I recently lost a plane due to the rudder servo screws pulling out in flight. On inspection after the crash, I found that there was not a ply sub-structure beneath the balsa for adequate support for mounting the servo. I own two other planes from this manufacturer and all the basic sub-supports are there.

My question is this. Is the manufacturer of ARF.s responsible in any way for at least providing an adequate sub-structure for engine and servo mounting, or are we as purchasers responsible, even though we have to cut into the closed structures of the fuselage to do so?

When I informed GSP of the problem (by the way, nothing was mentioned in their written instructions), they responded promply with the following:

Dear Dr. Brown,

I am in China now & will pass your remarks to the factory.
. I am sorry for your problem, however you are the builder & it is your responsibility to check
your construction to determine if there is adequate support for the servo. We can not be
responsible for this problem….Again I am sorry …
Sincerely,
Irwin Siner
Hobbies & Helis International
Quick Worldwide
Giantscaleplanes.com
Quickheli.com[/center]
So I ask you guys. Who is really responsible.

ReVGQ,
Sorry for your loss. Which airplane was it? I'm building the older version of their 72" P-47 and have made several significant changes to the structure. Luckily, the fuselage is so big and open I can get to all of it. The sheeted foam wing required lots of beefing up in/around the aileron/retract servos and retract mounting areas. The hardware was crap and I threw all of it out.
I received the plane as a gift from my wife X-mas 2002 and have just gotten around to starting it. Their customer service and reputation really takes a beating here on the forums. There have been several very positive product reviews recently and thought they'd finally gotten their act together. I guess not all together. Good Luck.
Dave

That responce is so bogus, they are 100% responcible for common building factors that make a plane air worthy .that would include, the firewall, the servo mounting plates , the wing joiners and mouting mechanisum and tail and fin substrcutures. This is getting to the point that manufactures will have lawsuits if they dont simply take care of basics. I dont mean working gear , or luxuarys that can all have problems , I mean basic construction that keeps models safe and fun . If they dont step up the AMA will be faced with liability claims that will kill this hobby . I went thru this with the H9 corsair, the plane is great but I reinforced the firewall based on post that I had read on RCU. If not I would have bet the firewall woudl have pulled off just like the one posted .
Good luck but this is one case that i feel you are correct , you did not build the kit you bought it with the assumption that the basic structure was airworthy and safe .That failure could have caused a seriuos injury .

RevGQ:

Irwin will tell you anything to keep from having to take responsibility, but the fact is, the seller has a responsibility to provide a "marketable" product. In plain english that means that the parts of the airplane that are assembled by the factory have to be adequate and safe for normal use.

If there was no light ply under the servo screws, that airplane was not safe when you got it. You do not have a legal responsibility to recheck the factory's work. (Although in hindsight, it might have been a good idea.) GSP is responsible not only for the loss of the plane, but also for any damages caused by the unsafe airplane. (Like your engine and radio, anything the airplane hit when it crashed, and maybe even the time you spent putting it together.)

Sue him in small claims court, you have an excellent case.

Jim

Thanks guys for your insights. I do want to be fair though. I have two GSP Sukhois that I love. Both have adequate sub-structures, that is why I did not question the construction of their 66" Cap 232. I simply found it amazing that Irwin and his company would expect me to rip open a new product to add the required sub-structure for minimum safety.

I for one will not purchase from him again after the response I received. I am not bad mouthing their other products, because like I said, I love my Sukhois. But I am a better than fair builder and love building, but to spend decent money on a plane I must rebuild from the box doesn't seem wise. Thanks again for your responses to this post.

I have one of these plane I am flying at the moment, What was you exact problem so I can check my current model.

This is just my opinion and may not be worth spit but I think it is the responsibility of the hobbiest (in this case you) to inspect the plane as you assemble it. I recently built the GSP Katana and found a number of problems with it, one of which was a lack of lite ply reinforcing one of the elevator servo mounting points. Notice I said ONE of them, as there are two. I just cut a couple of pieces of ply and glued them in, went on and never gave it a second thought. The incidence was off on one of the Stabilizers as well. I corrected that too. Had to add 15 oz. of weight to the nose to get the plane to balance at the recommended point, using the recommended size engine.

If you just blindly assemble a plane from any manufacturer, you can probably expect it to come back and bite you in the @$$. GSP is taking a real beating on the Katana because of a bad design in the wings and most of the original production run have come to an early demise. On those planes they are making good on the losses (although grudgingly) and in the newest production run they have fixed the problem. It sounds to me like, based on my experience with this and other manufacturers, you just have a plane that a part was mistakenly omitted from. Technically, GSP might share some responsibility, but you as the builder should have noticed and repaired their omission during the assembly process.

You put a dangerous machine in the air you have the responsibility to make sure it is safe as possible. I don't mean to imply that you should tear all your planes apart to make sure they are built like a tank, but something like that you should have noticed, if you were as experienced as you say.

Just my opinion as stated above.

cstevec : Lets say you paid someone good money to build you a kit because you didn't have the time to do it yourself (hypothetical)and then you took it home and found that it had many faults. Would you be happy? Would you ask for it to be fixed or repaired since you spent the extra money for a airplane you thought would be airworthy? Or would you then take your time to fix something that should have been right in the first place? No flaming intended just a honest question.

You bet your life I would expect the problems to be rectified if I paid someone to build me a plane. It had better be ready to fly. In this case though, RevGQ is the builder. GSP is not exactly one of the premier ARF suppliers either. They are known as a company that supplies a excellent flying plane at a cheap price but that also usually requires more work then say a Hanger 9 ARF or a Great Planes ARF to get in the air. I think in this case Rev just overlooked the missing piece.

I fell into the GSP Corsair or KMP or China model syndrom......bought it when I started the hobby 8 months ago and ran into so many problems with it I'm worried to fly it. Thin fiberglass job , wing hold downs not marked on wing or fuse , Diff. color wings and rudder , flaps simply wont work the way it is setup per manual , retracts needed major mods due to odd size cut-outs in wing, wing joint with 1/4 inch gap and had to modify , servo tray very weak , ALL of the hinge slots cut way off center , No hinge slots cut in the vertical stab and its fiberglass(real joy to dig out)...........these are to name a few problems. After 5 calls all I recieved was "try to line up everything the best you can , the manufacturer is working on the problems". Wow just what I wanted to hear !! So know I have a 13lb missile that may or may not fly properly or may have a flight failure. Guess thats why its still hanging on the wall......Best $350 I invested !! Its just a crushing blow to this great hobby when you end up with a "Static" model that should be flying and enjoyable , moreless a substantial investment.

Guys guys guys ... you get what you pay for. To be honest, when a model really fails due to manufacturing then the problem is to be addressed with the LHS as they are contractually bound to sell you something that is fit for the purpose its purchased for. Fitness for purpose as lawyers call it. Hence if its a lemon then take issue with the LHS for sure!

Again, ARFs are all mass produced in places like China and Vietnam. I know of some great Vietnam planes, Phoenix planes are great value for money (try the low wing trainer called SCANNER, flies really well), not only cheap but of decent quality. Then you have the Black Horses, all just cr*p. From China you get great stuff from World Models and you also have GSP who get their shipment from the same factory who produces for CM Pro, Aero Model Design and all. Let's face it GP planes are not that great for the money we are paying, not at all. On the other hand I am most impressed with World Models stuff.

At the end of the day you get what you pay for. If you want cheap cheap then stick with Phoenix and then World Models. That is cheap and good stuff. Most important is we need to check all models before we leave the shop and also to dry fit it properly before gluing, then if there is an issue we can take it back to the LHS.

Prudence is in order ...

The only problm is that most shops cant afford to carry all the models we would like so we have to order over the net. I have recieved a major portion of my airplanes over the net and when you inspect them when they arrive you mainly look for damage and missing parts. I have never dry fitted a airplane after recieving it but I will in the future due to misaligned parts or structure flaws. I think most of the time the flaws dont show up untill you either fly it or someone else does and then you read about it on the net. Who would have known the Lancair wings fail or the Shoestring gear pulls out just by looking at it? The manufacturers should since they do all the stress test and research before they ship the production model (or suppose to). Do you think GP never had a wing failure on the lancair or rip the landing gear out on the shoestring before it was finally shipped? Personally ,I know that all SIG models are flown by the workers who build them and they will not B.S. you around.

Actually, GSP (or whoever they buy from) is the builder.

Is what your saying is if I buy a Cadilac I will get a car that is proper and fuction correctly. BUT if I buy a GEO I will have to take it a part and make sure the manuf. put it together properly? because the GEO is a cheap little car


Lonnie

Actually GSP was quite a bit more expensive than many others planes in my hanger but .....I have some cheapo's that fly better and are built a lot better. Guess its a hit and miss situation, It's not always true you get what you pay for. I would have gladly paid $100 less for the hanger 9 model and been confident in its flying ability. By the way the Corsair's solid blocks that were suppose to be in the fuse for the wing hold downs to go through.......well someone either forgot to put them in or there was a shortage of ply in the shop that day.

Just my 2 cents. I got an e-mail from Vector Flight concerning my 66" Extra 300S
that I recently ordered. They said they were holding the plane as their Quality Control department
found a problem with the gear. They said that it might be too brittle/stiff I don't remember but
said that it might be prone to "premature failure". So they are redesigning/using different
grade Aluminum whatever. Thet is the kind of service that is needed for you.
I am getting that excellent customer service for a 66" Extra Arf all for $169 bucks.
When GSP or whoever can match that, I'll buy from them too.
I plan on doing a complete building thread on the 66" so stay tuned for news

Now thats a good company , well worth sticking with.

I own a GSP Giles 202, the 97" WS version, as a matter of fact it is my avatar you see off to the left. I had some problems with this ARC and got some help from Irwin (like a new set of wings) and everything else was fine. This Giles is without a doubt one of the best flying airplanes I've ever owned, I'ts powered with a BME 102.

Good Afternoon All,

I had a similar situatuon to the original post. It was a Great planes Giles 202 ARF... I was installing the servos in the tail and when I applied just a little pressure on the screwdriver to get the screw started and CRUNCH..!! Pushed the whole servo into the tail of the plane.. I fixed the problem... I sent an email to Great Planes customer service about the innadequate structure in the tail of the fuse and the reply I got was that with their "extensive testing" the tail structure was more than adequate and that I could send the fuse to them to evaluate it further... HELLO I fixed the problem so I could go flying!!! Why send it in now????? I think this thread serves as a lesson for anyone building and flying ARF models... Yes the model should be airworthy/safe from the factory, BUT the final assembly that the end user does should be that last checkpoint before you fly.... I know its a PITA to have to fix or modify something you purchase with the intent of getting to the field quickly and safely with minimal effort but it seems to be a wise thing to do... My replcement for the 202 is the Katana made by China Models purchased through Cheif.... I love the model but it does have a few shortcomings that I only found out about through researching this site...

Myron

thats exactly why Vectorflight has a fan base here on RCU and rightfully so, they do things right the 1st time. I have been eyeing the C-160 Transall from them for over a year now and everytime I get the courage to order it I read another horror story on GSP's customer service. I understand there are inherent problems that even the best QC cant find but I have read more negative things with GSP than ANY other retailer.
Take all this talk aside and I still would be satisfied if they offered replacement parts and thats not possible according to some threads here. So it goes back to square one again..

I really wish they would get it together..

anyone know of any other reatilers who offer the China Model Companies planes?

I hate to say it but I have to agree with cstevec. No ARF is ready to fly as it comes out of the box, hence the term "Almost Ready To Fly". With this in mind, it is the sole responsibility of the modeler to correctly install all of the components necessary to fly the aircraft. It is also the sole responsibility of the modeler to take the necessary steps to insure that all components are functioning in a matter to allow safe flight of the aircraft. If there was no ply backer for a particular servo, it should have been obvious when the servo screws were installed. It would have been an easy fix at that point without the need to tear apart anything. Again, I hate to say it but the modeler was at fault here by overlooking an important part of the structure where an end user component was being installed.

Is a car from Detroit and ARTD? Is it all ready to drive ? Do we need to fix it to make it safe ?
Do we fix our lawn mowers to make them safe ? Do we fix our ovens to make them safe ? Ok so we are modelers with assumed skills dose that mean we are supposed to do more then expected with every purchase and assume liabilty if we do not ?
Do we assume the meat we buy to be safe to eat , if not were we supposed to get it checked out ? Guys this is the only , yes the only industry that can get away with this bull ! We should not be debateing between ourselves we should be one focused group of modelers with a great loyality to this hobby with a high disposable income that has the right to demand a basic levil of safety and airworthyness from our ARFs.If that is not the case let me know , I want to start importing cheap planes because there is an easy market that will accept any lame excuse for poor quality .

While this is true, it is NOT the responsibility of the modeler to have to uncover or dis-assemble the structures in order to ensure airworthiness.

LDM,

The key word in ARF is....ALMOST......

The plane as you buy it is not ready to fly. It's implied you, the buyer, has to do some work before it can be flown.

Now, if it were advertised as a completely ready to fly aircraft that would be different.

Jeff

I think most of the good manufactures have a problem at one time or another with a design. The difference between a good company and a bad one is how they handle the problem once it's been verified. If this plane was made by World, or Yellow, or Kangke, there would be a replacement on your table by now.