[Islandflyer]

PAU will not get dragged into some shooting match with self proclaimed design review experts, but we do have to reply to incorrect or incomplete statements.

As posted earlier, I saw three of the production 36% Edges doing some pretty good hucking all week-end long at the Bell Air field. One of these is from the second production batch.

The 36% had a production (not design) issue in the second batch, which was promptly dealt with as soon as discovered: the short tubes were replaced for everyone who responded to our emails and phone calls, confirming that they had the shorter wing tube. This short wing tube has caused two failures:
-Scott E who has received a full refund for his plane; he is now talking about fixing the plane because so enjoyed the way it flew.
-Harv who received a new plane.

Wylie, by his own admission had a “Pilot error, bad judgement.../... ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT I DID IT!” Wylie, we appreciate your owning up to your error.

Harv recently destroyed the second plane he was given, not from design flaws, but likely from the same type of over-aggressive flying Wylie was honest enough to admit: high speed parachutes which Harv was observed doing on the 36% Edge, are a quite common cause of death amongst 100cc and 150cc planes, regardless of who the manufacturer is. Even if the abuse does not immediately cause a crash, it is likely to cause damage that will show later, even while under only moderate stress.
As a result of this and the ultimatum he gave PAU, Harv’s sponsorship was terminated, leading to his disgruntled state of mind already showing more clearly in another forum. None of this was meant to be public, but we cannot stand in silence in the face of slanderous statements. Unexplained failures are not happening “right and left”: the short wing tube issue and acknowledged pilot errors account for all but Harv’s second crash. While we are not happy with it, this would be quite a good record for most manufacturers and we should be flattered that we are held up to a higher standard. We are realistic, and we do not claim a perfect quality control: Boeing, NASA and Airbus have failures of their own in spite of their tremendous budgets; our record in the hobby business is pretty good considering the budgets and factory workers’ competency levels we have to deal with.

Let us be clear: If you intend to do high speed violent walls and high speed powered down parachutes with a 35% plane or above, please purchase someone else’s plane. We design planes to fly light, and therefore we do not make heavy duty re-enforced machines. This is a trade off that most can understand.

As an indication, a violent wall or parachute can put as high as 5 to 10 G’s of force on the structure: this means that if you set up this plane light, at about 24 to 25 lbs, just 5 G’s now makes the plane weighs over 120lbs, and at 10 G’s, it will be 240lbs!
So I will repeat: if this is the type of abuse you plan to subject your planes to, please, by all means, purchase and abuse planes form companies other that PAU.

In the mean while, we are always working to improve our designs, and each production run includes improvements, including improvements in structural design, such as stronger wing tube attachment methods. However, this can stretch the envelope, but it will never make planes be abuse-proof.

We, at PAU, pride ourselves designing, providing and supporting great flying machines; we hope these planes find some good homes, with people who enjoy flying them with as much enthusiasm as all the guys I was privileged to see this the past week in the North West.

There are dozens of happy customers flying our 36% Edges, and the third production batch is currently on the Ocean. Two people and their supporters should not be allowed to ruin the pleasure for every one else.