RCU Forums - View Single Post - Aerofoam T-45
Thread: Aerofoam T-45
View Single Post
Old 06-13-2021, 12:18 PM
  #22  
highhorse
 
highhorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 2,311
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
I have two comments to that...

First, I think that, except for the gear problem, this thing could be assembled stock and be fine - its just not what I want to have - which is also the reason I'm painting mine.

Second, we just finished assembling a JMB Jets "PNP" T-7A - which cost a lot more, and we had to do all of this, and more. I've also talked to a number of people who have done "PNP" BVM jets and they have had to modify them too to make them satisfactory to their standards. "Plug-and-play" is in the eye of the purchaser.

In this case, knowing what I know now, if the jet would have been offered "without electronics" - meaning no gear, brake, and light controllers, I would have taken that option. However, based on the typical price of electronics from China, I doubt that would have saved $100 in the cost of the jet, probably less.

Bob

ps - actually third comment, everyone who has one comments that it flies well and at the price at which its offered, I think its a good deal...
So, a few counter-counter points if I may...not intended as a poke in any individual’s eye, just a furthering of the discussion:

1) Weak gear support broke on a first flight
2) Gear that won’t retract (how was this not clearly known to the mfr before release?)
3) Not-visible UAT (critical preflight item)
4) Sloppy control linkage (perhaps usable but at least questionable)

This isn’t a race for the bottom, two wrongs don’t make a right, folks jumping off of a bridge doesn’t mean that others should follow suit etc...So...The fact that some other mfr’s have something as bad and/or worse and/or more expensive neither changes the basic premise that of the above are clear signs of lack of development/testing before being released to consumers who then find themselves having paid hard earned $ for the privilege of doing the manufacturer’s work. Nor does it somehow excuse the foisting of known defects upon consumers.

Being fun to fly once the consumer works out inherent defects? Check. Great. But one should be clearly informed and forewarned when buying any product and that is the clear value of this thread IMO. Buy this model with the understanding that it’s a Harbor Freight jet that looks good in the color advertising but doesn’t live up to the job in reality and needs work.

Lastly, I respectfully disagree that “Plug and Play” is in the eye of the purchaser. By definition, the play part should..play. Right? Using an electronics or software analogy here, PNP doesn’t mean plug then re-solder connections or re-write code to achieve the basic intended functions. While some of the above squawks could admittedly be subjective, the play part w/r/t the landing gear structure and retract function isn’t working here as stock. This may be a simple case of semantics though as the quoted post did clearly indicate that this is PNP with the exception of the gear.

To each his own obviously because that’s what a free market is all about, but I’d offer that this jet is “Plug, Work On It, Play”, and because it’s not advertised as such I define that as a mess. All the more so because I can’t imagine the mfr not knowing of certain issues before shipping.

None of my opining should be construed as detracting from the OP’s and others’ efforts, volunteering their time to educate and inform. That’s both laudable and invaluable.

Last edited by highhorse; 06-13-2021 at 12:33 PM.
The following users liked this post:
cetigershark (06-15-2021)