Buyers beware, warning!! Aviation jets su-35
04-27-2019, 05:59 AM
#28
Yeah I thought about writing the user wins but at the end of the day we’ve kinda lost a potential great looking SU35 to buy and it’s divided people’s opinions about companies so not great situation
04-27-2019, 12:36 PM
#29
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,469
Received 26 Likes
on
24 Posts
Well said...
Hello everyone, my name is Carrie Lau, director of operations at Global Jet Club and owner of Banana Hobby. As a vendor in this small RC market for over 13 years, we have always treated and will continue to treat every vendor as a colleague in our industry. We have never and will not talk or ever post any negativity towards any company anywhere. This is a common mutual respect that I believe any person in charge and or whom owns a company should abide with. @ Pacific RC Jets Dirk, you have just taken your experience with the SU-35 and Aviation Jets to a public media outlet and posted our names and directed comments towards us as well as accusations that have no validity. Your experience with the SU-35 is exactly as that. ‘Your Experience’. A public announcement, warning customers in regards to Global Jet Club and Banana Hobby carrying Aviation Jets products we believe to be a below the belt post. We are also not here to play the he said she said games. It was the decision of Pacific RC Jets to decline and drop relations with Aviation Jets. You shared your side of your experience with the SU-35 and it was written without the context of what your conversation with Mark at Aviation Jets included. You did not mention the main wing area bolts were over tightened and the area threads have stripped by the person assembling the SU for flight. Having known it was over tightened and the threads have been compromised, why did you then choose to fly the aircraft? When this incident occurred with the wing failure, you also did not mention this was your 8th flight on the SU-35 was it not? As you have pointed out with the flaws of the SU-35, knowing the wing/frame area has been compromised and is a key structural area, why was the SU-35 taken to the sky again? We are not here to have any debates with your company. When you choose to use our personal names, we are intitled to speak our side. Aircraft KITS never meet every pilot’s requirements and each person/pilot/builder will have his or her own opinions. The SU-35 does not have the issues you have discussed here. The materials used on the aircraft are to be used within the tolerance of the area and material.
Next brings us to the topic of the Sparrow. Again, we are not here to argue who said what and who has the rights the product. It is very simple. There is really no reason to threaten us and our potential patrons with a “law suit”. That is just uncalled for and unprofessional. It is evident you and your company are upset with Aviation Jets and Mark’s decision to seek other vendors when your company ceased to be associated with them. At any given time, you could have reached out to us and Mike Lin as Mike has written in his reply as well. A public service announcement on your Facebook page is really quite ‘Junior High Schoolish’. The Sparrow, if it was designed by Barry and he own’s the rights for the sales and distribution, please reach out to us with the documentation showing your and his claims. We really have no interest in turning this into a political and or escalate to a legal level. Just present us the document(s) showing the Sparrow design ownership is that solely of Barry Hou and we will not carry or sell the Sparrow.
In your post here, the entire contents of you telling your side with the amount spent on projects, etc, should be a discussion that is between you and Aviation Jets held in private. Taking your displeasure with your relations with Aviation Jets and posting the details coming from one side, your side, is pretty unfair. All your rant with courts and lawsuits is just as you have stated and I quote, “Sorry to have to bring this to the internet like we are airing dirty laundry, but we feel it is important that the community knows how these people operate.” It is just as you have written. Dirty Laundry. “We feel it is important that the community knows how these people operate” Here is how we operate. We run our business with class and integrity. We treat every person, pilot, vendor with respect and courtesy. We will continue to provide our hobby industry with exceptional values and great products. We will provide the highest level of experience and product value with goals set on always sourcing and listening to our patrons to bring to our market the best in RC products and at fair price.
With Best Regards,
Carrie Lau
Director of Operations
Global Jet Club
Owner
Banana Hobby
Next brings us to the topic of the Sparrow. Again, we are not here to argue who said what and who has the rights the product. It is very simple. There is really no reason to threaten us and our potential patrons with a “law suit”. That is just uncalled for and unprofessional. It is evident you and your company are upset with Aviation Jets and Mark’s decision to seek other vendors when your company ceased to be associated with them. At any given time, you could have reached out to us and Mike Lin as Mike has written in his reply as well. A public service announcement on your Facebook page is really quite ‘Junior High Schoolish’. The Sparrow, if it was designed by Barry and he own’s the rights for the sales and distribution, please reach out to us with the documentation showing your and his claims. We really have no interest in turning this into a political and or escalate to a legal level. Just present us the document(s) showing the Sparrow design ownership is that solely of Barry Hou and we will not carry or sell the Sparrow.
In your post here, the entire contents of you telling your side with the amount spent on projects, etc, should be a discussion that is between you and Aviation Jets held in private. Taking your displeasure with your relations with Aviation Jets and posting the details coming from one side, your side, is pretty unfair. All your rant with courts and lawsuits is just as you have stated and I quote, “Sorry to have to bring this to the internet like we are airing dirty laundry, but we feel it is important that the community knows how these people operate.” It is just as you have written. Dirty Laundry. “We feel it is important that the community knows how these people operate” Here is how we operate. We run our business with class and integrity. We treat every person, pilot, vendor with respect and courtesy. We will continue to provide our hobby industry with exceptional values and great products. We will provide the highest level of experience and product value with goals set on always sourcing and listening to our patrons to bring to our market the best in RC products and at fair price.
With Best Regards,
Carrie Lau
Director of Operations
Global Jet Club
Owner
Banana Hobby
Very well said indeed.
JanR
04-27-2019, 01:17 PM
#30
Jan, I thought we finally built you Futaba telemetry for a while already, still holding it against me? lol
Otherwise, be my guest and treat yourself with a global av sukhoi.
Otherwise, be my guest and treat yourself with a global av sukhoi.
04-28-2019, 09:36 PM
#33
Thread Starter
I think it’s unfair for Pacific rc to go after GJC just because you guys fell out with aviation jets, especially since you guys were doing all the promoting of the product and even posted and said it was thoroughly tested it and said it was available to purchase. What if another dealers T one jets had a failure then started publicly going after Pacific rc for selling them then threatening them and their customers with a lawsuit over a aircraft design... doesn’t look great.
I feel like you guys should have just warned people about the SU35 and left it at that publicly and spoke to GJC in private. Just my opinion
I feel like you guys should have just warned people about the SU35 and left it at that publicly and spoke to GJC in private. Just my opinion
Please go back and read my original post. Yes, our first impression was the jet was performing good. After a few more flights, the thread of the wing clamp stripped (not because of cross threading, but because of inferior material and possibly bad workmanship from the factory, regardless, when confronted, Jaing Yi admitted they had found the same problems in China) and that was not the end of the world because we found the problems before one of our customers would have to loose a jet. There was a field repair to install a larger self tapping screw in the pinch clamp before it was flown and we really don't think the pinch clamp alone is the reason for a wing failure. Flaws are to be expected on new aircraft and we are willing to take those risks before we assume they are good to sell. The problem came when Aviation Jets refused to fixed the problems and wanted us to sell all the kits already produced. I informed everyone about our failure, and the fact, that the Factory knew about it before they shipped our SU-35 and didn't think it was necessary to tell us. When we talked about a fix, they refused to fix the issue with the SU-35 before delivering our customers jets and wanted us to continue to take orders. That is when we declined to sell this jet. Obviously you don't know who we are and what we stand for at Pacific RC Jets. We are not some Dealer that will sell anything just to make a buck off of you and turn a blind eye to sell a known defective product. We fly what we sell and use ancillary products we sell in our own jets. Anytime a new jet is coming out, ourselves or someone from our team will thoroughly test it in order to optimize your experience of success.
My comment about GJC was purely that they are claiming the Sparrow, designed by my partner Barry Hou to be their "Global Jet Club Sparrow", like they designed and paid to have it built. We clearly spec'd out the design to Aviation Jets, paid Aviation Jets $15,000 to build the mold and produce this jet for Pacific RC exclusively. We also gave permission for Aviation Jets to sell the Sparrow in China only and they agreed. GJC is basically stealing our design and claiming it as their own, and I have a HUGE problem with that!! If GJC wants to pay us for the design rights and name and return our initial investment of $15,000, they can contact us to talk about it. Mike Lin claims to have a Aeronautical Engineering Degree, well maybe he should design his own jets and claim them as Global Jet club what ever. Why don't you put some time and effort into designing a product, pay to have it manufactured and have it back doored to another company and have them claim it as their own product......
I never attacked GJC or Carrie with Banana Hobby for selling AV Jets, as I personally don't give a crap that they are selling AV jets or any other manufacturers jets. GJC can promote and sell the inferior SU-35 all they want and they will have to deal with their customers issues, that is their choice. Claiming they have seen the SU-35 perform cobra maneuvers and that makes it a solid air frame is ridiculous. Watch the video, and you will see the cobra maneuver is to be entered in a very slow airspeed in order for the thrust vectoring to "kick" the jet up and over at a very little G force. The whole flight they are flying the jet like a high wing trainer. I encourage them to fly that jet like Kris Gunter flew our prototype T-One F-22 at Florida jets or Barry flying our West coast prototype and lets see how the SU performs. I can tell you Barry flew the SU-35 like most of our customers will fly it, and the bottom line is "it failed".
If another Dealer or customer wanted to get on the forum and bash us because of a T-One jet, you will find we welcome and encourage customer suggestions, as T-One is very pro active to make changes to improve their products. SkyMaster may be slow at building jets at this time, but if they have a bad design and are informed about it, they will also fix it before it gets sold to another customer and they also take care of business fast and professionally.
Pacific RC Jets is very selective of who's and what products we sell. Again, we are not in business to sell anything and everything just to make a buck. When we have issues that a factory is not willing to resolve, we will drop them and move on.
Regards,
Dirk
Pacific RC Jets
Last edited by flejter1; 04-28-2019 at 10:05 PM.
04-28-2019, 10:45 PM
#34
Mikey5547,
Please go back and read my original post. Yes, our first impression was the jet was performing good. After a few more flights, the thread of the wing clamp stripped (not because of cross threading, but because of inferior material and possibly bad workmanship from the factory, regardless, when confronted, Jaing Yi admitted they had found the same problems in China) and that was not the end of the world because we found the problems before one of our customers would have to loose a jet. There was a field repair to install a larger self tapping screw in the pinch clamp before it was flown and we really don't think the pinch clamp alone is the reason for a wing failure. Flaws are to be expected on new aircraft and we are willing to take those risks before we assume they are good to sell. The problem came when Aviation Jets refused to fixed the problems and wanted us to sell all the kits already produced. I informed everyone about our failure, and the fact, that the Factory knew about it before they shipped our SU-35 and didn't think it was necessary to tell us. When we talked about a fix, they refused to fix the issue with the SU-35 before delivering our customers jets and wanted us to continue to take orders. That is when we declined to sell this jet. Obviously you don't know who we are and what we stand for at Pacific RC Jets. We are not some Dealer that will sell anything just to make a buck off of you and turn a blind eye to sell a known defective product. We fly what we sell and use ancillary products we sell in our own jets. Anytime a new jet is coming out, ourselves or someone from our team will thoroughly test it in order to optimize your experience of success.
My comment about GJC was purely that they are claiming the Sparrow, designed by my partner Barry Hou to be their "Global Jet Club Sparrow", like they designed and paid to have it built. We clearly spec'd out the design to Aviation Jets, paid Aviation Jets $15,000 to build the mold and produce this jet for Pacific RC exclusively. We also gave permission for Aviation Jets to sell the Sparrow in China only and they agreed. GJC is basically stealing our design and claiming it as their own, and I have a HUGE problem with that!! If GJC wants to pay us for the design rights and name and return our initial investment of $15,000, they can contact us to talk about it. Mike Lin claims to have a Aeronautical Engineering Degree, well maybe he should design his own jets and claim them as Global Jet club what ever. Why don't you put some time and effort into designing a product, pay to have it manufactured and have it back doored to another company and have them claim it as their own product......
I never attacked GJC or Carrie with Banana Hobby for selling AV Jets, as I personally don't give a crap that they are selling AV jets or any other manufacturers jets. GJC can promote and sell the inferior SU-35 all they want and they will have to deal with their customers issues, that is their choice. Claiming they have seen the SU-35 perform cobra maneuvers and that makes it a solid air frame is ridiculous. Watch the video, and you will see the cobra maneuver is to be entered in a very slow airspeed in order for the thrust vectoring to "kick" the jet up and over at a very little G force. The whole flight they are flying the jet like a high wing trainer. I encourage them to fly that jet like Kris Gunter flew our prototype T-One F-22 at Florida jets or Barry flying our West coast prototype and lets see how the SU performs. I can tell you Barry flew the SU-35 like most of our customers will fly it, and the bottom line is "it failed".
If another Dealer or customer wanted to get on the forum and bash us because of a T-One jet, you will find we welcome and encourage customer suggestions, as T-One is very pro active to make changes to improve their products. SkyMaster may be slow at building jets at this time, but if they have a bad design and are informed about it, they will also fix it before it gets sold to another customer and they also take care of business fast and professionally.
Pacific RC Jets is very selective of who's and what products we sell. Again, we are not in business to sell anything and everything just to make a buck. When we have issues that a factory is not willing to resolve, we will drop them and move on.
Regards,
Dirk
Pacific RC Jets
Please go back and read my original post. Yes, our first impression was the jet was performing good. After a few more flights, the thread of the wing clamp stripped (not because of cross threading, but because of inferior material and possibly bad workmanship from the factory, regardless, when confronted, Jaing Yi admitted they had found the same problems in China) and that was not the end of the world because we found the problems before one of our customers would have to loose a jet. There was a field repair to install a larger self tapping screw in the pinch clamp before it was flown and we really don't think the pinch clamp alone is the reason for a wing failure. Flaws are to be expected on new aircraft and we are willing to take those risks before we assume they are good to sell. The problem came when Aviation Jets refused to fixed the problems and wanted us to sell all the kits already produced. I informed everyone about our failure, and the fact, that the Factory knew about it before they shipped our SU-35 and didn't think it was necessary to tell us. When we talked about a fix, they refused to fix the issue with the SU-35 before delivering our customers jets and wanted us to continue to take orders. That is when we declined to sell this jet. Obviously you don't know who we are and what we stand for at Pacific RC Jets. We are not some Dealer that will sell anything just to make a buck off of you and turn a blind eye to sell a known defective product. We fly what we sell and use ancillary products we sell in our own jets. Anytime a new jet is coming out, ourselves or someone from our team will thoroughly test it in order to optimize your experience of success.
My comment about GJC was purely that they are claiming the Sparrow, designed by my partner Barry Hou to be their "Global Jet Club Sparrow", like they designed and paid to have it built. We clearly spec'd out the design to Aviation Jets, paid Aviation Jets $15,000 to build the mold and produce this jet for Pacific RC exclusively. We also gave permission for Aviation Jets to sell the Sparrow in China only and they agreed. GJC is basically stealing our design and claiming it as their own, and I have a HUGE problem with that!! If GJC wants to pay us for the design rights and name and return our initial investment of $15,000, they can contact us to talk about it. Mike Lin claims to have a Aeronautical Engineering Degree, well maybe he should design his own jets and claim them as Global Jet club what ever. Why don't you put some time and effort into designing a product, pay to have it manufactured and have it back doored to another company and have them claim it as their own product......
I never attacked GJC or Carrie with Banana Hobby for selling AV Jets, as I personally don't give a crap that they are selling AV jets or any other manufacturers jets. GJC can promote and sell the inferior SU-35 all they want and they will have to deal with their customers issues, that is their choice. Claiming they have seen the SU-35 perform cobra maneuvers and that makes it a solid air frame is ridiculous. Watch the video, and you will see the cobra maneuver is to be entered in a very slow airspeed in order for the thrust vectoring to "kick" the jet up and over at a very little G force. The whole flight they are flying the jet like a high wing trainer. I encourage them to fly that jet like Kris Gunter flew our prototype T-One F-22 at Florida jets or Barry flying our West coast prototype and lets see how the SU performs. I can tell you Barry flew the SU-35 like most of our customers will fly it, and the bottom line is "it failed".
If another Dealer or customer wanted to get on the forum and bash us because of a T-One jet, you will find we welcome and encourage customer suggestions, as T-One is very pro active to make changes to improve their products. SkyMaster may be slow at building jets at this time, but if they have a bad design and are informed about it, they will also fix it before it gets sold to another customer and they also take care of business fast and professionally.
Pacific RC Jets is very selective of who's and what products we sell. Again, we are not in business to sell anything and everything just to make a buck. When we have issues that a factory is not willing to resolve, we will drop them and move on.
Regards,
Dirk
Pacific RC Jets
04-29-2019, 03:58 AM
#35
My Feedback: (67)
Mikey5547,
Please go back and read my original post. Yes, our first impression was the jet was performing good. After a few more flights, the thread of the wing clamp stripped (not because of cross threading, but because of inferior material and possibly bad workmanship from the factory, regardless, when confronted, Jaing Yi admitted they had found the same problems in China) and that was not the end of the world because we found the problems before one of our customers would have to loose a jet. There was a field repair to install a larger self tapping screw in the pinch clamp before it was flown and we really don't think the pinch clamp alone is the reason for a wing failure. Flaws are to be expected on new aircraft and we are willing to take those risks before we assume they are good to sell. The problem came when Aviation Jets refused to fixed the problems and wanted us to sell all the kits already produced. I informed everyone about our failure, and the fact, that the Factory knew about it before they shipped our SU-35 and didn't think it was necessary to tell us. When we talked about a fix, they refused to fix the issue with the SU-35 before delivering our customers jets and wanted us to continue to take orders. That is when we declined to sell this jet. Obviously you don't know who we are and what we stand for at Pacific RC Jets. We are not some Dealer that will sell anything just to make a buck off of you and turn a blind eye to sell a known defective product. We fly what we sell and use ancillary products we sell in our own jets. Anytime a new jet is coming out, ourselves or someone from our team will thoroughly test it in order to optimize your experience of success.
My comment about GJC was purely that they are claiming the Sparrow, designed by my partner Barry Hou to be their "Global Jet Club Sparrow", like they designed and paid to have it built. We clearly spec'd out the design to Aviation Jets, paid Aviation Jets $15,000 to build the mold and produce this jet for Pacific RC exclusively. We also gave permission for Aviation Jets to sell the Sparrow in China only and they agreed. GJC is basically stealing our design and claiming it as their own, and I have a HUGE problem with that!! If GJC wants to pay us for the design rights and name and return our initial investment of $15,000, they can contact us to talk about it. Mike Lin claims to have a Aeronautical Engineering Degree, well maybe he should design his own jets and claim them as Global Jet club what ever. Why don't you put some time and effort into designing a product, pay to have it manufactured and have it back doored to another company and have them claim it as their own product......
I never attacked GJC or Carrie with Banana Hobby for selling AV Jets, as I personally don't give a crap that they are selling AV jets or any other manufacturers jets. GJC can promote and sell the inferior SU-35 all they want and they will have to deal with their customers issues, that is their choice. Claiming they have seen the SU-35 perform cobra maneuvers and that makes it a solid air frame is ridiculous. Watch the video, and you will see the cobra maneuver is to be entered in a very slow airspeed in order for the thrust vectoring to "kick" the jet up and over at a very little G force. The whole flight they are flying the jet like a high wing trainer. I encourage them to fly that jet like Kris Gunter flew our prototype T-One F-22 at Florida jets or Barry flying our West coast prototype and lets see how the SU performs. I can tell you Barry flew the SU-35 like most of our customers will fly it, and the bottom line is "it failed".
If another Dealer or customer wanted to get on the forum and bash us because of a T-One jet, you will find we welcome and encourage customer suggestions, as T-One is very pro active to make changes to improve their products. SkyMaster may be slow at building jets at this time, but if they have a bad design and are informed about it, they will also fix it before it gets sold to another customer and they also take care of business fast and professionally.
Pacific RC Jets is very selective of who's and what products we sell. Again, we are not in business to sell anything and everything just to make a buck. When we have issues that a factory is not willing to resolve, we will drop them and move on.
Regards,
Dirk
Pacific RC Jets
Please go back and read my original post. Yes, our first impression was the jet was performing good. After a few more flights, the thread of the wing clamp stripped (not because of cross threading, but because of inferior material and possibly bad workmanship from the factory, regardless, when confronted, Jaing Yi admitted they had found the same problems in China) and that was not the end of the world because we found the problems before one of our customers would have to loose a jet. There was a field repair to install a larger self tapping screw in the pinch clamp before it was flown and we really don't think the pinch clamp alone is the reason for a wing failure. Flaws are to be expected on new aircraft and we are willing to take those risks before we assume they are good to sell. The problem came when Aviation Jets refused to fixed the problems and wanted us to sell all the kits already produced. I informed everyone about our failure, and the fact, that the Factory knew about it before they shipped our SU-35 and didn't think it was necessary to tell us. When we talked about a fix, they refused to fix the issue with the SU-35 before delivering our customers jets and wanted us to continue to take orders. That is when we declined to sell this jet. Obviously you don't know who we are and what we stand for at Pacific RC Jets. We are not some Dealer that will sell anything just to make a buck off of you and turn a blind eye to sell a known defective product. We fly what we sell and use ancillary products we sell in our own jets. Anytime a new jet is coming out, ourselves or someone from our team will thoroughly test it in order to optimize your experience of success.
My comment about GJC was purely that they are claiming the Sparrow, designed by my partner Barry Hou to be their "Global Jet Club Sparrow", like they designed and paid to have it built. We clearly spec'd out the design to Aviation Jets, paid Aviation Jets $15,000 to build the mold and produce this jet for Pacific RC exclusively. We also gave permission for Aviation Jets to sell the Sparrow in China only and they agreed. GJC is basically stealing our design and claiming it as their own, and I have a HUGE problem with that!! If GJC wants to pay us for the design rights and name and return our initial investment of $15,000, they can contact us to talk about it. Mike Lin claims to have a Aeronautical Engineering Degree, well maybe he should design his own jets and claim them as Global Jet club what ever. Why don't you put some time and effort into designing a product, pay to have it manufactured and have it back doored to another company and have them claim it as their own product......
I never attacked GJC or Carrie with Banana Hobby for selling AV Jets, as I personally don't give a crap that they are selling AV jets or any other manufacturers jets. GJC can promote and sell the inferior SU-35 all they want and they will have to deal with their customers issues, that is their choice. Claiming they have seen the SU-35 perform cobra maneuvers and that makes it a solid air frame is ridiculous. Watch the video, and you will see the cobra maneuver is to be entered in a very slow airspeed in order for the thrust vectoring to "kick" the jet up and over at a very little G force. The whole flight they are flying the jet like a high wing trainer. I encourage them to fly that jet like Kris Gunter flew our prototype T-One F-22 at Florida jets or Barry flying our West coast prototype and lets see how the SU performs. I can tell you Barry flew the SU-35 like most of our customers will fly it, and the bottom line is "it failed".
If another Dealer or customer wanted to get on the forum and bash us because of a T-One jet, you will find we welcome and encourage customer suggestions, as T-One is very pro active to make changes to improve their products. SkyMaster may be slow at building jets at this time, but if they have a bad design and are informed about it, they will also fix it before it gets sold to another customer and they also take care of business fast and professionally.
Pacific RC Jets is very selective of who's and what products we sell. Again, we are not in business to sell anything and everything just to make a buck. When we have issues that a factory is not willing to resolve, we will drop them and move on.
Regards,
Dirk
Pacific RC Jets
Your accusation of GJC "Steal" the design is going to put you in a very bad legal situation. You should check with Barry on the contract you had with AV. We didn't say GJC design the plane. Private label is a common practice in any business. Also you don't have the right to the Sparrow any more as the terms and conditions in your contract with AV were not met. You were required per contract to sell a monthly minimum quantity of 10 per month for 2 years (200 kits). How many have you sold over the past 3 years? You didnt pay them $15,000. You only put $11,000 per contractual agreement as deposit for the joint development of this project (read your contract). Then the deposit is to be spread over to each plane you sold. AV claimed that they design the plane and have the original ownership of it. Prove your ownership of Sparrow. Even if it's your design, then Barry was OK to have GJC selling the Sparrow. You should work out your licensing deal with AV and don't target dealers or customers who buy planes from your "contractual" partner. Your true intent is to smear GJC and AV after your deal with AV fell out. Why don't we let AV speak their view point. I am sure they have their stance. Your biggest problem is the way you handle the situation by dragging unrelated parties into the whole thing with your childish accusation.
Mike
04-29-2019, 06:31 AM
#36
What I learned in this thread: GJC is still around. Stopped seeing them at any meets over the last few years and had been told by people way more in the know than myself that they were officially gone, apparently that is not the case.
04-29-2019, 12:20 PM
#38
Hi Dirk,
Your accusation of GJC "Steal" the design is going to put you in a very bad legal situation. You should check with Barry on the contract you had with AV. We didn't say GJC design the plane. Private label is a common practice in any business. Also you don't have the right to the Sparrow any more as the terms and conditions in your contract with AV were not met. You were required per contract to sell a monthly minimum quantity of 10 per month for 2 years (200 kits). How many have you sold over the past 3 years? You didnt pay them $15,000. You only put $11,000 per contractual agreement as deposit for the joint development of this project (read your contract). Then the deposit is to be spread over to each plane you sold. AV claimed that they design the plane and have the original ownership of it. Prove your ownership of Sparrow. Even if it's your design, then Barry was OK to have GJC selling the Sparrow. You should work out your licensing deal with AV and don't target dealers or customers who buy planes from your "contractual" partner. Your true intent is to smear GJC and AV after your deal with AV fell out. Why don't we let AV speak their view point. I am sure they have their stance. Your biggest problem is the way you handle the situation by dragging unrelated parties into the whole thing with your childish accusation.
Mike
Cheers,
Barry
04-29-2019, 09:26 PM
#39
My Feedback: (67)
Mike, I believe the more you defend on behalf of AV the more you are subjecting yourself into the dispute between AV and Pacific. Some of the terms and conditions that you are portraying on behalf of AV was acknowledged, but never agreed by us (show me a signed agreement by either Dirk or myself), nor was there ever an agreement for a minimum sale volume to be met. Meanwhile, Dirk's cousin David is already working a the patent of the Sparrow and would cost us nearly nothing to file, and as for now, consider this a friendly cease and desist notification from us.
Cheers,
Barry
Cheers,
Barry
Your dispute is with AV not with GJC. You asked me to buy your A-10 right. I told you I didn’t want to get involved in your past deal with AV. You and Dirk dragged GJC into this posting first and accused us “steal” your design? How can we steal when you ok us to sell it? You have obviously provided input into the design of Sparrow, so did AV. I did many projects like that with other factories but I don’t claim that these planes are solely ours. Even if you try to patent it, you must submit it within one year of release or it’s a prior art. Anyway, if you want to know more about patent I would refer you to my law firm partners who specialize in IP. Anyway. I wish you and AV can find amicable solutions, as I am more interested in growing jet community. I respect you all these years as I can see your passions in this and your contribution to the Jet community by offering a turbine brand coming from my home country.
By the way, we are always active, we are at Jet Power and other events and remain active even though I had been side tracked to other aviation projects in the past. Cheers from our team.
We hope you can resolve your issues with AV so we can all focus on a more value added endeavor in RC community.
Mike
By
04-30-2019, 01:54 PM
#40
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,469
Received 26 Likes
on
24 Posts
Well considered....
Cheers,
JanR
04-30-2019, 05:30 PM
#41
Mike, doesn't matter how much I had reached out to you to extend my indulgence, but since things took a turn with your involvement with AV, I would only advise you to stay away from both of these projects until further notice from us. You have plenty of resources and surely you can make them successful without encroaching into our projects that are in dispute.
Meanwhile, this thread was intended to warn people about the potential problems we have encountered firsthand with the SU-35. On this note, Dirk and I received report from China that at least four AV SU-35 crashed within this past month and a half (not sure if this number is counting the ones crashed by AV themselves), purportedly none due to pilot error. Two of which attributed to structural issues most likely the wing area, and the other two crashed due to unknown reasons. As I said before, I do welcome their revision and improvement before being released.
Regards,
Barry
Meanwhile, this thread was intended to warn people about the potential problems we have encountered firsthand with the SU-35. On this note, Dirk and I received report from China that at least four AV SU-35 crashed within this past month and a half (not sure if this number is counting the ones crashed by AV themselves), purportedly none due to pilot error. Two of which attributed to structural issues most likely the wing area, and the other two crashed due to unknown reasons. As I said before, I do welcome their revision and improvement before being released.
Regards,
Barry
04-30-2019, 09:04 PM
#44
So long time ago in 2011 doing the jet world masters I witnessed the new shockwave testing by Dave Schulman and the jet actually blown in to pieces in the air doing a super fast inverted positive loop me Dave and my friend Rasol go with the golf cart to pickup all the pieces and I do have the video on my older cell phone but I promise Dave that I’m not going to post the video on YouTube or other public side because ,, David said to me this is the prototype and I’m not going to sale the Jets before it’s tested by me and fixed all the problems with the structure or other stuff ,, I’m not sure if other people witnessed the test flights but I’m telling you that he was pushing the jet to absolute limits like he wanted to see when and what part of the jet is going to break first,Barry was there for the competition with his silver jet I’m not sure what exactly but this was the first time when I met him and the first line of king tech turbine the k-80 and the k-170 so going back to the test flight I think that all the jet building companies should have mandatory flight test with the g force meters and list of figures that is listed according to the Jets not all the same different for sport and different for scale jets similar to Europe sand bags test, but I think that’s completely absurd the jet in the air doesn’t have send baggage on the wings but lots of ripping apart forces air turbulences negative and positive air pressure and lots of g forces, so cudos to Barry to show this problem with this jet to public we need people who not always care how much Jets they sale but how good they are so the don’t have to hide from jet guys like me and you and go to most jet meetings to talk about they new products with confidence , that’s all .and I’m pretty sure if I will try to call Barry or Dirk they will pick up the phone or call back as soon as possible to try solve problems that we all have with some stuff and probably this is about 60-70% of calls they have .my 1.5 cents sorry for the spelling or other,, Chicago public schools 😀 just kidding this is not my first language.
05-01-2019, 08:15 AM
#45
So long time ago in 2011 doing the jet world masters I witnessed the new shockwave testing by Dave Schulman and the jet actually blown in to pieces in the air doing a super fast inverted positive loop me Dave and my friend Rasol go with the golf cart to pickup all the pieces and I do have the video on my older cell phone but I promise Dave that I’m not going to post the video on YouTube or other public side because ,, David said to me this is the prototype and I’m not going to sale the Jets before it’s tested by me and fixed all the problems with the structure or other stuff ,, I’m not sure if other people witnessed the test flights but I’m telling you that he was pushing the jet to absolute limits like he wanted to see when and what part of the jet is going to break first,Barry was there for the competition with his silver jet I’m not sure what exactly but this was the first time when I met him and the first line of king tech turbine the k-80 and the k-170 so going back to the test flight I think that all the jet building companies should have mandatory flight test with the g force meters and list of figures that is listed according to the Jets not all the same different for sport and different for scale jets similar to Europe sand bags test, but I think that’s completely absurd the jet in the air doesn’t have send baggage on the wings but lots of ripping apart forces air turbulences negative and positive air pressure and lots of g forces, so cudos to Barry to show this problem with this jet to public we need people who not always care how much Jets they sale but how good they are so the don’t have to hide from jet guys like me and you and go to most jet meetings to talk about they new products with confidence , that’s all .and I’m pretty sure if I will try to call Barry or Dirk they will pick up the phone or call back as soon as possible to try solve problems that we all have with some stuff and probably this is about 60-70% of calls they have .my 1.5 cents sorry for the spelling or other,, Chicago public schools 😀 just kidding this is not my first language.
05-01-2019, 11:27 AM
#46
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We would like to share our experience with assisting in design of an aircraft with the manufacturer. Our most recent has been a very popular and first in the market, a full flying capable VTOL V-22 Osprey. The big success of the V-22 Osprey has been rooted back to all the data, testing and re-design by our team here in the USA. Due to the success level of our V-22, other big-name vendors followed suit and created a VTOL aircraft around the FC we assisted in developing/testing/programming in our V-22. This vendor has since the released 3 different VTOL aircraft. Although we are a vital part of this project, at no time did we have any agreements on any exclusive patent with our heavy design inputs. We also are not the owners of the aircraft mold. This entire RC industry is small as is and we believe it is important for vendors to support and encourage fellow vendors. We understand this discussion in regards to the Sparrow is on a different par mainly due to the cost of the aircraft. It is just upsetting to see words thrown around like Cease and Desist. It also stands with that most of discussion in regards to Pacific RC Jets and the interaction with the design of the Sparrow has been said and written for everyone to read. As we do understand, Pacific RC Jets did allow Global Jet Club in verbal permission to sell the Sparrow. This incident here is just taking turns that not any company really needs. Pacific RC Jets has stated they are working on the patent currently and has advised Global Jet Club to stay away from these projects until further notice. It really appears Pacific RC Jets need to figure this out with Aviation Jets. When nothing has been concrete, with the information and documentation that has been provided by Aviation Jets, the aircraft's in question here seem to be available for resale by any vendor. Again, we are not taking any sides here. It is just difficult to see this ongoing vengeance.
Back to the SU-35, these production issues Pacific RC Jets have brought up are fairly recent in the previous week or so. If you know and knew of these areas concerning the overall structural integrity of the aircraft, why was a public announcement posted to your Facebook page in February stating the SU-35 has been Thoroughly tested and are available for sale on the Pacific RC Jets website? Again, we are not trying to open any new can of worms here. It seems the posts are taking a turn for towards unfriendly turf and we hate to see it go that route. If any documents are presented, we can take it from there. We are continuing to work with our factories to provide new jet models coming in the near future. We have no problem what-so-ever removing the listings for the Sparrow, the A-10 and the SU-35 from our website. At the point where if any documents are presented showing Pacific RC Jets ownership for these named jets, we will comply with by removing them from our website.
Pacific RC Jets T1 line of aircraft and Kingtech Turbines are great products. We do wish Pacific RC Jets success in continuing to serve the turbine industry. We hope we can work alongside with you to provide excellent products and service for our turbine patrons.
In addition for clarification. Aviation Jets have been a part of the RC jet industry for some time now and in the China RC community from the start, have been abbreviated with AV for Aviation Jets. There really is no specific reason. The abbreviation AV was and is used and have a solid known association with Aviation Jets. At any time when we are speaking with manufacturers and factories such as Pilot RC, Feibao, JP Hobby, HSDJETS, when we mention AV, they know and associate with Aviation Jets. Also, AJ in our RC Industry is associated with a popular brand of RC 3D and Pattern aircraft.
With Best Regards,
Carrie Lau
Director of Operations
Global Jet Club/ACEx Turbines
Owner
Banana Hobby
Back to the SU-35, these production issues Pacific RC Jets have brought up are fairly recent in the previous week or so. If you know and knew of these areas concerning the overall structural integrity of the aircraft, why was a public announcement posted to your Facebook page in February stating the SU-35 has been Thoroughly tested and are available for sale on the Pacific RC Jets website? Again, we are not trying to open any new can of worms here. It seems the posts are taking a turn for towards unfriendly turf and we hate to see it go that route. If any documents are presented, we can take it from there. We are continuing to work with our factories to provide new jet models coming in the near future. We have no problem what-so-ever removing the listings for the Sparrow, the A-10 and the SU-35 from our website. At the point where if any documents are presented showing Pacific RC Jets ownership for these named jets, we will comply with by removing them from our website.
Pacific RC Jets T1 line of aircraft and Kingtech Turbines are great products. We do wish Pacific RC Jets success in continuing to serve the turbine industry. We hope we can work alongside with you to provide excellent products and service for our turbine patrons.
In addition for clarification. Aviation Jets have been a part of the RC jet industry for some time now and in the China RC community from the start, have been abbreviated with AV for Aviation Jets. There really is no specific reason. The abbreviation AV was and is used and have a solid known association with Aviation Jets. At any time when we are speaking with manufacturers and factories such as Pilot RC, Feibao, JP Hobby, HSDJETS, when we mention AV, they know and associate with Aviation Jets. Also, AJ in our RC Industry is associated with a popular brand of RC 3D and Pattern aircraft.
With Best Regards,
Carrie Lau
Director of Operations
Global Jet Club/ACEx Turbines
Owner
Banana Hobby
Last edited by carrie.jet; 05-01-2019 at 01:07 PM.
05-03-2019, 03:56 AM
#47
We would like to share our experience with assisting in design of an aircraft with the manufacturer. Our most recent has been a very popular and first in the market, a full flying capable VTOL V-22 Osprey. The big success of the V-22 Osprey has been rooted back to all the data, testing and re-design by our team here in the USA. Due to the success level of our V-22, other big-name vendors followed suit and created a VTOL aircraft around the FC we assisted in developing/testing/programming in our V-22. This vendor has since the released 3 different VTOL aircraft. Although we are a vital part of this project, at no time did we have any agreements on any exclusive patent with our heavy design inputs. We also are not the owners of the aircraft mold. This entire RC industry is small as is and we believe it is important for vendors to support and encourage fellow vendors. We understand this discussion in regards to the Sparrow is on a different par mainly due to the cost of the aircraft. It is just upsetting to see words thrown around like Cease and Desist. It also stands with that most of discussion in regards to Pacific RC Jets and the interaction with the design of the Sparrow has been said and written for everyone to read. As we do understand, Pacific RC Jets did allow Global Jet Club in verbal permission to sell the Sparrow. This incident here is just taking turns that not any company really needs. Pacific RC Jets has stated they are working on the patent currently and has advised Global Jet Club to stay away from these projects until further notice. It really appears Pacific RC Jets need to figure this out with Aviation Jets. When nothing has been concrete, with the information and documentation that has been provided by Aviation Jets, the aircraft's in question here seem to be available for resale by any vendor. Again, we are not taking any sides here. It is just difficult to see this ongoing vengeance.
Back to the SU-35, these production issues Pacific RC Jets have brought up are fairly recent in the previous week or so. If you know and knew of these areas concerning the overall structural integrity of the aircraft, why was a public announcement posted to your Facebook page in February stating the SU-35 has been Thoroughly tested and are available for sale on the Pacific RC Jets website? Again, we are not trying to open any new can of worms here. It seems the posts are taking a turn for towards unfriendly turf and we hate to see it go that route. If any documents are presented, we can take it from there. We are continuing to work with our factories to provide new jet models coming in the near future. We have no problem what-so-ever removing the listings for the Sparrow, the A-10 and the SU-35 from our website. At the point where if any documents are presented showing Pacific RC Jets ownership for these named jets, we will comply with by removing them from our website.
Pacific RC Jets T1 line of aircraft and Kingtech Turbines are great products. We do wish Pacific RC Jets success in continuing to serve the turbine industry. We hope we can work alongside with you to provide excellent products and service for our turbine patrons.
In addition for clarification. Aviation Jets have been a part of the RC jet industry for some time now and in the China RC community from the start, have been abbreviated with AV for Aviation Jets. There really is no specific reason. The abbreviation AV was and is used and have a solid known association with Aviation Jets. At any time when we are speaking with manufacturers and factories such as Pilot RC, Feibao, JP Hobby, HSDJETS, when we mention AV, they know and associate with Aviation Jets. Also, AJ in our RC Industry is associated with a popular brand of RC 3D and Pattern aircraft.
With Best Regards,
Carrie Lau
Director of Operations
Global Jet Club/ACEx Turbines
Owner
Banana Hobby
Back to the SU-35, these production issues Pacific RC Jets have brought up are fairly recent in the previous week or so. If you know and knew of these areas concerning the overall structural integrity of the aircraft, why was a public announcement posted to your Facebook page in February stating the SU-35 has been Thoroughly tested and are available for sale on the Pacific RC Jets website? Again, we are not trying to open any new can of worms here. It seems the posts are taking a turn for towards unfriendly turf and we hate to see it go that route. If any documents are presented, we can take it from there. We are continuing to work with our factories to provide new jet models coming in the near future. We have no problem what-so-ever removing the listings for the Sparrow, the A-10 and the SU-35 from our website. At the point where if any documents are presented showing Pacific RC Jets ownership for these named jets, we will comply with by removing them from our website.
Pacific RC Jets T1 line of aircraft and Kingtech Turbines are great products. We do wish Pacific RC Jets success in continuing to serve the turbine industry. We hope we can work alongside with you to provide excellent products and service for our turbine patrons.
In addition for clarification. Aviation Jets have been a part of the RC jet industry for some time now and in the China RC community from the start, have been abbreviated with AV for Aviation Jets. There really is no specific reason. The abbreviation AV was and is used and have a solid known association with Aviation Jets. At any time when we are speaking with manufacturers and factories such as Pilot RC, Feibao, JP Hobby, HSDJETS, when we mention AV, they know and associate with Aviation Jets. Also, AJ in our RC Industry is associated with a popular brand of RC 3D and Pattern aircraft.
With Best Regards,
Carrie Lau
Director of Operations
Global Jet Club/ACEx Turbines
Owner
Banana Hobby
Am i the only one who feel’s like this post is a emotional/personal response to the entire PRCJ and AV?
Carrie, you may have good intentions, but it seems as if you are more interested in digging a grave for Pacific RC Jets than trying to determine the cause if the structural problems and the post for this SU35.
Initial testing can show no problems and only after more extensive testing could potential problems arise. Maybe flights 1-6 were flown in a progressively higher stressed flight regime and it was determined it would last. Then on flight 7, the thing failed.
05-03-2019, 01:30 PM
#48
We would like to share our experience with assisting in design of an aircraft with the manufacturer. Our most recent has been a very popular and first in the market, a full flying capable VTOL V-22 Osprey. The big success of the V-22 Osprey has been rooted back to all the data, testing and re-design by our team here in the USA. Due to the success level of our V-22, other big-name vendors followed suit and created a VTOL aircraft around the FC we assisted in developing/testing/programming in our V-22. This vendor has since the released 3 different VTOL aircraft. Although we are a vital part of this project, at no time did we have any agreements on any exclusive patent with our heavy design inputs. We also are not the owners of the aircraft mold. This entire RC industry is small as is and we believe it is important for vendors to support and encourage fellow vendors. We understand this discussion in regards to the Sparrow is on a different par mainly due to the cost of the aircraft. It is just upsetting to see words thrown around like Cease and Desist. It also stands with that most of discussion in regards to Pacific RC Jets and the interaction with the design of the Sparrow has been said and written for everyone to read. As we do understand, Pacific RC Jets did allow Global Jet Club in verbal permission to sell the Sparrow. This incident here is just taking turns that not any company really needs. Pacific RC Jets has stated they are working on the patent currently and has advised Global Jet Club to stay away from these projects until further notice. It really appears Pacific RC Jets need to figure this out with Aviation Jets. When nothing has been concrete, with the information and documentation that has been provided by Aviation Jets, the aircraft's in question here seem to be available for resale by any vendor. Again, we are not taking any sides here. It is just difficult to see this ongoing vengeance.
Back to the SU-35, these production issues Pacific RC Jets have brought up are fairly recent in the previous week or so. If you know and knew of these areas concerning the overall structural integrity of the aircraft, why was a public announcement posted to your Facebook page in February stating the SU-35 has been Thoroughly tested and are available for sale on the Pacific RC Jets website? Again, we are not trying to open any new can of worms here. It seems the posts are taking a turn for towards unfriendly turf and we hate to see it go that route. If any documents are presented, we can take it from there. We are continuing to work with our factories to provide new jet models coming in the near future. We have no problem what-so-ever removing the listings for the Sparrow, the A-10 and the SU-35 from our website. At the point where if any documents are presented showing Pacific RC Jets ownership for these named jets, we will comply with by removing them from our website.
Pacific RC Jets T1 line of aircraft and Kingtech Turbines are great products. We do wish Pacific RC Jets success in continuing to serve the turbine industry. We hope we can work alongside with you to provide excellent products and service for our turbine patrons.
In addition for clarification. Aviation Jets have been a part of the RC jet industry for some time now and in the China RC community from the start, have been abbreviated with AV for Aviation Jets. There really is no specific reason. The abbreviation AV was and is used and have a solid known association with Aviation Jets. At any time when we are speaking with manufacturers and factories such as Pilot RC, Feibao, JP Hobby, HSDJETS, when we mention AV, they know and associate with Aviation Jets. Also, AJ in our RC Industry is associated with a popular brand of RC 3D and Pattern aircraft.
With Best Regards,
Carrie Lau
Director of Operations
Global Jet Club/ACEx Turbines
Owner
Banana Hobby
Back to the SU-35, these production issues Pacific RC Jets have brought up are fairly recent in the previous week or so. If you know and knew of these areas concerning the overall structural integrity of the aircraft, why was a public announcement posted to your Facebook page in February stating the SU-35 has been Thoroughly tested and are available for sale on the Pacific RC Jets website? Again, we are not trying to open any new can of worms here. It seems the posts are taking a turn for towards unfriendly turf and we hate to see it go that route. If any documents are presented, we can take it from there. We are continuing to work with our factories to provide new jet models coming in the near future. We have no problem what-so-ever removing the listings for the Sparrow, the A-10 and the SU-35 from our website. At the point where if any documents are presented showing Pacific RC Jets ownership for these named jets, we will comply with by removing them from our website.
Pacific RC Jets T1 line of aircraft and Kingtech Turbines are great products. We do wish Pacific RC Jets success in continuing to serve the turbine industry. We hope we can work alongside with you to provide excellent products and service for our turbine patrons.
In addition for clarification. Aviation Jets have been a part of the RC jet industry for some time now and in the China RC community from the start, have been abbreviated with AV for Aviation Jets. There really is no specific reason. The abbreviation AV was and is used and have a solid known association with Aviation Jets. At any time when we are speaking with manufacturers and factories such as Pilot RC, Feibao, JP Hobby, HSDJETS, when we mention AV, they know and associate with Aviation Jets. Also, AJ in our RC Industry is associated with a popular brand of RC 3D and Pattern aircraft.
With Best Regards,
Carrie Lau
Director of Operations
Global Jet Club/ACEx Turbines
Owner
Banana Hobby
And as far as I know...only one to have actual licensing to use the name Osprey.
https://www.rotormast.com
05-07-2019, 06:25 PM
#49
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statement of Aviation Jet, regarding the accusation from Pacific RC Jet
I'm posting this thread on behalf of Aviation Jet.
Dear all,
I'm Mark Deng, founder of Aviation Jet(“AV”). Firstly, I would like to thank you all for supporting Aviation Jet all along. Secondly, I would like to give my apology to those who have been following this incident that I reply to this matter late since I've been on business trip for the past few days. Regarding the accusation from Barry Hou and Dirk from Pacific RC Jet(“PRCJ”), my point of view here is only to speak out the truth and whole story between AV and PRCJ, and leave the judgment to the public. I believe the trigger of this matter starts from AV appointed Global Jet Club as a new dealer/distributor in U.S.:
Back in 2016, Barry Hou asked Aviation Jet to design & develop a sport jet, named Sparrow, which was eventually designed by Aviation Jet’s engineer Jiang Yi. AV still owns and possesses the design material & original blueprints etc. We do even doubt that Barry can present any design material & original blueprints to the public. (Barry, you’re more than welcome to provide any evidence that can prove you have the design right or product patent). According to the agreements between Barry and AV, Barry made the commitment to purchase 10 Sparrows monthly, 240 Sparrows in total in next two years. There was an agreed payment of USD 10,000 (approx. RMB 70,000) as DIPOSIT of this agreement and which can be deducted RMB 1,000 on each Sparrow purchase for the first 70 orders. And another extra USD 1,000 for a sample Sparrow and shipment expense. All in all, AV appointed PRCJ with an exclusive right of sale outside PRC. The agreement and business relationship between AV and PRCJ as simple as a dealer/distributor and manufacturer.
When the Sparrow firstly came out of the market, I also tried to post pics and advertised Sparrow on Facebook. Barry requested to delete all the market info about the Sparrow. As a newly established & responsible manufacturer, we treated our dealers as VIP customers, and we realized we did need to give them 100% of trust and support. I deleted all my posts regarding the Sparrow without a single question. Since then, AV had never involved the way Barry’s marketing strategy and his advertising wording. In fact, Barry did not meet the agreement terms, within two years of collaboration period, Barry only had NINE Sparrows sold which resulting in huge economic losses for Aviation Jet. Barry failed to meet the business condition, the collaboration and agreement ends automatically as per the agreement terms.
On the other hand, Barry declared that the Sparrow design is unreasonable and defective, and Aviation Jet refused to change the design, which obviously tells the truth that Sparrow is designed by Aviation Jet, Barry does not even have the right to modify the design. Sparrow is a mature sport jet, and has been flown thousands of flights by customers all over the world.
In March 2018, Barry noticed that AV had plan to develop the A10 project while the Su35 project still in progress. Barry committed to a pre-order of 20 A10s with USD 20,000 down payment. And both party were aware that the purpose of this funding was to facilitate and speed up the design and development of A10 project, which AV truly appreciate on this. Even though the oral agreement of A10 design & development time was 3 months, things happened unfortunately and continually such as changing new supplier, machines went down and environmental protection inspection. AV had reported all these to Barry and Dirk duly and understanding was given and they were willing to wait.
In this February, Aviation Jet moved to a larger and more modern factory, for business expansion, AV planned to add in another dealer in U.S. Mike Lin from Global Jet Club was selected as the second distributor for Aviation Jet in the States. AV informed Barry and Dirk this action via e-mail, then Barry and Dirk became very unfriendly from then. Barry stated that Mike would get the right to sell the A10 without paying anything, and asked me to negotiate with Mike that the A10 should be exclusive to PRCJ in U.S. for one year. Mike agreed on this.
Due to the factory relocation, Aviation Jet business has suspended all business for a month, Barry and Dirk were well informed and had good communication during that period. The A10 project was also restarted smoothly after everything settled down. However, PRCJ now declares that Aviation Jet intends to retaliate against the loss on the Sparrow project with an indefinite suspension of work on the A10, which is ridiculous and an unreasonable defamation. On the A10 project, there was indeed a delay delivery due to some irresistible reasons, however, AV had agreed to refund the USD $20,000.
Finally come to the Su35’s matter. The Su35 was launched to the market after three months of fully test flight in China. Aviation Jet will never ever and has no any reason to treat our dealers, partners and customers like white mice for gaining or obtaining experimental and technical data from them, like Barry and Dirk stated previously. In fact, Su35 has passed numbers of extreme flight tests in China such as falling leaf, cobra, sharp pull-up and other maneuvers which are often demonstrated. AV is willing to share all the test flight videos. We do strongly condemn that PRCJ stated that our test flights are gentle is intent to hide the defective design and flaws. Of course, the test flight done by manufactory can only consider the flying style of majority users. We would try to reach the extreme limit of the aircraft as close as possible. However, the test pilot might not be the best. If any of our customer engage any kind of serious design flaws and defective product when flying our product, you’re more than welcome to show us the video and the proof, AV will compensate your loss.
In this February, Barry informed AV that his Su35 had a successful maiden flight, and other 4 flights on the same day. And then PRCJ posted information on their website that Su35 had passed the test and officially accepted the order. The logical problem of this viewpoint has been raised several times already, so I would not repeat again. After numerous flight, on one flying day, Barry informed AV that Su35 had been crashed because the thread of the locking clamp of the wing wore out by over tightening, but he still took the chance and insisted to fly, which led to the crash eventually. After the crash, Barry asked AV to sell him a new Su35 at a discounted price which was denied. How would a normal adult intend to buy the product if it’s really with design flaws and a defective product, even at a discounted price, it just doesn’t make any sense. PRCJ stated that AV refused to fix the flaws on Su35 and insist to sell all the stocks. As a manufactory, there’s no any reason for us to put our reputation on risk. We've been putting too much effort into this product such as the outstanding detailing that you can see, for just changing a small clamp or even more modification to improve the design, this is really piece of cake. Why would we destroy our brand?!
Barry and Dirk form PRCJ hid their failure on the Sparrow project and falsely claimed that Sparrow was designed by them, concealed their dissatisfaction with Aviation Jet by bringing new distributor in the United States, and distorted the fact that AV committed to return the deposit on the A10 project. Using the Su35 crash incident which caused by their incaution as a fuse.
All in all, as I said previously, I am here to speak out the story and leave the judgment to the public and fact. I personally do feel shame that this had come to the public and such wasting the community’s resources. Aviation Jet committed to make great products at an affordable price, and will continue to make contribution to this small size of community. This is our goal!
Sincerely,
Aviation Jet
May 08th, 2018
Dear all,
I'm Mark Deng, founder of Aviation Jet(“AV”). Firstly, I would like to thank you all for supporting Aviation Jet all along. Secondly, I would like to give my apology to those who have been following this incident that I reply to this matter late since I've been on business trip for the past few days. Regarding the accusation from Barry Hou and Dirk from Pacific RC Jet(“PRCJ”), my point of view here is only to speak out the truth and whole story between AV and PRCJ, and leave the judgment to the public. I believe the trigger of this matter starts from AV appointed Global Jet Club as a new dealer/distributor in U.S.:
Back in 2016, Barry Hou asked Aviation Jet to design & develop a sport jet, named Sparrow, which was eventually designed by Aviation Jet’s engineer Jiang Yi. AV still owns and possesses the design material & original blueprints etc. We do even doubt that Barry can present any design material & original blueprints to the public. (Barry, you’re more than welcome to provide any evidence that can prove you have the design right or product patent). According to the agreements between Barry and AV, Barry made the commitment to purchase 10 Sparrows monthly, 240 Sparrows in total in next two years. There was an agreed payment of USD 10,000 (approx. RMB 70,000) as DIPOSIT of this agreement and which can be deducted RMB 1,000 on each Sparrow purchase for the first 70 orders. And another extra USD 1,000 for a sample Sparrow and shipment expense. All in all, AV appointed PRCJ with an exclusive right of sale outside PRC. The agreement and business relationship between AV and PRCJ as simple as a dealer/distributor and manufacturer.
When the Sparrow firstly came out of the market, I also tried to post pics and advertised Sparrow on Facebook. Barry requested to delete all the market info about the Sparrow. As a newly established & responsible manufacturer, we treated our dealers as VIP customers, and we realized we did need to give them 100% of trust and support. I deleted all my posts regarding the Sparrow without a single question. Since then, AV had never involved the way Barry’s marketing strategy and his advertising wording. In fact, Barry did not meet the agreement terms, within two years of collaboration period, Barry only had NINE Sparrows sold which resulting in huge economic losses for Aviation Jet. Barry failed to meet the business condition, the collaboration and agreement ends automatically as per the agreement terms.
On the other hand, Barry declared that the Sparrow design is unreasonable and defective, and Aviation Jet refused to change the design, which obviously tells the truth that Sparrow is designed by Aviation Jet, Barry does not even have the right to modify the design. Sparrow is a mature sport jet, and has been flown thousands of flights by customers all over the world.
In March 2018, Barry noticed that AV had plan to develop the A10 project while the Su35 project still in progress. Barry committed to a pre-order of 20 A10s with USD 20,000 down payment. And both party were aware that the purpose of this funding was to facilitate and speed up the design and development of A10 project, which AV truly appreciate on this. Even though the oral agreement of A10 design & development time was 3 months, things happened unfortunately and continually such as changing new supplier, machines went down and environmental protection inspection. AV had reported all these to Barry and Dirk duly and understanding was given and they were willing to wait.
In this February, Aviation Jet moved to a larger and more modern factory, for business expansion, AV planned to add in another dealer in U.S. Mike Lin from Global Jet Club was selected as the second distributor for Aviation Jet in the States. AV informed Barry and Dirk this action via e-mail, then Barry and Dirk became very unfriendly from then. Barry stated that Mike would get the right to sell the A10 without paying anything, and asked me to negotiate with Mike that the A10 should be exclusive to PRCJ in U.S. for one year. Mike agreed on this.
Due to the factory relocation, Aviation Jet business has suspended all business for a month, Barry and Dirk were well informed and had good communication during that period. The A10 project was also restarted smoothly after everything settled down. However, PRCJ now declares that Aviation Jet intends to retaliate against the loss on the Sparrow project with an indefinite suspension of work on the A10, which is ridiculous and an unreasonable defamation. On the A10 project, there was indeed a delay delivery due to some irresistible reasons, however, AV had agreed to refund the USD $20,000.
Finally come to the Su35’s matter. The Su35 was launched to the market after three months of fully test flight in China. Aviation Jet will never ever and has no any reason to treat our dealers, partners and customers like white mice for gaining or obtaining experimental and technical data from them, like Barry and Dirk stated previously. In fact, Su35 has passed numbers of extreme flight tests in China such as falling leaf, cobra, sharp pull-up and other maneuvers which are often demonstrated. AV is willing to share all the test flight videos. We do strongly condemn that PRCJ stated that our test flights are gentle is intent to hide the defective design and flaws. Of course, the test flight done by manufactory can only consider the flying style of majority users. We would try to reach the extreme limit of the aircraft as close as possible. However, the test pilot might not be the best. If any of our customer engage any kind of serious design flaws and defective product when flying our product, you’re more than welcome to show us the video and the proof, AV will compensate your loss.
In this February, Barry informed AV that his Su35 had a successful maiden flight, and other 4 flights on the same day. And then PRCJ posted information on their website that Su35 had passed the test and officially accepted the order. The logical problem of this viewpoint has been raised several times already, so I would not repeat again. After numerous flight, on one flying day, Barry informed AV that Su35 had been crashed because the thread of the locking clamp of the wing wore out by over tightening, but he still took the chance and insisted to fly, which led to the crash eventually. After the crash, Barry asked AV to sell him a new Su35 at a discounted price which was denied. How would a normal adult intend to buy the product if it’s really with design flaws and a defective product, even at a discounted price, it just doesn’t make any sense. PRCJ stated that AV refused to fix the flaws on Su35 and insist to sell all the stocks. As a manufactory, there’s no any reason for us to put our reputation on risk. We've been putting too much effort into this product such as the outstanding detailing that you can see, for just changing a small clamp or even more modification to improve the design, this is really piece of cake. Why would we destroy our brand?!
Barry and Dirk form PRCJ hid their failure on the Sparrow project and falsely claimed that Sparrow was designed by them, concealed their dissatisfaction with Aviation Jet by bringing new distributor in the United States, and distorted the fact that AV committed to return the deposit on the A10 project. Using the Su35 crash incident which caused by their incaution as a fuse.
All in all, as I said previously, I am here to speak out the story and leave the judgment to the public and fact. I personally do feel shame that this had come to the public and such wasting the community’s resources. Aviation Jet committed to make great products at an affordable price, and will continue to make contribution to this small size of community. This is our goal!
Sincerely,
Aviation Jet
May 08th, 2018
05-07-2019, 06:27 PM
#50
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm posting this reply on behalf of Aviation Jet.
Dear all,
I'm Mark Deng, founder of Aviation Jet(“AV”). Firstly, I would like to thank you all for supporting Aviation Jet all along. Secondly, I would like to give my apology to those who have been following this incident that I reply to this matter late since I've been on business trip for the past few days. Regarding the accusation from Barry Hou and Dirk from Pacific RC Jet(“PRCJ”), my point of view here is only to speak out the truth and whole story between AV and PRCJ, and leave the judgment to the public. I believe the trigger of this matter starts from AV appointed Global Jet Club as a new dealer/distributor in U.S.:
Back in 2016, Barry Hou asked Aviation Jet to design & develop a sport jet, named Sparrow, which was eventually designed by Aviation Jet’s engineer Jiang Yi. AV still owns and possesses the design material & original blueprints etc. We do even doubt that Barry can present any design material & original blueprints to the public. (Barry, you’re more than welcome to provide any evidence that can prove you have the design right or product patent). According to the agreements between Barry and AV, Barry made the commitment to purchase 10 Sparrows monthly, 240 Sparrows in total in next two years. There was an agreed payment of USD 10,000 (approx. RMB 70,000) as DIPOSIT of this agreement and which can be deducted RMB 1,000 on each Sparrow purchase for the first 70 orders. And another extra USD 1,000 for a sample Sparrow and shipment expense. All in all, AV appointed PRCJ with an exclusive right of sale outside PRC. The agreement and business relationship between AV and PRCJ as simple as a dealer/distributor and manufacturer.
When the Sparrow firstly came out of the market, I also tried to post pics and advertised Sparrow on Facebook. Barry requested to delete all the market info about the Sparrow. As a newly established & responsible manufacturer, we treated our dealers as VIP customers, and we realized we did need to give them 100% of trust and support. I deleted all my posts regarding the Sparrow without a single question. Since then, AV had never involved the way Barry’s marketing strategy and his advertising wording. In fact, Barry did not meet the agreement terms, within two years of collaboration period, Barry only had NINE Sparrows sold which resulting in huge economic losses for Aviation Jet. Barry failed to meet the business condition, the collaboration and agreement ends automatically as per the agreement terms.
On the other hand, Barry declared that the Sparrow design is unreasonable and defective, and Aviation Jet refused to change the design, which obviously tells the truth that Sparrow is designed by Aviation Jet, Barry does not even have the right to modify the design. Sparrow is a mature sport jet, and has been flown thousands of flights by customers all over the world.
In March 2018, Barry noticed that AV had plan to develop the A10 project while the Su35 project still in progress. Barry committed to a pre-order of 20 A10s with USD 20,000 down payment. And both party were aware that the purpose of this funding was to facilitate and speed up the design and development of A10 project, which AV truly appreciate on this. Even though the oral agreement of A10 design & development time was 3 months, things happened unfortunately and continually such as changing new supplier, machines went down and environmental protection inspection. AV had reported all these to Barry and Dirk duly and understanding was given and they were willing to wait.
In this February, Aviation Jet moved to a larger and more modern factory, for business expansion, AV planned to add in another dealer in U.S. Mike Lin from Global Jet Club was selected as the second distributor for Aviation Jet in the States. AV informed Barry and Dirk this action via e-mail, then Barry and Dirk became very unfriendly from then. Barry stated that Mike would get the right to sell the A10 without paying anything, and asked me to negotiate with Mike that the A10 should be exclusive to PRCJ in U.S. for one year. Mike agreed on this.
Due to the factory relocation, Aviation Jet business has suspended all business for a month, Barry and Dirk were well informed and had good communication during that period. The A10 project was also restarted smoothly after everything settled down. However, PRCJ now declares that Aviation Jet intends to retaliate against the loss on the Sparrow project with an indefinite suspension of work on the A10, which is ridiculous and an unreasonable defamation. On the A10 project, there was indeed a delay delivery due to some irresistible reasons, however, AV had agreed to refund the USD $20,000.
Finally come to the Su35’s matter. The Su35 was launched to the market after three months of fully test flight in China. Aviation Jet will never ever and has no any reason to treat our dealers, partners and customers like white mice for gaining or obtaining experimental and technical data from them, like Barry and Dirk stated previously. In fact, Su35 has passed numbers of extreme flight tests in China such as falling leaf, cobra, sharp pull-up and other maneuvers which are often demonstrated. AV is willing to share all the test flight videos. We do strongly condemn that PRCJ stated that our test flights are gentle is intent to hide the defective design and flaws. Of course, the test flight done by manufactory can only consider the flying style of majority users. We would try to reach the extreme limit of the aircraft as close as possible. However, the test pilot might not be the best. If any of our customer engage any kind of serious design flaws and defective product when flying our product, you’re more than welcome to show us the video and the proof, AV will compensate your loss.
In this February, Barry informed AV that his Su35 had a successful maiden flight, and other 4 flights on the same day. And then PRCJ posted information on their website that Su35 had passed the test and officially accepted the order. The logical problem of this viewpoint has been raised several times already, so I would not repeat again. After numerous flight, on one flying day, Barry informed AV that Su35 had been crashed because the thread of the locking clamp of the wing wore out by over tightening, but he still took the chance and insisted to fly, which led to the crash eventually. After the crash, Barry asked AV to sell him a new Su35 at a discounted price which was denied. How would a normal adult intend to buy the product if it’s really with design flaws and a defective product, even at a discounted price, it just doesn’t make any sense. PRCJ stated that AV refused to fix the flaws on Su35 and insist to sell all the stocks. As a manufactory, there’s no any reason for us to put our reputation on risk. We've been putting too much effort into this product such as the outstanding detailing that you can see, for just changing a small clamp or even more modification to improve the design, this is really piece of cake. Why would we destroy our brand?!
Barry and Dirk form PRCJ hid their failure on the Sparrow project and falsely claimed that Sparrow was designed by them, concealed their dissatisfaction with Aviation Jet by bringing new distributor in the United States, and distorted the fact that AV committed to return the deposit on the A10 project. Using the Su35 crash incident which caused by their incaution as a fuse.
All in all, as I said previously, I am here to speak out the story and leave the judgment to the public and fact. I personally do feel shame that this had come to the public and such wasting the community’s resources. Aviation Jet committed to make great products at an affordable price, and will continue to make contribution to this small size of community. This is our goal!
Sincerely,
Aviation Jet
May 08th, 2018
Dear all,
I'm Mark Deng, founder of Aviation Jet(“AV”). Firstly, I would like to thank you all for supporting Aviation Jet all along. Secondly, I would like to give my apology to those who have been following this incident that I reply to this matter late since I've been on business trip for the past few days. Regarding the accusation from Barry Hou and Dirk from Pacific RC Jet(“PRCJ”), my point of view here is only to speak out the truth and whole story between AV and PRCJ, and leave the judgment to the public. I believe the trigger of this matter starts from AV appointed Global Jet Club as a new dealer/distributor in U.S.:
Back in 2016, Barry Hou asked Aviation Jet to design & develop a sport jet, named Sparrow, which was eventually designed by Aviation Jet’s engineer Jiang Yi. AV still owns and possesses the design material & original blueprints etc. We do even doubt that Barry can present any design material & original blueprints to the public. (Barry, you’re more than welcome to provide any evidence that can prove you have the design right or product patent). According to the agreements between Barry and AV, Barry made the commitment to purchase 10 Sparrows monthly, 240 Sparrows in total in next two years. There was an agreed payment of USD 10,000 (approx. RMB 70,000) as DIPOSIT of this agreement and which can be deducted RMB 1,000 on each Sparrow purchase for the first 70 orders. And another extra USD 1,000 for a sample Sparrow and shipment expense. All in all, AV appointed PRCJ with an exclusive right of sale outside PRC. The agreement and business relationship between AV and PRCJ as simple as a dealer/distributor and manufacturer.
When the Sparrow firstly came out of the market, I also tried to post pics and advertised Sparrow on Facebook. Barry requested to delete all the market info about the Sparrow. As a newly established & responsible manufacturer, we treated our dealers as VIP customers, and we realized we did need to give them 100% of trust and support. I deleted all my posts regarding the Sparrow without a single question. Since then, AV had never involved the way Barry’s marketing strategy and his advertising wording. In fact, Barry did not meet the agreement terms, within two years of collaboration period, Barry only had NINE Sparrows sold which resulting in huge economic losses for Aviation Jet. Barry failed to meet the business condition, the collaboration and agreement ends automatically as per the agreement terms.
On the other hand, Barry declared that the Sparrow design is unreasonable and defective, and Aviation Jet refused to change the design, which obviously tells the truth that Sparrow is designed by Aviation Jet, Barry does not even have the right to modify the design. Sparrow is a mature sport jet, and has been flown thousands of flights by customers all over the world.
In March 2018, Barry noticed that AV had plan to develop the A10 project while the Su35 project still in progress. Barry committed to a pre-order of 20 A10s with USD 20,000 down payment. And both party were aware that the purpose of this funding was to facilitate and speed up the design and development of A10 project, which AV truly appreciate on this. Even though the oral agreement of A10 design & development time was 3 months, things happened unfortunately and continually such as changing new supplier, machines went down and environmental protection inspection. AV had reported all these to Barry and Dirk duly and understanding was given and they were willing to wait.
In this February, Aviation Jet moved to a larger and more modern factory, for business expansion, AV planned to add in another dealer in U.S. Mike Lin from Global Jet Club was selected as the second distributor for Aviation Jet in the States. AV informed Barry and Dirk this action via e-mail, then Barry and Dirk became very unfriendly from then. Barry stated that Mike would get the right to sell the A10 without paying anything, and asked me to negotiate with Mike that the A10 should be exclusive to PRCJ in U.S. for one year. Mike agreed on this.
Due to the factory relocation, Aviation Jet business has suspended all business for a month, Barry and Dirk were well informed and had good communication during that period. The A10 project was also restarted smoothly after everything settled down. However, PRCJ now declares that Aviation Jet intends to retaliate against the loss on the Sparrow project with an indefinite suspension of work on the A10, which is ridiculous and an unreasonable defamation. On the A10 project, there was indeed a delay delivery due to some irresistible reasons, however, AV had agreed to refund the USD $20,000.
Finally come to the Su35’s matter. The Su35 was launched to the market after three months of fully test flight in China. Aviation Jet will never ever and has no any reason to treat our dealers, partners and customers like white mice for gaining or obtaining experimental and technical data from them, like Barry and Dirk stated previously. In fact, Su35 has passed numbers of extreme flight tests in China such as falling leaf, cobra, sharp pull-up and other maneuvers which are often demonstrated. AV is willing to share all the test flight videos. We do strongly condemn that PRCJ stated that our test flights are gentle is intent to hide the defective design and flaws. Of course, the test flight done by manufactory can only consider the flying style of majority users. We would try to reach the extreme limit of the aircraft as close as possible. However, the test pilot might not be the best. If any of our customer engage any kind of serious design flaws and defective product when flying our product, you’re more than welcome to show us the video and the proof, AV will compensate your loss.
In this February, Barry informed AV that his Su35 had a successful maiden flight, and other 4 flights on the same day. And then PRCJ posted information on their website that Su35 had passed the test and officially accepted the order. The logical problem of this viewpoint has been raised several times already, so I would not repeat again. After numerous flight, on one flying day, Barry informed AV that Su35 had been crashed because the thread of the locking clamp of the wing wore out by over tightening, but he still took the chance and insisted to fly, which led to the crash eventually. After the crash, Barry asked AV to sell him a new Su35 at a discounted price which was denied. How would a normal adult intend to buy the product if it’s really with design flaws and a defective product, even at a discounted price, it just doesn’t make any sense. PRCJ stated that AV refused to fix the flaws on Su35 and insist to sell all the stocks. As a manufactory, there’s no any reason for us to put our reputation on risk. We've been putting too much effort into this product such as the outstanding detailing that you can see, for just changing a small clamp or even more modification to improve the design, this is really piece of cake. Why would we destroy our brand?!
Barry and Dirk form PRCJ hid their failure on the Sparrow project and falsely claimed that Sparrow was designed by them, concealed their dissatisfaction with Aviation Jet by bringing new distributor in the United States, and distorted the fact that AV committed to return the deposit on the A10 project. Using the Su35 crash incident which caused by their incaution as a fuse.
All in all, as I said previously, I am here to speak out the story and leave the judgment to the public and fact. I personally do feel shame that this had come to the public and such wasting the community’s resources. Aviation Jet committed to make great products at an affordable price, and will continue to make contribution to this small size of community. This is our goal!
Sincerely,
Aviation Jet
May 08th, 2018