Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

I stand by my earlier comments. They are not directed solely at the Icepoint, but the whole crop of current ARF's. These things are being made in several Asian countries as cheaply as passable. When you guys start assembling them, the first comments I see on RCU, are about how much weight you are going to save during the building process. Then after you put it on a diet (read as weakening the airframe) you stuff the latest stump pulling super engine on the front. I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, but even I can see a bad ending to this story long before we get there. I am very happy the the manufacturer did the right thing here, but I predict that we will see a lot of this over the next few seasons (not just with the Icepoint). I think we all need to collectively step back and re-evaluate the way things are being done. This isn't one of my"go back to classic pattern ship's" rants either, I know thats a pipe dream, but I have to wonder how long it is going to be before an OS 160 comes down in the pits somewhere.

ULTRA-RC

Bladeflyer,

Since this is an open discussion, I don't agree with your thinking behind your posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. So here is mine.

First, regarding the Icepoint, and speaking as the distributor of the product line........if there was a pattern of the Icepoint failing, I as a manufacture would have ceased selling them, contacting all owners, and immediately worked on a resolution. I do not feel the same sense of urgency you do. I still do not feel as though there is a defective issue here, but based on my conversations with our loyal customers, I feel the precautionary measure will provide an added sense of security to anyone flying these planes, even if they have over 100+ successful flights on the plane. My point is simple this, I feel I was put in a position of re-action due to this post instead of a position of pro-action. THe final outcome would have been the same regardless. Enough said.

Paternguy,

Speaking as a modeler regarding your comments pertaining to ARF's in general, I for one disagree. I do agree there are some rare bad designs out there, but generally speaking, I believe ARF's are built extremely well today. It is apparent your not a fan of them. That is your preference. I have witnessed first hand failures at all ends of the spectrum. I have seen many kit built planes fail miserably throughout my years. Most due to bad build jobs, or re-engineering, and last operator error. I agree with you, these are many of us out here that feel we need to become Aeronautical Engineers and re-engineer any plane, ARF or kit, to save weight and increase power all in an effort to have the ultimate flying machine. But guess what? The manufactures specs and instructions are tossed out the window and personal preferences jump in. This is a big reason why most of these planes fail.....because they were not built as they were intended. How many 1.20 size planes today do you see flying with a 1.20? So I ask how you can blame the factories, engineers, and distributors in general? So my point, failures will continue to occur, whether kit, ARF, or scratch built. It happens to the best of us. Experimenting, personal preferences, re-engineering, and I will add......lack of knowledge or ability, will more than often be the cause. And YES, I will close with repeating my initial statements......there are some designs out there that ar simply not good. But, with open forums, the needs of some to gossip, and on the other end of the spectrum supportive local hobby dealers and vendors that care, the consumer will always know about them.



Initially, Brian "Ultra-RC"
Lastly, Brian "The Modeler"

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

Ultra-Rc,

I am sorry if you interpret my comments as directed toward you or any other manufacturer/distributor. You hit the point I was trying to make (much more eloquently than), that the majority of the problems are occurring by the end uses that exceed the what the airframe was originally designed for.

I am still predicting many more failures before everyone figures out that the airframes are being built in such a way as to maximize the profit margin of the manufacturers and adding the most available power to this equation is maybe not the best way to proceed. I still have faith that one day common sense will again appear on the scene. LOL

big_G

LOL....don't hold your breath on that one, Paternguy................

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

As an American based company whose having our ARF's manufactured in China as are almost all US based RC manufacturers I can stress how far from the truth your statement is. The US consumers do not stand for anything but the best. We as manufacturers do our best to give you the best and if we have to, and sometimes do, is transfer the cost of better materials to you, the consumer. But Americans don't mind spending more money for better products as do many other countries. Now in some other countries cheap products are acceptable, but here in the States they are not. The Icepoint for which I am an owner is what I would call way above average to excellent in both construction and materials. Don't try to plant subliminal messages that Ultra RC is after the buck and not concerned about the quality, that's just stirring the pot.

Now your other comment about planes falling from the sky is crazy, 525 planes, 2 known failures (one of which the owner was happy enough to get another plane) and it's a hot flying plane, not a trainer. But now lets talk about the wing. A wing failure is always a chain of events, not just a single event in this case we all think it's the glass. But maybe some of you think it's the glass because it's the easiest to see?? The Icepoint has d-tube construction, main spar, lower spar, butt glued together, sheeted and glassed. I mean get real here. But now we are assuming it was just the glass that failed? The pilot stated 50 flights and prolly lots of trips to the field. How do we know the main spar was not cracked in transport creating the chain of events. I'm not saying it was, but it could certainly have been.

Also, high G moves kill planes. I can't even count the amount of times I heard someone say "watch guys" then pull some crazy move and wing rips in half. Obviously there is going to be some kind of stress somewhere on the plane when it meets or exceeds the structual amount limited. I've seen men cry when they planted their 40% Edge's just from a simple low speed parachute. This happens in the hobby and it happens a lot. Icepoints are made to chug fast and snap hard. I've beat the crap out of mine and it's still in one piece. I've looked at my wing and seems fine to me. This is an isolated incident and nothing more.

I just hope we keep this thread productive and not controversial with the sneer comments. I think Brian is doing a great job in his support and based on these statistics I'm not going to touch my plane and I don't expect these to start falling out of the sky. I didn't purchase my Icepoint because the wings were held together by fiberglass, that was just another nice detail that Ultra RC added to make sure that these wings stay redundant.

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

I believe maximizing profit is a basic business practice. Do you expect me to believe that any company out there is not doing this. Please give me a break. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Build em light, build em cheap and stress em out, this not just directed at the Icepoint but all of the newer cheaper Arf's coming from China. A fool and his money are soon parted. Yeah you can buy an ARF for close to the same price as a kit, but the kit will still be airworthy in more than a season or two. LOL

apereira

I guess that the folks that are creating this boring discussion about predicting the future of ARF's do not fly in airlines that operates 737's because the rudder came off in flight........, or maybe is a new part of the hobby(ARF gossip), ARF's are in their best times ever, anyway I always reinforce the ones I have when I consider necessary.

Regards to all.

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

It was the best of times it was the worst of times. LOLOLOLOL

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Maximizing profits is only a result of products sold. You only sell products if you have a market to sell them too. Nobody is going to purchase crap in the US RC market unless you use it for combat. Your right that profit does play in a role in a company's success, but it's not the foundation of how a company works. If you want to talk retail and how economics plays a role I would enjoy that very much. My email is [email protected].

Cheaper ARF's coming from China???? Please .... I understand your a die hard kit builder (I guess) and I've seen plenty of animosity towards these ARF's by the kit builders because they are in fact being produced better in China then some of the best US "master" builders. But you need to wake up to reality and realize the truth that the ARF's are in fact getting better, not worst. Otherwise I'd be out of the RC industry in the blink of an eye.

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

The truth is we as a society are willing to pay roughly the same price for an inferior product for the convenience of being lazy. I can accept that. LOL. The basic rules of economics dictate the you make a profit or you don't stay in business. LOL. Don't try to sugar coat it or baffle us with figures. That is the basic foundation.There is absolutely no need to make it any more complicated than that.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

So all I need to do is go outside, pick some grass, charge a lot of money for it and make a profit? WOW!

Sorry ... but a company does not just stay in business from just profit. Yes, it IS more complicated then just that.

Baffle you with figures? 2 planes lost, 525 sold, hot flying plane. That's not too baffling is it?

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

Of course it is, but the primary mission of any successful company is to make a profit. Why else would you be in business. Obviously there are many more factors involved in staying in business, but ultimately profit drives the direction that a company follows.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

But profit does not come as a result of cutting production costs by using cheaper materials which is what we originally discussed. There is a thing we call volume.

ARF's are getting better then the kits and it's a fact.

Also the primary mission of most companies is overall success, not profit. Profit is the reward of the overall success, not the primary mission. A company that thinks only PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT will soon be dealing with DEBT DEBT DEBT. Most entrepreneurs that I know sleep better at nite having happy customers and quality products then having more money in the bank. Read Trumps book, read Jobs, read Gates ... they will all say the same thing.

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

And for the record I do and have owned Arf's. I view them as my bang around throw away birds, after a season or two if they are still airworthy i usually sell them. Don't read that as i am a bad pilot. I retired my 13 year old Dirty Birdy after last season, because the fuel had finally penetrated below the paint and it was time. My new Dirty Birdy is just about ready to go. Show me an Arf that will hold up like that long term. And yes I do own a few pattern ships that aren't powered by a 60 2 stroke too. LOL. I just used that example because it shows a long term pattern of durability and a lack of abuse to the airframe. You show me an Arf that will last that long and not cost me anymore than a good quality kit, and i will be a believer.

J Lachowski

My Feedback: (46)

The one thing that stands constant no matter how well the ARF is constructed, is the durability/quality of finish( heat shrinakable covering in particular). I can't count how many times I've seen covering blow off an ARF.

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

Well we'll have to wait and see about that. The ARFs' of 13 years ago were made out of plastic mainly. Just now have companies really stepped up to the plate and placed greater emphasis on quality over cost. I'll use Quique Somenzini as an example, since he's a friend of mine. I have seen him develop his ARF's from the ground up and has put quite a bit of time and effort into ensuring a high quality airplane. I don't know for a fact how other companies handle it, however I know how his product development has gone. And trust me, his airplanes are beautiful (and they fly well too).

I saw an Icepoint down at Joe Nall, it was still in a crate, but with the sides removed and it looked like a beautiful airplane. It also seems that Brian has been doing a good job with customer service and has focused on keeping people happy. After all, if you are helpful to someone and build some sort of relationship with them, and have an exemplary product, chances are they will do business with you in the future, as well as good reccomendations to others that are looking for the same thing. More business=more money. That also equates to people being happier all around.

Don't get me wrong, I really like to build, as I am really picky and I also like to know what kind of structural integrity that I'm working with. But ARF's have come a long way since 1992, when your Dirty Birdy was built. Shall we wait until 2018 to see how an ARF built today holds up?

Lots of valid points being brought up.

Pattern_is_Fun

Didn't the much more expensive IMPACT have tail issues, requiring a rear former to be put in for structural stability? Point is, it's not the price of the plane that caused 2 failures.. I think several IMPACT's met their maker due to structural problems. Bryan has supported the ICEPOINT nothing less than fantastic. I'm sure he will continue to do so. I look forward to getting my plane trimmed and flying it in competition.

I will add the glass cloth to the center section of the wing tonight.

sc

BrianB

My Feedback: (2)

I myself would rather buy a so called sub quality product from a top quality company then a so called high end product from a company that provides crappy no customer service. Look at comparf, talk to most of the people that have had a Impact failure and ask if any of them got a new plane in the mail within a week!! or at all for that matter.

Liberator

Well not being a pattern guy, but having purchased a few ARF's lets keep something in mind.

When does a shoe lace break? When you try and use it.

My point is that the wing broke when stressed, but surely there was something that started that out. At this point no one knows what did it, but the company PONIED UP AND CAME THROUGH!
How stand up is that?

I heard the term "Pro-Active" being used. Great concept.

If you fly a hot plane, it would be common sense (to me at least) to make sure you were comfortable with the build process. If something seems out of place, be pro-active and fix it. It is in you're ( the plane owner's) best interest to make that change if you feel it is warranted.

In the same vein, if I was the person backing the kit, I would slip in an addendum page in the instruction book as quickly as possible. The simple reason is that would be a truly pro-active way to keep things in line. why not? What can it hurt? 2 failures out of 500 is less than 1%, that is an outstanding success ratio.

The fact that they replaced the plane to me say's it all. They stand behind the product.

Tom

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

I agree the Ultra-RC did the stand up thing and ponied up a new airframe. I personally think that the updated version should have a solid foam core wing, it may ad a little weight but the strength gained will be well worth that slight gain.

But I still find the glue joints that I see on the newer "high quality" ARF's to be a little suspect. I suspect that they go light on the glue to save weight and to reduce production costs.

I am of the opinion that if you sell it as almost ready to fly you shouldn't have to spend the extra time re-engineering it to make it durable, If you spend two or three extra days going over it before assembling it, it shouldn't be advertised as high quality.

fancman

My Feedback: (16)

I think everybody here gets your point Paternguy. How about giving the bashing a rest. I'd like to hear what others have to say.

EXTRA ADDICT

My Feedback: (2)

I think it all boils down to some people can't handle the fact it was built in China. Implying that people in China take no pride in their work. I will say I have worked in other countries (not china) but from my experiance the workers in the US have alot to learn from them. If you tried to produce this plane in the US you would have to pay the workers 25 bucks an hour get 4 hours workout of an 8 hour day promise them retirement benifits to keep them there and the quality wouldn't be any better. That being said a 200 dollar ARF would cost you 1500 dollars and probobly wouldn't last half as long. I do not fly pattern I am a Fun-Fly kind of guy that just happend to stumble across this thread and I would have to say that I am surprised that any one could think 2 failures out of 525 is anything but the upmost in quality. I commend ULTRA-RC for standing behind the plane even after 50 flights. I as a consumer wouldn't have expected that from a distributer. I am impressed! On a final note I am an American to the bone born an bred I love my country but we as Americans have alot to learn!

Bladeflyer

My Feedback: (23)

Brian
Ultra-RC

I guess you really didn't read the message that I wrote. My intention was to inform other pilots of a potential problem with the wing. You can see in the pictures that Keith Hoard posted that there is no wood in the spar box where the wing is joined. No evidence of wood or Epoxy. The glass cloth is one thing but the spar or lack there of is the structural component that is the strength of the wing. I'm not a structural engineer but the lack of the wood in the spar box to me is something to concerned with.

I guess had I only said that the Icepoint was a good looking plane that flew great lines in the air and that all of the owners looked very happy everything would have been cool. I never said the aircraft was crap in fact nothing negative about the aircraft or your company was said by me. However when the incident happened Keith was very concerned when I brought the aircraft back and he started to come up with ideas of how to make it better.

You saw from dentdoc that Frank is not on the computer much so his only conversations would have been with your company. Now like I stated I applauded you for taking care of Frank, but what of the others out in the system that are flying the planes. Don't they deserve to know all information about their aircraft, be it good or bad.


You were not at the field at the time nor were you present upon inspection of the wreckage, I was. I witnessed the aircraft come apart in the sky for no apparent reason. True some times aircraft accidents are preceeded by a chain of events. But if this were to happen in the full scale world all aircraft would have been grounded until a thourough inspection of the wing box had taken place. We are unable to do that. We put or faith and dollars in the companys that make the ARF's and from what I've read you seem to have happy customers, and maybe this was a Monday or Friday wing that something got missed on and it was time for it to fail but then again maybe not.

Information in aviation is key. And we as the consumer have a right to know what is going on in the system. I know you don't agree with my sence of urgeny in this situation and you are entitiled to that. But I have lost too many friends in the full scale world because information was not given to the pilots on a timely basis. RC is not as serious as full scale but there are a lot of parallels. We are on the front lines seeing what is going on. To me every accident is like a little NTSB investigation so that this type of accident doesn't happen in the future.

Do yourself a favor and take a close look at the pictures of the crashed plane that Keith submitted. Look at the dark area where the spar should have been glue into place. Then tell me that I'm overreacting. By the way there was an aeronautical engineer there at the contest who inspected the wreckage and also made comment about the lack of a spar as a likely cause of the accident.

Erik

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

I have no problem with this plane being built in China or anywhere else for that matter. What I do have a problem with, is questionable quality. I am personally happy the manufacturer's are using commercially available covering materials.

But 10 pounds of crap in a new 5 pound rapper is still 10 pounds of crap. I find the use of glue to almost non-existant, even on the newer ARF's I have seen. You can design the best structure in the world, with little to nothing holding it together, you will have failures sooner or later.

Can the problems with ARF's be fixed? Sure, but sometimes your better off building it yourself, and you will be one of the few these days that don't have a plane that looks just like everyone else's. LOL

apereira

The World Models ZEN 120 is an ARF, there's not enough glue in certain areas and the stab incidence adjuster was loose Ines the stab, I reattached that part and used CA and epoxy to reinforce all areas I thought needed attention, after 4 years of flying and hundreds of flight this aircraft flight as good as my craftsman's kits (Finesse and Summit 120), I had a Great Scape also that I built from the kit and it was a truck!, very nice aircraft flew very well, but the only way to be competitive is to save a lot of weight, and that has a price in the structure.

I've seen over the years airplanes from kits with tons of epoxy in the wrong place to come apart in the air. It is everyone's responsibility to check their aircraft even before flight, that's better than just build and wait to see if it fails and then talk and talk , and more talk about and issue that everybody understand by now, even from page one, I'm going to order an Icepoint anyway because all the things I saw already about the performance, Oh, by the way you can get a ZEN III reinforced with glass and carbon fiber, very Strong and will not come apart in the air, it cost just over $2000!!!.

I'll reinforce the Icepoint as I always do with all my ARF's, anyway I never had a structural failure anyway in about 10years.
I'm not coming back to this forum it went out of line a while ago.