Hey guys , saw the subject and just can't help myself! I have the G.Planes Pitts and whilst i am not familiar with the Cermark Pitts , i also looked at photos of Props Pitts wreckage and i think it's quite obvious that the materials used in the construction are marginal for an aircraft of this heritage , ie fully aerobatic! I think that easytiger has missed the point in that no one is questioning the design or the designer , but the obviously cheap and nasty construction/materials employed. I have stripped my G.P Pitts to the bone and am almost finished with the modifications/improvements to the original construction. I am guilty in that i am overpowering the airframe in regards to manufacturers recommendations , but i want a high performance aircraft and i'm prepared to go the extra mile to acheive this. Having built many giant scale aerobatic models in the past , my only concern is with safety/airworthyness . A slack attitude with construction can lead to potentially fatal consequences. This is where purchasing an ARF can get you into trouble , as you can't see what is under that covering. If you're lucky they have done a good job , if not , you could be in deep sh-t! I wonder who would be responsible if there was a serious accident and people ended up in court? The manufacturer for not ensuring he produced a safe product or the purchaser/end user for just flying the thing!
If you're going to make a R/C model of one of the world's most famous aerobatic bipes in history then for god's sake please give us something built with performance in mind , not something that is a risk to everyone in the general vicinity!