[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rudder cables
At 11:05 PM 5/8/98 -0400, mhadley1@juno.com wrote:
>
>
>Bill, based on years of your comments and your most recent public
>comments concerning distrust and lack of faith in the aircraft, the
>factory, and some of its personel, AND I quote, "I have no qualms about
>it as a lawn ornament", maybe it is time somebody suggest to you that
>you consider your own words about a Velocity "as a lawn ornament". We
>will all occasionally make a mistake. Maybe buying and starting to build
>a Velocity was the right thing for you to do in 1991 when you got your
>kit, but it seems you've gotten nothing but grief, aggrevation, maybe
>even ulcers for your efforts since. I am just thinking of your good
>health and long life, so give it some thought, OK? I couldn't bear the
>thought of anything happening to you in, what you have so vividly
>described as an aircraft with "deficiencies which the factory built in",
>has not been "proven", and is not properly supported by or engineered by
>the factory.
Gentlemen,
Please take a few deep breaths. This exchange is not constructive and both
have valuable things to contribute and neither have a monopoly on that.
First, if any builder has not received "grief, aggrevation(sic), maybe even
ulcers for (one's) efforts", then that builder has not built the plane,
someone else did for him. Bill's comments by no means indicate that that's
all he has encountered. And it is healthy to consider any experimental
design to be "unproven" and work on that basis. Not all builders will
consider the factory folks as the ultimate authority on aircraft design
just as the factory folks cannot assume they know what is best for all
builders.
As we have wisely decided to not have non-builders on this mailing-list,
it allows the builders to air opinions that do not have to be construed
by the factory as damaging to the reputation and hence create a need to
rebut it regardless of its merits. As far as it being an affront to the
ego, there is not much we can do other than to choose our words carefully.
For all those that have already invested
much time and money into this project, Bill's words evoke sympathetic
resonance even if we have not encountered all the problems he has nor
require that the aircraft/kit be perfect in all respects. There are often
times when I had wished the factory had been more clear in the instructions
or more cleaner in the design but that is part of the game. I may even
bitch about those loudly but that is by no means my sum total experience
with the plane (hence the title of my articles "agony and ecstasy").
As builders, we need to understand that the kits are designed and
manufactured and has compromises everywhere because of costs, maturity,
design process, etc. A lot of the bitching we do will hopefully allow
the factory to avoid some problems in future designs IF they realize
how something can be a problem to a builder. It may be frustrating to
realize that some complaints cannot be satisfied for whatever reason
but that does not imply ALL complaints are invalid. One thing that does
allow us to continue to place the trust we have in the factory (other than
the financial investment) is the feeling that the factory will not
willfully design a flaw in the design to cut corners. Whether this is
a matter of faith or experience, that is upto each builder.
On the other hand, it is impossible for an average builder to NOT wish
for things that can be improved. As consumers, we all vary. Some put
up with it, some write suggestions, some bitch about it and some
demand changes. It is also a given that you will never please everyone.
But the input from each is useful nevertheless. While the factory folks
may not consider their offering as bad as just the extreme comments would
indicate, I hope they realize that the plane design/kit is not as
as perfect as just the complimentary comments would indicate. As
long as all of us continue to believe that the factory will not turn a
blind eye to complaints and suggestions but there are limitations
on what can be designed/tested/included in a commercially viable kit,
we will do just fine.
A premature divorce as suggested by Martin is not the answer to this
"commitment".