"A Modest Proposal" To Help With Structural Uncertainty...
12-14-2011, 09:47 AM
#1
Thread Starter
"A Modest Proposal" To Help With Structural Uncertainty...
Hi,
In another thread, I brought up the idea of a 'new standard' of sorts to help with the often-reported problem of ARF manufacturers shipping ARFs with hidden structural or design flaws. The idea is for us all to collectively demand that the critical structures that are not readily visible to the naked eye be photo-documented during construction so we can see what's going on under the skin. For exercise's sake, I wrote up a draft, and have had one fellow jet modeller chime in with edits. I know the general attitude for many is that a change like this will "never happen", but if all of the people in the jet modelling community adopt a new 'minimum standard' like this as a condition of purchase, then lots might change. For one thing, they wouldn't be able to just throw some balsa in there if they run out of hardwood. They wouldn't be as likely to let QC issues like glue not touching the two parts being bonded, etc., ship out the door if they had to shoot a pic of it before they closed it up. Ultimately, you'd know what's going on in the wing before you flew because you'd have construction pics. Maybe it won't solve all of the issues, but it certainly couldn't hurt. Anyway, here's what we have so far...
Purchase Agreement Supplemental
All newly constructed Ready-to-Fly or Almost-Ready-to-Fly remotely-controlled model aircraft intended for use with turbine engines shall be assigned a unique airframe serial number; each critical component shall be marked with the unique airframe serial number and shall be shipped with the following required photo documentation:
1. Clear color photos of main wing internal construction prior to installation of the sheeting/skin (showing spars, ribs, hard-points, hinge-blocks, landing gear mounts and/or any other critical structures) with the airframe serial number clearly shown.
2. Clear color photos of tail plane construction prior to installation of the sheeting/skin (showing spars, ribs, shaft bearing blocks, anti-rotation hardware, hinge blocks (in the case of vertical fins or fixed stabilizers with hinged elevators) etc.) with the airframe serial number clearly shown.
3. Clear color photos of any area or apparatus that is considered a critical structure and is not visible to the end user without extraordinary inspection (such as cutting into closed structures) with the airframe serial number clearly shown.
It is understood that this requirement will add a small amount of time to your process, so a nominal surcharge for the photo-documentation package should be established prior to the acceptance of the order by both parties. Please understand, however, that this photo-documentation needs to be of each individual model and not a batch, general sample, etc. The purchaser needs to be furnished with the above-described documentation for the specific, individual model with the unique airframe serial number clearly shown in the photo documentation. Again, this documentation shall be considered a necessary included component to the shipped model as much as a fuselage or wing is.
Note: A purchase agreement shall not be made unless this documentation is supplied with each kit or ARF, failure to supply the documentation package will result in a rejected shipment and a full refund of the purchasers funds.
Any helpful, constructive input is welcome.
In another thread, I brought up the idea of a 'new standard' of sorts to help with the often-reported problem of ARF manufacturers shipping ARFs with hidden structural or design flaws. The idea is for us all to collectively demand that the critical structures that are not readily visible to the naked eye be photo-documented during construction so we can see what's going on under the skin. For exercise's sake, I wrote up a draft, and have had one fellow jet modeller chime in with edits. I know the general attitude for many is that a change like this will "never happen", but if all of the people in the jet modelling community adopt a new 'minimum standard' like this as a condition of purchase, then lots might change. For one thing, they wouldn't be able to just throw some balsa in there if they run out of hardwood. They wouldn't be as likely to let QC issues like glue not touching the two parts being bonded, etc., ship out the door if they had to shoot a pic of it before they closed it up. Ultimately, you'd know what's going on in the wing before you flew because you'd have construction pics. Maybe it won't solve all of the issues, but it certainly couldn't hurt. Anyway, here's what we have so far...
Purchase Agreement Supplemental
All newly constructed Ready-to-Fly or Almost-Ready-to-Fly remotely-controlled model aircraft intended for use with turbine engines shall be assigned a unique airframe serial number; each critical component shall be marked with the unique airframe serial number and shall be shipped with the following required photo documentation:
1. Clear color photos of main wing internal construction prior to installation of the sheeting/skin (showing spars, ribs, hard-points, hinge-blocks, landing gear mounts and/or any other critical structures) with the airframe serial number clearly shown.
2. Clear color photos of tail plane construction prior to installation of the sheeting/skin (showing spars, ribs, shaft bearing blocks, anti-rotation hardware, hinge blocks (in the case of vertical fins or fixed stabilizers with hinged elevators) etc.) with the airframe serial number clearly shown.
3. Clear color photos of any area or apparatus that is considered a critical structure and is not visible to the end user without extraordinary inspection (such as cutting into closed structures) with the airframe serial number clearly shown.
It is understood that this requirement will add a small amount of time to your process, so a nominal surcharge for the photo-documentation package should be established prior to the acceptance of the order by both parties. Please understand, however, that this photo-documentation needs to be of each individual model and not a batch, general sample, etc. The purchaser needs to be furnished with the above-described documentation for the specific, individual model with the unique airframe serial number clearly shown in the photo documentation. Again, this documentation shall be considered a necessary included component to the shipped model as much as a fuselage or wing is.
Note: A purchase agreement shall not be made unless this documentation is supplied with each kit or ARF, failure to supply the documentation package will result in a rejected shipment and a full refund of the purchasers funds.
Any helpful, constructive input is welcome.
12-14-2011, 10:16 AM
#2
RE: RE:
I can see what you're trying to achieve but am not sure how it would work in practise.
Assuming that, as in most cases, the model is built to order. I pay my money and then I wait for my model. Just before I am sent it I ask to see the photos and they are rubbish. Will the manufacturer refund my money? I personally don't think so. In that case who decides whether the model is acceptable or not?
I can see that this might be less contentious if the model is a stock item and then the order is placed after seeing the photos, but how many manufacturers actually hold stock anymore?
I know there are experts here that are very knowledgable about building and structures but does that apply to everyone? Should the responsibility be on the purchaser to check the build integrity or the manufacturer to supply something that isn't rubbish.
Are the recent issues that have been discussed here due to poor building or poor design? My personal opinion (without too much evidence) is that, more often than not, it is the latter. I don't need to see a photo of 'my' model to see design flaws; a generic photo of the structure would suffice.
My solution is more simple, I will only buy models from manufacturers that I trust. I don't need a picture of my Sony TV's circuit board to know that it is likely to work for a long time. I don't need to see the internals of my BVM Bobcat to know that it is likely to stay together.
Assuming that, as in most cases, the model is built to order. I pay my money and then I wait for my model. Just before I am sent it I ask to see the photos and they are rubbish. Will the manufacturer refund my money? I personally don't think so. In that case who decides whether the model is acceptable or not?
I can see that this might be less contentious if the model is a stock item and then the order is placed after seeing the photos, but how many manufacturers actually hold stock anymore?
I know there are experts here that are very knowledgable about building and structures but does that apply to everyone? Should the responsibility be on the purchaser to check the build integrity or the manufacturer to supply something that isn't rubbish.
Are the recent issues that have been discussed here due to poor building or poor design? My personal opinion (without too much evidence) is that, more often than not, it is the latter. I don't need to see a photo of 'my' model to see design flaws; a generic photo of the structure would suffice.
My solution is more simple, I will only buy models from manufacturers that I trust. I don't need a picture of my Sony TV's circuit board to know that it is likely to work for a long time. I don't need to see the internals of my BVM Bobcat to know that it is likely to stay together.
12-14-2011, 10:44 AM
#3
RE: RE:
Shaun,
Good attempt but you have to work with honest business people for it to work. Remember chemicals in baby formula and dog food, lead in kids toys etc. i dont think I would trust any of the latest batch of arf built jet builders. YA is a notable exception (not because this is your thread ) but because they produce quality jets. The old addage is let the buyer beware....I am and quite frankly dont trust most of them. Some of them blame the modelers who purchase their product when it explodes on the maiden flight. Look through the threads and you will see those companies that produce junk. My $$ will go those who products work.
Good attempt but you have to work with honest business people for it to work. Remember chemicals in baby formula and dog food, lead in kids toys etc. i dont think I would trust any of the latest batch of arf built jet builders. YA is a notable exception (not because this is your thread ) but because they produce quality jets. The old addage is let the buyer beware....I am and quite frankly dont trust most of them. Some of them blame the modelers who purchase their product when it explodes on the maiden flight. Look through the threads and you will see those companies that produce junk. My $$ will go those who products work.
12-14-2011, 12:06 PM
#4
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 709
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE:
I think everyone in this forum understands the intent and reason, but I wold have trouble supporting it even I thought they would adopted it. We already know what the issues are and have seen lots of pics here on RCU.
All of us have had the opportunity to read the build and other threads about the problems with individual models and imports in general. It hasn't stopped many from buying them anyway and living with the risk or making a lot of necessary mods. Maybe that is because we want a specific model that isn't built by someone else or doesn't look as nice, etc. Maybe it was the low price. But it nearly every case, it hasn't been for lack of knowledge. It was an "informed decision" if you took the time to read the RCU posts. Pictures of what we already know, as illustrated by your list of requirements, isn't likely to change either the quality or our decisions.
The most effective means of getting better quality is market principles....if you think it is inferior, don't buy it.
I think RCU is more effective in influencing purchase decisions. In the long run, I think more choices rather than 'controls' is the best way to influence manufacturing standards.
All of us have had the opportunity to read the build and other threads about the problems with individual models and imports in general. It hasn't stopped many from buying them anyway and living with the risk or making a lot of necessary mods. Maybe that is because we want a specific model that isn't built by someone else or doesn't look as nice, etc. Maybe it was the low price. But it nearly every case, it hasn't been for lack of knowledge. It was an "informed decision" if you took the time to read the RCU posts. Pictures of what we already know, as illustrated by your list of requirements, isn't likely to change either the quality or our decisions.
The most effective means of getting better quality is market principles....if you think it is inferior, don't buy it.
I think RCU is more effective in influencing purchase decisions. In the long run, I think more choices rather than 'controls' is the best way to influence manufacturing standards.
12-14-2011, 03:06 PM
#6
Thread Starter
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: siclick33
I can see what you're trying to achieve but am not sure how it would work in practise.
Assuming that, as in most cases, the model is built to order. I pay my money and then I wait for my model. Just before I am sent it I ask to see the photos and they are rubbish. Will the manufacturer refund my money? I personally don't think so. In that case who decides whether the model is acceptable or not?
I can see what you're trying to achieve but am not sure how it would work in practise.
Assuming that, as in most cases, the model is built to order. I pay my money and then I wait for my model. Just before I am sent it I ask to see the photos and they are rubbish. Will the manufacturer refund my money? I personally don't think so. In that case who decides whether the model is acceptable or not?
Understood, but...
The idea is that something like this changes the CULTURE of what they put in the box. Built to order or not, the intent is an evolution. If the pic documentation is now standard equipment on every ARF, then some of the problems we've been seeing start to disappear. They know that if they're using unsuitable materials in a critical area, people will reject it when they see it. The natural result is that they use the right material there.
12-14-2011, 03:09 PM
#7
Thread Starter
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: tp777fo
Shaun,
Good attempt but you have to work with honest business people for it to work. Remember chemicals in baby formula and dog food, lead in kids toys etc. i dont think I would trust any of the latest batch of arf built jet builders. YA is a notable exception (not because this is your thread ) but because they produce quality jets. The old addage is let the buyer beware....I am and quite frankly dont trust most of them. Some of them blame the modelers who purchase their product when it explodes on the maiden flight. Look through the threads and you will see those companies that produce junk. My $$ will go those who products work.
Shaun,
Good attempt but you have to work with honest business people for it to work. Remember chemicals in baby formula and dog food, lead in kids toys etc. i dont think I would trust any of the latest batch of arf built jet builders. YA is a notable exception (not because this is your thread ) but because they produce quality jets. The old addage is let the buyer beware....I am and quite frankly dont trust most of them. Some of them blame the modelers who purchase their product when it explodes on the maiden flight. Look through the threads and you will see those companies that produce junk. My $$ will go those who products work.
True enough, but...
The whole point of photographic evidence is to keep people honest. If a factory knows that you'll never see their 'wrong-grain balsa' on a critical structure until it causes a wreck...and they also know that when that wreck happens, they'll disavow any responsibility, then of course greed and expedience will sometimes win the day and they'll send out some crap. The photo acts as the 'daylight disinfectant' that will get them to make sure the glue is there and the spars are adequate, etc. The whole point is this is supposed to minimize the amount of TRUST required in lieu of EVIDENCE.
12-14-2011, 03:18 PM
#8
Thread Starter
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: STKNRUD
I think everyone in this forum understands the intent and reason, but I wold have trouble supporting it even I thought they would adopted it. We already know what the issues are and have seen lots of pics here on RCU.
All of us have had the opportunity to read the build and other threads about the problems with individual models and imports in general. It hasn't stopped many from buying them anyway and living with the risk or making a lot of necessary mods. Maybe that is because we want a specific model that isn't built by someone else or doesn't look as nice, etc. Maybe it was the low price. But it nearly every case, it hasn't been for lack of knowledge. It was an ''informed decision'' if you took the time to read the RCU posts. Pictures of what we already know, as illustrated by your list of requirements, isn't likely to change either the quality or our decisions.
The most effective means of getting better quality is market principles....if you think it is inferior, don't buy it.
I think RCU is more effective in influencing purchase decisions. In the long run, I think more choices rather than 'controls' is the best way to influence manufacturing standards.
I think everyone in this forum understands the intent and reason, but I wold have trouble supporting it even I thought they would adopted it. We already know what the issues are and have seen lots of pics here on RCU.
All of us have had the opportunity to read the build and other threads about the problems with individual models and imports in general. It hasn't stopped many from buying them anyway and living with the risk or making a lot of necessary mods. Maybe that is because we want a specific model that isn't built by someone else or doesn't look as nice, etc. Maybe it was the low price. But it nearly every case, it hasn't been for lack of knowledge. It was an ''informed decision'' if you took the time to read the RCU posts. Pictures of what we already know, as illustrated by your list of requirements, isn't likely to change either the quality or our decisions.
The most effective means of getting better quality is market principles....if you think it is inferior, don't buy it.
I think RCU is more effective in influencing purchase decisions. In the long run, I think more choices rather than 'controls' is the best way to influence manufacturing standards.
Ok...
My first question would be what about it would you not support if you thought they would adopt it? Of course we all see what's happening: Guys post their post-crash pics showing ridiculously inadequate design and shoddy construction; they decry the company because of their 'go kick rocks' attitude when asked to take responsibility for their QC; several people chime in with similar stories backed up with photos; then .....wait for it.....guys buy the same crap anyway. People like that are going to go for the shiny paint job (regardless of what's under the hood) anyway because they simply don't know any better and won't listen to other peoples' experience.
How can it NOT help keep them honest about what's hidden if it's not hidden anymore? Half of the post-mortem pics I've seen involve stuff that none of us whould fly had we known in advance how poorly designed or put together it was. I've built a few Chinese ARFs for people and stood there with mouth agape when I took a pen-light and looked into a wing. I'm talking CRAZY stuff like totally missing hinge blocks or a wing-skin that totally missed the glue bead on the ribs. The owner would NEVER have bought that if he'd been able to see that before the fact.
12-14-2011, 04:09 PM
#10
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 709
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: YellowAircraft
Ok...
My first question would be what about it would you not support if you thought they would adopt it? Of course we all see what's happening: Guys post their post-crash pics showing ridiculously inadequate design and shoddy construction; they decry the company because of their 'go kick rocks' attitude when asked to take responsibility for their QC; several people chime in with similar stories backed up with photos; then .....wait for it.....guys buy the same crap anyway. People like that are going to go for the shiny paint job (regardless of what's under the hood) anyway because they simply don't know any better and won't listen to other peoples' experience.
How can it NOT help keep them honest about what's hidden if it's not hidden anymore? Half of the post-mortem pics I've seen involve stuff that none of us whould fly had we known in advance how poorly designed or put together it was. I've built a few Chinese ARFs for people and stood there with mouth agape when I took a pen-light and looked into a wing. I'm talking CRAZY stuff like totally missing hinge blocks or a wing-skin that totally missed the glue bead on the ribs. The owner would NEVER have bought that if he'd been able to see that before the fact.
ORIGINAL: STKNRUD
I think everyone in this forum understands the intent and reason, but I wold have trouble supporting it even I thought they would adopted it. We already know what the issues are and have seen lots of pics here on RCU.
All of us have had the opportunity to read the build and other threads about the problems with individual models and imports in general. It hasn't stopped many from buying them anyway and living with the risk or making a lot of necessary mods. Maybe that is because we want a specific model that isn't built by someone else or doesn't look as nice, etc. Maybe it was the low price. But it nearly every case, it hasn't been for lack of knowledge. It was an ''informed decision'' if you took the time to read the RCU posts. Pictures of what we already know, as illustrated by your list of requirements, isn't likely to change either the quality or our decisions.
The most effective means of getting better quality is market principles....if you think it is inferior, don't buy it.
I think RCU is more effective in influencing purchase decisions. In the long run, I think more choices rather than 'controls' is the best way to influence manufacturing standards.
I don't agree with the premise of your questions so I won't answer them.
In short, you asked for opinions and inputs....I politely you gave you mine. Your response hasn't changed it. We just disagree on what is realistic, practical and effective. Time to move on.
I think everyone in this forum understands the intent and reason, but I wold have trouble supporting it even I thought they would adopted it. We already know what the issues are and have seen lots of pics here on RCU.
All of us have had the opportunity to read the build and other threads about the problems with individual models and imports in general. It hasn't stopped many from buying them anyway and living with the risk or making a lot of necessary mods. Maybe that is because we want a specific model that isn't built by someone else or doesn't look as nice, etc. Maybe it was the low price. But it nearly every case, it hasn't been for lack of knowledge. It was an ''informed decision'' if you took the time to read the RCU posts. Pictures of what we already know, as illustrated by your list of requirements, isn't likely to change either the quality or our decisions.
The most effective means of getting better quality is market principles....if you think it is inferior, don't buy it.
I think RCU is more effective in influencing purchase decisions. In the long run, I think more choices rather than 'controls' is the best way to influence manufacturing standards.
I don't agree with the premise of your questions so I won't answer them.
In short, you asked for opinions and inputs....I politely you gave you mine. Your response hasn't changed it. We just disagree on what is realistic, practical and effective. Time to move on.
Ok...
My first question would be what about it would you not support if you thought they would adopt it? Of course we all see what's happening: Guys post their post-crash pics showing ridiculously inadequate design and shoddy construction; they decry the company because of their 'go kick rocks' attitude when asked to take responsibility for their QC; several people chime in with similar stories backed up with photos; then .....wait for it.....guys buy the same crap anyway. People like that are going to go for the shiny paint job (regardless of what's under the hood) anyway because they simply don't know any better and won't listen to other peoples' experience.
How can it NOT help keep them honest about what's hidden if it's not hidden anymore? Half of the post-mortem pics I've seen involve stuff that none of us whould fly had we known in advance how poorly designed or put together it was. I've built a few Chinese ARFs for people and stood there with mouth agape when I took a pen-light and looked into a wing. I'm talking CRAZY stuff like totally missing hinge blocks or a wing-skin that totally missed the glue bead on the ribs. The owner would NEVER have bought that if he'd been able to see that before the fact.
12-14-2011, 04:14 PM
#11
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 709
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: RE:
I don't agree with the premise of your questions...no point or desire to respond to each.
You asked for opinions so I gave one. Your response hasn't changed it. We just disagree with what is realistic, practical and most effective.
Time to move on.
ORIGINAL: STKNRUD
ORIGINAL: YellowAircraft
Ok...
My first question would be what about it would you not support if you thought they would adopt it? Of course we all see what's happening: Guys post their post-crash pics showing ridiculously inadequate design and shoddy construction; they decry the company because of their 'go kick rocks' attitude when asked to take responsibility for their QC; several people chime in with similar stories backed up with photos; then .....wait for it.....guys buy the same crap anyway. People like that are going to go for the shiny paint job (regardless of what's under the hood) anyway because they simply don't know any better and won't listen to other peoples' experience.
How can it NOT help keep them honest about what's hidden if it's not hidden anymore? Half of the post-mortem pics I've seen involve stuff that none of us whould fly had we known in advance how poorly designed or put together it was. I've built a few Chinese ARFs for people and stood there with mouth agape when I took a pen-light and looked into a wing. I'm talking CRAZY stuff like totally missing hinge blocks or a wing-skin that totally missed the glue bead on the ribs. The owner would NEVER have bought that if he'd been able to see that before the fact.
ORIGINAL: STKNRUD
I think everyone in this forum understands the intent and reason, but I wold have trouble supporting it even I thought they would adopted it. We already know what the issues are and have seen lots of pics here on RCU.
All of us have had the opportunity to read the build and other threads about the problems with individual models and imports in general. It hasn't stopped many from buying them anyway and living with the risk or making a lot of necessary mods. Maybe that is because we want a specific model that isn't built by someone else or doesn't look as nice, etc. Maybe it was the low price. But it nearly every case, it hasn't been for lack of knowledge. It was an ''informed decision'' if you took the time to read the RCU posts. Pictures of what we already know, as illustrated by your list of requirements, isn't likely to change either the quality or our decisions.
The most effective means of getting better quality is market principles....if you think it is inferior, don't buy it.
I think RCU is more effective in influencing purchase decisions. In the long run, I think more choices rather than 'controls' is the best way to influence manufacturing standards.
I don't agree with the premise of your questions so I won't answer them.
In short, you asked for opinions and inputs....I politely you gave you mine. Your response hasn't changed it. We just disagree on what is realistic, practical and effective. Time to move on.
I think everyone in this forum understands the intent and reason, but I wold have trouble supporting it even I thought they would adopted it. We already know what the issues are and have seen lots of pics here on RCU.
All of us have had the opportunity to read the build and other threads about the problems with individual models and imports in general. It hasn't stopped many from buying them anyway and living with the risk or making a lot of necessary mods. Maybe that is because we want a specific model that isn't built by someone else or doesn't look as nice, etc. Maybe it was the low price. But it nearly every case, it hasn't been for lack of knowledge. It was an ''informed decision'' if you took the time to read the RCU posts. Pictures of what we already know, as illustrated by your list of requirements, isn't likely to change either the quality or our decisions.
The most effective means of getting better quality is market principles....if you think it is inferior, don't buy it.
I think RCU is more effective in influencing purchase decisions. In the long run, I think more choices rather than 'controls' is the best way to influence manufacturing standards.
I don't agree with the premise of your questions so I won't answer them.
In short, you asked for opinions and inputs....I politely you gave you mine. Your response hasn't changed it. We just disagree on what is realistic, practical and effective. Time to move on.
Ok...
My first question would be what about it would you not support if you thought they would adopt it? Of course we all see what's happening: Guys post their post-crash pics showing ridiculously inadequate design and shoddy construction; they decry the company because of their 'go kick rocks' attitude when asked to take responsibility for their QC; several people chime in with similar stories backed up with photos; then .....wait for it.....guys buy the same crap anyway. People like that are going to go for the shiny paint job (regardless of what's under the hood) anyway because they simply don't know any better and won't listen to other peoples' experience.
How can it NOT help keep them honest about what's hidden if it's not hidden anymore? Half of the post-mortem pics I've seen involve stuff that none of us whould fly had we known in advance how poorly designed or put together it was. I've built a few Chinese ARFs for people and stood there with mouth agape when I took a pen-light and looked into a wing. I'm talking CRAZY stuff like totally missing hinge blocks or a wing-skin that totally missed the glue bead on the ribs. The owner would NEVER have bought that if he'd been able to see that before the fact.
12-14-2011, 05:04 PM
#13
Thread Starter
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: mongo
stock set of proper assy parts for each type in the line, stack of serial numbers cards to add for each pic. man would they be thanking you for the idea of how to ''allay construction fears''.
stock set of proper assy parts for each type in the line, stack of serial numbers cards to add for each pic. man would they be thanking you for the idea of how to ''allay construction fears''.
Perhaps,
But that seems like an awful lot of trouble to avoid simply taking a few extra moments to make sure the stuff is done right. If a construction photo showed one thing and then a post-morten revealed another, it would only strengthen the end-user's case for a refund.
At the end of the day, ANYTHING that helps get them to improve the QC and design issues is a good thing. I know some will poo-poo it because it seems like a long-shot to get them to comply, and some will poo-poo it just because it's me proposing it! Either way, the fact is we're all just one fatal crash away from losing our hobby. We're all possibly just one high-profile incident away from curtailing all the progress that has been made by the leaders in the jet community and the AMA/JPO. I think that something like this, which would cost us nothing but an additional $30 or so, might at least get them taking the extra time to double check stuff before they close it up.
Seriously, if there's a down-side to this, I'm just not seeing it...
12-14-2011, 05:28 PM
#14
RE: RE:
Shaun, I think the only way to fix the problem is if people stop buying this junk. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to stop so, the manufacturers get away with producing crap ....because it sells.
For example: FEJ has a Xmas sale on right now, I can't believe there are people on this board excited about it! Who would buy an FEJ product???? But they do!
Mike
For example: FEJ has a Xmas sale on right now, I can't believe there are people on this board excited about it! Who would buy an FEJ product???? But they do!
Mike
12-14-2011, 07:09 PM
#15
RE: RE:
The down-side isn't all that you are failing to see, Shaun. As an honest, ethical supplier of quality jets, you seem to be assuming that all the other manufacturers are equaly trustworthy. They are not. Just read the threads. You want satisfied repeat customers, they simply want hard currency. Big difference. I applaud your effort, but I think voting with our dollars is still the answer.
12-14-2011, 08:24 PM
#16
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: siclick33
I can see what you're trying to achieve but am not sure how it would work in practise.
Assuming that, as in most cases, the model is built to order. I pay my money and then I wait for my model. Just before I am sent it I ask to see the photos and they are rubbish. Will the manufacturer refund my money? I personally don't think so. In that case who decides whether the model is acceptable or not?
I can see that this might be less contentious if the model is a stock item and then the order is placed after seeing the photos, but how many manufacturers actually hold stock anymore?
I know there are experts here that are very knowledgable about building and structures but does that apply to everyone? Should the responsibility be on the purchaser to check the build integrity or the manufacturer to supply something that isn't rubbish.
Are the recent issues that have been discussed here due to poor building or poor design? My personal opinion (without too much evidence) is that, more often than not, it is the latter. I don't need to see a photo of 'my' model to see design flaws; a generic photo of the structure would suffice.
My solution is more simple, I will only buy models from manufacturers that I trust. I don't need a picture of my Sony TV's circuit board to know that it is likely to work for a long time. I don't need to see the internals of my BVM Bobcat to know that it is likely to stay together.
I can see what you're trying to achieve but am not sure how it would work in practise.
Assuming that, as in most cases, the model is built to order. I pay my money and then I wait for my model. Just before I am sent it I ask to see the photos and they are rubbish. Will the manufacturer refund my money? I personally don't think so. In that case who decides whether the model is acceptable or not?
I can see that this might be less contentious if the model is a stock item and then the order is placed after seeing the photos, but how many manufacturers actually hold stock anymore?
I know there are experts here that are very knowledgable about building and structures but does that apply to everyone? Should the responsibility be on the purchaser to check the build integrity or the manufacturer to supply something that isn't rubbish.
Are the recent issues that have been discussed here due to poor building or poor design? My personal opinion (without too much evidence) is that, more often than not, it is the latter. I don't need to see a photo of 'my' model to see design flaws; a generic photo of the structure would suffice.
My solution is more simple, I will only buy models from manufacturers that I trust. I don't need a picture of my Sony TV's circuit board to know that it is likely to work for a long time. I don't need to see the internals of my BVM Bobcat to know that it is likely to stay together.
12-15-2011, 03:14 AM
#17
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: luv2flyrc
Shaun, I think the only way to fix the problem is if people stop buying this junk. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to stop so, the manufacturers get away with producing crap ....because it sells.
For example: FEJ has a Xmas sale on right now, I can't believe there are people on this board excited about it! Who would buy an FEJ product???? But they do!
Mike
Shaun, I think the only way to fix the problem is if people stop buying this junk. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to stop so, the manufacturers get away with producing crap ....because it sells.
For example: FEJ has a Xmas sale on right now, I can't believe there are people on this board excited about it! Who would buy an FEJ product???? But they do!
Mike
12-15-2011, 03:53 AM
#18
RE: RE:
You would also need a picture of the inside of the fuel tanks. Take a look a the construction of this Chinese ARF product, from a major and "respected" line. It actually looked pretty good from the outside but anybody surprised that it leaked?
I'm done with the Chinese ARF's. I'd rather pay more and pay once.
I'm done with the Chinese ARF's. I'd rather pay more and pay once.
12-15-2011, 04:53 AM
#19
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Senja, NORWAY
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: RE:
You get what you pay for....
When you need to get documented the construction of everything you buy, then your in a dangerous circle...
What's next.... video in HD of your car get put together.. with torque messurements on all bolts...:-)
Svein-Roe
When you need to get documented the construction of everything you buy, then your in a dangerous circle...
What's next.... video in HD of your car get put together.. with torque messurements on all bolts...:-)
Svein-Roe
12-15-2011, 05:23 AM
#20
My Feedback: (13)
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: pbusa1400
Bingo!!!!!!
ORIGINAL: luv2flyrc
Shaun, I think the only way to fix the problem is if people stop buying this junk. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to stop so, the manufacturers get away with producing crap ....because it sells.
For example: FEJ has a Xmas sale on right now, I can't believe there are people on this board excited about it! Who would buy an FEJ product???? But they do!
Mike
Shaun, I think the only way to fix the problem is if people stop buying this junk. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to stop so, the manufacturers get away with producing crap ....because it sells.
For example: FEJ has a Xmas sale on right now, I can't believe there are people on this board excited about it! Who would buy an FEJ product???? But they do!
Mike
12-15-2011, 06:52 AM
#21
Thread Starter
RE: RE:
ORIGINAL: G4guy
Bingo +2
ORIGINAL: pbusa1400
Bingo!!!!!!
ORIGINAL: luv2flyrc
Shaun, I think the only way to fix the problem is if people stop buying this junk. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to stop so, the manufacturers get away with producing crap ....because it sells.
For example: FEJ has a Xmas sale on right now, I can't believe there are people on this board excited about it! Who would buy an FEJ product???? But they do!
Mike
Shaun, I think the only way to fix the problem is if people stop buying this junk. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to stop so, the manufacturers get away with producing crap ....because it sells.
For example: FEJ has a Xmas sale on right now, I can't believe there are people on this board excited about it! Who would buy an FEJ product???? But they do!
Mike
Well,
That's like saying the answer to teen pregnancy is abstinence. It's theoretically a slam-dunk solution, but history teaches that it's not altogether likely. People, as has been well established, will not only keep buying pig-in-a-poke junk...but they'll keep doing it even when they read these threads and see the macabre pics of what turns out to be inside! Not only that, but after they've been warned (and buy anyway), they'll still come in and rant when their equipment looks or works just like they were told. It's like the joke about the guy who goes to a prostitute, then complains that he didn't feel loved.
If I had a dollar for every time someone called me to get a quote on an F-15, then balked at the price with something akin to, "What?? That's crazy cuz 'Brand X' is half that price, and it has the gear, tanks and pipe included!" Well, I'd be rich. Half the time, those people already know about all of the post-mortem surprises and shocking QC issues because when I direct them to them, they say, "I know. But I heard they've fixed that." Guys like that will NEVER stop buying stuff like that. Frankly, I think that guy and that jet deserve each other. The problem is that when that stab lets go and the guy crashes his jet...eventually that crash is going to be the one that gets us all.
12-15-2011, 08:39 AM
#22
RE: RE:
While I agree the buyer needs protection against flawed ARF jets, I agree with the others who express their solution to this problem ... "stop buying the junk."
We can vote with our wallet.
When the cheap manufacturers see sales going away as a result of their poor quality, they will have to improve their quality rather than bait buyers with a lower price.
I'm not sinking $5,000+ worth of electronics, turbines, retracts, and hours of modifications into a flawed ARF jet that also has internal structural flaws that I can't get to. That's just throwing money away to me.
No individual contract is going to solve QC problems. It will just shift problems to another issue, such as, getting your money back. The obvious problem with the contract is a dispute with the level of quality. The manufacturer may feel his quality is good, while the buyer thinks it sucks. Every buyer will have a different level of acceptance. Once the buyer feels the quality is not up to par, the dispute starts and the buyer will have a hard time getting the money back from a company in China. I can't see any of those small operations willing to refund a $500 deposit, yet alone the full purchase price.
There is a topic here where a guy had to completely modify a fuel tank just for it to function properly in his jet. Plus, several more modifications were needed just to make the parts fit properly. I don't know about anyone else, but that is unacceptable to me. It is insane for the buyer to have to make major modifications! Things like that should have been done by the manufacturer BEFORE the jet was put into production.
For this reason I buy and own BVM jets only. Everything fits perfectly, no mods necessary, and much less time putting the jet together. And the biggest plus ... they last and have no structural issues. The extra money is well worth it.
So, I believe that when people start to buy quality jets like BVM, the rest of the manufacturers will have to improve their workmanship or find another line of work.
We can vote with our wallet.
When the cheap manufacturers see sales going away as a result of their poor quality, they will have to improve their quality rather than bait buyers with a lower price.
I'm not sinking $5,000+ worth of electronics, turbines, retracts, and hours of modifications into a flawed ARF jet that also has internal structural flaws that I can't get to. That's just throwing money away to me.
No individual contract is going to solve QC problems. It will just shift problems to another issue, such as, getting your money back. The obvious problem with the contract is a dispute with the level of quality. The manufacturer may feel his quality is good, while the buyer thinks it sucks. Every buyer will have a different level of acceptance. Once the buyer feels the quality is not up to par, the dispute starts and the buyer will have a hard time getting the money back from a company in China. I can't see any of those small operations willing to refund a $500 deposit, yet alone the full purchase price.
There is a topic here where a guy had to completely modify a fuel tank just for it to function properly in his jet. Plus, several more modifications were needed just to make the parts fit properly. I don't know about anyone else, but that is unacceptable to me. It is insane for the buyer to have to make major modifications! Things like that should have been done by the manufacturer BEFORE the jet was put into production.
For this reason I buy and own BVM jets only. Everything fits perfectly, no mods necessary, and much less time putting the jet together. And the biggest plus ... they last and have no structural issues. The extra money is well worth it.
So, I believe that when people start to buy quality jets like BVM, the rest of the manufacturers will have to improve their workmanship or find another line of work.
12-15-2011, 08:42 AM
#23
My Feedback: (1)
RE:
Remember how FEJ came in the market... they sold complete and painted jets with gear and tanks and pipe etc for 800.- !!
Even if we stop buying them at current prices it will come down to a halt, and then prices will drop untill people start buying again.
Even if we stop buying them at current prices it will come down to a halt, and then prices will drop untill people start buying again.
12-15-2011, 08:58 AM
#25
RE:
It's hard to not want to buy the pretty jets that are currently being offered at such low prices, but simply put, I refuse to pay any extra for a manufacture build log when you should be getting good product to begin with.
The solution I had to come to terms with was simply to look out for myself plain and simple. People will always buy crap, then complain when it fails, hell, that's how the entire voting public works anyway, vote somebody in and then complain when it fails. Very very few people in this day and age understand the "buy cheap, buy twice" philosophy.
The real unfortunate side of all of this is, because the crap manufactures are selling product for so cheap, it keeps the good manufactures from wanting to do anything new. When was the last time BVM actually came out with a NEW product? The closest thing to NEW that BVM has released was the Ultra Bandit. The electra, the BARF, all revamps of existing airplanes, that's not a slam at BVM, you produce what works and what sells. The last scale airplane that BVM released was the big F86 but at double or triple the money of the chinese manufactures for an airplane that is a HUGE amount of work, it's no surprise that it wasn't popular even though your chances of success are 10X with the BVM product vs the chinese stuff.
The manufactures that we always used to rely on simply are not coming out with new product because they cannot compete with the cheap "fly at your own risk" airplanes. BVM, JMP, Y/A, in my mind are the top three. The fact of the matter is, the chinese are very capable of producing a quality product, but you will still have to pay for it. If you want dirt cheap airplanes, you get dirt cheap manufacturing. No pictures of the manufacturing process will convince me that an airplane is being built better. It's far to easy to show BS pictures anyway. Yeah, you can put trust in a manufacture, but if I have to "trust" them to take pictures of the actual airplane being built I SHOULD be able to trust that I don't NEED them to take pictures in the first place.
Bottom line is, they will produce crap as long as people buy their crap and people will continue to buy their crap as long as the prices reflect it being crap. People are funny, you can tell somebody over and over and over that it hurts to get punched in the face, but until you actually punch them in the face they won't really believe you.
I went through the chinese ARF phase, I had minimal success at best. When I finally decided to just save my money and buy good stuff, my success grew in leaps and bounds.
I personally wish the chinese manufactures would all offer their jets as kit versions as well as ARF's, at least then I'd have SOME chance of building a decent airplane instead of having to modify a bad one but since they don't, I'll stick with the manufactures I trust.
JMO
The solution I had to come to terms with was simply to look out for myself plain and simple. People will always buy crap, then complain when it fails, hell, that's how the entire voting public works anyway, vote somebody in and then complain when it fails. Very very few people in this day and age understand the "buy cheap, buy twice" philosophy.
The real unfortunate side of all of this is, because the crap manufactures are selling product for so cheap, it keeps the good manufactures from wanting to do anything new. When was the last time BVM actually came out with a NEW product? The closest thing to NEW that BVM has released was the Ultra Bandit. The electra, the BARF, all revamps of existing airplanes, that's not a slam at BVM, you produce what works and what sells. The last scale airplane that BVM released was the big F86 but at double or triple the money of the chinese manufactures for an airplane that is a HUGE amount of work, it's no surprise that it wasn't popular even though your chances of success are 10X with the BVM product vs the chinese stuff.
The manufactures that we always used to rely on simply are not coming out with new product because they cannot compete with the cheap "fly at your own risk" airplanes. BVM, JMP, Y/A, in my mind are the top three. The fact of the matter is, the chinese are very capable of producing a quality product, but you will still have to pay for it. If you want dirt cheap airplanes, you get dirt cheap manufacturing. No pictures of the manufacturing process will convince me that an airplane is being built better. It's far to easy to show BS pictures anyway. Yeah, you can put trust in a manufacture, but if I have to "trust" them to take pictures of the actual airplane being built I SHOULD be able to trust that I don't NEED them to take pictures in the first place.
Bottom line is, they will produce crap as long as people buy their crap and people will continue to buy their crap as long as the prices reflect it being crap. People are funny, you can tell somebody over and over and over that it hurts to get punched in the face, but until you actually punch them in the face they won't really believe you.
I went through the chinese ARF phase, I had minimal success at best. When I finally decided to just save my money and buy good stuff, my success grew in leaps and bounds.
I personally wish the chinese manufactures would all offer their jets as kit versions as well as ARF's, at least then I'd have SOME chance of building a decent airplane instead of having to modify a bad one but since they don't, I'll stick with the manufactures I trust.
JMO