And therein lies the problem; not all manufacturers are conscientious about making a robust enough product. They tend to make it to the bare minumum to get by. I think that if you want an airplane with balls out performance then perhaps an ARF is not for you. It sort of defeats the purpose if you have to strip all the covering, add structural reinforcement, re-glue joints, replace sub-par material, provide new hardware, etc. Why buy the thing in the first place? I would do it right the first time. Either live with what the manufacturer recommends, find an AFR that's suitable to your needs and desires or build it yourself to your own specs.

Both user and manufacturer have a level of responsibility they need to ascribe to. If I'm gonna plunk down $400 or more for an ARF it better be right out of the box. We should accept no less. I think most ARF makers test their ARF within the spec range they have set forth. If you as the user choose to go outside these specs then it's at your own peril. Now, with that said I think an ARF maker should also build in a fudge factor and allow that the end user might decide to go outside the spec limits. therfore they ought to make the product a bit more robust to handle those instances. And they need to realize a certain percentage of their user will do this and they should be prepared to deal with the issues that will arise. If that means eating it to maintain a good custome relation then that's how it should be. They shouldn't take on a belligerent tone with a customer.

Now, if Cermark has used sub-par materials AND is hostile to user complaints that only makes them even worse in my eyes and to be avoided at all costs. Safety concerns should be paramount in their product design and use.