Excuse me Dick, you can find more than a dozen on this forum alone. That doesn't even include those that DON'T post on RCU.
As I said, SIG IS aware of the problem and have had many, many cases (much more than a dozen) claimed against them on this issue. What part of my past post didn't you understand? This is NOT to say ANYTHING against SIG. I believe that they are a Great R/C company and have an excellent reputation for taking care of their customers! My post was a very good example of a magazine doing an article on a kit or ARF and not giving ALL OF THE TRUTH!

The internet is the great equalizer

Actually I understood your post just fine, it being one similar to many on RCU. That is (1) it contains opinions about the accuracy of a product review and the "hundreds" of failed airframes (2) posting on RCU only exhibits ones' opinion for those to agree or disagree with.

Based on my personal experience with the Sig Sukhoi, the direct contact I have had with other owners and Sig Manufacturing, I choose to agree with the review.

And it is correct in that this series of posts is about MAN (or other publications) possibly being too chummy with advertisers to print objective reviews. Again, my position is evaluate the reviews for the information they contain, research the product for yourself and base a purchase decision on your own judgement.

Lastly, write comments directly to MAN, or any other publication with personally questionable reviews.They all value the reader's opinion, good or bad.

I'm sorry Dick but I really did chuckle on that one. It does suck when you crash before you fly! It's good to hear Sig has a sense of humor and a little understanding at the same time.
Thanks for the smile.
Floater.

Thanks Floater, I still shake my head and laugh (as I did when the Sukhoi crashed on my couch).

The photo was hanging in the LHS for some time so I was the Bozo for the month.