Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

I must be missing something ... if the tube is insufficient for the task at hand, and the customer already paid for shipping on the kit that should have been correct right from the start, why does he now have to pay anything towards the cost of correcting the factory's mistake ?

I've had kits with bum parts in them before, and the manufacturer always paid the shiping to get the correct parts to me, since it ws their mistake that they were correcting, not mine.

Don't get me wrong - I'm really glad that SM finally spoke up and did something to correct the problem, but it just seems wrong to cheapen that act by being miserly enough to charge the customer for the shipping to correct SM's mistake.

Gordon

AndyAndrews

Ditto that why should they have to pay for the freight? I'm a fatory rep myself. I can tell you that anything that is defective and replaced out of the 20 manufactureres that I rep would be replaced at no charge including freight. My dealers and customers would think I was joking if I pulled a stunt like that.

Airplanes400

My Feedback: (349)

OMG Andy, We finally agree on something. Pretty cheap of Anton to think/suggest that the SM customer who needs the replacement tube should pay for shipping. But you see ... SM has little or no concept of customer service.

Just buy a BVM Bandit. The "go fly" price is only $4600.00 (less engine & radio) and get quality work like this ...

icepilot

.

as722

My Feedback: (1)

Anton,

Thank you for doing what's right and taking care of the issues in question.

Albert

josecilurzo

I bought a S.M. F-16 ( 1/8 ) full package, from JETS-RC, and, MICHEL is a great friend, guy and SERIOUS SELLER, I received the plane in perfect conditons, but the cockpit deck not come inside the box, however, consisted of checklist of manufactures, Michel and Anton send to me without any costs, well, the quality of jets, i think they always must be studied and be improved.
Well i have a question : why BVM chose SKYMASTER to sell in your site ?
Sorry for your loss guys, i hope everything if clarifies.

JOSE

lavi rider

My Feedback: (6)

I'm sorry to say that now that I've seen the suggested mods from SMs side i.e Anton I have even more concerns about SMs engineering capabilities....

And yes there are that many people who are flying and using their products without failures ....but now honestly I can't put my finger on the reason why it is the way it is....

I can only assume that these models are over built in some areas due to a "feel" of certain individuals that these areas are prone to failure and actually these models are on the heavier side....no real structure analysis was ever done ....if it would than the mods to the canopy frame would never had been required nor for the tab problem or wing tube replacement and on and on.....The knowledge of using Solid Works or Autocad for modeling parts such as plugs for molds or creating models of nice formers to be cut and glued into the general parts of the airframe is a part of engineering but the determination of material usage ,their volume and proper placement is the actual structural engineering that seems to be absent here...not to mention a touch of Flex Aerodynamic loads ....it shouldn't be such a complex task of calculating force loads to determine the required strength of a wing spar or any other part for a company such as SM.

But seeing the latest problems and SM's mods for their repair it seems that their engineering is more like pulling out answers from their sleeves ....not really educated engineered answers.....not to mention that they are wrong.

We can't know how deep are the problems are .But due to the latest signs inconsistency in the manufacturing process ....I'm thinking of the point when will we witness a failure of a critical part such as a wing spar , horizontal tail or such.

To put my concerns to rest and believe others too, it would be nice if someone at SM would step forward and show us some evidence
of any steps in engineering they involve during the R/D process to assure structural integrity....such as design steps of a wing spar where loads are visible both graphic and in numbers (solid Works have this feature in their software (cosmos))... and how is it implemented in their choice of material to be used ....Because up to know we haven't seen any proof of such engineering steps been applied.

I know this looks rather a harsh of a request but I think it is justified to some degree.

Woketman

My Feedback: (6)

I kind of agree with some of whay Lavi says, but as a structural analyst (Stress guy) for the Shuttle Program, I can assure you that the art of generating accurate structural loads for analysis is...., well, an art!!!

Having said that, I understand that would be too expensive and time consuming for a model company like SM. However, estimating conservative loads and using that for analysis would be resonable. The trick is to not be way too conservative and end up with a battleship for an aircraft structure!!!

j.duncker

My Feedback: (2)

This thread is what RCU is all about someone finds a problem, other members confirm that it is not an isolated incident. The manufacturer and his agent work with people to find a solution.

I check threads like this as they start to see if some one is bashing the manufacturer but not in this case so I have been letting it run.

HOWEVER THEN WE GET SOMEONE STIRRING THINGS UP AND MAKING OFF TOPIC COMMENTS.

It got a little heated and a couple of posts had to go but I am happy to leave the rest of these posts up as I believe the instigator has been bought down to earth by forum members.

AT LEAST NO ONE POSTED A PICTURE OF A RABBIT WITH A PANCAKE ON ITS HEAD IN THIS ONE!

If anybody wants me to do a major clean out raise a ticket and I will get around to it ASAP.

lavi rider

My Feedback: (6)

I agree with that .....to some degree too.... as today we enjoy the presence of many forms of software available on the market that can untangle the maths in a more user friendly way and to the professionals bring them to the "mark" quite fast with more than reasonable answers ....but really my goal was that a certain amount of analysis is still required and not so difficult to achieve...

Doing a proper composite structural analysis with taking in consideration of the thread direction in the fabric is a very complex task I agree....But I never referred to that.

On the other hand calculating the rough load upon a wing of a certain design and getting more than adequate data on it's spar requirements to leave us on the safe side of matters is not so difficult.

We need to remember on one hand it is not meant to circle the globe with minimum effort at maximum efficiency while on the other as my friend wrote it should be well within acceptable weight and tolerance to our needs.... i.e light enough...:-)

Woketman

My Feedback: (6)

Yeah, the wing loads are the easy part though. Just assume a max G level, assume an elliptical distribution and there ya go! But I was refferring more to other component loads, like, say for instance, the side load on the canopy. How the heck do you calc that??? I guess assume a max speed, and assume the max dynamic pressure possible on a flat sheet orthogonal to the wind. That would be way conservative, but should work fine.

Mr. Moderator: what the heck is the rabbit and pancake comment about? HUH???? (that was off-topic, eh??? )

lavi rider

My Feedback: (6)

And truthfully I don't see where my marks are off topic , As I have been precisely pointing out reasons for the manufacturers failure in proper structure design and assembly ....but any way.

Nuf said

lavi rider

My Feedback: (6)

U see, so that can be calculated too.....but if you lack the possibility to calculate that, then just build two or three samples and fly the heck out of them before distributing them on the market....A try and error way of testing is not unacceptable in R/D. Also a live destructive test on a part is also a way to go....it's just to lengthly or expensive in some cases but in certain areas it is a must....like a proof of design in case of a wing spar or the spoken "tab" and also the final part which is the wing itself in this case.

Airplanes400

My Feedback: (349)

You see, you see, now others are saying the mods are inadequate and Skymasters engineering is lacking or non-existent. The new mods suggested by SM would be like putting a band-aid on. Plus, and here's the thing that gets me ... Anton never even tested to see if his new mods (ideas) would work. But the tab and new screw sure looks pretty! A nice clean screw secured to balsa wood!! Come on!! Balsa?? Did SM do any R&D on this ... No, but they will put it out there and have their customers do the R&D ... Then, back to the drawing board after more failures/crashes. And who risks that? The customer!!

Wake up people!! R&D is at the expense and risk of the manufacturer, not the customer. Sorry, but you guys who thanked Anton are just buying into his unproven/untested ideas. That tiny tab needs to be bigger and secured into a plate of some kind (hint) to actually add structural strength. Think about it.

invertmast

My Feedback: (23)

What are you talking about? All the wood i saw appeared to be chinese grade plywood.

Anton showed a couple of pictures of "mods" they did.

1. They added a "pin" to hold the tab on.. which i think is completely pointless, but more on this in a bit.
2. They added an ADDITIONAL wing attachment anchor point. They put a Plywood doubler the size of the blind nut (personally i would of liked to of seen it a bit bigger to distribute the load more) and are now using a BOLT and blind-nut to hold the wing to the fuselage IN ADDITION to the tab.. The tab is now pretty pointless. Would of been better to eliminate the tab and just put a fore and aft Anti-rotation dowel and then have the bolt be the sole means of anchoring the wing.
This method has proven very success full in many applications for lots of flights, so its not IMO a "lack" of engineering, but it is "better". And ANYTHING that is adapted to a model to fix any issue is considered a Band-Aid. Doesn't matter what company it is or how small of a problem they are fixing, ATLEAST they are now acknowledging the problem and providing a reasonable effort to fix the problem.

Why should he test mods to see if they work, when they have been proven techniques for years? The Comp-Arf Euro-sport uses a single bolt through a plywood disc inside the fuselage into a blind-nut in the wing root to hold its wings on. NO problems there. Multiple 25% and larger 3D planes use the same technique to hold their wings on.. again not alot of problems with the technique there either. The bolts holding the stabs onto the stab tube.. Yep, another PROVEN technique that works, so no issues.

Their is not alot of centrifugal force on the wings that would "sling" the wings off the tubes even without the bolts in place. The True issue, may not have even been a "TAB" problem, it may be a structurally weak wing tube spar, Anton i am sure will look into this again I hope even though they say that problem has been addressed already w/ a 3rd? generation wing tube.

The photo anton or someone else posted up of the wing tube, appeared to have alot of 90* angles in it between the outer tube and the inner "webbing". One thing i have always been told, you NEVER have a 90* angle on any mechanical part, as that is where the stress' are going to build and eventually a failure is going to begin. If the 3rd? gen. wing spars are still having failure problems, it would be interesting to see if the webbing is the true cause of that..

marquisvns

According to Anton, the new spar is hollow.

icepilot

I believe that one of the rules here is that manufacturer bashing is not allowed. Here we have one individual who does nothing BUT bashing, while offering no constructive critisism,
which would be OK. We also have a rep for another manufacturer who participates in this, and I think you should clean out all the bashing and the "doubtful" remarks about SM, and
leave all the facts and the well-meant suggestions - which is what this forum is for in the first place. Allowing someone to call a manufacturer "Inept, lacking engineering, Skydisaster etc
is a blatant example of what we do not need or want here.. So please - do that major clean out, or I will post rabbits and pancakes all over this post!!

mk1spitfire

I think the readers are wiser than you think.

They will generally ignore and rise above the spite and malice.

Censoring,removing or blocking freedom of speach is not a good idea and will lead to tyranny of the modulator!!

lavi rider

My Feedback: (6)

Icepilot,

put aside the fact of me being a CARF rep ....my marks where right on the money and I stay strong behind them all....it's so easy to overlook the facts and simple truth and cling on to the escape ladder ....OH...... he is a rep for a competing company So , So ,So....


It doesn't really matter now.....the obvious points where made clear for all to see....

icepilot

I have no idea if any of the manufacturers use any kind of advanced software to calculate loads, stress etc, - I seriously doubt it, I suppose they
all do what model builders have always done - they construct a plane following well-known principles, test-fly it in a serious manner, then start
the production. As I have stated here before, there are thousands of SM jets flying all around the world along with FB, BVM, Yellow, FEJ and others
- in our small country alone I think there are more than 50 SM models - and they are not poorly constructed, they don't fall out of the sky, and on
the few occations when there has been a problem Skymaster (as well as FB and FEJ - even BVM) have come through with a good solution. So let's
stop the bashing and offer some good advice to the manufacturers - we are the ones who see where the problem is (after many more accumulated
flights than you can expect the manufacturer to perform) and we are usually experienced enough to see what needs to be done..

lavi rider

My Feedback: (6)

A. The aid of using certain software to help one out calculating loads is to the beneficiary of that person ......makes one life easier....
B. I can assure you that in one point or another each one of the more known manufacturers run the figures on spar design ... especially the ones that build their models for competition where each gram can make the difference..
but true that using good experience is not unacceptable ....however that experience should be built up on you R/D not the customers...


I truly hope that all the mentioned issues will come to a positive end , and the manufacturer will implement some the remarks here for better products for us all to enjoy in the future to come.

Good day to you all.

j.duncker

My Feedback: (2)

This thread is closed as the matter bought up by the OP has been resolved to their satisfaction.

Should posters in the thread wishing to discuss testing processes wish to continue then a new thread should be started.