To all concerned readers monitoring this thread, you have to read these emails for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I would love to hear your responses regarding this matter. I can not believe that it has come to this. Moderators, if you feel this is not right, please accept my apologies. It just does not seem fair for someone to trash a company for not getting what they want and for the manufacture to not be allowed to reply. Sorry that this is going to take up a lot of space and time but I feel as though it is necessary for everyone to see the lengthy conversations that took place between my staff and myself.

REMCL:
1.) We answered your questions in regards to achieving the advertised weight for this model. You did not accept them.
2.) All initial coorespondence was done through email. We did not obtain your email address from your order, we replied to your emails.
3.) In regards to your phone calls, after the first one, and the multiple emails explaining the same information time after time we made a decision that it was not going to be productive for us to continue this discussion with you any further. This was stated in our email to you.
4.) Finally, we never threatened you. In fact, reviewing the emails, quite the contrary happened. I believe you mentioned the part about RCU and the insinuated a cover up as a threat to get what I recall was a return on the plane, plus all expenses. This is where these comments started.

My direct email address is [email protected] for anyone that wishes to send me an email addressing this issue.

email coorespondence:

Dear Robert,

I am once again in receipt of your reply. We are very busy, therefore I can no longer spend the time to send these lengthy replies. We are trying to help you out the best that we can. Our conversations could go on for days about who or what is right or wrong. You explained your position, and we explained ours. The facts are the item in question has not been mis-advertised. Quite simply, built in the hands of an experienced hobbyist, the results which are expressed in all of the advertising can easily be achieved. You had a decision to make in order to achieve these results. You choose an option that apparently did not bring you the success that you were hoping to achieve. This is the path that you chose. I am quite convinced that if you had built the plane first, installed you engine second, and placed all of your radio equipment last, focused entirely on obtaining an acceptable center of gravity, the advertised results can and would have been reached. We have customers that have installed YS. 91 engines in these planes just because they are not 3D flyers and wanted adequate power. They have been successful and happy with the results. On the other end of the spectrum we have had customers install Fuji 32 gas engines, quite heavy in my opinion, and have resulted in a plane that is not within the advertised weight (thus the heavier engine) and they too have been happy with the results. But the bulk of our customers are installing the OS 1.60, Saito 1.80's and YS 1.40's and for the except few that I have mentioned in the earlier emails, they too are all happy. The option for the servo location is a decision that everyone has to make. Some consumers focus on the length of the linkage to be an issue, some people focus on the lightness and center of gravity to be an issue. Again, this is all personal preference. The ones that are mounting the servos in the tail have been informed that installing an engine that may not have sufficient enough weight to accurately obtain the recommended center of gravity may have to add noseweight (referring to the instruction manual). We see nothing that is unclear here. Again, we are sorry that you are unhappy with the model. We offered suggestions, and goodwill. We can do no more. Unfortunately in this industry you are not offered the opportunity to test fly models as you are in lets say the automobile industry. You are basing your decisions on the decision and opinions of others. As I mentioned before if you search RCU for Creek Hobbies, and read all of the threads and posts, even I would base a decision to buy a model from Creek on the feedback. Does this necessarily mean that I may be 100% satisfied as the many others are? Who knows.....this is the situation that we are all subject to when buying any model in the industry. There comes a certain time when we have to sit back, look at what we got, evaluate it's worth to us, and make a decision to keep it because it brings happiness to me, or to get rid of it and move on to something else that may satisfy my needs better. This is why we have Ebay, RCU, etc. It is a way for us to sell what we have to move on to something that we think may satisfy us better. In your case, you have made it clear that changing the installation, although apparently the right thing to do, will not make you happy. Is this the fault of the plane, or the manufacture? I say no. The results are achievable....if they were not are reputation would be tarnished and the sales would diminish. This has not been the case. We do our best to satisfy every customer, but again as stated in previous replies, sometimes this goal can not be achieved. Our previous gesture of goodwill stands, this is all we can do.

In regards to the issue of slander, we take this very seriously. We did not threaten you. We treat these situations one in the same. You have the right to free speech, however legally there are certain laws that prohibit slanderous remarks, and defamation of character. We are not attorneys, therefore we leave these situations up to the professionals to evaluate. Our opinion of your bringing up RCU, and how you represented yourself, suggested the intended use as leverage. We assumed this to be a bargaining tool on your part, or possible a threat. We hope this was not the case.



Sincerely,

Steve
Creek Hobbies