Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

Well, let me begin by saying I dont like to complain and I dont understand why in a poor economy with hobby shops closing left and right why a company would dare to rest on its name and not take an extra minute to support a customers concern for their product.

The last couple of weeks Ive been debating with my friends and taking a long look at my position on this problem to decide what I want to do about it. The basic problem is something that I can fix with a little time and effort no big deal. The part I struggle with is why should I? Why should I try to fix, test, and solve a problem that should not exist in a finished product. Then there is the total lack of interest that Hobbico has exhibited when I brought up my concerns in a detailed report. This is the part that got to me the most as I said fixing the plane is not a problem.

I bought a Top Flight GS Corsair ARF and began assembling it recently. I built the tail section by the book with the materials supplied. The tail surfaces, rudder and elevators, have big issues. The rudder will not center and the elevators are flimsy and can twist easily. The rudder issue is related to an unsupported linkage, the torque rod, and materials. The elevators are built very light weight and can twist under load very easily. The horizontal stab can flex very easy as well.

So the purpose of this post is simple; to inform you of the issues this ARF has and to show you the possible total lack of customer service you will receive if you have to deal with the company.

I decided to follow the typical customer service route and called to see what their position would be. I was told "we have zero complaints with this plane" and "we have no calls on file regarding problems with the tail or flutter".
So after that chat I decided to reach the head of customer service, Art Pesch, with an email and videos of what Im seeing in my plane. Below are my emails to him and as you can read is my response to his final word on the matter followed by " best of luck with your Corsair"

When reading this keep in mind this was seen by " both the (planes) Designer and the Product Manager " for Top Flight.

To add insult my reply to Art was immediately followed by an automated response so basically a dead end as well. Not even the courtesy of his personal email to read my response.


This is the auto reply and the rest is from newest to oldest so maybe start at the bottom and read up to here to get the picture.

Thank you for your recent e-mail. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS AN INTELLIGENT AUTOMATED RESPONSE BASED SPECIFICALLY ON THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE SUBMITTED. If this information does not solve your problem, please simply reply to this email BEING SURE NOT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT and let us know what is still occurring.

Are you looking for information on how to install washout into a wing, or how to remove an undesired twist in a wing?
http://www.greatplanes.com/faq/product-faq.html#q14

Are you looking for a definition of washout?
http://www.greatplanes.com/glossary.html#w

Are you looking for guidance on how to tell if your model has proper washout?
You will want to utilize an incidence meter to determine the washout of the wing of your model. To do so, set the incidence meter on the root of the wing, and read the angle of attack of the root. Write this down: . Now meausre the angle of the tip of the wing and write this down: . The washout in your wing is the difference between these 2:

Root:
less tip:
=washout:

Note that washout means the leading edge of the wing tip is lower than the leading edge of the wing root. If it is the opposite, the model has washin, which is desirable in certain types of aerobatic models for extreme performance, but not in most other models due to decreased stability.

Did this answer your question? If so, we're thrilled to hear our automated attendant was able to assist you so quickly.

If not, please simply reply to this email BEING SURE NOT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, and copying the body of this email into your reply, and we will be happy to assist you personally and promptly.

I hope you find this information helpful. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at this email address. (Please be sure to copy all previous emails into any future questions.) You can also reach our product support technical team at 217-398-8970, or via fax at 217-398-7721.

Sincerely,
Product Support AUTORESPONDER

Chris Nicastro <[email protected]> 10/26/12 16:44 >>>

Hello Art,

Thanks for your prompt reply on this matter.
I have to say however that Im a little disappointed with the way this is handled.

To begin with I cannot believe that after seeing the videos and reading my report that there is not one person concerned enough to contact me for more info or to express any concern for what they have seen or read.
As a product designer myself and former head of R&D I would personally contact a customer and sort out any product issues so the customer has the best possible experience with the product. This personal touch seals a good relationship between your customers and your brand. Just simply releasing cool new products isnt enough to be an industry leader. You have to have the total package with excellent customer service after the sale.

Second I cannot believe that neither the Designer or Product Manager have no interest in this matter enough to ask for more info or help me fix any issues with their product.
Is there a company policy to prevent this? Or is there just no pride of ownership for producing this product? Or are they both that busy that they cannot spare one minute?

I would really like to see the preproduction planes up close and inspect them for the issues I see in my example. Yes the company video looks great and it flies slow and fast, loops, rolls etc BUT how was that plane actually built compared to how it is sold?

Mine is built with the suggested motor, DLE 55RA, so that is within the specified limits.

I would be willing to prove the point to the extent that I would crash the plane if I knew it would be replaced and all components replaced just to show how this plane is built and furnished is not airworthy. My guess is that wouldnt be approved but feel free to ask.

Finally, from what your reply suggests, I can go out and fly my plane as is, as you and your staff have seen it, and I will have a trouble free experience. Im speaking specifically about the tail surfaces as Ive presented them to you not the rest of the plane just to be clear. I find this very hard to believe and very unsatisfying customer support. If I didn't know very much about the hobby or airplanes and had far less experience I would probably just go ahead and fly it. This is not the case however and I cannot ignore what Im looking at especially for what this product costs alone, not finished!
I would have asked to see more photos and even ship the plane or fuselage back to my office at the companies expense to inspect the plane for production issues, material issues, or assembly issues. Any of these disoveries would lead to improving the product and the customers experience further cementing a good relationship and confidence with me and your future customers.
At this time in this economy this kind of lack of support is a companies path to self termination. Im not asking for a new plane or new parts. Im asking for you to take some interest in your product make sure its right and make sure I have the best experience with it I can have.

If this is the extent that the company is willing to go to support their product and customers then I have to say that this is my last Top Flight purchase and I cannot recommend the products to anyone. Yes I can fix it and yes this is a hobby item meaning you should be willing to accept a level of hands on interaction with the product but when the company denies there is any problem with the product thats where I draw the line.
Im not willing to support you if your not willing to support me after the sale.

Best regards,

Chris Nicastro

10/19/2012 3:08 AM >>

The following is for Mr. Pesch.

Thank you for taking the time to read my report on the Top Flight GS
Corsair.
Here are a few photos to start with regarding the finish quality of my
particular Corsair ARF. I have to send the video in another email due to
file size.

Photo 2914 - sanding scratches
Photo 2915 - body filler fix or patch
Photo 2916 - same as 2915
Photo 2917 - incomplete covering of the cooler detail edge and both of
these details had a lot putty filler residue I cleaned up
Photo 2920 – servos

Also, not shown but it’s a finish problem was my outer wing panel. It
is very scratched up from a worker wiping it off. You can see a wipe
pattern in the surface that has left light scratches. This is difficult
to photograph but the impression this leaves the customer is
disappointing. The rest of the plane looked OK when inspected. As
expected the covering did loosen up and I will be tightening this up
later.
One material problem I encountered was with the "hardwood blocks" which
are inconsistent in their wood grade and split easily. I have predrilled
and run a screw through the blocks and all but one has split so far. The
range of hard wood density is too great and should be tightened up
better in production. One main landing gear rail was the best wood
sample so far out of the parts I have assembled thus far. This seems
like a small detail or dumb issue but it’s not. This speaks directly
to the quality of the product and the attention to detail by the factory
and brand name. I should not, as a customer, have to fix any part of the
product as I’m building it. Since the main landing gear brand sold for
the plane is Robart the landing gear rails should be predrilled and
ready for a Robart retract set to drop in. There is no guesswork and the
wood quality would not be an issue because this would be solved in
production not in public.

The other issue I spoke about was my concern for the amount of free
play in the rear horizontal and vertical surface mechanics.

Rudder torque rod and Linkage
The soldered linkage wire exits the bulkhead tube; the same bulkhead
the rear retract is mounted to. From here to the rudder torque rod
assembly is roughly 5-6 inches. This distance is unsupported except by
the clevis, torque rod and plastic mount. This means that the control
linkage can be flexed when a small load is placed on the rudder with or
without the servo being powered. With the radio turned on you cannot
center the surface and again you can easily deflect the rudder by at
least 1/4 inch in either direction at the trailing edge.
I have not cut away the covering to inspect this further but I plan to
strip off the covering, strengthen up the leading edge of the rudder at
the torque rod hole (which has been epoxied already) and then recover
the rudder.
The control linkage steel wire is too small to be left unsupported for
several inches. This should be replaced by a carbon tube with steel wire
threaded ends which are only long enough to thread a clevis and reach
their mounting points. The control linkage wire should be music wire
grade steel at a minimum and 4-40 thread would be OK but 6-32 would be
better. The current supplied wire is a soft mild steel of some kind that
can be easily clipped with a plier or side cutters, typical Chinese
cheap metal for production.
The torque rod that has been preinstalled in the tail is also made of
the same soft metal. This should have been made in its current design
with a higher tensile strength music wire at a minimum to reduce
twisting. To eliminate twisting this design would have to be scraped for
a proper torque tube the type commonly employed on jets and high speed
aircraft. This can be accomplished with an inexpensive 3/16-1/4in brass
tube, pin and soldered tab or long bolt.
For a surface of this size and considering how fast this plane can fly
it is my opinion that the current design for the rudder control system
is subpar and dangerous. I have not run the numbers to determine the
loads and other safety factors but I can tell from my experience that
there is a lot lacking. I know the feedback does not suggest there is a
hint of a problem from what I was told by Dave (customer service
manager?) looking at the comments on file. This is contrary to the
comments I have read by Karl Hibbs, John Smith, who have had personal
experiences with the Corsair as built by the book with the supplied
materials.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...21/key_/tm.htm
Above is a link to the thread on RCU where you can read these specific
instances and my comments as well. I know John Smith personally and he
is an excellent builder and scale competitor. I have not dug deeper than
this on other forums or stirred the pot if you will. If you follow along
there are references to flutter at mid speeds.

Status: With the radio system ON I cannot center the rudder, again this
was built by the book and with the materials supplied.

Elevator and construction
The elevator has a similar issue. I can hold the torque rod still with
one hand and with tips of my fingers and light touch I can easily flex
the elevator in either direction. The elevator itself flexes a lot and
the leading edge of the part seems to twist as well. With the servos
powered up I can deflect the elevators easily one at a time by hand.
These surfaces should be very firm with little to no deflection by
hand.
The elevator parts alone seem flimsy. I can easily twist the part from
the inner torque rod end to the outer tip. What will happen in flight
is, as the command input to pull up is given, the more rigid inner
portion of the elevator will deflect up and the outer portion will
gradually twist under load towards the neutral position. After many
cycles the glue joints and wood will soften further and make this
surface weaker which will lead to flutter and possible catastrophic
failure.
I have not stripped the covering away from the parts yet but I plan to
strengthen these elevator parts to reduce twisting.
The control linkage is supported most of the way back to the elevator
so there is no deflection side to side here. The torque rods again are
made from soft steel instead of music wire as stated above. With a minor
update to the elevator construction and a change in material to the
torque rods (L/R) this issue would pretty much be eliminated.

Another contributing factor to flutter is the gap between the main
surface trailing edge and the moving surface leading edge. Ideally there
should be barely a gap visible on a simple hinged assembly without a
pocket as employed on the Corsair. The elevator gap on my example is
about 0.06 in/1.5mm but nearly zero in the rudder assembly. The assembly
jigs for the horizontal stab and elevators should be adjusted so the
finished product matches what the customer will do with the rudder when
assembled.
The elevator counter balance gap is huge which is unattractive for this
semi scale model.

Basically it seems that the standard of the hardware is the same as
that of the 60 size models. The hardware has not been scaled up to
handle the increased loads of a plane that’s 25% larger, give or take.
The torque rods would in fact be adequate in a 60 size model as designed
however these are just not up to the task in this plane.
Overall the plane is nicely built for a mass produced wood model of
this size and this is my first giant scale Top Flight product.
Previously I owned the 60 size P-47 and later traded it to a friend.
Please do not take my comments as nit picking or jabbing. My intention
is to bring these points to your attention and help improve the product
from one product designer to another and as someone who has been to the
factories in China and had to deal with production issues.
I know there are many fans of Top Flight and I have several friends who
enjoy the products in fact a club member, Steve, will be buying a new FW
190 basically because he knows I just began building the Corsair. Im
very interested in seeing the FW up close. We have another member, Leroy,
who just finished up the P-51 kit. The point is that just because
customers have not complained does mean there is no room for improvement
or that they have not just fixed the model up themselves and not
reported it officially. Leroy for example did a lot of work on the P-51
to strengthen the retract mounts, a known weakness of this model. We
sell to a community of tinkerers and modifiers, this is the common
nature of RC clients especially in planes.

I will move on from this point to upgrade the parts discussed and if
the weather cooperates I may get to maiden the Corsair soon. I still
have some work to do to complete the plane such as engine break in (DLE
55R), gear doors with air cylinders, radial engine detail and exterior
decoration, and mounting/cutting the cowl. I do not wish to risk losing
this plane due to simple improvements that can be made to increase the
chances of success with this model. Should something come up I will
follow up with you and report it in detail.

I look forward to your reply and I hope you can accept my constructive
critiques. If I may be of some service to you please dont hesitate to
ask.

Best regards,
Chris Nicastro

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11274752

Videos of the tail issues.

MaJ. Woody

My Feedback: (28)

Hi Chris.
I have a GS Corsair ARF as well. I too was not happy with the rudder slop and lack of centering. You are correct that the long rod and unsupported section is a major player in the problem. I also found that the strip aileron horn hole was a bit big for the clevis pin and that caused some slop as well. I ended up swapping that for one I had laying around the shop with a smaller hole and adding some supports for that rudder pushrod. This helped the centering issue but did not eliminate it altogether. I went from the rudder not retuning to center by a 3/4" to about a 1/16" on either side depending on which way you moved the rudder. I was concerned until I fired up the DLE for the first time. There is so much vibration while idling, that that rudder will wiggle around anyway but mainly stays centered. My elevators seemed fairly tight and I had no real concerns with them. My next concern was for flutter in flight. I must say that after 40 flights with lots of aerobatics that I have not had a single issue. I fly mostly at full throttle too. I wish things were tighter and better designed, but it at least appears they are just good enough.
Dom

guamflyer

Chris,
I read everything you wrote and although I have'nt worked on that particular airplane, I have found similar problems with alot of arfs. I end upredoing almost all of the control set-ups..And yes I do agree that we should not have to do all that redesign to begin with..Also alot of companies don't want to deal with the problems from us customers..most if not all arfs are fast production items to get on the shelves quick.. i toyed with arfs as I was mostly curious..I scratch build more than anything , I build kits too..with that said I tend to stick with that, as I can do as I chose with the aircraft. I also understand full well that alot of us guys/girls don't have all the time in the world for building. I could have sent the airplane back but once it's in my hands I have a problem letting it go..LOL...when I lived in hawaii, the wait was only slightly longer but now that i'm back home in guam, the wait for things and the cost is killers for shipping. you're problem with the said hobby company is frustrating but we also need back up options...but your issues with the arf is valid...


SLOPE FAST - SOAR DEEP

guamflyer

Peter_OZ

My Feedback: (1)

have to say that my experience of ARFs in general leads me to throw the hardware package away in most cases and generally do a kit bash to ensure it is airworthy.

Here in Oz we have large model inspections for any aircraft over 7kg in AUW. These are like scaled down versions of what a full sized aircraft would go through nd must be conducted by a MAAA sanctioned heavy model inspector.

I can say that most of giant scale ARFs would not pass this inspection with their out of the box package.

I'm inclinded to think that ARFs of any type should be reated as a model that is at the stage of systems fit out with onus on owner to change,. modify as appropriate.

Is it right? Nope, but their aim is to get a product to market that meets a basic set of minimum requirements, cost being the driving factor. They don't expect an ARF to have a long life anyway hence the hardware and associated structures reflect this design philosphy.

I do agree with you in that the responses are typical boiler plated "have a nice day" response. Be oily smooth and polite, Smooth the customer over, don't admit to anything and hope he will simply go away!

Mate for what it is worth, modify and replace all the bits your not happy with, go fly and enjoy your model. You have done an excellent job of reporting the issues and I think most fair minded people will make a decsion on purchasing this type of model with your experience and others well in mind.

I have built a couple of TF kits, not ARFs though and I have modified the hell out of them. Mind you I simply can't helpf myself as is the case with most of us in this hobby.

cheers & Good luck with the maiden!

Hellcat716

My Feedback: (2)

I have had this plane since it was released and have no issues with this plane. Flies like it is on rails. Have had there P-40, P-47 and B-25 ARF's and love the Top-Flite quality. Also have a good friend who has one and also has no complaints.

77chickenhawk

Hi agree completely. There hasn't been one ARF that I have messed with that I haven't thrown the hardware package in the trash. There is always a stronger safer way to build than what is in the instructions.

Capt G

My Feedback: (8)

This obviously is not the ARF for you. I will give you $100 cash for it. I'll even pay for the shipping or trade you for a nice NIB foamie warbird.



Mine at WOTR. Stock build. I did run some thin CA into the rudder and elevator holes where the pins go in and sealed the gaps as always.