If you crash...
05-28-2013, 05:45 PM
#26
My Feedback: (53)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
9 Years ago I got one of the first KMP Corsairs. Put an OS 120 pump, came with it's own retracts (crummy). On the first flight, coming out of a loop (powered down) Wing folded up......I took pictures of the plane, spar was cut inside the wing to allow for the retracts. KMP Replaced the plane with a different plane ( not a corsair).So sometimes Dealers put their money where there mouth is.!
05-28-2013, 06:13 PM
#28
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lost Wages,
NV
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
The question here is, at what dollar amount do we accept as an acceptable loss before we want to hold the manufacturer liable for a dependable, quality product? The newb that spends $100 on ebay and buys a foamie something and brakes it within seconds of the first flight, throws it aways, buys another onethinking I can get better, Iguessa $100an acceptable loss for trying a new hobby? The manufacturers making crappy foamies are laughing all the way to the bank, BTW!! So the $100 aircrafts are acceptable throw away "toys". When we spend thousands of $$ on scale prop &or turbine planes, it really takesthe word "HOBBY" to a wholenew level.We EXPECT a quality, dependable, proven aiframe that isnot going to come apart in flight. Why is it ok tocomplain when the landinggear leaks/fails and weexpect replacement parts, that most manufacturers send to us right away, but its not ok to ask for the same thing when they send us faulty airframes??Why shouldn't they step up and replace 100% faulty airframes as well, especially when there is documented/ video evidence? LGMis right andI'm sure there are some dishonest people out there looking for the scam and thats something that needs to be delt with on a case by case basis..When you take this hobby to the level of spending thousands of$$, and can spend more on our planes than some people spend on cars,we the users, shouldDEMAND manufacturers have better QUALITY CONTROL, TESTINGand areACCOUNTABLE for their product!! I had a Boxster S that had a tranmission syncro going out, porsche replaced the whole tranny ($18,000.00) later with no questions asked and apologized for the inconvenience. I would have to say our turbine aircraftare on the same level, comparitivley speaking as a porsche. If plane manufacturers want to charge thousands of dollars for their planes they should stand behind them or lower the price to the qualityof planethey are shipping to the end users... Just my thoughts on the matter....
05-28-2013, 06:18 PM
#29
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
ORIGINAL: GhostRider 1
The question here is, at what dollar amount do we accept as an acceptable loss before we want to hold the manufacturer liable for a dependable, quality product? The newb that spends $100 on ebay and buys a foamie something and brakes it within seconds of the first flight, throws it aways, buys another onethinking I can get better, Iguessa $100an acceptable loss for trying a new hobby? The manufacturers making crappy foamies are laughing all the way to the bank, BTW!! So the $100 aircrafts are acceptable throw away "toys". When we spend thousands of $$ on scale prop &or turbine planes, it really takesthe word "HOBBY" to a wholenew level.We EXPECT a quality, dependable, proven aiframe that isnot going to come apart in flight. Why is it ok tocomplain when the landinggear leaks/fails and weexpect replacement parts, that most manufacturers send to us right away, but its not ok to ask for the same thing when they send us faulty airframes??Why shouldn't they step up and replace 100% faulty airframes as well, especially when there is documented/ video evidence? LGMis right andI'm sure there are some dishonest people out there looking for the scam and thats something that needs to be delt with on a case by case basis..When you take this hobby to the level of spending thousands of$$, and can spend more on our planes than some people spend on cars,we the users, shouldDEMAND manufacturers have better QUALITY CONTROL, TESTINGand areACCOUNTABLE for their product!! I had a Boxster S that had a tranmission syncro going out, porsche replaced the whole tranny ($18,000.00) later with no questions asked and apologized for the inconvenience. I would have to say our turbine aircraftare on the same level, comparitivley speaking as a porsche. If plane manufacturers want to charge thousands of dollars for their planes they should stand behind them or lower the price to the qualityof planethey are shipping to the end users... Just my thoughts on the matter....
The question here is, at what dollar amount do we accept as an acceptable loss before we want to hold the manufacturer liable for a dependable, quality product? The newb that spends $100 on ebay and buys a foamie something and brakes it within seconds of the first flight, throws it aways, buys another onethinking I can get better, Iguessa $100an acceptable loss for trying a new hobby? The manufacturers making crappy foamies are laughing all the way to the bank, BTW!! So the $100 aircrafts are acceptable throw away "toys". When we spend thousands of $$ on scale prop &or turbine planes, it really takesthe word "HOBBY" to a wholenew level.We EXPECT a quality, dependable, proven aiframe that isnot going to come apart in flight. Why is it ok tocomplain when the landinggear leaks/fails and weexpect replacement parts, that most manufacturers send to us right away, but its not ok to ask for the same thing when they send us faulty airframes??Why shouldn't they step up and replace 100% faulty airframes as well, especially when there is documented/ video evidence? LGMis right andI'm sure there are some dishonest people out there looking for the scam and thats something that needs to be delt with on a case by case basis..When you take this hobby to the level of spending thousands of$$, and can spend more on our planes than some people spend on cars,we the users, shouldDEMAND manufacturers have better QUALITY CONTROL, TESTINGand areACCOUNTABLE for their product!! I had a Boxster S that had a tranmission syncro going out, porsche replaced the whole tranny ($18,000.00) later with no questions asked and apologized for the inconvenience. I would have to say our turbine aircraftare on the same level, comparitivley speaking as a porsche. If plane manufacturers want to charge thousands of dollars for their planes they should stand behind them or lower the price to the qualityof planethey are shipping to the end users... Just my thoughts on the matter....
The question Iam asking is clear:
Your plane crashes due to a defect. Should the manufacturer replace the engines also?Or just the airframe.
05-28-2013, 06:42 PM
#30
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
I believe the end user has some responsibility for the over looking of the airframe regardless of cost of the unit pilots due diligence is to do this before each outing or every flight. the warranty replacement of a Porsche transmission issue isn't in the same realm of thought. who would of paid for it if it was out of warranty?answer: the end user or sucker stuck with the product.like sitting down at a black jack table to gamble money if u cant afford to lose it you shouldn't gamble it.what happened to building your own plane and knowing every thing about it ,knowing it was capable to fly.. instead of buying this overpriced crap from chinathan *****ing about it because your toy broke? or didn't meet expectations?its whats wrong with America and only getting worse. im calling my attorney and or threatening that manufacturer to give me something free or something for nothing. no one owes u anything.grow up babies.its a big toy and if you cant afford to lose one you cant afford that aspect of this great hobby called model airplaneslife suck sometimes deal with it.
05-28-2013, 06:47 PM
#31
Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Centre,
AL
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
Well said!
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
Ok, I'll step in and say no. I don't think so at all.
Here is why.
First of all, there are a TON of factors that could lead up to a crash, there are factors that could lead to a structural failure that are even beyond the manufactures control. If any manufacture stated that they would replace EVEN just the airframe after a "Structural failure", they would be bankrupt.
Lets consider a few things.
1. There are multiple different things that could cause a structural failure, from poor design, to overpowering, to previous damage in transport, a bad landing etc. How would you EVER prove where the problem came from?
2. There are dishonest people in this world, I know shocking right? Who's to say somebody "bored" with their model couldn't rig it to fail in flight, it wouldn't be hard would it. Hmmm, flown this airplane, didn't really like it, can't afford a new one, lets just crash it and let the manufacture replace it. If that idea worked you'd be able to insure your models against crashing wouldn't you?
3. What would it require for a manufacture to actually take responsiblity? Some kind of onboard black box? Every flight video taped from multiple angles? Or just the word of the owner?
Ok, lets be honest, this is stemming from Dubd's F14 crash. While I agree that FEJ handled the situation wrong, to be honest, I would say replacing the airframe the wrong thing to do as well, for the very reasons listed above. With no disrespect to Dantley, what if it wasn't him? What if it wasn't an upstanding member of the jet community but rather somebody new to the hobby that this happened to? What if there was no video? Would everyone say that FEJ was in the wrong and they should replace it?
When BVM had kingcat booms failing, they didn't replace airframes. The booms that were failing were, as I recall, failing primarily because of shock load put on the booms due to incoorect transport of the model. They sent out a fix free of charge to kingcat owners and changed new airframes. That is the most that a manufacture can be expected to do.
Now, lets again just for a minute say that (and I am not trying to defend FEJ here or discredit Dantley) but lets just say for a minute, that the F14 had the tail banged loading it into a trailer, it was visually checked and found to be ok, no real load. Now what if that hit being loaded into the trailer caused a fracture and THAT was the cause of the structural failure? Again, I am not even trying to suggest that this is the issue, it is my honest opinion that FEJ's airplanes are improperly designed and built, however, replacing an airplane sets a precident in this hobby where everyone can come up with a reason why it's not their fault and why the manufacture should replace it.
It is a slippery slope, nobody wants to get ripped off, nobody wants to lose an airplane, but unfortunately, due diligence falls on the modeler. Certain companies have proven themselves time and time again to have faulty products. The modeler needs to be smart enough to stay away from those products. We like to think that reps and "friends" in the hobby will be honest with us, but at the end of the day, reps and dealers want to make a buck. If they are selling a product that has been questionable over the years, make them prove that the product has improved. Make sure they are willing to fly THEIR models the way they SHOULD be flown. Flying something in circuits does not mean it's strong enough to withstand the rigors of proper flight.
So should manufactures replace airframes and all equipment? No, so many things can lead to a structural failure. Ask yourself this, if you were to sell somebody your airplane, whether you've flown it or not, and on the very first flight, or even on the 30th flight, it comes apart in midair, and the buyer calls you and says something failed, would YOU replace it all for the buyer? Would you foot the bill for his loss?
Ok, I'll step in and say no. I don't think so at all.
Here is why.
First of all, there are a TON of factors that could lead up to a crash, there are factors that could lead to a structural failure that are even beyond the manufactures control. If any manufacture stated that they would replace EVEN just the airframe after a "Structural failure", they would be bankrupt.
Lets consider a few things.
1. There are multiple different things that could cause a structural failure, from poor design, to overpowering, to previous damage in transport, a bad landing etc. How would you EVER prove where the problem came from?
2. There are dishonest people in this world, I know shocking right? Who's to say somebody "bored" with their model couldn't rig it to fail in flight, it wouldn't be hard would it. Hmmm, flown this airplane, didn't really like it, can't afford a new one, lets just crash it and let the manufacture replace it. If that idea worked you'd be able to insure your models against crashing wouldn't you?
3. What would it require for a manufacture to actually take responsiblity? Some kind of onboard black box? Every flight video taped from multiple angles? Or just the word of the owner?
Ok, lets be honest, this is stemming from Dubd's F14 crash. While I agree that FEJ handled the situation wrong, to be honest, I would say replacing the airframe the wrong thing to do as well, for the very reasons listed above. With no disrespect to Dantley, what if it wasn't him? What if it wasn't an upstanding member of the jet community but rather somebody new to the hobby that this happened to? What if there was no video? Would everyone say that FEJ was in the wrong and they should replace it?
When BVM had kingcat booms failing, they didn't replace airframes. The booms that were failing were, as I recall, failing primarily because of shock load put on the booms due to incoorect transport of the model. They sent out a fix free of charge to kingcat owners and changed new airframes. That is the most that a manufacture can be expected to do.
Now, lets again just for a minute say that (and I am not trying to defend FEJ here or discredit Dantley) but lets just say for a minute, that the F14 had the tail banged loading it into a trailer, it was visually checked and found to be ok, no real load. Now what if that hit being loaded into the trailer caused a fracture and THAT was the cause of the structural failure? Again, I am not even trying to suggest that this is the issue, it is my honest opinion that FEJ's airplanes are improperly designed and built, however, replacing an airplane sets a precident in this hobby where everyone can come up with a reason why it's not their fault and why the manufacture should replace it.
It is a slippery slope, nobody wants to get ripped off, nobody wants to lose an airplane, but unfortunately, due diligence falls on the modeler. Certain companies have proven themselves time and time again to have faulty products. The modeler needs to be smart enough to stay away from those products. We like to think that reps and "friends" in the hobby will be honest with us, but at the end of the day, reps and dealers want to make a buck. If they are selling a product that has been questionable over the years, make them prove that the product has improved. Make sure they are willing to fly THEIR models the way they SHOULD be flown. Flying something in circuits does not mean it's strong enough to withstand the rigors of proper flight.
So should manufactures replace airframes and all equipment? No, so many things can lead to a structural failure. Ask yourself this, if you were to sell somebody your airplane, whether you've flown it or not, and on the very first flight, or even on the 30th flight, it comes apart in midair, and the buyer calls you and says something failed, would YOU replace it all for the buyer? Would you foot the bill for his loss?
05-28-2013, 06:47 PM
#32
RE: If you crash...
Ghostrider, I agree with you and I reject the "it's a hobby, so take it up the arse" comments. I use to race cars and motorcycles and that was a hobby. If a part failed, your life was on the line. Good manufacturers stepped up and the bad ones fell by the wayside. Just because I don't get paid to fly RC jets or take my car to the track doesn't mean I have lower standards than in my professional life. Regardless of whether I spend $200 or $20,000 I have a high standard in all aspects of my life and I never buy products simply to save a buck. I am fortunate/blessed/lucky that I don't need to. However, when I do spend my money, whether it is $200 electric prop plane or $20,000 jet, I expect a quality product, AND I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR IT! In the case of my F-14 I was duped, into thinking it was a quality product, when it fact it was a total POS. I also expect to be treated the same way I treat other people. The FEJ brand is an embarrassment to me. It symbolizes poor quality, poor standards of manufacturing, and dishonest management.
05-28-2013, 06:50 PM
#34
RE: If you crash...
ORIGINAL: PhilYabelli
But what is your opinion on the actual question? If you buy an airframe, and it crashes due to a defect, should the airframe manufacturer be responsible to buy you a new pair of engines? Is that reasonable?
ORIGINAL: Chris Nicastro
I fly anything with the mindset that if I cant afford to replace it or lose it I don't fly it or buy it.
That being said if there is a fault with a product I will pursue any warranty or replacement with due diligence. Beyond that I just try to enjoy myself as much as possible because its a hobby.
Try to get a set of wings out of KMP! Even with photos showing NO GLUE and the landing gear relocated to the top of the wing it took me over 6 months to get a wing set at a discount!!! Ridiculous!!! A $75 set of wings at their cost LOST THEM A CUSTOMER FOR LIFE. Stupid business practice stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.
There is a reasonable expectation on the part of any consumer that the product they bought will perform as expected and advertised. There is a ton of legal precedent for this type of thing Im positive of that much. At this level of high priced products and slim margins (supposedly) dealers and manufacturers don't want to hand out products willy-nilly. So if you have to go the legal route things get out of hand quickly because small claims courts are limited to about $5000.
So DEALERS if your selling products you cant properly support, especially at this level, then you should really reconsider your position and reputation in the matter. You are the first point of contact and your reputation is tied into the products you sell and support. If your having the customer deal directly with the factory, like in China, then your not doing your job.
I fly anything with the mindset that if I cant afford to replace it or lose it I don't fly it or buy it.
That being said if there is a fault with a product I will pursue any warranty or replacement with due diligence. Beyond that I just try to enjoy myself as much as possible because its a hobby.
Try to get a set of wings out of KMP! Even with photos showing NO GLUE and the landing gear relocated to the top of the wing it took me over 6 months to get a wing set at a discount!!! Ridiculous!!! A $75 set of wings at their cost LOST THEM A CUSTOMER FOR LIFE. Stupid business practice stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.
There is a reasonable expectation on the part of any consumer that the product they bought will perform as expected and advertised. There is a ton of legal precedent for this type of thing Im positive of that much. At this level of high priced products and slim margins (supposedly) dealers and manufacturers don't want to hand out products willy-nilly. So if you have to go the legal route things get out of hand quickly because small claims courts are limited to about $5000.
So DEALERS if your selling products you cant properly support, especially at this level, then you should really reconsider your position and reputation in the matter. You are the first point of contact and your reputation is tied into the products you sell and support. If your having the customer deal directly with the factory, like in China, then your not doing your job.
I think the answer is more Yes than No.
Its reasonable to expect the manufacturer to replace the product with a new one of the same model first or another of equal or lesser value or whatever can be agreed upon if a rigid policy is not in existance.
Then, if the total aircraft was lost due to a defect in design or manufacture then you should be entitled to all of the equipment onboard to be replaced.
Why?
Because its your reasonable expectation that their product would perform as advertised.
If you replace the turbine that just opens the argument for the rest of the expensive components to be replaced as well.
If the product failed why should I share in the responsibility of the product failure by not including the rest of the components?
Assumptions
The model was built to the manufacturers recommendations or specifications
The pilot flew the model within the limits of the manufacturers specifications in terms of powerplant(s)
The model was not mishandled or damaged prior to flight.
There were no other contributing factors to the failure of the airframe besides the pre-existing condition which was the cause of the crash.
For how long should the warranty last?
Since these models are not normally built in a few days from the date of purchase or manufacture there should be a 1 year warranty. That covers one flying season and the build of the plane and no more.
OR
We do not apply the typical laws or rules of retail and customer service to this industry and we all just suck it up and fly.
It can be as clear cut as that or we can apply some product liability and consumer protection policies and procedures like most of the stuff we buy and deal with daily. Because we are in this hobby does not mean the laws do not apply they just have to be enforced.
P.S.
Just to add a little background I did make the tough calls on Customer Service issues and customers trying to take advantage of our policies. The fact is THERE IS ALWAYS EVIDENCE! These people reveal themselves and its pretty obvious most of the time who they are, what their about, and how the story will not add up. You flag them and keep them on a restricted list of customers.
When our CS people couldnt figure it out or the problem fell into an area they didnt understand I would step in sort it out and make the call. I designed many of the products we sold so I knew right away what was going on.
If you know your product and have tested it, lived with it, helped people with it, you will spot BS right away.
Hows it go? Fool me once shame on me... Fool me twice shame.... Well you cant fool me again! Lol
05-28-2013, 07:04 PM
#35
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: hemet , CA
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
ask befor you buy otherwise it could really be your fault i had a battery go dead while flying whose fault was that it was mine i forgot to charge it and did not check it befor i flew
05-28-2013, 07:20 PM
#36
RE: If you crash...
ORIGINAL: [email protected]
ask befor you buy otherwise it could really be your fault i had a battery go dead while flying whose fault was that it was mine i forgot to charge it and did not check it befor i flew
ask befor you buy otherwise it could really be your fault i had a battery go dead while flying whose fault was that it was mine i forgot to charge it and did not check it befor i flew
05-28-2013, 07:32 PM
#37
RE: If you crash...
I would not have bought the F-14 if I didn't see the reps or dealer flying one. Yeah its expensive but if your selling premium products you have to lead by example or you don't earn any consumer trust.
Then Id ask for one of the same proven set ups, nothing experimental in any way shape or form.
Then Id ask for one of the same proven set ups, nothing experimental in any way shape or form.
05-28-2013, 07:57 PM
#38
My Feedback: (3)
RE: If you crash...
I feel as if I walked into the valley of death because I am out of step (again!).
There is a radio manufacturer, who shall remain nameless, that caused me to 'eat' TWO 30% Pitts because of poor support - they missed the problem with some receivers TWICE! When I finally determined exactly what the problem was (just before the third bird was going to be test flown), they replaced THEIR involved product but NOT the two airframes, which even though it cost me a lot. I am not happy but I understand their point of view.
It is not a question of wiggle room, but one of honest questions that most of us are unable to answer without crossing the line into anger. I know, the first letter about that radio system was . . unpleasant since they had just said there was no problem found. The final letter explained why THEY missed the clues and what actually was going on and they took immediate (though silent) action.
The manufacturer cannot be responsible for collateral damage due to misuse of his/her product, and that is what we are talking about. If you question the misuse part, consider that the supplier (don't want to spell the other word again...tired) has no evidence that the product was properly deployed or not abused before the claimed failure that damaged other goods.
The receivers in question may not have had enough power available (not true but how do you prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt?). That was the final suggestion made when they replaced (the guts of) the pair I sent with the write up describing the problem in explicit detail. Oh, because I am a nice guy I included a suggestion for them of how to change their 'testing' procedure to prevent future failures of that nature to the end user.
The bottom line is that you can only be responsible for that which you directly controlled not for outside things.
<ducking and hiding>
There is a radio manufacturer, who shall remain nameless, that caused me to 'eat' TWO 30% Pitts because of poor support - they missed the problem with some receivers TWICE! When I finally determined exactly what the problem was (just before the third bird was going to be test flown), they replaced THEIR involved product but NOT the two airframes, which even though it cost me a lot. I am not happy but I understand their point of view.
It is not a question of wiggle room, but one of honest questions that most of us are unable to answer without crossing the line into anger. I know, the first letter about that radio system was . . unpleasant since they had just said there was no problem found. The final letter explained why THEY missed the clues and what actually was going on and they took immediate (though silent) action.
The manufacturer cannot be responsible for collateral damage due to misuse of his/her product, and that is what we are talking about. If you question the misuse part, consider that the supplier (don't want to spell the other word again...tired) has no evidence that the product was properly deployed or not abused before the claimed failure that damaged other goods.
The receivers in question may not have had enough power available (not true but how do you prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt?). That was the final suggestion made when they replaced (the guts of) the pair I sent with the write up describing the problem in explicit detail. Oh, because I am a nice guy I included a suggestion for them of how to change their 'testing' procedure to prevent future failures of that nature to the end user.
The bottom line is that you can only be responsible for that which you directly controlled not for outside things.
<ducking and hiding>
05-28-2013, 08:04 PM
#39
RE: If you crash...
In a moral sense if the manufactor is aware of a problem or if reasonable evidence can be shown that the kit was defective the manufactor should replace
the kit and all damanged equip. That being said there are a few problems that I see no way to overcome, First our models are kits that we have to assemble
and use our glue and sometime our hardware so how do we prove that the kit was assembled correctly? next how do we prove the engine or parts that we
say were damanged by the kit were in fact installed and received the damange that we claim?
the kit and all damanged equip. That being said there are a few problems that I see no way to overcome, First our models are kits that we have to assemble
and use our glue and sometime our hardware so how do we prove that the kit was assembled correctly? next how do we prove the engine or parts that we
say were damanged by the kit were in fact installed and received the damange that we claim?
05-28-2013, 08:18 PM
#40
RE: If you crash...
There are a ton of stories good and bad regarding this subject.
My buddy flying his new KMP FW 190, BL powered, with a new Futaba 14MZ system, lost his plane. Total radio lock out the plane spiraled into the ground. Turns out the early Rx's had a known (? i don't know I fly JR?) issue but this was kept tight lipped. He called them up and went through the hoops, plus he is tenacious to put it mildly, and he got the ARF replaced as well as the Rx updated.
I think Futaba stepped up and did the right thing in this case. Their product failed, caused the crash, they fixed their product and replaced the plane, what else can you ask for? Thats taking responsibility, providing product and customer support. They know next time the customer will by their product because they stood by him. Business 101 building relationships with your customers.
Hitec RCD I had a few servos new and old mixed bag that I sent in for service expecting to pay for some and get others replaced. I had about 3 new servos which were never used just sitting that didnt work at all. I had a few used ones with issues, broken tabs, etc. They fixed or replaced all of them! AT NO CHARGE! Awesome, love their service and products, thanks again!
Again Business 101, they have a customer for life.
My buddy flying his new KMP FW 190, BL powered, with a new Futaba 14MZ system, lost his plane. Total radio lock out the plane spiraled into the ground. Turns out the early Rx's had a known (? i don't know I fly JR?) issue but this was kept tight lipped. He called them up and went through the hoops, plus he is tenacious to put it mildly, and he got the ARF replaced as well as the Rx updated.
I think Futaba stepped up and did the right thing in this case. Their product failed, caused the crash, they fixed their product and replaced the plane, what else can you ask for? Thats taking responsibility, providing product and customer support. They know next time the customer will by their product because they stood by him. Business 101 building relationships with your customers.
Hitec RCD I had a few servos new and old mixed bag that I sent in for service expecting to pay for some and get others replaced. I had about 3 new servos which were never used just sitting that didnt work at all. I had a few used ones with issues, broken tabs, etc. They fixed or replaced all of them! AT NO CHARGE! Awesome, love their service and products, thanks again!
Again Business 101, they have a customer for life.
05-28-2013, 09:55 PM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Spring Hill,
FL
Posts: 4,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
OK, I'm going to put this question in the same category of the death penalty which if fully support even though I typically lean liberal on most issues. Why I compare the two is that I only support the death penalty when it is known for a fact that the person did it - video, credible eye-witnesses, confession, etc., If there is any doubt then no.
I believe the manufacturer should be fully responsible for not just the airframe but everything on board the model (engine, radio, retracts, etc.) ONLY if it is proven beyond any doubt that the crash was indeed caused by a defect and there is negligence on the part of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer buys say carbon rods to use for spars and one of the spars has an air bubble in it that causes it to fail then I would not blame the manufacturer.
But if the airframe is defectively designed and can't handle its intended flight envelope without failures then they should pay for everything.
In reality I don't expect to ever see anything replaced or a dime of compensation because that's what we have decided to be acceptable as a herd.
I believe the manufacturer should be fully responsible for not just the airframe but everything on board the model (engine, radio, retracts, etc.) ONLY if it is proven beyond any doubt that the crash was indeed caused by a defect and there is negligence on the part of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer buys say carbon rods to use for spars and one of the spars has an air bubble in it that causes it to fail then I would not blame the manufacturer.
But if the airframe is defectively designed and can't handle its intended flight envelope without failures then they should pay for everything.
In reality I don't expect to ever see anything replaced or a dime of compensation because that's what we have decided to be acceptable as a herd.
05-28-2013, 09:58 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Spring Hill,
FL
Posts: 4,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
Chris - I had some Hitec servos that I purchased a few years before I used them. They were kept in the boxes in a cabinet and never messed with. When I got to using them two of them were DOA. Hitec replaced them both without a problem. They did say they didn't feel obligated since they were far out of warranty and they were doing it as a kindness and that was fine with me. I didn't expect them to replace them but they did the right thing. I really like Hitec products anyway and that kind of service means a couple bad servos didn't scare me from their products.
05-28-2013, 10:35 PM
#43
RE: If you crash...
ORIGINAL: PhilYabelli
Do you have the right to expect the manufacturer of the airframe to replace your engines, if the crash was the fault of the airframe?
No mentioning brands, no flame war, just the single question.
Do you have the right to expect the manufacturer of the airframe to replace your engines, if the crash was the fault of the airframe?
No mentioning brands, no flame war, just the single question.
Hi,
You have the right to expect it, but whether or not you'll get is doubtful.... and you have to assume accept that when you fly. That's part of the chance you take. But to answer your question, no, you shouldn't realistically expect that (any more than you should expect an undercover dealer to prove his identity when challenged to do so after you catch him in a lie).
Got a turbine waiver, Phil? If so, what name is it under?
05-28-2013, 11:02 PM
#44
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Honolulu,
HI
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
I say No
From a purely business point of view do you really think that a business model selling these planes at these prices would support this sort of policy?
From the stand point of mfg.'s making these ARF planes, If they had to replace your turbine if you crash due a airframe defect, I strongly believe we would all be scratch building very soon.
I don't think that many of these models are built every year, nothing close to motorcycles, quads, or other recreational types of vehicles, I really don't think it would be worth staying in business if this is what was expected of them.
Maybe if the Mfg's could sponsor or create a standard (stab pivot location, spar strength, material usage) to achieve with their models, we as consumers could have more confidence that it will be safe.
I'm really sorry for those who have recently lost equipment due to defective airframes, it does suck. I just want to try to bring some economic reality to the conversation.
From a purely business point of view do you really think that a business model selling these planes at these prices would support this sort of policy?
From the stand point of mfg.'s making these ARF planes, If they had to replace your turbine if you crash due a airframe defect, I strongly believe we would all be scratch building very soon.
I don't think that many of these models are built every year, nothing close to motorcycles, quads, or other recreational types of vehicles, I really don't think it would be worth staying in business if this is what was expected of them.
Maybe if the Mfg's could sponsor or create a standard (stab pivot location, spar strength, material usage) to achieve with their models, we as consumers could have more confidence that it will be safe.
I'm really sorry for those who have recently lost equipment due to defective airframes, it does suck. I just want to try to bring some economic reality to the conversation.
05-28-2013, 11:39 PM
#45
RE: If you crash...
Like it or not model aircraft have always been a risky business, some crash, some don't.
The big difference now is that people are prepared to risk $20K or more, don't ask me why.
As someone said previously if you are not prepared to risk having it return to earth with a
bang leave it on the ground.
I'm teaching a guy to fly with a Hangar 9 P-51 (the one with the goofy LE extensions) that
comes complete with everything to fly it in the one box..
The elevator servo died & you could guess the rest. He wrote a nice email describing
what had happened & the local Oz distributor paid to have it picked up & sent him a new package,
plane, engine, radio - even had to program a new transmitter!
Can't complain about that! - John.
The big difference now is that people are prepared to risk $20K or more, don't ask me why.
As someone said previously if you are not prepared to risk having it return to earth with a
bang leave it on the ground.
If you get anything at all, consider yourself lucky.
comes complete with everything to fly it in the one box..
The elevator servo died & you could guess the rest. He wrote a nice email describing
what had happened & the local Oz distributor paid to have it picked up & sent him a new package,
plane, engine, radio - even had to program a new transmitter!
Can't complain about that! - John.
05-28-2013, 11:47 PM
#46
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sunnyvale,
CA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
This hobby is full of small "enthusiast" companies trying to make a living selling small often innovative products. If we expect them to replace the entire plane when their part has a defect, they'll either go out of business or will be forced to charge higher prices to compensate for the risk.
From my perspective, in a hobby industry like RC, it's therefore not really reasonable to expect vendors to take responsibility for the entire "payload" and offer replacements worth more than the value of the product they sold. Rather, as consumers, we can enforce the "remainder" of our quality expectations by steering away from companies with bad quality products. This mechanism works well as some people have higher/lower quality expectations than others, and are willing/unwilling to possibly pay the higher price often associated with the better design, manufacturing and test. This forum is one of the good places to share our experiences (whether good or bad). It's then up to the manufacturers to show us they sufficiently care about quality/support. If they can't convince a sufficiently high enough number of customers, they'll drive themselves out of business as a result.
From my perspective, in a hobby industry like RC, it's therefore not really reasonable to expect vendors to take responsibility for the entire "payload" and offer replacements worth more than the value of the product they sold. Rather, as consumers, we can enforce the "remainder" of our quality expectations by steering away from companies with bad quality products. This mechanism works well as some people have higher/lower quality expectations than others, and are willing/unwilling to possibly pay the higher price often associated with the better design, manufacturing and test. This forum is one of the good places to share our experiences (whether good or bad). It's then up to the manufacturers to show us they sufficiently care about quality/support. If they can't convince a sufficiently high enough number of customers, they'll drive themselves out of business as a result.
05-29-2013, 01:03 AM
#47
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: harwich, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 709
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
to compare our jets to expensive cars is the wrong thing to do, i know the prices we pay are high but that's because we are being over charged for them they produce these kits for a couple of hundred £$ if you were paying the correct price would you put as much faith in them? if you got a skymaster kit for £200 would you be complaining /expecting to get replacement engines or kits from them, do you think that when you crash a foamie, the answer is no you just move on to the next one.
05-29-2013, 01:48 AM
#48
My Feedback: (53)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
ORIGINAL: PhilYabelli
But did they replace the engine, too? That's what the question is here. They should be responsible for the plane for sure. But what about the engine?
But did they replace the engine, too? That's what the question is here. They should be responsible for the plane for sure. But what about the engine?
05-29-2013, 02:26 AM
#49
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: townsend,
GA
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If you crash...
I say no! But I do have a reason. I work in in corporate and general aviation. General aviation is just about dead; it has been taken out of reach of the regular Joe. One of the contributing factors is the liability placed on manufactures of aircraft and parts which has driven the cost way up. A Cessna 172 might of set you back 15,000 in the mid 70's and now the same plane (newer avionics mind you) will cost you close to 200,000. Our sue happy society has to put the blame on someone and sadly it's usually the people who make the plane. When in reality just about every crash is pilot error. So if you want the manufacture to be liable for your RC plane you better be prepared for things to get real expensive. Imagine having to take your RC Jet to a certified model airplane inspector every year for an annual inspection. How about only being allowed to install certified parts on your plane? By now you have looked at my profile and have discovered that I am not a jet guy. But the loss of a 400.00 plane for me is just as bad. I tell new people to the hobby that you will crash, and if you can't handle the total loss of the plane go collect stamps instead.
05-29-2013, 03:00 AM
#50
RE: If you crash...
You have the right to expect anything your heart desires, but that and a $1.25 may buy you a good cup of coffee if your lucky... This is a hobby and stuff happens from time to time simply because we don't live in a perfect world. Move on...
Bob
Bob
