Some of you guys totally miss the target! Giant Scale Planes sells some good stuff, they sell some bad stuff. They either begrudgingly replace parts or they totally refuse to replace parts. I guess it depends on if you're related to Irwin which way they go!

If I buy any and I mean "ANY" product I expect it to function for its intended purpose! I should not be liable in "ANY" way its failure! If I alter the product, I do so at the risk of voiding the manuacturers warranty.

All of of you "holier than thou" so called builders really disgust me. If you pick apart every ARF you get then why didn't you just buy the BIY (Build It Yourself) kit to begin with. You try to blame the rest of us for the failures of the planes we buy from these companies. Sometimes I really think you defend these companies because you have hidden agendas or are hoping that by defending them, they'll treat you differently from the rest of us.

I will give Irwin his due. He is a very good business man! He makes money off of those of us who do not listen to the facts from the ones who have bought his products and had problems. We are like moths to a flame!

I would recommend that any modeler who purchases a poorly designed product first contact the seller and or manfacturer. If you get no resolve, contact the BBB (Better Business Bureau) or the Governor's office on consumer affairs. As far as suing, that would better be done in class action. Or better yet buy one of GSP's planes and send it to one of these "holier than thou" types, let him build it for you then hold him responsible for any failures!

Happy Flying!

LOOPMAN

I think that anyone who has assembled ARF's for any amount of time will have to agree that the manufactures/distributors have " stepped it up" in fact overstepped it, quite a bit. Anyone remmember the Lanier Jesters?................[8D]

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.

I love it when some guys in the post start redirecting the comments on each other instead of the issue on hand.The bottom line is your responsible for the plane and you must carry ama incase of an accident. If you see something that is unacceptable and needs to be fixed or rebuilt, it's your resposibility to take care of it. You bought a plane and by not returning it because you felt it was acceptable is now the agreement that you will take the responsibility of completing it and making it safe for operation. If it fails due to a broken spar or former inside where it is not accessible to you, it is something that is their responsibility. But you have to prove that there is no damage to the structure that was prior to the failure. This is hard to do, being that the models are mianly wood and after it fails it will impact the ground. Now we have to seperate the failure from the impact damage. Half of the reasons that are given for aircraft crashing are wrong. The only advise I can give you is if you want to verify the accident data, buy an Eagletree flight data recorder and look at your servo imputs and compair that to what happened. This is where you can justify a servo pulling from the rails, it would show the servo moving and your flight would indicate no surface deflection.I'm not that gun-ho about pointing fingers and I already accept responsibility for the plane everytime I fly. If I lose it I will move on and not try to make someone take the fall for something I did or didn't do. We all take that caculated risk everytime we fly, it is something we as fliers must agree apon, I had planes that last 10 years and some that lasted only 1 flight. It is pointless to try to take it to court, any lawyer will chew the case up and spit it out on your feet.

jbflier,

Yes I remember the Lanier Jester, its the worst ARF in the world. To this day I nearly puke when I think about it.
It is my belief that Lanier never tried to assembled one and never took one out to fly. I know that Lanier is a different company now but I still can't force myself to buy one of their planes. The Jester was an assemblage of bad ideas and should have been aborted before they cut up a bunch of plastic and foam to make it.
After all these years that thing is still in my basement and when I see it I always wonder how Lanier had the gall to put it on the market. They must have had a deep seated hatred for model builders.

http://www.cmpairplane.com/ ... you can order direct even ... I emailed them and got a prompt reply. BTW I just fixed up 2 World Models planes last week ... both had good manufacturing and workmanship. All accessories (horns etc) were of great quality (ARF standards). Both planes (Sky Raider II and Rambler 45) flies well ...

This thread doesn't surprise me at all. I fly helis and planes, and Irwin Siner has had a BAD reputation in the heli community for years. Why would he treat his GSP customers any differently?

If any of you are looking for the same arfs that GSP sells, go to www.chiefaircraft.com

I'm with Woody!

Go here (http://www.chiefaircraft.com/) but dont freak out when you see lots of full scale aircraft parts and pics listed... Look for the "Radio Control" tab on the left!.. I think the only drawback to buying from Cheif is that they dont do C.O.D's.... I fedexed a money order and as soon as they got it, they shipped my kit...

Myron

Let's see, we can buy the same plane from Chief and Giant Scale Planes when:

Chief's cost shipped is same as GSP unshipped
Chief has better service
Chief has better attitude

I hope Chief starts importing everything good plane that GSP carries. They already have the

3D Giles 202 ARF 3D Passion 60 ARF Extra 300S 140 ARF Extra 300S 90 ARF Fun Air 3D-40 ARF Katana 140 ARF YAK-54 140 ARF Zero Fighter 120 ARF, which has majority of the good CMP products currently.

I don't think GSP has the sole import right to CMP planes. It will only be a matter of time before GSP is out of business, unless of course, they get their acts together and starting winning customers back.

I bought the GSP Katana last year and sent in an email about the Sheer Web issue the plane was having when it was first released. I received a real nasty eamil from Irwin Siner telling me he worked his butt off travel 100,000 miles a year looking for good ARF's to sell and he didn't have time to deal with my question. Next year at this time GSP won't be in business if they don't put a cork in Irwin's mouth.

Daven and stick jammer hit it right on the head with thier comments. Unless an arf is a total pos right out of the box (send that one back), take some time to make the arf better and stronger...why not?? The people that cry and whine are the people too lazy to tweek out the plane.....or they don't know a servo from a wingtip and can't...so whats left to do? ***** and moan.

I have seen EVERY major arf manufacturer get slammed on rcu (and some of those companies give rcu money to adververtise at the same time they are getting slammed...what a joke. I think the companies that don't advertise on rcu have figured this out and don't bother giving rcu money).

Just look around: they have posted Hangar 9 arfs are junk. GP arfs are junk, H9 retracts are junk, DP arfs are junk, GP wings failing in flight, Laniers are garbage, KMPs have probs....etc etc. So ALL MAJOR arf makers produce JUNK??? NOPE. They are all made to a certain standard...as good as they can be in an assemblly line environment and made to be sold at $300 or so.

If you just can't get this concept, stop buying arfs and start building kits....oops I forgot, you are too lazy.


Also, why is this Irwin dude still in business if he is crooked and/or too rude to deal with? Which ones of you are helping him stay in business?

I think the issue with GSP is not the quality of the ARF's they sell but the quality of customer support. Is it that difficult for Irwin to say "Send it in and we'll have a look at it". He doesn't want to be bothered with unhappy customers, he just wants to sell planes. Great Planes got to where they are with great customer support.

Hey guys I just stumbled on this thread and it is turning into a novel considering the post... If you read my comment (as some people do then state how old this tread it and so on...) unsubscribe yourself... This seems to be another debate thread... I like these because seeing other's points of view is interesting and sometimes informing... I am awaiting a GP Giles G-202 which has been hacked up by many and praised by less... I know "the wing joint will need reinforcing", "it wasn't made for gas", "it will snap on landing", "not a 3D plane" and so on... I take some and I leave some... If it shows up at the LHS, we open it and it has defects we will ship it back before leaving the LHS... If not then I'll build it ... If it crashes for WHATEVER reason I won't call GP... When I entered the hobby in 1991 a man by the name of Mike Yeager got me into the hobby and took me flying when my Dad was flying for Delta.. He said "Scotty ARF's are crap!" I just listened to him and never bought them... Instead I bought good looking planes off the LHS ceiling in Tampa and flew them till they crashed... I just expected it... I got out of the hobby when I discovered girls and beer and just got back into it when I got stationed here at Ft. Sill, OK... I bought a GP Big Stik 40 ARF (love it) slapped an engine and radio in it and I bore holes in the sky daily... ARF's have come a long way since I first saw them and have totally changed the business in my point of view, but have not changed the fundamentals for most of us... I guess if I crash my big stik I can call the company? I used to just hang my head hand off my Tx to Mike and start the famous "walk of shame"... Getting down to the point, the only way to force a manufacturer to change thier products is to boycott them... Once you take off you are on your own IMO... Imagine if it were an American sweat shop making these planes with young adolescent brat teens on the assembly line? Heck they would be spitting on the planes let alone making errors... I'm just glad that I make enough money to afford the hobby and that I get to choose which one to buy... In some countries you can stand in line all day to buy a coat, get to the front of the line to find out that the "coat" they have isnt your size... Enough of my rambling... Sorry the builder is liable that is why we have AMA because I dont see someone suing an airplane company for a plane going through their window, but I do see someone trying to sue me... Also inspect eachothers planes before the maiden... It's called 2 man integrity, you military guys are familiar with it... Preflight your planes everytime and fly safely and you can blame yourself or a glitch after a crash... Almost Ready To Fly + You = Ready to fly or not? It's up to you don't drop the ball hehe... Just my $.25

PS I was going to buy a GSP but due to bad publicity I chose GP again... There you go...

Scotty ... you are right about cheap planes being cheap on quality. Anyways, look at the problem with the GP Lancair, just too many failures to say that it was the hobbyist's fault. Just one too many.

Anyways, the person who is liable for a bad plane is the LHS. Its called contractual obligations ... not the manufacturer. The LHS or owner can try to claim from the manufacturer such as GP for good customer relations but contractually its always the LHS as the seller of the goods.

GP planes are nice but GSP are cheaper, hence the frustrations. However, there are some great cheap planes that have quality and the price is totally awesome. I mean I have bougt the Phoenix Scanner and its like only USD70 but the plane is decently built and flies really great for a low wing trainer. The World Models Rambler 45 is wonderful to fly and the workmanship is very nice.

Only way out of this predicament is to search the net and ask a lot more before we buy, DO NOT buy on impulse. I did and ended up with 2 good looking planes what fly really bad!!!

I concurr... I just know that the hobby shop an hour away is owned by an A-Hole and I don't want to buy from him in the first place, let alone return something... This guy I'm buying from now 35 miles away seems cool and I'll just have to wait and see... I don't know how Tower is because I always support the "LHS" I don't want to spend time on the phone talking to anyone about defects... If I open the box on this GP Giles and it isn't up to par like my Big Stik was, I'll cuss and well send it back, wait a week etc... I just inspect my planes real good do mods if I deem necessary and fly the piss out of em... By the time I have a problem it will be way to late to blame anyone else but me...

Guys are any of you confused like me ? I have seen so many ads and the planes are obviously coming from the same place with differant distributors , can someone with knowledge post a simple list . examples, if so also list why you would give them a plus or minus in one line and if they are the same plane under a differant company , thanks a ton

great planes +
Kondor Models -
Giantscale planes -
World modles +

How about this issue with GSP... and it happened to me....!!!

A friend bought an ARC, big Cap from GSP... and asked me to complete it for him...

There was no manual with the plane ... OK... so I downloaded the manual from their website and printed it... no big deal...

I put the plane together... and I've professionally built 100s of planes... the plane looked and went together fine.

I balanced the plane according to the specifications in the GSP manual... no problem.

The 4.2 roared to life and the plane lifted off... sort of OK... but the rest was fearsome...!!!!

The plane was wildly unstable in pitch...!!! and I immediately knew that it was very tail heavy...!!!! An eventful 5 minutes ... slighest up elevator and it pitched straight up...!!! not good...!

Finally got it on the ground... messed up one wing and one stab and elevator... and cracked the fuse... Did I screw up in balancing... I was under the gun...!! Took the plane back to the shop... put it back up on the balancer... CHECKED the manual... it was right on the balance point the manual said... The only conclusion... the manual is wrong... !!!! I called GSP to inquire about the CG... and sure enough it was an error in the manual... The published CG was off by 2 inches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

I asked GSP for replacement parts because of their mistake... Seemed like a reasonable thing to do... No way!!! Siner was an @$$ ... of the first magnitude!! I built it... it was the builder's mistake...???!!!

To make a long story, shorter... after several snail mail legal letters, and a outpouring from all my club members... Siner gave in and provided parts and funds for labor...!! I have the worst taste in my mouth for GSP....!!

Here's the kicker to the story... Six months after the above incident... I checked the manual online... and the "in error CG" is still there... did they change it... no way!!! THIS IS THE GSP WAY!!! STAY AWAY FROM THEM...!

I think most people have developed habits when assembling an ARF to protect themselves. I always balance at the forward end of the published CG (even forward of that if the balance point seems funny). I'll move it little by little, later on. I replace hardware, I reinforce if I think necessary and check the plane carefully after each of the first five or so flights. After the plane has some time on it I check less often. I check the wing incidence and look for warps. I've had to correct things, sometimes lots of things (I too had an early Lanier). ARF's are better than they used to be but I still check. I personally think that as soon as the wheels are off the ground for the first time I can kiss goodbye the opportunity to return it. (On second thought, as soon as I fire up the engine, mounted on the plane.) The market will tend to eliminate those manufacturers or retailers that don't supply what the consumers are satisfied with. RC Universe provides a perfect place for us to exchange information. I, for some time, have been eyeing a Katana 140 from GSP. I've seem problems, people have provided workarounds, flying reports have been good. I'll probably order one.... from Chief, due to the complaints heard here and the fact that I've had good experiences with Chief. To a certain extent, we just need to be a little careful about what we buy and who we deal with. I agree that some manufacturers and retailers are responsible for problems, but the sad fact is that they won't generally be held to it. We vote with our money.

Earlier in the post it was stated that the MFG should have liabiliy or responsibility on the model if it comes apart in flight due to some sort of failure... it was also stated that we dont have to do anything to cars, refrigerators, lawnmowers and the like after purchase, and after assembly.. I offer this... How many times after purchasing a lawnmower do you bring it home and chuck the engine to put a bigger one on it with more horsepower?.. or bring home your car and tear all the linkage out of the front end, modify the steering ratio so that you can put more "throw" into the steering radius to do tighter donuts in the street? I have been building, flying, and ARF'ing for awhile now.. ARF's are not as strong as kits, those habbits talked about here with respect to doing particular things to an arf to make it stronger come from experience in overpowering, over throwing, and basically turning a plane that can flying into a overhorsepowered, lunging monster in the sky. If you want to guarantee an airplane.. buy the kit and build it yourself. if your need at the time is to get in the air in the shortest time possible buy an ARF, spend a bit of time checking over what you can and go fly. I have bought one the GSP Katana's and am currently putting it together. I have read everyones complaints and the full post on the plane. I will fix what hasnt already been fixed by the MFG and go flying. If this model blows apart in the sky I can more than likely blame me.. It's a Katana S-140 I am putting a monsterously horsepowered OS1.60 with a pump in the front. I am putting Hitec 5945's everywhere but throttle and carbon fiber control rods.. they have no give and that servo is a torque monster.. If i dont beef up the servo mount trays shame on me. It comes down to time, money and what the ARF was designed to do. If I fly that Katana diving down full throttle on a downwind leg and it dont blow itself to tatters I got lucky.. its not a speed demon its an aerobatic plane. Pull straight up till I cannot see anymore but not made to set speed records.

Just my two cents

Reinforcing things isn't really the issue. Is it? checking things over to protect YOUR investment is. If you aren't willing to check over an arf... any arf.... build an equivalent and be in control of the whole process. C'mon- use a little common sense.... and don't be sympathetic to those who sue MacNDon's over coffee that's too hot- or BK for burning yourself on too hot pickles.... and the list goes on. Take some responsibility for making the purchase.

I have several GSP planes. I didn't build them to the point to where I got them. So, I check over their work. On one the plywood reinforcement broke loose when I-- read that again I flexed the fiberglass fuselage. It was in there. Glued. I popped it loose.... so, I took it upon myself to plain and simply glue it back in place. I didn't whine about substandard gluing or manufacturing processes. If you think that AMA's going to be flooded with liability lawsuits over things like this- maybe it's up to us to squelch them - tell other modellers or their lawyers to sit down.... shut up.... take responsibility their own for putting the plane into the air... and let the rest of us enjoy the heck out of our hobby.

Hi guys,

I have built a 68" P-51 from GSP and am now working on a 70" Hellcat by GSP.

The P-51 was very high quality. I did reinforce the cowl with fiberglass. Got alot of compliments on that bird. Easy to build, had alot of fun flying it.

After having major issues with a Kyosho GeeBee Z ARF and a P-38 from Morrison's, I wasn't expecting much. The Hellcat is without a doubt the best ARF I have ever seen. Period. Sure, the paint scheme is not 100% scale, but the quality is awsome.

Having said that, I do not understand why ARF mfg's include the worst hardware. I routinely just chuck all the hardware that comes with the bird. Then I go out and get Sullivan, Dubro, or similar hardware. The word ARF is a misnomer in my opinion. These should be called "quick build" kits like the full size kit planes industry calls theirs. I have never seen any ARF that was "almost ready to fly".

I think another area people have issues with is skill level. It takes a moderate or advanced level of building skill sometimes to make an ARF come out as it should. I think some people expect to just throw it together and go fly. I always check and reinforce anything that's not up to par. I also read and re-read the directions. Then I make notes about which changes I might need to make either in the sequence of steps, or modifications to the construction.

I can say nothing but good things about GSP...sorry for not jumping on the bandwagon. My experience is limited to two birds though.

I will post photos in my gallery when the f6f flies. Planning on a June date for first flight.

Sincerely
Patrick S. Duncan

I think my review of the P-51 is on the GSP site.

I am sorry if I missed it. What plane was it? What engine did you use and last, did you at least CA reinforce the screw holes.
Just curius if any of the above could cause the servo pull out. Let us know.

The plane was the smaller Cap. The holes did have drop of CA applied and allowed to cure prior to installation of servos. I believe I mentioned in original post (done some time back, I almost forgot it) that I own two of GSP Sukhois that I am very happy with. These planes have solid ply servo platforms and it never occurred to me to think that an experienced builder, let alone a responsible manufacturer would use balsa as servo platform for any type of tail-surface control.
I was not interested in flamming GSP. I am rather fed up with folks refusing to own up to mistakes. Believe me I make them all the time, as all humans do, it the nature of being human. I think I would have been more understanding if GSP told me their business model could not accomodate making good on faulty engineering or simple oversights, but that they would at ounce correct their mistakes, for no other reason than the safety of modelers.

I myself learned a valuable lesson however. I would not want to injure anyone in my pesuit of the hobby and I will never assume again that an ARF manufacturer has at least provided basic air worthy components and platforms underneath the covering. I we as modelers though are expected to remove the covering to properly reinforce wing center sections; add shear webbing; re-glue fuselage formers; epoxy landing gear blocks; and reinforce firewalls, it seems only fair that the manufacturer at least provide us with a little extra piece of the covering material so that are planes can still look almost new on maiden flights. Heck, for my pride of owner ship I won't mind even paying for the covering material.

Can you be specific as to what size cap was it and what size engine used etc.
For example: if you have 60 size engine on 40 size plane than it can make a big difference wethere balsa blocks work or not.
We (modelers) always ignore max engine ranges and then blame manufacturers for wing failure, flutter etc. Please let us know.

I don't have the box or the instruction manual so I am going from memory only. I believe the wingspan was 59"-61", not sure of the fuse length. The egine required was a 90 four stroke and I mounted an older OS 120 fs which was mounted via vibration dampners to the firewall. The servos were Hitec 605's, except throttle and rudder. The Rudder I think had a Hitec metal Gear. The wing loading as I recall was not excessive as it was an extremely gentle lander, in fact the larger engine I believe was used to compensate for the lead that would have been needed.