Does anyone know of any ? Yes, I lost mine just recently. It was a pleasure to fly, and tracked like it was on rails, and now it's gone.

The batteries after crash had 75% capacity remaining, range checked excellent. I have subjected every servo, the battery pack, receiver, switch harness, and connectors to vibration using an engraving tool as a source, and I can't make the system fail. It's solid, in fact I'm now flying the Rx in my Shoestring, no problems.

But it seems to me that a while back I remember reading about upper wing or cabane strut failures. Has anyone experienced anything like this ? I'd sure like to nail the failure mode down.

RIP old friend >

Wow, what a beautiful bipe. I'd like to hear about problems as well, because this plane is on a very short "next" list. Sad, it had to go in on you.

Jim I don't know this guy nor anything about his story, but you might want to read it. I found it while considering this plane and it was a good read:

http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/...298&uid=151410

Jim,

I think you're thinking about this thread?

http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...449&forumid=57

Mikee

Mine was the Cermark, not the Great Planes. Although, I wouldn't doubt that the failure mechanism could be identical !

Thanks for your help - Jimm

And I have just read Warmongers thread, http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery...7298&uid=151410,
actually a horror story. If I had only known. Actually, after reading it, I'm feeling a little better now. The thread has just about confirmed my suspisions that it was a structual failure, and gives me a good feeling that my radio installation was OK. At least I have the personal satisfaction of knowing that my work was good.

Note > Where else but on RC Universe can you find this kind of help. Makes me proud to have such good friends.

Thanks Gyz - Jim

Jim,

There was a guy on rec.models.rc newsgroup and on other BB's that had a hell of a time with the Cermark Pitts. His expereinced in-flight failure near or at the cabanes IIRC. He was quite mad and Cermark gave him the run-around. He had a web page too documenting everything. I tend to beleive what he had to say that Cermark was not a reputable outfit and didn't stand by their product. They tried to blame the guy for the problems he had even when he presented a cogent and logical case.

Botton line: stay away from Cermark.

hth

Jeff

Good Buddy has a Cermark Pitts.

Satio 150 and Junior corless BB servos all the way around. I don't know which ones.

Aerilon FLUTTER BAD!

Changed linkage, with no slop. Not there was much.

Flutter.

Changed servos, aluminum horns, 4-40 rods.

Flutter

CF rods and airfoil rods to the bottoms.

Flutter

Pull hair out. Too pretty of a plane to hanger.

Someone suggested putting counter balances on the top aerilons. A few cocktails later we put on home made counter balances. Flew the next day, NO MORE FLUTTER!!!

Granted, the flutter was evident from day one and the counter balances my have cured it up front. Should Cermark have changed the plane? I donno. This is a plane that would fly on a 90, we have a 150 on it. We just figured it was so over powered is was our problem to fix, not Cermarks.

As you know, flutter in a tiny amount will cause structural failure quickly and possible unseen damage.

If you have one, put on a counter balance.

Well, the list just got shorter.

This plane was designed by Dave Patrick. He knows his stuff. When it first came out, there were a LOT of failures. And every one of them was when somebody overpowered it. The plane clearly says 91-120, yet people all want their money back when they tear the wings off with a 150.

Easy,

I wasn't aware that Patrick had designed the Cermark Pitts. The same thing happened on the Goldberg Extra, Ultimate and Bucker. These kits were all criticized for being too 'flimsy'. Dave defended his postion by saying (and rightfully so) that they are designed to fly well with the intended powerplants and if you have to over power them or dork them on landing and they break then perhaps you have no business flying them. Those (in effect) were his words. His goal was to have a light, strong airframe. I have built and flown the Ultimate and Bucker and I know what he's talking about. Especially the Bucker. I cringe when I hear about guys sticking 1.50's, 1.80's or even larger on them. The structure is not designed to take the stresses those engines impose on it. I have an OS 90 4-stroke on mine and I think it's a perfect choice. I doesn't have unlimited vertical but neither does the real one. It flies very nicely and does any aerobatic manuever you want with a 90 4-stoke (yes, even a knife edge loop).

The thing with Patrick's kits he has designed is that they are KITS and the builder usually can beef up the structure somewhat during construction when they know (and if they are smart and experienced enough) what sort of powerplant they're intending to put on it. When you go the ARF route on a Patrick designed kit it's best to stay with the engines recommended since if you overpower it nasty things can happen and once it's built it's very hard to go back later and add reinforcement where it's needed. Most guys tend to think more is better. They just gotta have more power. If it means shoe-horning a G62 into a space that only fits a 40 they'll try it in that never ending quest for power.

Look at the issues with the GP Pitts. Everyone has been sticking in wayyyyyy too big motors (let's not debate that here, OK. it's been done to death elsewhere in this forum) and AM Cross has repeated told guys NOT to do it. But there's a difference in the way GP handles issues and the way Cermark does. And I think that's the crux of the issue here. Cermark ought to know what the customers are going to try and do and not be so hostile to them when they do do it. I personally think Cermark has done a poor job in customer relations and service. They could have handled these situations much better than summarily cutting off the user at the knees and basically telling them they are full of s***, tough luck, your problem, good-bye. An irate user is going to try and do everything in their power (if they are able) to get the word out about how bad Cermark's products are. And we all know more people get told about bad service than good service. that's the reason i won't buy a Cermark product. They can be the greatest in the world but if they treat their customers like crap and refuse to stand by their product then I choose not to do business with them.

just my .02 cents.

Jeff

Hey guys , saw the subject and just can't help myself! I have the G.Planes Pitts and whilst i am not familiar with the Cermark Pitts , i also looked at photos of Props Pitts wreckage and i think it's quite obvious that the materials used in the construction are marginal for an aircraft of this heritage , ie fully aerobatic! I think that easytiger has missed the point in that no one is questioning the design or the designer , but the obviously cheap and nasty construction/materials employed. I have stripped my G.P Pitts to the bone and am almost finished with the modifications/improvements to the original construction. I am guilty in that i am overpowering the airframe in regards to manufacturers recommendations , but i want a high performance aircraft and i'm prepared to go the extra mile to acheive this. Having built many giant scale aerobatic models in the past , my only concern is with safety/airworthyness . A slack attitude with construction can lead to potentially fatal consequences. This is where purchasing an ARF can get you into trouble , as you can't see what is under that covering. If you're lucky they have done a good job , if not , you could be in deep sh-t! I wonder who would be responsible if there was a serious accident and people ended up in court? The manufacturer for not ensuring he produced a safe product or the purchaser/end user for just flying the thing!
If you're going to make a R/C model of one of the world's most famous aerobatic bipes in history then for god's sake please give us something built with performance in mind , not something that is a risk to everyone in the general vicinity!

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.

JBRUNDT , I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion. You don't always get what you pay for , but you always pay for what you get. BTW the only reasons for me stripping a "perfectly good" ARF is that it's the first one i've ever owned (usually build) and when fellow modellers on RCU started posting on structural woes i thought it might be prudent to have a look under the covering.
Just as well i did! You certainly can't judge a book by it's cover.(no pun intended) My situation in that i live in Australia dictates that it would probably be pointless in trying to claim some sort of warranty from a company in the USA in the event of any failure. I mean if you guys have trouble dealing with a hostile manufacturer in your own backyard , what hope do you think one person in Australia would have? Better to accept that you bought a dud first time round and be responsible and make it safe, even if it does defeat the purpose of buying an ARF to save building time. Having said that however, i think that Cermark should at least give the guy another Pitts in the interests of customer relations.I run my own business and have eaten crow in the past to keep a customer happy , even when he was at fault , just to show him that we actually want his return business and care about our product reputation. Maybe i'm just getting cynical in my old age but it seems like it's getting harder to find genuine people to deal with these days !

I have dealt with Jesse at Cermark. He's a fellow modeller, and not a bad guy at all.
I do not think refusing to replace a model that the owner tore the wings off by overpowering it is bad customer relations. It's just REALITY. Cermark is not Great Planes...they cannot afford to give away a bunch of airplanes in the name of customer relations and still stay in business. I'm sure they would have no problem with replacing one if there was a problem right from the factory, but putting a 150 in a plane designed for a 120, tops, is NOT a factory problem.
And you all KNOW that a YS 120 is easily the equal of a Saito 150. The YS engines are much more powerful than anybody else's.
Jrbrunt, your post is right on the money. Patrick designs his planes to be LIGHT, and that is a major part of the performance. You can't build the plane to take the stresses of an oversize engine and still expect it to be LIGHT. If it was an overbuilt clunker, you would not have bought it in the first place, right?
I have seen Dave fly his with a YS91. It would do anything in the book.
I have never heard of ANYBODY tearing the wings off of one of these with a 91.
You also are right in saying if you want to go outside the manufacturer's recommendations, have at it, but you'd better strip the covering off and reinforce it properly. And several pounds later, you will have a very different flying airplane than what the designer intended. But that's up to you.
I remember Cermark getting slammed on the old RCO, too. By a guy who had gotten a used ARF as a gift. The guy was smeared Cermark for not giving him a free missing part, though he could not provide any receipt, and the kit was discontinued, and the guy clearly said that he had gotten it as a gift, though he would not say where the gift giver had gotten it from(a swap meet, most likely...if it was NEW, they would have had a receipt.)
It was the usual internet dogpile, a bunch of people slamming them, most of whom had never actually dealt with Cermark.

As far as bad customer relations goes, I think you reach a point where the customer just wants to take no responsibilty for their actions. They just want a free new plane. And a small company like Cermark just cannot afford to do that. How do you really know when it was your fault or the pilots? How do you REALLY know that the pilot did not just strain the plane through a tree? My point being that there are too many unknowns to give all-encompassing warrantees on model airplanes.
Think about this. You own a model airplane company. Some guy says he tore the wing off his airplane and demands a new airplane. He tells you he used a larger engine than you recommended. Would YOU send him a new plane? One that cost you at least $250-300 to get here from China? It's not free, and they are certainly not all profit, so it IS costing you money to give him the plane. Would you REALLY do it? Knowing that it was really the customer's fault?
Awesome, as far as lawsuits go, if something really bad happened, EVERYBODY would get sued. Ask Kraft about how THEY got sued when somebody crashed their plane into a spectator at Shea Stadium back in the Seventies. Even though it was clearly pilot error, everybody who had any deep pockets whatsoever got sued. Just how it is.
I do know that if I were Cermark's lawyer, in such a case, the first thing I would say is that the plane was powered way beyond what was recommended.
You know something, there is this nasty trend nowadays for people to blame anybody but themselves for their actions. I don't think anybody in 1960 tried to get a new free AstroHog from them when they tore the wings off their old one by putting in too large an engine, but I may be wrong...
The GP Pitts, I know nothing about.

Easytiger , I understand where you are coming from on manufacturer/customer rights & responsibilities . Sometimes we lose sight of what this hobby is all about , HAVING FUN! I must admit that it does take the fun out of it when your model falls to bits for whatever reason. I think maybe one of the things a manufacturer could consider doing in this case is to put a CLEAR warning that exceeding the maximum reccomended engine size results in a case of "you're on your own". Yes people don't want to take responsibility for there own actions these days , it's sad but true! I guess at the end of the day if somebody gets some help out of what's discussed on these forums , then something has been acheived ! Still , it's sad when a nice model bites the dust unnecessarily , if healthy discussion on RCU prevents this , then all the better!

You are absolutely correct. I do sort of fault them for that. They really ought to put it in big obvious letters that overpowering it WILL cause problems. With most planes, it's not such a big deal, with this lightly built one, yes, it's a real problem!
They SHOULD make it clearer...

Well put Easytiger but I have to be more blunt.

While most manufacturers have gone to ARF's to stay in business (notice how many main stay kit mfgrs' are now gone!!!) in an effort to provide today's "consumer" RC'er with instant expert products, a monster has been created. That monster is the crybaby who plunks down his plastic, expects a TOC capable airplane, ignores the designers recommendations because he knows more than they do, blows the thing up then rolls out the WalMart return policy attitude. When denied, the wailing starts on the internet.

I agree a manufacturer needs to produce a solid, well built ARF but they cannot make one that is bullet nor idiot proof then sell it for the pittance people want to pay. Numerous posts on RCU contain the statement, "You can't build one for that price"! That is beginning to change, If you look at newer ARF's hitting the market, take notice of the elevated prices. Manufacturers are beginning to compensate themselves for all the free parts and planes they have to pacify the whiners with. Already several aquaintences are carping about the "expensive" price on Hangar 9's two newest ARF's, the 80" Cap 232 and 33% Sukhoi. Some turned purple with rage when told H9's next big ARF may be a 44% Ultimate Bipe at $1995.00!

I have personal knowledge of several modelers who experienced defective ARF's. When they presented their issue and the remains to the manufacturer (including Cermark), and it was determined to be a defect, the plane was immediately replaced at no cost (some even received replacement/repair costs for damaged radio and engines).

Responsible manufacturers want to provide the best, and safest, product they can at a reasonable cost. Those who don't will not survive in the marketplace.

Responsible modelers understand the (fading) bargain a nicely done ARF represents and take responsibility for their deviations from manufacturers recommendations.

The rest are spoiling it for every one.

Good post, Dick. Well said. One thing, though.

I'd go easy on the "consumer" type RCers...thank god for them. The reason we HAVE cheap, good ARFs and radios and such is because THOSE GUYS make the market big enough to do that. Without the "dilletante" modeller, who gets in and out of the hobby within a year or two, and the dollars they bring in, things would be really different.

Back before the days of the good, cheap ARF, you HAD to have building skills to be in this hobby, and the market was much smaller.

Hi Dick T, thanks for your contribution. No, I didn't call Cermark, don't want a replacement, don't want my money back, just want to go on to something better, and never look back.
Like my great big beautiful Gee Bee "Z" that you are cutting graphics for.

( And no, I didn't win another radio this month )

I bought a Cermark Pitts at a swap meet last winter...I just HAD to have it! The plane was RTF with the recommended servos (hitec 545 and 525) and new Saito 1.50...plus a few props and a gallon of fuel. Gave roughly $600 for it.

I have strengthened the center cabanes by adding carbon fiber gussets at the front and rear of each mount and will probably go back and pin them. According to the problems encountered by the guy at this page, I should probably cut away the center sheeting in the area of the wing bolts and lay CF in there. I don't think that it would be much of a chore...matter of fact it may have already been done. The plane came with every other upgrade/fix that I have heard of (except the center cabane fix that I performed).

Who knows...maybe I'll sell it if the price is right. It's absolutely gorgeous…done like Sean Tucker’s Pitts. It was even autographed by Sean Tucker himself at an airshow. Decisions, decisions.

-Tom

A couple of quick things:
Jim Lynch, what did you have for a motor on your Pitts?
Ynot, good on your for understanding that overpowering the plane may cause problems that are not the designer's fault. You solved the problem, I'm glad for that.
Tailtwister, don't count this plane out. I have flown it with a 91, it was a beautiful, beautiful model. It was the first real "premium" ARF and paved the way for many others.
Just not with a 150!
As far as Rec.models.air goes, I would take ANYTHING I read there with a BIG grain of salt, really.

Easytiger, I agree completely with your comments on the "consumer" RC'er. Without the dollar volume generated by them many new products would never make it to market nor would we see improved products with lower prices. However according to several close friends in the industry, the cost increase of ARF's in particular is due to the actions I mentioned.

Jim, your choices are like mine (perhaps age does provide us wisdom) when encountering a bad experience with a cheesy ARF or crummy kit, and I have had both. Chalk it up to experience and move on.

I'm sort of noticing that, too. The trend towards more "premium" ARFs and away from the really cheap $99 ones. I figure that the slide of the dollar, the total flooding of the markets with that kind of product, and the cooling of the economy had a lot to do with that. I think there will be fewer of the "dilletante" guys over the next few years, and fewer people with $100 to toss away on a semidisposable airplane. Better to get a better product and have it last longer. But I am only speculating.

TT 1.20.

Look guys, I thank you for all your concern, but I'm not looking for a replacement, or a rebate. I don't want to see another Cermark in my life. I'm just thankful to come away with my engine, and radio equipment. It was a good learning experience. All part of this wonderful hobby of ours.

I know now that it wasn't me or my equipment, and I'm happy with that.

Case closed.