BANNED: Fly Eagle Jets from Florida Jets
08-25-2014, 10:21 AM
#26
Right, But the fundamental reason for banning FEJ is for safety, If you do this you need to include Skymaster jets too, as well as the older jet legend jets these all have problems and based on the Flordia Jets from the past 4 years have crashed way more than FEJ.
The main problem with FEJ is the lack of testing on their airframes, Not every Airframe they release has problems, and if some applicable mods can be done it can be made safe. This can't be done to all airframes, some airframes simply are not fixable, but most are. If you compare pre-honey comb airframes to skymaster they hardly seem different most of the issues were isolated to retracts/air cylinders. FEJ is not a out of box ready product and that is where the problem lies is inexperienced builders chose to go with the aircraft not knowing where things can fail.
Blanket banning is a slippery slope.
The main problem with FEJ is the lack of testing on their airframes, Not every Airframe they release has problems, and if some applicable mods can be done it can be made safe. This can't be done to all airframes, some airframes simply are not fixable, but most are. If you compare pre-honey comb airframes to skymaster they hardly seem different most of the issues were isolated to retracts/air cylinders. FEJ is not a out of box ready product and that is where the problem lies is inexperienced builders chose to go with the aircraft not knowing where things can fail.
Blanket banning is a slippery slope.
08-25-2014, 10:24 AM
#27
My Feedback: (76)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude, are you blind? Did you not scroll up and see the internals of the "old" pre-honey combed FEJ that I, MYSELF, took xrays of and dismantled?! How can you possibly, possibly, say that their problems were only "isolated to retracts/air cylinders"?!
Wow.
Hey Horse (the would be you Disco), here's the water.
.....toe tapping....waiting for the horse to drink.
And we can all agree that blanket banning is a slippery slope. But banning FEJ is hardly, HARDLY, blanket. Come on.
Wow.
Hey Horse (the would be you Disco), here's the water.
.....toe tapping....waiting for the horse to drink.
And we can all agree that blanket banning is a slippery slope. But banning FEJ is hardly, HARDLY, blanket. Come on.
Go and take xrays of those aircraft. they are not any better or worse. Perhaps all those x-rays have messed with your head? I'll drink water over gamma rays any day.
08-25-2014, 10:25 AM
#28
Im sure the wings are built identically on both size Hawks. Just a blown up version. I wouldn't trust any size.
Lewis had his wings fold on his A7. If more than one model from same manufacture is folding wings, I would be skeptical of any of their wings. They obviously don't know how to build them.
A couple of FEJ crashed at Florida Jets last year. One was a F86 and Im struggling to remember what happened exactly but it was a wing or stab failure.
Scott
Lewis had his wings fold on his A7. If more than one model from same manufacture is folding wings, I would be skeptical of any of their wings. They obviously don't know how to build them.
A couple of FEJ crashed at Florida Jets last year. One was a F86 and Im struggling to remember what happened exactly but it was a wing or stab failure.
Scott
08-25-2014, 10:25 AM
#29
My Feedback: (76)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the CDs prerogative since he is the one taking the risk. There is no slippery slope by banning FEJ. FEJ is the only modern jet manufacturer that constantly ships aircraft that have design flaws without a path to address the problems. Every product can and will have failure, so stop saying it, we know. That's not the point. The competency of the manufacturer and their willingness to improve their product to make it safe is the what matters. In the end the people at FEJ don't give a rats @$$ about you or the modeling community. I hope you were able to sell your Hawk before this happened.
Did you loose your skymaster A-10 yes or no?
08-25-2014, 10:26 AM
#30
My Feedback: (76)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im sure the wings are built identically on both size Hawks. Just a blown up version. I wouldn't trust any size.
Lewis had his wings fold on his A7. If more than one model from same manufacture is folding wings, I would be skeptical of any of their wings. They obviously don't know how to build them.
A couple of FEJ crashed at Florida Jets last year. One was a F86 and Im struggling to remember what happened exactly but it was a wing or stab failure.
Scott
Lewis had his wings fold on his A7. If more than one model from same manufacture is folding wings, I would be skeptical of any of their wings. They obviously don't know how to build them.
A couple of FEJ crashed at Florida Jets last year. One was a F86 and Im struggling to remember what happened exactly but it was a wing or stab failure.
Scott
Do you know if the wings on the BIG hawk were stubs or a wing tube? The A7 didn't use a wing tube, these planes have much weaker wings. But the 1.45 uses a wing tube.
08-25-2014, 10:39 AM
#33
My Feedback: (76)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you better hope your B300F Ultra bandit does not go in because BVM would be on the ban list too, after all if a plane fails from being over powered its the manufacturers fault.
Last edited by DiscoWings; 08-25-2014 at 10:43 AM.
if its not its BVM's fault.
08-25-2014, 10:52 AM
#38
My Feedback: (76)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look all I'm saying is that you should not BLANKET BAN. Out of the box, fine. Ban anyone with a FEJ airframe out of the box with no mods.
If they have done modifications to ensure safety and can show you what has been done at the point that airframe is as good as any other Chinese Airframe, its not going to be as good as European kits (belive me I know, I just got the tomahawk hawk, its years ahead...) but to say its any better or worse than a let legend fei bao is B.S.
I know 4 people personally that have the 1.45 hawk, with a exhaust pipe mod, new stab and elevator mount re-enforcement its as good as a skymaster/jet legend/fai bao.
If they have done modifications to ensure safety and can show you what has been done at the point that airframe is as good as any other Chinese Airframe, its not going to be as good as European kits (belive me I know, I just got the tomahawk hawk, its years ahead...) but to say its any better or worse than a let legend fei bao is B.S.
I know 4 people personally that have the 1.45 hawk, with a exhaust pipe mod, new stab and elevator mount re-enforcement its as good as a skymaster/jet legend/fai bao.
08-25-2014, 10:53 AM
#39
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: san jose,
CA
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fundamentally the Skymasters are built responsibly and different. I've looked inside a couple sets of F-16 wings and they are built very nicely with vertical shear webbing the length of the tapered spar. Very nicely done. I can't see inside the stab but check it often for play and am happy with what I see. The vertical fin, there is a well known fix that works great and BVM issued an addendum as well. FEJs baked goods are not in the same class.
08-25-2014, 11:00 AM
#41
I seem to remember them having holes drilled into a carbon spar for the wings on one of their models. They clearly have no clue about structures. They should banned for that alone. Then we could always get into the honeycomb used in incorrect ways like holes being drilled through it with bolts! This is guaranteed to only make it about 30 flights then come apart.
08-25-2014, 11:03 AM
#42
The wings folded on the Large Hawk, that was more of a prototype and should have had more testing done, but the 1.45 hawk with the updated stab and new pipe is going strong. As for flights, most fliers I know never reach 30-50 as they are either tired of the airframe or it was damaged in a landing/take off because of equipment failure such as a flame out.
08-25-2014, 11:04 AM
#43
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: hicksville,
NY
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone puts a plane in with a known defect whether fixed or not, do you seriously expect that any insurance is going to cover this not to mention the potential liability to the jet organization hosting this event? It all comes down to prior knowledge, Any legal experts out here to comment? There is a myriad of issues with this plane. It is not a question of whether the plane can be made to function properly on a case by case basis subject to the expertise of the builder. It still comes down to a question of what if one goes in. This is a huge liability for the pilot and the airshow people. I don’t think any single person would be able to or would want to write a check for damages if a known defective air frame was put in and caused a death or serious injury.
Look all I'm saying is that you should not BLANKET BAN. Out of the box, fine. Ban anyone with a FEJ airframe out of the box with no mods.
If they have done modifications to ensure safety and can show you what has been done at the point that airframe is as good as any other Chinese Airframe, its not going to be as good as European kits (belive me I know, I just got the tomahawk hawk, its years ahead...) but to say its any better or worse than a let legend fei bao is B.S.
I know 4 people personally that have the 1.45 hawk, with a exhaust pipe mod, new stab and elevator mount re-enforcement its as good as a skymaster/jet legend/fai bao.
If they have done modifications to ensure safety and can show you what has been done at the point that airframe is as good as any other Chinese Airframe, its not going to be as good as European kits (belive me I know, I just got the tomahawk hawk, its years ahead...) but to say its any better or worse than a let legend fei bao is B.S.
I know 4 people personally that have the 1.45 hawk, with a exhaust pipe mod, new stab and elevator mount re-enforcement its as good as a skymaster/jet legend/fai bao.
Last edited by jgracco; 08-25-2014 at 11:07 AM.
08-25-2014, 11:11 AM
#44
Kudos to Frank Tiano; I'm sure it was a difficult decision but it is the safest course of action. We should all agree that safety is the most important thing.
I'm sure that the decision will be unpopular with those folks who own an FEJ model, even if they don't normally attend Florida Jets, as Frank's decision may set a precident and other CD's may issue a similar ban at their events.
We hear from FEJ model owners that they feel they are being singled out and they argue that any model can crash, regardless of the manufacturer. Indeed, Discowings in post #15 is an example. What some folks just don't seem to understand is the concept of risk and probability as applied to the reasons for crashes. Common reasons for crashes include (and I am not listing these in any particular order):
- pilot error
- flameout
- flutter leading to structural failure
- structural failure (overstress)
- structural failure (fatique/age)
- battery failure
- radio failure or interference
- etc, etc, etc
In order to have a succesful flight, a lot of things must work. Failure of any one of them results in an unsuccessful flight (or crash). This can be expressed as:
Crash risk = Risk of pilot making mistake + risk of structural failure + risk of electronic/radio failure + risk of battery failure + risk of turbine failure + etc, etc, etc
Risk is lowest by using an experience pilot, using a proven airframe, using a proven radio system and installation, charged/tested/proven batteries, having a well maintained turbine in a proven installation.
Risk is highest by using an inexperienced pilot, with an unproven airframe, with a untried radio, unknown and untested batteries, and a unmaintained turbine in a untried installation.
To control the risk, you have to control all these individual risk contributors. The AMA has a waiver process and pilots need to remain current. Radio manufacturers all recommend performing range tests. There are many battery charger/cyclers/testers, people oftem perform engine run ups before each flight. These are all attempts to reduce risk.
In this case, we are looking at the airframe. If there is a documented series of issues with a particular jet (such as honeycomb FEJ Hawks which have rather publicly and repeatedly experienced flutter and structural failure), this suggests that there is a problem with the airframe and that problem needs to be addressed. Until such time as it can be shown that the problem has been fixed, and that the risk of structural failure is low, it is advisable not to fly the airplane and certainly not to fly it at a big show with lots of spectators where the potential consequences of a failure may be devastating.
Saying that a person should be allowed to fly their big FEJ honeycomb model at a major event just because it is possible that someone with another airframe/radio/experience level/engine/etc might have a bad day and crash is a ridiculous defense.
Regards,
Jim
P.S.: (To any mathematician/engineering purists out there, yes, I dumbed down the math. We would actually do this calculation my multiplying the individual probabilities of success and then take the reciprical)
I'm sure that the decision will be unpopular with those folks who own an FEJ model, even if they don't normally attend Florida Jets, as Frank's decision may set a precident and other CD's may issue a similar ban at their events.
We hear from FEJ model owners that they feel they are being singled out and they argue that any model can crash, regardless of the manufacturer. Indeed, Discowings in post #15 is an example. What some folks just don't seem to understand is the concept of risk and probability as applied to the reasons for crashes. Common reasons for crashes include (and I am not listing these in any particular order):
- pilot error
- flameout
- flutter leading to structural failure
- structural failure (overstress)
- structural failure (fatique/age)
- battery failure
- radio failure or interference
- etc, etc, etc
In order to have a succesful flight, a lot of things must work. Failure of any one of them results in an unsuccessful flight (or crash). This can be expressed as:
Crash risk = Risk of pilot making mistake + risk of structural failure + risk of electronic/radio failure + risk of battery failure + risk of turbine failure + etc, etc, etc
Risk is lowest by using an experience pilot, using a proven airframe, using a proven radio system and installation, charged/tested/proven batteries, having a well maintained turbine in a proven installation.
Risk is highest by using an inexperienced pilot, with an unproven airframe, with a untried radio, unknown and untested batteries, and a unmaintained turbine in a untried installation.
To control the risk, you have to control all these individual risk contributors. The AMA has a waiver process and pilots need to remain current. Radio manufacturers all recommend performing range tests. There are many battery charger/cyclers/testers, people oftem perform engine run ups before each flight. These are all attempts to reduce risk.
In this case, we are looking at the airframe. If there is a documented series of issues with a particular jet (such as honeycomb FEJ Hawks which have rather publicly and repeatedly experienced flutter and structural failure), this suggests that there is a problem with the airframe and that problem needs to be addressed. Until such time as it can be shown that the problem has been fixed, and that the risk of structural failure is low, it is advisable not to fly the airplane and certainly not to fly it at a big show with lots of spectators where the potential consequences of a failure may be devastating.
Saying that a person should be allowed to fly their big FEJ honeycomb model at a major event just because it is possible that someone with another airframe/radio/experience level/engine/etc might have a bad day and crash is a ridiculous defense.
Regards,
Jim
P.S.: (To any mathematician/engineering purists out there, yes, I dumbed down the math. We would actually do this calculation my multiplying the individual probabilities of success and then take the reciprical)
08-25-2014, 11:15 AM
#45
The wings folded on the Large Hawk, that was more of a prototype and should have had more testing done, but the 1.45 hawk with the updated stab and new pipe is going strong. As for flights, most fliers I know never reach 30-50 as they are either tired of the airframe or it was damaged in a landing/take off because of equipment failure such as a flame out.
08-25-2014, 11:27 AM
#46
I applaud Frank for taking this step toward making our hobby a safer one. Enough has already been stated about FEJ and the quality, design flaw and poor customer service issues to justify this ban. It's been over 6 YEARS of weekly to monthly complaints about this company. Yet people who have known about the problems continue to buy them. Now maybe they will think twice if they know that their jets will not be allowed to attend jet rallies.
I think AMA needs to be made aware of this issue and apply an AMA ban on this manufacturer in a similar way that Frank has. The liability is simply to great to ignore. The time of cut rate shotty constructed turbine jet kits is coming to an end. Let this be a warning to other kit manufacturer's that they had better take notice when their products start failing in mass numbers and their customers are screaming to get them to correct the issues. Since the beginning all FEJ has been concerned with is making a profit off this modeling community without any regard for safety or concern for even trying to rectify obvious design flaws. FEJ has been offered numerous FREE consulting by this community who are qualified as structural, or aeronautical engineers. They have been approached by some of the best flyers in the hobby like Ali to even be test pilots for their new jets. All of these things were ignored and FEJ continued to sell sub par, flawed engineered products.
I lost two FEJ jets early on. Once caused FEJ to offer heavier pipes and the other simply went ignored. All of my efforts to raise attention has culminated to this day of recognition that FEJ manufactured jets are dangerous and a menace to our hobby in general. Thank you Frank for taking this bold step. All of us will benefit greatly from this action.
I think AMA needs to be made aware of this issue and apply an AMA ban on this manufacturer in a similar way that Frank has. The liability is simply to great to ignore. The time of cut rate shotty constructed turbine jet kits is coming to an end. Let this be a warning to other kit manufacturer's that they had better take notice when their products start failing in mass numbers and their customers are screaming to get them to correct the issues. Since the beginning all FEJ has been concerned with is making a profit off this modeling community without any regard for safety or concern for even trying to rectify obvious design flaws. FEJ has been offered numerous FREE consulting by this community who are qualified as structural, or aeronautical engineers. They have been approached by some of the best flyers in the hobby like Ali to even be test pilots for their new jets. All of these things were ignored and FEJ continued to sell sub par, flawed engineered products.
I lost two FEJ jets early on. Once caused FEJ to offer heavier pipes and the other simply went ignored. All of my efforts to raise attention has culminated to this day of recognition that FEJ manufactured jets are dangerous and a menace to our hobby in general. Thank you Frank for taking this bold step. All of us will benefit greatly from this action.
Last edited by AndyAndrews; 08-25-2014 at 11:37 AM.
08-25-2014, 11:28 AM
#47
What does it matter how or what they used for wing attachment? Lewis' A7 had a HOLE drilled through the carbon wing attachment rod near the root of the wing where stress' will be highest. That alone should be enough of a red flag on FEJ's knowledge (lack of actually) on structures and stress propogation/distribution that Nothing in any of their models should be trusted.
Granted some of their models are flying successfully, but I would bet that is more on luck or copying another manufacturers structural design than it is based on knowledge snd engineering calculations.
Does it suck being the owner of one of these models and seeing one of your models being banned just because it is from a certain manufacturer. Yea im sure it does. But ALL of this could of been avoided. All FEJ had to do was issue an addendum or statement suggesting ALL off their models with known structural defects (and they themselves provide that list of models) be grounded until further notice while they actively determine a fix AND test that fix thoroughly.
But that never happened for any number of reasons none of us will probably ever know or understand, but i wouldnt doubt that one of them was because they had their fanboys in the internet cheerleading on "how great his new "insert model here" was and how FEJ has really changed and become a great manufacturer of awesome jets", all the while never even getting past the dry assembly to take a picture of the pretty paintjob.
08-25-2014, 11:51 AM
#49
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CaloundraQueensland , AUSTRALIA
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
HI , well done FRANK,
Three years ago, before anyone new the problems with FEJ's, I tried to give advice to fix some of their problems, only to be shot down.
Where are you now FEJ groupees
Rcpete
RE: Fly Eagle Jet A-10 1/6.25 Build
Three years ago, before anyone new the problems with FEJ's, I tried to give advice to fix some of their problems, only to be shot down.
Where are you now FEJ groupees
Rcpete
RE: Fly Eagle Jet A-10 1/6.25 Build
I think you are a sad person if he thinks posting some miss fortune on line. Maybe rcpete you should try and do something constructive with your time it might just make you a better person.
Damo
Damo
SM F-16 1/6 Powered By KingTech K-170F
FEJ BAe Hawk 100 1:4 1/2 Powered By Kingtech K-180G
Next Project For 2014 ???
FEJ BAe Hawk 100 1:4 1/2 Powered By Kingtech K-180G
Next Project For 2014 ???
Hey Rcpete mate brought my A-10 from me finished it off and it's flying with no problems it had about 20 flights now after every flight he check it and finds no problem.
Damo
Last edited by Damo260; 08-25-2014 at 12:06 PM.
08-25-2014, 11:58 AM
#50
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CaloundraQueensland , AUSTRALIA
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
What the heck ever, have you seen the Skymaster A-10? Nacelles failing all because of bad gluing? Skymaster 1/6 F-16 Rudder failure due to flutter, Skymaster Viper wing failure due to BAD glue joint holding the aluminum tab that keeps the wings in place.
Go and take xrays of those aircraft. they are not any better or worse. Perhaps all those x-rays have messed with your head? I'll drink water over gamma rays any day.
Go and take xrays of those aircraft. they are not any better or worse. Perhaps all those x-rays have messed with your head? I'll drink water over gamma rays any day.
Damo
Last edited by Damo260; 08-25-2014 at 12:07 PM.
