Chinese Jets
11-08-2009 | 07:47 PM
#27
My Feedback: (2)
RE: Chinese Jets
If your not paying for some decent engineering etc. then exactly what are you paying for.. looks? performance? ease of assembly? if the plane falls apart in the air.. the others don't matter much..
And while its true that the larger the population of a particular product the greater the over all failures can be.. but the incidence of failure per say 100 is what's important.. lets not discount that.
And while its true that the larger the population of a particular product the greater the over all failures can be.. but the incidence of failure per say 100 is what's important.. lets not discount that.
11-08-2009 | 08:25 PM
#28
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: BendigoVIC, AUSTRALIA
RE: Chinese Jets
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
I have been flying for many years, and now turbine jets for 10 years. In that time I have flown many manufactures airplanes, and I have seen many failures from ALL manufactures.
Some of the ones I remember specifically from RCU over the years:
Multiple Hotspots where the fuse blew apart
Multiple Eurosports where the rear hatches blew off and the fuse came apart
A BVM Super Bandit where the wing spar failed
BVM Kingcat boom failures (1st generation, lead to carbon plates glued on the outside)
Skymaster wing delaminations
A Yellow Aircraft F18 twin wing failure
Boomerang explosions
etc etc etc..........
Looking at the above list, it is certainly not the chinese jets being singled out. Every manufacture has problems. While FEJ's seem to be having more than their share lately, they are also selling huge numbers of jets, AND!!!!!!!!!!
I think this is something very important to consider....
I have been flying for many years, and now turbine jets for 10 years. In that time I have flown many manufactures airplanes, and I have seen many failures from ALL manufactures.
Some of the ones I remember specifically from RCU over the years:
Multiple Hotspots where the fuse blew apart
Multiple Eurosports where the rear hatches blew off and the fuse came apart
A BVM Super Bandit where the wing spar failed
BVM Kingcat boom failures (1st generation, lead to carbon plates glued on the outside)
Skymaster wing delaminations
A Yellow Aircraft F18 twin wing failure
Boomerang explosions
etc etc etc..........
Looking at the above list, it is certainly not the chinese jets being singled out. Every manufacture has problems. While FEJ's seem to be having more than their share lately, they are also selling huge numbers of jets, AND!!!!!!!!!!
I think this is something very important to consider....
Tim
11-08-2009 | 09:02 PM
#29
My Feedback: (23)
RE: Chinese Jets
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
.......A Yellow Aircraft F18 twin wing failure.....
.......A Yellow Aircraft F18 twin wing failure.....
If this is the one i think your talking about.. It actually wasn't a wing failure. it was a forward wing attachment bulkhead that failed due to being built incorrectly. So ya can't claim that as the manufacturer's fault, especially since they do not (or atleast did not) market that airframe as a "turbine ready" airplane.
11-08-2009 | 09:07 PM
#30
RE: Chinese Jets
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
To be honest I would bet that it's more than 60% these days that have never built a kit, mostly ARF assemblers these days, to bad really, building is half the fun!
To be honest I would bet that it's more than 60% these days that have never built a kit, mostly ARF assemblers these days, to bad really, building is half the fun!
I'd be willing to bet that 60% of the fliers out there these days (all fliers not just jets) can't even put an ARF together, i make all my hobby cash off putting planes together for others, ARFs have been the majority of my business the last 5-6 yrs. i've even got one guy who buys only RTF stuff and then pays me 50 bucks a pop to program his radio for it and then if he needs anything changed after i do the maiden he asks me to do that too, he can't even adjust the expo on his TX. with that said, I've seen some pretty good fliers who the closest thing to building they've ever done was bolting the wings on a completed aircraft.
11-08-2009 | 09:21 PM
#31
My Feedback: (22)
RE: Chinese Jets
ORIGINAL: invertmast
If this is the one i think your talking about.. It actually wasn't a wing failure. it was a forward wing attachment bulkhead that failed due to being built incorrectly. So ya can't claim that as the manufacturer's fault, especially since they do not (or atleast did not) market that airframe as a ''turbine ready'' airplane.
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
.......A Yellow Aircraft F18 twin wing failure.....
.......A Yellow Aircraft F18 twin wing failure.....
If this is the one i think your talking about.. It actually wasn't a wing failure. it was a forward wing attachment bulkhead that failed due to being built incorrectly. So ya can't claim that as the manufacturer's fault, especially since they do not (or atleast did not) market that airframe as a ''turbine ready'' airplane.
I think you are correct, and I should have stated clearer as well that it was a kit designed for ducted fan, unfortunately, on a forum it will be seen as a structural failure. For what it's worth, I don't really claim that any of the failures I've seen are manufactures fault, there are to many outside circumstances that we as readers on a forum will never know about.
My only real point was that there are thousands of successful flights happening out there, and that every manufacture can have something fail. Be it from structural failure, builder error, etc, but to not fly because you are concerned about what might happen makes the hobby pretty unfullfilling. The time needs to be taken to inspect as best as possible and then just enjoy the airplane knowing that they all have expiration dates sometime.
11-08-2009 | 09:36 PM
#32
My Feedback: (23)
RE: Chinese Jets
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
I think you are correct, and I should have stated clearer as well that it was a kit designed for ducted fan, unfortunately, on a forum it will be seen as a structural failure. For what it's worth, I don't really claim that any of the failures I've seen are manufactures fault, there are to many outside circumstances that we as readers on a forum will never know about.
My only real point was that there are thousands of successful flights happening out there, and that every manufacture can have something fail. Be it from structural failure, builder error, etc, but to not fly because you are concerned about what might happen makes the hobby pretty unfullfilling. The time needs to be taken to inspect as best as possible and then just enjoy the airplane knowing that they all have expiration dates sometime.
ORIGINAL: invertmast
If this is the one i think your talking about.. It actually wasn't a wing failure. it was a forward wing attachment bulkhead that failed due to being built incorrectly. So ya can't claim that as the manufacturer's fault, especially since they do not (or atleast did not) market that airframe as a ''turbine ready'' airplane.
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
.......A Yellow Aircraft F18 twin wing failure.....
.......A Yellow Aircraft F18 twin wing failure.....
If this is the one i think your talking about.. It actually wasn't a wing failure. it was a forward wing attachment bulkhead that failed due to being built incorrectly. So ya can't claim that as the manufacturer's fault, especially since they do not (or atleast did not) market that airframe as a ''turbine ready'' airplane.
I think you are correct, and I should have stated clearer as well that it was a kit designed for ducted fan, unfortunately, on a forum it will be seen as a structural failure. For what it's worth, I don't really claim that any of the failures I've seen are manufactures fault, there are to many outside circumstances that we as readers on a forum will never know about.
My only real point was that there are thousands of successful flights happening out there, and that every manufacture can have something fail. Be it from structural failure, builder error, etc, but to not fly because you are concerned about what might happen makes the hobby pretty unfullfilling. The time needs to be taken to inspect as best as possible and then just enjoy the airplane knowing that they all have expiration dates sometime.
11-08-2009 | 10:03 PM
#33
My Feedback: (13)
RE: Chinese Jets
ORIGINAL: k12rc
I know what you saying and Iam not bashing arfs but I would say probably 60% of people flying have never built anything and probably could not tell which way to run grain to get the strength where its needed
I know what you saying and Iam not bashing arfs but I would say probably 60% of people flying have never built anything and probably could not tell which way to run grain to get the strength where its needed
I am not saying that I can see every problem in an arf. The guys that have fabricated models of wood or composite, know what and where to look for weakness or improvement.
For instance, an all composite model, gel coated, pre primed or painted already, hides the layup and structural configuration of the airframe.
To me, a raw un painted see- thru glass kit is more impressive and reveals the construction benefits and flaws.
Steve
11-09-2009 | 12:32 AM
#35
RE: Chinese Jets
Hi,
I think the "You get what you pay for" addage is an extreme oversimplification in this case. If a company is selling a turbine ARF, they're implying that it can be used for the purpose it's sold. Do we really expect people to cut an ARF wing open? The buyer has a reasonable expectation that the goods are suitable for the purpose they're sold for, right? So, in some cases, the customer DID NOT get what he paid for. Of course we can't expect JMP quality products for a FEJ pricetag, but that's not what we're talking about.
What if that crashed F-15 wing had a spar box made of marshmellows? Would anyone be playing the 'buy cheap, buy twice' card? Since the answer is "No", I ask......what's the difference? Wrong-grain balsa or cotton balls, the thing was totally inadequate for what they sold it for. Thing is, it's not just about peoples' money, either.
I think the "You get what you pay for" addage is an extreme oversimplification in this case. If a company is selling a turbine ARF, they're implying that it can be used for the purpose it's sold. Do we really expect people to cut an ARF wing open? The buyer has a reasonable expectation that the goods are suitable for the purpose they're sold for, right? So, in some cases, the customer DID NOT get what he paid for. Of course we can't expect JMP quality products for a FEJ pricetag, but that's not what we're talking about.
What if that crashed F-15 wing had a spar box made of marshmellows? Would anyone be playing the 'buy cheap, buy twice' card? Since the answer is "No", I ask......what's the difference? Wrong-grain balsa or cotton balls, the thing was totally inadequate for what they sold it for. Thing is, it's not just about peoples' money, either.
11-09-2009 | 01:34 AM
#36
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: BendigoVIC, AUSTRALIA
RE: Chinese Jets
ORIGINAL: YellowAircraft
Hi,
I think the "You get what you pay for" addage is an extreme oversimplification in this case. If a company is selling a turbine ARF, they're implying that it can be used for the purpose it's sold.
Hi,
I think the "You get what you pay for" addage is an extreme oversimplification in this case. If a company is selling a turbine ARF, they're implying that it can be used for the purpose it's sold.
Tim
