You know it is all pretty simple. GP should not give a ship date until they are sure the problem is corrected.
After six months of delays and as many broken ship dates it gets very fustrating.
I agree that fixing a problem before releasing the product is the correct thing to do.
But when does one draw the line between acceptable or non acceptable delays ?
Personally I can accept a couple of delays, but when you order in November so you can have something ready to fly by summer and after the sixth broken release date in late April it is time to move on. Who knows at this rate if the late June release date is going to happen.
There is something wrong with a company that makes these arbitrary release dates and finds it to be OK to just break that date with no reguard to how it may affect the customers plans.
I will say it agian. Yes fix the problems with the kit , but don't give a ship date until you know for sure it can happen.

I prefer to know that something is in the works, so I like that they gave the ship date. Now, when the first date got pushed back, they should have simply put a note on the webpage stating "that due to a production problem the shipping date has been pushed back and a new date will be posted when the issue is resolved."

This is virtually impossible to do. It's like saying, "The movie studios shouldn't tell us what's coming out this summer until the film is in the can and at the theaters"

Just so people know, availability dates are not lightly given out. When a date is announced, it is with the highest expectation that it is correct. Then the delays happen. The best information is obtained and a new date is announced...again, with the highest expectations.

This is not a game people play, it is not an attempt to get people to order so we have their money. In fact, no money is collected until product is actually sold and shipped. Some local retailers may ask for a deposit to hold an order, but not the kit maker or distributor. No dealer is charged for product that's not available and not shipped.

Bill,

Our hobby shop was given solid dates such as Feb 7th.
We where also told the kits our on the west coast and where just waiting for shipment to Ill. I know this as I have spoken to our sales rep on many occasions.
I am not only and employee of the hobby shop but I am also a customer, so I see the situation from both sides.

Like I said before we understand delays and we can deal with a couple set backs .
But how do you justify 6 months of promises and as many dates with no product?
Maybe you people need to concentrate on giving your sales reps. more accurate info.
I can't believe the people here making excuses and justifying an unacceptable situation.
So if you don't like dealing with the complaints here on a forum try working directly with the customer who doesn't have to understand your production problems as it is his money to spend and there are other options which many have begun to excersice.

I don't know what's holding them up, but for the sake of argument, let's say they discovered a major design flaw AFTER the product was already sitting on the west coast.

Now, what would be better?

A) Holding off on shipping them until the problem is confirmed and fixed, or the product is scrapped until a new, improved shipment arrives.

Or

B) Shipping a bad product to keep customers happy - until their planes started falling out of the sky - Which would make them VERY unhappy and create a situation where you have to refund any money you made.

No matter which way you go you're going to make people unhappy, but I think choice "A" is clearly the more logical thing to do.

I'm with Minn. It's not worth the risk to the plane (or even more someone alive) that's probably going to cost well into the $600.00+ range or more,,,after getting it ready to fly, and having issues with the retracts and having to belly land a beauty like that.

I'll wait for the plane to be right before I buy, besides there are others on my list "to buy" as well.

Funny thing is one of the other planes I'd like to purchase is backordered as well. Hanger 9 Piper Pawnee.

Get the Sig P51B! It looks better and flys better too!

No problem with option A at all - the problem is that they did not communicate AT ALL about ANY problems other than simply to silently push the date back. When I emailed Tower about it they said there was 'no way for them to know' why it was delayed or how long it would be delays - yet they had a date that they kept moving back.

Be honest and show some transparency and the credibility would have remained intact. Be silent and it shows a lack of respect for your customers and the fact that your business depends on them. Now tower hasn't lost me as a customer but I am less likely to use them in the future than I was before.

Rather than wait for this bird - I opted to by the Sig. I ordered it from Tower on Thursday and got it yesterday (darned quick) and I appreciate that sort of service. As I said before, I've been a customer of tower's for a long time and this silence on items that are backordered or unavailable seems to be the norm...just look at that GMS engines thread...

Good choice! You will love this plane! It's my go to plane right now it flys so well. I have worn the tail wheel off the plane as I fly it so much [)]

Jmohn,

How is the covering on this bird?

Good quality?

"Looks better"? Maybe the Sig is prettier, from your point of view, but the Top Flite uses dull olive green MonoKote (rather than glossy, as the Sig does), and has better details such as balance tabs on the tail surfaces, as well as a more detailed cockpit. The Top Flite wheels are larger/ closer to scale size ( 3 1/4" vs. 2 1/2") as well.
I'm pretty sure the Top Flite would consistently out score the Sig in scale judging.

On the plus side for Sig: it IS a "B", which many (including myself) would rather have (but not the over-done Shangri-La).
It's perfectly understandable why many will choose to buy the Sig instead of waiting for the Top Flite. But to suggest that the Sig "looks better": many of us here know what the real/ full-scale Mustangs look like, and the Top Flite does a better job of looking scale authentic than the Sig.

As for "flys better", no-one could know at this time, but since the Sig is advertised as being slightly lighter, AND has more advertised wing area: it probably would have a slight edge in slow flight/ landing performance.

Yeah, there's alot of things on the Sig that don't look right. Like the whole tail group is way off. The TF is not perfect but looks more like a Stang even if it is a different version.

Also the cowl-spinner interface is shaped incorrectly on the sig.
We flew one of the new sig P-51's last week on a breezy day and i was surprised at the lack of consistant upwind perfomance and presentation.
What i am saying is that I think it is possible to have too low of a wing loading for and scale warbird.
This results in excessive sport type performance of the aircraft.
Althought a light wing loading will result in a aircraft that is more acceptable to sport flyers it also results in a aircraft that lacks scale warbird type of in air presentation. I prefer more scale like performance and presentation.

Hi Guys...
I just ordered my TF P-51D from Tower and I was infromed it will be shipped out within two days to me...including a $25.00 discount. I just don't understand what all the drama is about...the model will get here when it gets here...and thats how it is. I built the old red box P-51D and I just finished modifing a China made "D" model ARF into a "B"...including air retracts and a retractable tail wheel, in the scale placement. I couldn't wait for Sig's "B" model to come out...and I already built the "D" from a kit...so I kit bashed it into a model I wanted. If you gotta have it that bad...build or modify what you want...and destress a bit. Its a hobby, its suppose to relax you and the end game is...you have some fun, and meet good folks in the prcess.
Soft Landings always,
Bobby of Maui
AMA 15016

I got the Hangar 9 myself. Not sure why anyone would bash it. I'd buy the Hangar 9 over Top Flight any day. Haven't seen one Top Flight yet I like. ARF my tail. Take a look at the B-25. Hangar 9 looks better and doesn't come with a million parts to put on and costs less for a better product, and better customer service. Not to mention handling. I've had my H9 Mustang for over 4 years and still flying strong. Not one problem with retracts except when the gear on the servo finally wore out. I'll blame Futaba for that one. Do you have to have a Carl Goldberg (eagle trainer) for your first plane, a Sig (four star) for your second, and a top flight for your warbird to be a real rc pilot or something? Sure seems so if you read through many posts.

After all I'd rather deal with ultracote than monocote any day.

Hay Cowboylifesaver...
Have you seen the Top Flight B-25...? I have, and I've seen one fly several times, right up close and personal. It may have a few parts...who cares, it's a thing of beauty. if you want low parts count, and fast into the air, Nitro Models has one a good bit cheaper then Hanger 9, and I hear it fly's ok. I'm just a sunday flyer...nothing fancy...and I've been in this hobby all my life.
Soft Landings always,
Bobby of Maui
AMA 15016

I totally disagree: The higher wing loading results in faster that scale speeds, and lack of manuverabilty. I fly my warbirds scale, and 2 of the most realictic looking warbirds ( in the air) that I fly are a Hangar 9 Hellcat and a Hangar 9 Corsair. I have a Top Flite Corsair also, and I like the way it looks and flies, but the turns are so much wider (and un-scale like) than the lighter H 9 Corsair. And landing speeds: same thing.

To each his own, but I for one prefer lighter wing loading, and I beleive THAT is the key to realistic warbird flying.

BTW: MY 60 SIZE CRAP IS ON IT'S WAY!!! Finally being shipped, and will hopefully be ready in a couple of weekes.

Corsair Jock,You make my piont for me.If you are into banking and yanking then yes the lighter wing loading is for you.But in all honesty the full scale warbirds had some negitive tendencies when flown in this manner.I had the World models P-51 ARF and the higher wing loading of this model also showed some of the negitive tendencies of the full scale when flown in a sport manner.On the other hand my experience with the Hanger 9 warbirds (P-51, Corsair and P-47) have all shown some very forgiving performance qualities. But I believe these forgiving qualities subtract from the look and feel of flying a warbird in a scale manner.10+ g turns are not scale like even in a warbird.And as far as landing speeds, you are correct that the higher wing loading results in higher landing speeds and even more so when flown in a sport manner.But these higher landing speeds can be managed and a reduction in landing speed to more scale like speeds can be done with proper technique.

Um, I don't think so.

I have seen both of these planes up close and personal. The Top-Flight is larger, and looks WAAAAAY better

Sure it costs more - it also has a wingspan that's 8 inches longer - so it's a bigger plane. Kind of like how a 60-size plane is more expensive than a 40-Size plane.

And looks better? Are you joking???

See for yourself

Have you ever been to a warbird airshow? Warbirds (even Corsairs) are surprisingly manuverable, and capable of rather tight turns (compared to many R/C warbirds). The Hellcat was even more manuverable. This has nothing to do with sport flying/ 3D/ forgiving qualities/ ease of landing and/ or takeoffs.
Look at it another way: landing speed of most WW II warbirds are in the 90 ~ 100 mph range. Since the modele we are talking about are roughly 1/7 ~ 1/8 scale: landing speeds should ideally be about 1/7 ~ 1/8 of that. Same for max spped: full scales are lucky to make 400 mph at sea level. That said, 1/7 ~ 1/8 scale warbirds should have top speeds in the 60 mph range or less.

But it is the manuverability (ability to turn sharply) that I am primarily talking about. About yes: WW II fighers DID turn abruptly, especially when an enemy was detected on it's 6 o'clock. I suggest that you attend the next full scale warbird show that you can, and study them some. Maybe then you will realize how manverable they really are, and how many R/C warbirds have such wide turns by comparison.

Say what you want, think what you want, but the Saito .91 powered H-9 Hellcat that I had flew more realistically than any other warbird that I have owned.
And saying that a warbird is better if it is heavier sounds like a lot of, well, the last word of the title of this thread.

Does this count MR. know it all ?

And we are talking about accelerated stalls here.

http://www.gml2007.com/

I have yet to see any full-scale plane that can out-turn a model. If nothing else, we don't have to worry about blacking out from too many G's.

But let's get this thread back on topic, shall we?

Hay Minnflyer,
I'm with you...I'll take a lower wing loading any day on my models...and if I want my model to fly scale speeds...I use the throttle...other wise, full throttle... : ) What I never forget is that this is a model...and longevity of my model is the name of the game. I've managed to re-kit more WWII fighters then I care to remember, but all were awesome in the air. I'm partial to "T-Bolts", but a good P-51 will always get my spirits up. The World Model P-51 .40 size is about the best flying fighter I have ever flown in this size, and it's almost trainer like in landing. Yep...I'll take a light wing loaded model any day over a lead sled. I love WWII fighters and bombers, and if you want to know what keeps these replica's alive...it's light wing loading. Now, I'm discounting dumb thumbs...and I'm a card carring member of this club. It's just all part of the hobby, and if I decelerate to fast...I just pick up the pieces and build another model.

I've built a lot of kits in my day...and more then a few ARF's. Top Flight models usually are good looking, fly well, and you can get parts for them. I've flown Hanger 9 models...and they fly well too, but to me, Top Flight kits and ARF's are more scale looking, go together well (parts fit is good) and can take my abuse. Hanger 9 models usually do not have flaps, and Top Flight ARF's and kits do. I like flaps on my models, so I add them to my ARF's if needed, and kit bashing ARF's is a lot of fun too.
Soft Landings always,
Bobby of Maui
AMA 15016

Bob,
You are correct when you say light wing loading keeps warbirds alive with the sport flyers.
But I still say that light wing loading detracts from scale like flight ( more stable in turbulance, carving on track wide turns and the occasional stall, snap due to an accelerated stall on hard banking turns)
It is also true that a higher wing loading results in a higher stall speed (landings), but as i said before this can be managed and a heavier warbird can still be landed at scale like speeds with proper technique.
But for those of you who do not posess and understanding of these techniques then yes a lower wing loading is best.