Goldberg Stinson  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> User Product Reviews >> Goldberg Stinson
Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Goldberg Stinson - 4/10/2006 12:29:42 AM   
ziggy99


 

Posts: 114
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: South Bend, IN, USA
Status: offline 		Well, I just got back from the Toledo show. Everything was great except for 1 thing. The Goldberg Products booth and especially the reps. I kindly asked them why the Stinson was so tail heavy. They replied with "It's not tail heavy" So I asked them, "Don't you ever read stuff on RCU or listen to customer comments", they replied" No, Why should we listen to comments or read stuff on RCU, We don't have time. We take too many calls and were just too busy" By this time, I was getting really upset. I told them I had an OS 120 4 stroke, a 6 volt, 3300 Mah C cell pack and an EDR 103 with battery stuffed in the nose and I moved the servos from the tail into the cockpit and it's still tail heavy. They proceded to tell me this is not possible and if I didn't like it to "sell the airplane".



I had to walk away, but my last comments were something like I'll never buy another Goldberg product again. They didn't care they lost a customer.



So much for listening to a customer, unfortunately for them, without customers, they are nothing more than another model airplane company that couldn't make it.



Everyone I know will know how the reps treated me and if I can help it, they won't buy a Goldberg product again!



I am extremely upset, and no longer a CGP products customer. There are too many vendors available to put up with the attitude I received at Toledo.


_____________________________

You can also contact me through MSN Messenger, my handle is:
zoombang@msn.com
       Post #: 1

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 10/16/2006 10:38:30 PM   
RVM


 

Posts: 1975
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I'm no longer a CG customer either due to the quality (lack of) in a kit I bought. Read about it here.

_____________________________

There is no substitution for human competition.

(in reply to ziggy99)
       Post #: 2

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 10/20/2006 8:28:51 PM   
Nerevar


 

Posts: 260
Joined: 6/2/2005
From: *, USA
Status: offline
quote:

I'm no longer a CG customer either ........


Same here.
Except for me it is because of the treatment and the attitude of the people that run the company now.
I don't have any experience with their products since the company was sold. And from everything I read and hear - I don't want that experience.

THANKS FOR YOUR REPORTS!

< Message edited by Ramon081850 -- 10/27/2006 1:19:08 AM >

(in reply to RVM)
       Post #: 3

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 12/8/2006 8:38:13 PM   
Nerevar


 

Posts: 260
Joined: 6/2/2005
From: *, USA
Status: offline 		.

(in reply to Nerevar)
       Post #: 4

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 2/14/2007 3:26:23 PM   
rookie8



Posts: 123
Joined: 2/2/2003
From: Gray, GA, USA
Status: offline 		If you think you had problem. Wait til you talk to "Bubba" at Lanier. He will cuss you aout and tell you 50 ways that you screwed up his airplane, and then start with. What do your want, a new plane? Well you ain't going to get it. Needless to say, I don' t fly Lanier planes anymore, and I think that Goldberg is ran by Lanier now. I don't know that for a fact though but that is what I read on RCU.

(in reply to Nerevar)
       Post #: 5

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 2/14/2007 6:25:46 PM   
reincarnate



Posts: 805
Joined: 10/1/2006
From: Columbia City, IN, USA
Status: online 		Only CGB I ever owned is a field box (Monster Tote). The routed slots were cut in the wrong place in 3 places, 2 full pieces were thrown away because they were cut so far out of square, and an entire drawer was missing. Called them to see what they would do about replacing the parts. After being transfered twice, was told "...it's a kit. You do need to have some skills to put together." And yeah that is a direct quote. Trust me, it's not one I'll forget. They informed me that it wasn't their responsibility, the LHS probably sold me a returned product. I told them the box was still shrink-wrapped, and well, I guess you can see where I'm going. Back and forth until I'd heard enough. I finished it, using my own parts, (I guess I do have some skill) but swore I would never buy a CGB product that actually had to leave the ground. I also tell everyone to stay away.

(in reply to rookie8)
       Post #: 6

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 4/15/2007 4:35:53 PM   
TheOldGuy


 

Posts: 28
Joined: 8/8/2005
From: Grants Pass, OR, USA
Status: offline 		I agree with you Ziggy. I've been flying for 40 years+ and remember the good old days when Goldberg was a great kit, but over the years, the Chinese Communist have wormed their way into our hobby and degraded nearly everything on the market. There are a few companies left that we can depend on, but not many. Dubro is an example.
I have started building planes that are made in the USA and find they have quality woods, quality hardware and there plans are written by Americans that have a command of the language. American made planes are a pleasure to build and when you go to the field, you feel confident that the firewall won't rip off on the third flight (happened to me) and so on. Prices are the same for the American made versions, the planes kits and ARF's are complete and a pleasure to build. I haven't had a problem since I switched over.
Charlie

< Message edited by TheOldGuy -- 4/15/2007 4:53:22 PM >

(in reply to ziggy99)
       Post #: 7

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 4/20/2007 5:01:53 PM   
skromfols


 

Posts: 19
Joined: 7/13/2006
From: Valley Springs, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I'm a beginner and to date have built 2 Goldberg kits (Both Falcn 56's), two Eagle 2 ARF's and two Sr. Falcon ARF's. The duplication on the Eagle 2's was because I sold one after getting my solo certificate, then realizing that I wanted another one. The duplication on the Sr. Falcon's was because one was stolen from my garage one day after completion, along with the OS. .46 AX, Futaba radio and charger ! Anyway, there have been minor discrepencies with the ARF's, but nothing of major importance. I called Goldberg when building one of the Eagles because one part in the kit was way out of tolerance and they immediately sent me a correct part. Both of the Eagle 2 ARF's are flying great, and at our field they have become the recommended trainer for new flyers. The Sr. Falcon went together according to the plans, balanced properly and flew great.

Maybe the more advanced Goldberg planes have problems, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents worth about the trainers, they really have been very good in my experience.

(in reply to TheOldGuy)
       Post #: 8

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 5/15/2007 12:31:15 AM   
do335a


 

Posts: 180
Joined: 3/23/2006
From: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		My experience with Goldberg models goes back to about 1968 when I had a Skylane 42.

That was a typical die crunch kit with the usual poor parts fit. But I got it built. It was so heavy that no .049 would ever fly it as claimed. Those were the days of painted finishes, long before Monokote or any of those coverings.

A few years later came another Skylane 42. That one got a Super Tigre 23 for power, and conversion to 4 channels. Unfortunately, that was a bit much and due to my mistake, folded the wings in level flight. That was actually quite spectacular. Never done that before or since.

Along came a Skylane 62. In my opinion that was a crappy kit. The usual die crunch poor fit again, overbuilt and very heavy. Never did fly it. It just got too heavy before even being covered so into the trash, along with the original Skylane 42.

Many years later came a Shoestring u-control. Now that's a real old design - probably from about 1960 or so. I've seen the ads in the old magazines from the early sixties and it appeared that the dies used to make mine at the end of the production were the originals. Nothing to write home about.

That was followed by a Monster Tote field box. This is now following the acquisition by Lanier. It's really a work out tool. It's so heavy of itself that you can't put anything into it unless you have Hercules along to carry it for you. Assembly was straight forward with a bit of mis-match but nothing at all serious or unworkable. Just had to resize a few pieces. The wood for the drawers is really flimsy. And they always get stuck since they have a lot of contact area with other parts and so the friction is quite high when opening and closing. Woudl I do another? Probably no.

These ho-hum performances were followed by a Lanier clipped wing Taylorcraft kit. I thought it would be interesting since I had the Ace version years ago and was looking for that sort of model again. The cost of it seemed a bit high and from what I saw of it at Toledo it appeared very expensive given that there is NO hardware included. But I did get it on sale from Lanier for almost half price. Mind you, that was not without its problems. They overvalued it for Customs, so I got dinged an extra 30 bucks or so on the import and when it arrived, having crossed the North American continent twice on its way to me, it suffered some damage.

Lanier was very good at making it up and sending me an entire kit as a replacement as soon as possible, properly valued this time, before we even got the insurance claim filed. I suggested that they just replace the damaged parts and they insisted on replacing the kit.

The original Goldberg stuff stuff was not always the best and in some cases marginal. And there were a few bumps along the way with Lanier. However, there was no problem getting things sorted out. Maybe I'll try the Goldberg Chipmunk. And we'll see what happens there. I could be in for either a pleasant or a dreadful surprise!

(in reply to skromfols)
       Post #: 9

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 8/14/2008 10:39:19 PM   
sarg96


 

Posts: 42
Joined: 1/3/2002
From: Greenwood, SC, USA
Status: offline 		I too have a Goldberg Stinson 108 and it is indeed tail heavy I don't care what they say, I had to put 2.2lbs of lead fishing sinkers wired around the motor mount to
balance it. The trouble is that Lanier has bought out Goldberg and everyone knows they have never built a quality model. In the early days Goldberg models were
great no matter which one you bought. The powers that be at Lanier need to go to Sig and spend some time and learn how to make a decent airplane kit.
THAT IS MY OPINION TAKE OR LEAVE IT. No more Goldberg planes for me.

sarg96

_____________________________

Most folks are honest, but there are a few that you need to keep an eye on.

(in reply to ziggy99)
       Post #: 10

RE: Goldberg Stinson - 9/14/2008 10:44:42 PM   
shford


 

Posts: 113
Joined: 9/8/2003
From: Knox, IN, USA
Status: offline 		I had the Stinson and it was a nice flying plane. Mine needed 2lbs nose weight with an OS 120 upfront.

(in reply to sarg96)
       Post #: 11

Page:   [1]
All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> User Product Reviews >> Goldberg Stinson
Page: [1]





Jump to: