents.
07-17-2013, 07:37 AM
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bogota, COLOMBIA
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
ORIGINAL: fifou313
I know a good lawer for FEJ if they need it....
[link=http://www.bettercallsaul.com/]Saul Goodman[/link]
Regards
I know a good lawer for FEJ if they need it....
[link=http://www.bettercallsaul.com/]Saul Goodman[/link]
Regards
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
07-17-2013, 07:43 AM
#88
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: MIRAMAR, FL
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
ORIGINAL: DocYates
...The first question that will be asked of you on that stand is ''Mr. 7771, are you aware that there have been incidents of flutter involving this manufacturer in the past, and that this flutter liekly led to a crash?...
...The first question that will be asked of you on that stand is ''Mr. 7771, are you aware that there have been incidents of flutter involving this manufacturer in the past, and that this flutter liekly led to a crash?...
Jack
07-17-2013, 07:46 AM
#89
My Feedback: (102)
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
Yeah, and I have been around long enough to know that you can BUY an expert on every corner of the country to serve as your expert witness. If you try to sit in the box and tell a jury that you were aware that some of these had failed in the past and you still flew it in the presence of others and someone was hurt, they will "give you the chair". There is little rrom for us to make a mistake flying these planes. you are looked at as an elitist on any account, and then to hurt someone "flying your expensive toy plane" will be unforgiveable. your objection is overruled.
07-17-2013, 07:51 AM
#90
My Feedback: (303)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lathrop, MO
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
As before.... I have it for sale because I lost my job and need to pay for medical bills and medication. IF that's ok with you? I have undergone 6 surgeries on my arm and I am unable to return to my job. But Again, I hope that is ok with you to sell my stuff to pay for the bills? I don't want to sell it as I have a lot of work into it. I have changed everything over to electric. So that's WHY I am selling it!
ORIGINAL: GhostRider 1
gjhinshaw, If FEJ is so good to you and they make such a good product, Why are you selling your NIB FEJ AT3? If FEJ products are so good, why are you advertising that it has a bunch of carbon fiber and glass upgrades, why does it need upgrades if its NIB? Good luck selling your time bomb and if you manage to find a noob to buy it, will you feel bad when he takes it out the first time and it self destructs?
gjhinshaw, If FEJ is so good to you and they make such a good product, Why are you selling your NIB FEJ AT3? If FEJ products are so good, why are you advertising that it has a bunch of carbon fiber and glass upgrades, why does it need upgrades if its NIB? Good luck selling your time bomb and if you manage to find a noob to buy it, will you feel bad when he takes it out the first time and it self destructs?
07-17-2013, 07:54 AM
#91
My Feedback: (303)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lathrop, MO
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
Sorry, But NOT all of the FEJ have crashed.... NO, They are NOT hanger queens.
ORIGINAL: DocYates
erh7771
I work in a profession that is rife with litigation. ignorance of the liability will only carry you so far when you are on the witness stand. The first question that will be asked of you on that stand is "Mr. 7771, are you aware that there have been incidents of flutter involving this manufacturer in the past, and that this flutter liekly led to a crash? If you answer no, you would be lying, and if you answer yes, the next question will be whether or not you did anything to negate that chance of of failure. They will then go down the list examining everything you did and whther or not you were qualified to do it, if the manufacturer recommended it, and if somone signed off on it. It is not a pleasant experience by any stretch of the imagination. If they want to fry you, they will find a way to do it.
I am not being a hard ass on FEJ, they make some beautiful planes, but I think there is something wrong here that needs to be addressed. There defintely appears to be some lack of after purchase communication unless you are on the inside with these guys. I have purchased products from Skymaster, BVM, Jet Legend, Dreamworks, Jet Central, Kingtech, Simjet, and other notable companies and I have never had that experience. I will admit that there have been issues in the past, but everyone of those vendors have always attempted to resolve the situation, or make changes that addressed the deficeincies of their product.
My concern would be if one of the large planes lost that horizontal stab as it turned into the crowd and what it would have done to the pit area or the tents.
erh7771
I work in a profession that is rife with litigation. ignorance of the liability will only carry you so far when you are on the witness stand. The first question that will be asked of you on that stand is "Mr. 7771, are you aware that there have been incidents of flutter involving this manufacturer in the past, and that this flutter liekly led to a crash? If you answer no, you would be lying, and if you answer yes, the next question will be whether or not you did anything to negate that chance of of failure. They will then go down the list examining everything you did and whther or not you were qualified to do it, if the manufacturer recommended it, and if somone signed off on it. It is not a pleasant experience by any stretch of the imagination. If they want to fry you, they will find a way to do it.
I am not being a hard ass on FEJ, they make some beautiful planes, but I think there is something wrong here that needs to be addressed. There defintely appears to be some lack of after purchase communication unless you are on the inside with these guys. I have purchased products from Skymaster, BVM, Jet Legend, Dreamworks, Jet Central, Kingtech, Simjet, and other notable companies and I have never had that experience. I will admit that there have been issues in the past, but everyone of those vendors have always attempted to resolve the situation, or make changes that addressed the deficeincies of their product.
My concern would be if one of the large planes lost that horizontal stab as it turned into the crowd and what it would have done to the pit area or the tents.
07-17-2013, 07:56 AM
#92
My Feedback: (19)
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
One thing I find interesting is that FEJ seems to think they have the problem figured out, they might. But as gently as that plane was flying, it is very possible that they only found the weakest link. These planes need to be tested BEYOND what a reasonable person would expect the plane to take before being sent to market.
07-17-2013, 08:00 AM
#93
My Feedback: (102)
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
I did not say all FEJ models have crashed, if you think I implied that then let me rephrase it. But if you think for one minute that if someone is injured by one of these big birds, that the information attained from this very public forum will not be brought into consideration, you are very misinformed about the American legal system. On this forum alone they can find about 10 expert witnesses who will be drug before the court to give their opinion.
Like I said earlier, FEJ is acting as their own worst enemy by neglecting the people who were hurt financially by the bad outcomes, and not addressing some of the key issues which have been brought up. You earlier said that Dantley was offered a new F18 by FEJ to replace his F14. Simply replacing an airframe with something different does not account for the safety issues or the loss of the other items involved in a very expensive endeavor. Airframes make up only a small amount of the cost in reality.
I am not on the "FEJ needs to be thrown under the bus" tour, yet, but their very public handling of this situation really shows what one can expect.
Like I said earlier, FEJ is acting as their own worst enemy by neglecting the people who were hurt financially by the bad outcomes, and not addressing some of the key issues which have been brought up. You earlier said that Dantley was offered a new F18 by FEJ to replace his F14. Simply replacing an airframe with something different does not account for the safety issues or the loss of the other items involved in a very expensive endeavor. Airframes make up only a small amount of the cost in reality.
I am not on the "FEJ needs to be thrown under the bus" tour, yet, but their very public handling of this situation really shows what one can expect.
07-17-2013, 08:12 AM
#95
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
ORIGINAL: why_fly_high
One thing I find interesting is that FEJ seems to think they have the problem figured out...it is very possible that they only found the weakest link.
One thing I find interesting is that FEJ seems to think they have the problem figured out...it is very possible that they only found the weakest link.
As he stated to me, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the touted "solution" simply relocated the failure point elsewhere along the load path. Without thorough and professional testing, how to know? Perhaps it is cheaper and more expedient for FEJ to simply let their buyers serve as production test pilots.
Now, in fairness, I wasn't present at JOK every flying minute after the Hawk failure, so I cannot claim that FEJ did not conduct an extensive ground and flight test program on the "fix" while we were at supper, or back at the hotel hitting the pool, and therefore was able to have it announced with certainty, at the conclusion of JOK, that the issue was solved.
Sluggo
07-17-2013, 08:20 AM
#96
My Feedback: (76)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
ORIGINAL: P. Richards
Guys I have video of the Hawks last flight and it will be posted Wednesday. I will place a link in this thread.
P. Richards aka SwatTeam
Guys I have video of the Hawks last flight and it will be posted Wednesday. I will place a link in this thread.
P. Richards aka SwatTeam
Its Wednesday!
07-17-2013, 08:20 AM
#97
My Feedback: (303)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lathrop, MO
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
I started with a F16 from Byron, I have had..... Byron F16 x 3, F4, Star Fire from Tom Cook x 2, Yellow Star Fire, bvm BobCat x 2, TBM Shock Jet x 4, TBM DV8R x 4, (I did the R&D) FEJ F16, 1/5 F16, F18, AT3, F35, Skymaster F16, there are a few more. I am NO expert but I can fix/repair a jet to MY liking! Not all of there jets have flaws, I pilots would slow down and take the time to go over the jet.I am sure you remember that when YOU started that you had your issues with the models you were putting out. If I remember right you had some issues on the F4 or the 18.. Maybe it was both.........I saw what you threaded on the FEJ on the stabs and I know that FEJ is listening to you! They just wont listen to yelling and screaming... Would YOU??? So am I Qualified to be a jet pilot, Mr Yellow??
ORIGINAL: YellowAircraft
Giginshaw, this was for you:
Hi,
I don't know you personally, and I have nothing against you personally (or any other way for that matter) but I have to say that this post was simply jaw-dropping. Your feelings on the 'dog-pile' notwithstanding, the idea that all of these planes are pretty much the same.... but what the end user thinks to modify is what makes the difference between an airplane and a smoking crater is profoundly naive and disingenuous in my opinion. I would be very interested to know what other ARFs you've personally assembled and flown (to know what you're comparing the ones you're talking about to). There are, in spite of your proclamation to the contrary, PLENTY of examples of ARF models where the buyer can confidently expect the airplane (and its components) to reliably do what they're designed (and, more importantly, SOLD) to do. Your statement completely ignores all of the firmly established, IMMUTABLE evidence of a fatally flawed design. When you have a fatally flawed design paired with sub-par craftsmanship/manufacture.... no amount of 'glue here and there' is going to solve the problem.
I definitely think some of the anti-FEJ people and comments have crossed the line and have become unnecessarily tribal and incendiary, but there's an overarching point here that's valid. YOU and some others need to look at a bigger picture and not just see this in terms of US vs. THEM. You might be the feather that tips the scales in a new customer's mind as to whether or not to pull the trigger on a purchase. You convince him that there's nothing wrong but just a bunch of angry guys unfairly attacking your 'perfectly fine' models... then what?? Do you take any responsibility (financially or morally) when HIS airplane goes down? It's not like there isn't compelling evidence that you are.
When faced with evidence of a recurring problem, shouldn't you at least consider slowing down and taking a closer look before you encourage someone else to go spend their money on something? I currently have a couple of F-22 customers to whom I'm NOT selling Y/A F-22 pipes to. Why? Because it's been reported to me that several of them had some potentially dangerous failures recently. My own experience with them was totally different, but I either have to pretend that we don't have a run of bad pipes (for ego's sake?) or stop representing to people that there's no problem. One of those actions is responsible.... the other is not.
I'm biting my tongue a lot on this whole issue because I have a couple of good friends who stand to be hurt by this whole situation, but some of these comments are hard to ignore...
ORIGINAL: gjhinshaw
In ALL Seriousness, If one of those jets FROM ANY FACTORY Harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT! NO ONE is immune to crashes so why in the hell do you point everything to one factory?? All airplanes are subject to crash not just one factory. What its all really about is to bash a company that is trying to do better! YOU can not say they aren't trying as they have came a long ways!
In ALL Seriousness, If one of those jets FROM ANY FACTORY Harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT! NO ONE is immune to crashes so why in the hell do you point everything to one factory?? All airplanes are subject to crash not just one factory. What its all really about is to bash a company that is trying to do better! YOU can not say they aren't trying as they have came a long ways!
ORIGINAL: RCJetBazz
This is what it's all about!
ORIGINAL: DrScoles
.................
In all seriousness, if one of these planes harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. It is beyond easy to display that FEJ has a track record of problems with elevators. Lawyers would eat this up. Where do you think FEJ will be? Laughing their asses off in China, untouchable.
.................
In all seriousness, if one of these planes harms someone, the PILOT is going to be liable and the lawyers will have a field day exhibiting that the PILOT knowingly flew a dangerous product. It is beyond easy to display that FEJ has a track record of problems with elevators. Lawyers would eat this up. Where do you think FEJ will be? Laughing their asses off in China, untouchable.
Giginshaw, this was for you:
Hi,
I don't know you personally, and I have nothing against you personally (or any other way for that matter) but I have to say that this post was simply jaw-dropping. Your feelings on the 'dog-pile' notwithstanding, the idea that all of these planes are pretty much the same.... but what the end user thinks to modify is what makes the difference between an airplane and a smoking crater is profoundly naive and disingenuous in my opinion. I would be very interested to know what other ARFs you've personally assembled and flown (to know what you're comparing the ones you're talking about to). There are, in spite of your proclamation to the contrary, PLENTY of examples of ARF models where the buyer can confidently expect the airplane (and its components) to reliably do what they're designed (and, more importantly, SOLD) to do. Your statement completely ignores all of the firmly established, IMMUTABLE evidence of a fatally flawed design. When you have a fatally flawed design paired with sub-par craftsmanship/manufacture.... no amount of 'glue here and there' is going to solve the problem.
I definitely think some of the anti-FEJ people and comments have crossed the line and have become unnecessarily tribal and incendiary, but there's an overarching point here that's valid. YOU and some others need to look at a bigger picture and not just see this in terms of US vs. THEM. You might be the feather that tips the scales in a new customer's mind as to whether or not to pull the trigger on a purchase. You convince him that there's nothing wrong but just a bunch of angry guys unfairly attacking your 'perfectly fine' models... then what?? Do you take any responsibility (financially or morally) when HIS airplane goes down? It's not like there isn't compelling evidence that you are.
When faced with evidence of a recurring problem, shouldn't you at least consider slowing down and taking a closer look before you encourage someone else to go spend their money on something? I currently have a couple of F-22 customers to whom I'm NOT selling Y/A F-22 pipes to. Why? Because it's been reported to me that several of them had some potentially dangerous failures recently. My own experience with them was totally different, but I either have to pretend that we don't have a run of bad pipes (for ego's sake?) or stop representing to people that there's no problem. One of those actions is responsible.... the other is not.
I'm biting my tongue a lot on this whole issue because I have a couple of good friends who stand to be hurt by this whole situation, but some of these comments are hard to ignore...
07-17-2013, 08:21 AM
#98
My Feedback: (19)
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
ORIGINAL: VF84sluggo
This very point was suggested by a trained, qualified, and practicing engineer.
Sluggo
ORIGINAL: why_fly_high
One thing I find interesting is that FEJ seems to think they have the problem figured out...it is very possible that they only found the weakest link.
One thing I find interesting is that FEJ seems to think they have the problem figured out...it is very possible that they only found the weakest link.
Sluggo
07-17-2013, 08:26 AM
#100
My Feedback: (303)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lathrop, MO
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kentucky FEJ big Hawk Crash Video
I think they had already found what the problem was..... I think its on page one
ORIGINAL: VF84sluggo
This very point was suggested by a trained, qualified, and practicing engineer.
As he stated to me, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the touted "solution" simply relocated the failure point elsewhere along the load path. Without thorough and professional testing, how to know? Perhaps it is cheaper and more expedient for FEJ to simply let their buyers serve as production test pilots.
Now, in fairness, I wasn't present at JOK every flying minute after the Hawk failure, so I cannot claim that FEJ did not conduct an extensive ground and flight test program on the "fix" while we were at supper, or back at the hotel hitting the pool, and therefore was able to have it announced with certainty, at the conclusion of JOK, that the issue was solved.
Sluggo
ORIGINAL: why_fly_high
One thing I find interesting is that FEJ seems to think they have the problem figured out...it is very possible that they only found the weakest link.
One thing I find interesting is that FEJ seems to think they have the problem figured out...it is very possible that they only found the weakest link.
As he stated to me, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the touted "solution" simply relocated the failure point elsewhere along the load path. Without thorough and professional testing, how to know? Perhaps it is cheaper and more expedient for FEJ to simply let their buyers serve as production test pilots.
Now, in fairness, I wasn't present at JOK every flying minute after the Hawk failure, so I cannot claim that FEJ did not conduct an extensive ground and flight test program on the "fix" while we were at supper, or back at the hotel hitting the pool, and therefore was able to have it announced with certainty, at the conclusion of JOK, that the issue was solved.
Sluggo