ARTF Build Quality

[Tony Jones]

New thread to continue the discussion of ARTF build quality that has started in the August Issue Feedback thread.

Undercarriages. With rigid allow UCs on ARTFs I always cut an oblong hole in the bit of bottom ply and replace it with hard balsa to which I re-attach the UC legs. Strong enough for good landings but will pull out without damaging the airframe when I land short in the ditch!

Best wishes
Tony Jones

[Tony Jones]

Anyone remember an article in BMFA News more than a year ago about 2 ARTFs, that were suffering from tail section failures in flight?

I suggested that the BMFA had a duty of care to its members to reveal the manufacturer and model names to avoid people buying defective products that might cause injury or death. They disagreed, citing the possibiliyy of libel - which only showed they did not understand the libel laws - briefly that you can not libel a product, only a person, and that 'factual accuracy' is a bullet proof defense.

I asked them how it would look for them in court if the worst came to the worst and it became apparent that the National Body had withheld information that could have avoided a fatal accident. They declined to reply.

Best wishes
Tony Jones

[Dave Drew]

Beware the Ultimate Bipe. One of our club members horrified to discover that the wing strut retaining system was an accident waiting to happen. Under that lovely exterior covering the bolts were 'dabbed' with two spots of cyano and seated in 3/32 soft balsa and this on a high G performance machine. It makes you think dunnit?

[001]

Dave, which kit of the Ultimate? There are several on sale.

[scott cuppello]

I must say, as gorgeous as the Ripmax Spitfire is, beware the motor mount/firewall, it's only cyno'd!? As I discovered, it needs re-doing with epoxy.

[Tony Jones]

A common fault to look out for in ARTFs is the position of the motor mount on the firewall. I have come across instance where the supplied template - or even worse, the pre-fitted captive nuts - failed to take account of the right thrust offset built into the firewall, resulting in the spinner being well off the centreline and not fitting the front cowl opening.

[Dave Drew]

Re Richard Bonds rrequest for manufacturer of the sagging Ultimate. Will have to get back to John H when he comes out of hospital he's gorn in for a hip hip horay

[Chris Dickens]

I know of one review Ultimate that suffered the same pronblem the flight after the article had been submitted when it was to late to change what was printed. I cn't remember what brand it was, but what I do know is that it wasn't Blackhorse as the same modeller now has one of these and flies it all the time.

[The real Ron Truth]

Tony,

As you suggest the BMFA havent understood the whole concept of libel or product safety. Makes you wonder who they represent, us or the manufacturers?

To top it off read this from Planenutz website!! To make it worse, they actually import these models and are involved in the factory process. DO THE JOB RIGHT FIRST TIME!!!!!

Quote

Firewall Reinforcement
With all ARTF's (not only ours), it is good practice to strengthen the firewall to fuselage joint by either epoxying hardwood fillets or even fibreglassing the joint. This should always be done certainly on the bigger planes and especially where you are using an engine at the top end of the recommended range (which, let's be honest, is most of the time).


Check Glue Joints
Always have a good look at the glued joints in the fuselage and wings (where possible) and add glue if you think it looks a little light on glue. Again this is good practice for ALL ARTF's, no matter who makes them.



http://s147682260.websitehome.co.uk/sections/Tips/index.htm

[Tony Jones]

Adam

I'm not just suggesting it - I'm stating it as a fact. As a technical writer (I would deny being a journalist because most people rightly rank journalists somewhere in the public relations/paedophile/politician area), I have had some minimum legal training. During the phone call with a BMFA 'Officer' regarding the libel laws I was told 'Well, we wouldn't know about that sort of thing' - or words to that effect. The tone of my approach to them was in the nature of a helpful warning, but it was taken as an unnecessary criticism. Don't press me for a comment on who the BMFA truly represent: my response would probably be libellous!

Thanks for the link to the Planenutz (?) website. That posting, IMHO, (I am not a lawyer) is that this amounts to an admission that they are selling goods 'not fit for purpose'. I'm amazed.

Best wishes
Tony

[The real Ron Truth]

Tony,

Yes it amazed me too when I read it. Sadly too msny manufacturers leave design issues to well meaning but never the less clueless overseas factory owners who want to part please there client and partly keep costs down. Ive seen U/C held in with cyano, Firewalls tacked in place with some strange brittle type white glue and some huge 3d models supplied with control linkages barely suitable for a vintage model. Ive also sadly seen them crash as a direct result.

The key for me is does a repeated fault with a certain model warrant a product recall or public warning. I think it does.I cant image ford selling a car with the advice to replace brake hoses or tighten the nuts on the wheels just to be safe before youve even driven the car. If they had a problem, they would recall. The BMFA should keep some online section of their website to allow manufacturers to warn of potential problems, offer upgrades, replacement parts etc, not just stick there head in the sand.

[Tony Jones]

I have been more fortunate with ARTFs than you, I'm glad to say, and have been generally impressed with the value for money.

I believe there are no product recalls for known faulty products because the manufacturers prefer to keep their fingers crossed that no litigation will result. And so far they have been proved right. For the same reason they would not contribute to a BMFA website.

And the BMFA wouldn't put one up anyway, as they evidently - to me, anyway - have an over-cosy relationship with the trade.
Cheers
Tony

[Pete Wills]

Hi Guys,
Of course this is not an admission that we are selling goods not "fit for purpose" but a common sense recommendation that all modellers should adopt when assembling ALL ARTF models from any manufacturer. We have visited many factories in China (some making well known high street brand models) and constantly reinforce the fact that they need to pay particular attention to the amount of glue in certain areas. And because of this, we have been very successful with our models. We are not (like some companies) just importers out to rip off the modeller, but are fliers ourselves who fly regularly every weekend and ALWAYS fly the models we sell to the limit and back again, so we can identify any weak areas and feed this information back directly to the factory concerned. If anyone has any concerns with any of our models we always ask that they contact us so we can improve the models for the benefit of everyone (I can quote a number of cases). I too am amazed that people on here think that it is better that we, as a supplier and seller, should just keep quiet and not give any helpful advice to our customers. We have built up a large loyal customer base because of the quality of our models, the personal service we offer and the help and advice we give and we are not about to stop that for anyone.

Pete

[The real Ron Truth]

Pete,

I assume your connected to Planenutz in some capacity. I have to disagree with your interpretation of whats on your website. Giving sound building advice is one thing , but advocating adding glue to a known weak point is something different. I cant see a court of law looking too keen on a business that accepts a weakness in a product but doesnt work to remove it other than advice consumers.

I assume you have some understanding of GPSR, product recalls and due diligence?

[Tony Jones]

Pete

The last thing anyone is suggesting is that you just keep quiet with your fingers crossed, although other suppliers clearly do so. And I personally appreciate your efforts - both in advising your customers to the best of your ability and particularly in feeding back stuff to the manufacturers.

But I am concerned that you could come a real cropper if a model you supplied was involved in a serious accident and was proved in court by some smartass barrister to be not 'fit for purpose'. It is extremely likely that the 'advice' you published on your website would be used against you. After all, not all your customers are going to see or heed that advice.

That risk is up to you to assess. But how would you feel if you bought a new car and a little note from the dealer advised you to check the chassis welds for safety as they had often been found to be inadequate? Ridiculous I know, but probably the same thing in the eyes of the law.

Is it too much to ask that you should sell only products that are safe and serviceable to start with? That would make the factory pull up their socks I'd have thought.

Best wishes
Tony Jones.

[scott cuppello]

On the flipside of the coin....it's still a model, and a certain amount of modelling is going to be involved? I have never had an ARTF yet that I was 100% happy with, and changed things at the "build" [re, I mean assembly...before the kit builders lynch me!].

I think ARTF is a bit mis-leading, [the term I mean], pre-built and covered would be more accurate in most cases. Are we expecting a little too much in some cases?

[Adam Chambers 2]

What ARTF actually means depends on a laymans understand of the term as there is no legal definition. I would suggest that a modeller would consider the term OK as by buying something pre built and covered has eliminated about 70-80 % of the work involved in building and its almost finished. To a complete novice, I would suggest the term is misleading as they buy an artf then find you need to buy and fit radio gear, engine, controls etc etc, basically all the fiddly bits!!

Saying that there are some plug and play models that are fitted with everything and you can literally unpack, fuel it up and fly. I always prefer ARF ( Almost ready to Finish) as this implies work is still involved to make it happen .

[Alistair Taylor]

Pete

brave of you to post stuff on a forum. It shows you're paying attention to customers, which is praiseworthy, even if it puts your head well and truely above the parapet :)

The phrase that springs to mind from my days as a law student (some time ago) is;

Caveat emptor or buyer beware

This "fit for purpose" stuff would seem to bestow on all modellers a god given right to get their money back if an ARTF plane is not as well glued as some would like. In practice you can bet your bottom dollar that the small print in the instructions will include phrases along the lines of "the manufacturer is not responsible for the assembly, use, ...etc etc of this plane" and "fliers should make sure that their plane is fit to fly"

Remember that first word, ALMOST ready to fly.

e.g. taken direct from TT E-hawk instructions;

"By the act of building this user assembled
kit, the user accepts all resulting liability for damage caused by the final product. If the buyer
is not prepared to accept this liability, it can be returned new and unused to the place of purchase for a
refund."

So the moment you apply greasy paw to screwdriver in putting it together as per the instructions you're liable for any damage caused later on.

The TT warranty also states;

"The warranty does not extend
beyond the product itself and is limited only to the original cost of the kit."

If you don't have the nouse to spot a plane that will fall apart on takeoff cos it's not glued properly, you've got no recourse to the manufacturer cos they warned you. They have sold you the components of a model plane, and that's all. What you do with them is your problem. If the distributor chooses to supply you with a new one after the tailplane on yours falls apart (as many distributors do when they find out you've been sent a duffer) they're going out of their way and should be royally thanked.

Remember, Thunder Tiger, VMAR, JPerkins, Futaba, etc etc all sell products in America where they have lawyers coming out of their ears. Do you really think you'd stand a wax cat in hell's chance of getting compensation out of them for a dodgy joint somewhere?

As for the flash-in-the-pan ARTF manufacturers that seem to appear and disappear with the tides, selling ARTFs that are not even "almost" ready to fly, but rather pre-painted or pre-covered kits; by the time you've built it and flown it, they've been wound up, so there's no-one to complain to anyway!

AlistairT
PS - In America they've begun using lawyers instead of rats for laboratory experiments. This is because;

1 - In America there are more lawyers than there are rats
2 - Lab technicians don't get attached to lawyers, whereas they find rats quite cute
3 - Lawyers will do things rats would never dream of

but they are having difficulty relating the results of the lab experiments on lawyers to humans...

[Adam Chambers 2]

Alastair,

I would suggest you refresh your understanding of consumer law as its a tad out of date! Caveat Emptor certainly doesnt trump all.

Consumers have implied rights that cant be overrulled by any terms and conditions. Many T and Cs would be considered Unfair and hence void especially any that void liability for injury or death.

The law expects businesses to comply with the law and protect consumers from products that are unsafe. Selling an ARTF with question marks over its construction or strength to do what it is sold to do, is serious stuff.


I should say that I do not suggest that PLANE Nutz sell dangerous models. I merely highlighted comments on their website.

[Alistair Taylor]

Adam

yes, you're right. Unfair terms and conditions would be considered void.

In the case of ARTF models I just think that the mianufacturers are well within their rights to say "we have no control over the assembly and use of our products, so we cannot be held liable".

The big grey area is what an ARTF model is "sold to do", or what its purpose is. A modeller would say, "it's supposed to fly". A manufacturer would say, "it's supposed to give you the opportunity to assemble a plane more quickly than would otherwise be the case. We've designed it to fly, but whether it does or doesn't is out of our control, because we can't stand over you as you put it together."

Hence the warranties

Put yourself in the place of the manufacturer of the plane whose tailplane came apart in flight, as a result of slapdash assembly by the purchaser. Would you say they were liable? Probably not

What if the firewall had come out, and the purchaser hadn't checked this? Bear in mind that the manufacturer cannot check whether the purchaser has dropped the plane on its nose a couple of times in the workshop, used an appropriate engine, balanced the prop, tightened the engine mounting bolts etc etc etc.

Yes, manufacturers should make sure their firewalls are glued properly, but they cannot be held liable for an ARTF falling apart unless it really is impossible to assemble the model, but this would go out of the window the moment you applied sandpaper to make a part fit.

You would have a case if your picooZ combusted on its first flight, as this is sold in flyable condition, assembled.

AlistairT
PS - I've not had an ARTF fall apart on me yet, but I've come across weak points and poor linkages, and these have irked me, but then I try to buy ARTFs at a discounted price, to make up for the niggles.

[Pete Wills]

Ok guys,

I'm after some advice here. Bear in mind that Plane Nutz is just a part-time business run by a couple of modellers. We are not experts in law, we just enjoy our flying.

So is it the general consensus of opinion that giving well-meaning advice on our website could be used by a smart-arsed lawyer to take us to the cleaners? If so I will remove it tonight, and just let our customers rely on their common sense and experience.

I would appreciate some feedback here.

Cheers

Pete

P.S. And I don't mind sticking my head above the parapit if it means improving things for the benefit of all.

[Tony Jones]

Pete

May I suggest that it is not the general consensus of opinion in this forum that should concern you, but the actual legal situation?

Much as I hate to say this, I think a few quid spent on a genuine legal opinion would be a good investment.

As to removing the advice on the website, I doubt that would help in court; a lawyer could say the fact that you took it down constituted because you realised it constituted an admission that the products you were selling might not be up to scratch! As I understand it, when it comes to consumer legislation, the customers safety and well being is the retailer's responsibility, not the manufacturer's. A 'convicted' retailer can always sue the manufacturer of course - assuming he has the dosh to take on a much bigger company - and its lawyers.

But again, my post is just barrack room lawyer stuff. Confirmation by a qualified rat would be a good idea.

Sincere best wishes
Tony

[Alistair Taylor]

Pete

I don't think your advice amounts to anything that could be relied on in a court of law to "take you to the cleaners".

Your advice is common sense, and in fact probably demonstrates that you want to deal fairly with your customers - advising them that some planes may need further work by the buyer prior to flight. I'm not sure whether saying this is strictly admitting that they are not "fit for purpose" given what I said about the true "purpose" of an ARTF.

This web page should be helpful;

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1073792594

This page;

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1073792156

seems to suggest that a distributor (e.g. Plane Nutz) is going to be OK provided they can identify the manufacturer. The manufacturer may then escape liability on the basis that "someone else caused the defect after you supplied the product" i.e. the consumer with the suspect building skills, but this would be decided on a case-by-case basis - all artfs are not equal.

This is some advice on good practice;

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1073792157

that distributors might want to take on board.

Pete - I reckon you're spot on including advice on firewalls needing gluing. Some info, or links to info for beginners (or just a link to the BMFA) might also be helpful for the less experienced among us.

AlistairT
PS - I hadn't visited your site before. Quality stuff! and very clear website.

[scott cuppello]

But there seems to be this accepted thing in aircraft modelling of a product not working [being faulty], or even causing a crash [I'm talking from experience], ending up costing a lot of money....and it's accepted with a shrug of the shoulders, now this is the bit I don't understand.

I have a problem currently of an aircraft totalled by a faulty motor, 2nd flight [not just the crash....FIRE damage!], and I'm going to give this company a chance to set things right to my satisfaction....if not...I'll be shouting from the roof-tops.

[Myron Beaumont]

Don't think I'm being flippant on what is obviously a serious subject but I think I'll send my "only "suit to the cleaners in case "expert" advice is needed .
I have bought a chinese take away (2 years'ish ago ) The first thing I did was to put sticky stuff wherever I could .God knows what I can't see & what potential failures are waiting to happen after what has been said. I'll stick to flying home builds .If they break where I don't expect -How do I stand legally ? (nanny state stuff this) Of course in France (a civilised non nanny type country I love dearly) everyone has 3rd party insurance compulsorily whch in some ways negates the possibility of being sued & bankrupted & "suits" making loads of money !
Grumpy Myron again