Original: P-51B
The point people are making is they advertise the arfs in this fashion. If they advertised them as ARFS, that may need you to uncover, recheck all the glue joints, recover...etc..., then maybe fewer people would have a complaint.
You seem to forget that this particular problem would not have involved the removal of
any covering to realize and rectify.
I am by no means referring to any structural defect buried within some unaccessible part of the airframe that doesn't show up until the plane is airborne. The manufacturer would be entirely at fault in such a case but only to the point of replacing the airframe. Unfortunately the modeler would be totally liable for any property damage or bodily harm caused by
any loss of control. If anyone cares to check with a respectable lawyer, (yeah, there are a few), I'm sure he/she will agree. Anyone who thinks that they could prove otherwise in a court of law and win would be in for a very long and expensive battle. The fact that it is
extremely difficult to decipher and prove the
exact cause of any R/C airplane crash puts total liability on the shoulders of the end user. That's why we as pilots carry insurance and AMA coverage. It is not my intention to take this thread into the legal issues of this nor do I intend to debate on it. Bottom line is, it's ARF's we are talking about here. They are not sold as a flight ready aircraft no matter what is advertised, implied, or assumed. I truly believe that even the planes that are sold as RTF's would fall under the same legal issues I have mentioned because of the fact that the pilot is liable for doing a thorough pre-flight check
each time he takes the aircraft up. Full scale pilots do this for good reason and so should we. As for the "holier than thou" comment, well, it wasn't my intention to come across as such. I do however think that it is of utmost importance that we as modelers realize the responsibility of putting an aircraft into flight and to do everything in our power to insure that the aircraft is as safe as humanly possible. I can say without a doubt that there are a few individuals at our field that continually have the highest percentage of crashes to flights. Then there are those who have a very very small, or zero, percentage of crashes to flights. It's not coincidence, and it's not because the crashers are newbies or bad pilots per say. I'm sure this is the case at most fields. There is a reason for this.