Mike,
I am very comfortable with the way this discussion has gone and I have no problem with anyone expressing how they feel about this plane and its failures. I only wanted to state where I was coming from.
I would say that it is more effective to go straight at the vendor rather than try and put them in a corner in a forum. Having said that I do agree that a more pro-active response is needed in this case.
The problem is that we know it is happening but;
a) We don't know why.
b) We don't know for sure what will prevent a failure from happening.
If it were my product I would be trying to make it happen with tests on models and recall the failed ones for analysis etc. I used to be a QA manager for software and basically resigned and took a job with another conmpany when I was given the blatant order to "Ship now, fix later". [I later attended the meeting when their products died]
Regards,
Eric.
ORIGINAL: mups53
Andy, written wavers don't do any good for a flyer that injures someone else or the innocent victims. It's just poor business and moral ethics to have a safety problem and not address it in a responsible manner. I would have a problem with trusting the soundness if I owned one of these planes. I say this because my friend and fellow flyer Bill Brit has lost 2 of the C-Arf planes and I have been witness to it. He is a very capable builder and flys as calmly as could be expected with the plane. To those who havn't experienced an issue with the plane to date I can only say that it doesn't mean that you won't. Safety starts at home boys.
Eric I hope you didn't think that I was implying anything to you personally. It just seemed to me that the modifiacations that you were refering too were a way to fix C-ARF's problem when I think it's something that they should have already done themselves. Thanks for letting me view my opinions, Mike