Aeroworks Yak QB Series problem.

[falconpilot]

I lost a 42% QB 260 last summer to the same wing failure. Wing blew apart on the 12th flight ..IMAC only...Happened at an IMAC in front of alot of people...3-5955's per surface with Hangar Nine hardware..I got the same response from Aeroworks....Great flying airplanes...As long as the wing don't blow apart....When QQ aircraft had a few failures, they jumped on the problem, fixed it, and continues to build a great product..AW just keeps turning them out, and ever so often, one of the wings fail.....As I was told by AW...Your taking a chance any time you buy a big airplanes..

Sonito, like some of the guys here...I'd only use the very best servos I could afford on my airplanes as well...By doing so, for numberous other reasons, if wing does fail, it's hard for the company to blame it on the servos....

Sorry for your loses...Know how it feels...Some on here will bash you for coming forward....That's just part of it........You know what truely happened....

[bodywerks]

Hmm...CS150 servos with plain plastic servo arms? You know, there's a reason why cheap servos are cheap...

[sukhoi26mx]

	Quote: Originally Posted by falconpilot
	I lost a 42% QB 260 last summer to the same wing failure. Sonito, like some of the guys here...I'd only use the servos I could afford on my airplanes as well...By doing so, if wing does fail, it's hard for the company to blame it on the servos...

Have you looked at the photos? There is no damage in the area of the wing bolt which would occur if it was installed during the failure! The wing bolt either backed out or was not installed IMHO. The safety clips were absolutely not installed. He was using a non-stock spar. This is not the same failure you experienced with your 150. While certainly unfortunate that your failure occurred - this is a totally different situation. Look at the guys setup, he was using plastic (not the durable Hitec Nylon heavy-duty) control arms, a non-stock spar tube, and clearly didn't use the appropriate wing fasteners. Also just noticed the Zinger prop (not that it had anything to do with this situation, but it cerrtainly shows a lack of clarity in equipment choices...)

	Quote: Originally Posted by falconpilot
	You know what truely happened....

So true. Hopefully he'll pop back in here with an update, adding some clarity.

Scott

[pepatrick]

I hate to see planes come apart like that. It is very heart breaking. I have flown Aeroworks planes and owned one of the original 50cc QB Yaks. These are very good flying planes and overall these are very high quality planes. These guys probably sell more ARFs than anybody because they are easy to put together and great looking planes. Now...I am not going to bash anyone ...Pilot or Aeroworks...but there are certain things you have to reinforce on any ARF...and do not use under sized servos in a 50cc plane...or any plane for that matter. 190 oz of torque is not enough for this bird...and there are so many threads on here that say not to use nylon servo arms on hi-torque servos...especially on giant scale aircraft. I suspect that if you are using these on a 40% plane..you will probably experience the same thing to.

Also..Rocco at Aeroworks has always provided excellent customer service. It may not be up to the level of ExtremeFlight RC or DA...but it is still much better than the average RC company. Although this is a QB airplane...you still gotta take some extra time and go over things with a fine tooth comb...

[notorious_benny]

Yep, one wing came off, why didnt you just do this..............

http://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/f...tml#post276849

[bodywerks]

	Quote: Originally Posted by rcflyer777
	I could be wrong, but I believe the wing bolts are black plastic which would blow all the conversation about the wing bolts backing out right out the window. They would have just snapped off when thw wing came apart. And if AW suggests pinning the anti-torque posts, why don't they drill them and include pins with the kit? It tells me there is a recognized design flaw.

You are wrong. Please don't post such speculative stuff if you don't know what you are talking about. The bolts are hardened steel alloy, the alignment dowel tubes are pre-drilled for cotter pins, and the cotter pins are included in the kit.
The first run of these kits did not have the cotter pin mod, but Aeroworks sent an addendum kit out to everyone that bought this plane, at no charge.

and:

	Quote:
	If the bolt stayed in, the blind nut would still be on the bolt... or the bolt would have ripped thru the side of the fuse. From what I see in the pics... the blind nut is still in place and the hole for the bolt in the fuse is not broken out... Sorry but your bolt backed out.

I can attest that if the bolt did not come loose and the wing simply failed, the bolt would have ripped out of the fuse and still been attached to the wing root, or part of the wing root would have been still attached to the fuse, along with the blind nut - ask me how I know (it was not an Aeroworks kit)
I agree that it is VERY possible that he bolt backed out.

[mavacpjm71]

	Quote: Originally Posted by sukhoi26mx
	...so I guess the point is that the rant at the beginning of this thread was not only totally misplaced, but also absolutely over the top crap (my opinion, of course). By all accounts, AeroWorks owes the original poster nothing - in fact I'd say the original poster owes AeroWorks an apology. Glad we got that figured out. What a bunch of baloney. BTW, yes, I fly 5 AeroWorks models (more soon, I hope) including a 150cc Extra, 75cc Yak, 75cc Extra, 50cc Extra, and an electric Sukhoi. No failures to date and I absolutely thrash my models. Scott

That would seem to be the conclusion here, which is why I'm really kind of offended that he came here opening up about a Great R/C manufacturer so quickly when the underlying facts seem to indicate a gross negligence on the part of the pilot to A - use proper tube, B - engage tube to full extent so it locked under the ply rib, not the fiberglass phenolic, and C - doesn't use cotters or even in my opinion an anti-rotation screw into the tube from the wing...D - he was doing pylon racing at high speeds with this in-correct setup, and he Snapped at high velocity I assume multiple times, and then it comes off in a 8 point role, which by all accounts is super low stress maneuver(doesn't add up to me)...as well on top of all that, sub standard servos, flexible plastic arms(IMHO) possible reason for flutter, sub standard prop, totally the wrong gear for a 50cc aircraft...and then blame the manufacturer....totally un-cool...and really in-appropriate on a community site like this with so many strong and tenor R/C pilots and community representatives....Rocco, apologies that this was even posted (not speaking on behalf of FG at all but for myself and im sure that of many others over the years who have purchased and enjoyed your outstanding aircraft....)

[bodywerks]

I also noticed that the tube is not the stock wing tube! Now, why would you change out an anodized aluminum wing tube for another aluminum wing tube, especially one that is not annodized????????
I'm sorry dude, but if I were in Aeroworks' shoes and saw that tube, the plastic servo arm and cheap servos, the bubbble wrapped used in the radio installation, the "1/4 scale" servo used for the rudder, the cheap prop used, etc., it would be hard for me not to conclude that there is some shady stuff going on here.

[mavacpjm71]

	Quote: Originally Posted by bodywerks
	I also noticed that the tube is not the stock wing tube! Now, why would you change out an anodized aluminum wing tube for another aluminum wing tube, especially one that is not annodized???????? I'm sorry dude, but if I were in Aeroworks' shoes and saw that tube, the plastic servo arm and cheap servos, the bubbble wrapped used in the radio installation, the "1/4 scale" servo used for the rudder, the cheap prop used, etc., it would be hard for me not to conclude that there is some shady stuff going on here.

I wonder - all assumption here, but since the original tube is missing, could this plane have sustained prior damage which caused the tube to be replaced ?

[falconpilot]

Scott,

I agree that he may not be using the best high end equipment...Alot of guy work on budgets, and use the best they can afford. Sounds like the servos had the torque required....I grant you, there are some things that need a little more clarity, but people shouldn't bash this guy so fast...AW HAS had, and apparentley, continues to have problems with their wings blowing apart..Not just mine and this one, but others as well...Just ask around a little...I've buried my axe with AW and wish them them best, so this is not sour grapes on my part..If the wing did fail due to the fact that the builder went outside of AW directions, then he has no gripe...I just hate to see guys spend their hard earned dollars on an airplane, and then watch it blow apart in the air....AW, in my opinion make one of the best flying airplanes I've ever flown...I just couldn't chance the lose of all my equipment again due to my experience with them..

[bodywerks]

	Quote:
	While certainly unfortunate that your failure was poorly handled by AeroWorks (which is sounds like it was)

Scott, I am not sure if you already knew this, but Falconpilot's 42% 260 was 100% replaced, free of charge. Because Aeroworks wouldn't pay to fix his engine, buy new spinner, prop, exhaust, radio gear is why he feels he got "screwed". While I feel his pain, do you really think Aeroworks he got screwed?
I know of now R/C company that will claim responsibility above and beyond the value of the product they sold, except maybe shipping (which Aeroworks did).

[mavacpjm71]

	Quote: Originally Posted by falconpilot
	Scott, I agree that he may not be using the best high end equipment...Alot of guy work on budgets, and use the best they can afford. Sounds like the servos had the torque required....I grant you, there are some things that need a little more clarity, but people shouldn't bash this guy so fast...AW HAS had, and apparentley, continues to have problems with their wings blowing apart..Not just mine and this one, but others as well...Just ask around a little...I've buried my axe with AW and wish them them best, so this is not sour grapes on my part..If the wing did fail due to the fact that the builder went outside of AW directions, then he has no gripe...I just hate to see guys spend their hard earned dollars on an airplane, and then watch it blow apart in the air....AW, in my opinion make one of the best flying airplanes I've ever flown...I just couldn't chance the lose of all my equipment again due to my experience with them..

Falcon, I hear ya...but you know what....I have purchased ARFs from every major manufacturer and you know what, an ARF doesn't mean that it just needs final assembly and go wring it out, do you take an RTF out of the box and trust to fly it just because the manufacturer says its RTF....I bought an Eflite Blade 400 RTF - Yes a heli, don't kill me for it...and first thing i did is get my tools out and tighten and re-tighten and check all the screws, blades, flybar....etc....(tail blades were not screwed in all the way and main blades were sloppy and loose...could have caused a crash on 1st flight - but because i did due dilligence to check it over and properly configure it, i avoided a 1st flight crash - my responsbility, not the manufacturers....IMHO)because you know what RTF or ARF doesn't me i am resolved of responsibility to assemble it and double check it correctly....now you say aeroworks have wing problems, i have purchased from rocco since 1997 and i have never seen a sizeable wing problem with any AW kit...so i would love to hear about the massive wing problem in the QB series that you indicate...also it sounds as though Rocco handle your situation quite well minus the engine and additional gear which no manufacturer should have to cover...sounds like he did a bang up job of supporting you post wreck...way to go AeroWorks

[3DHobbyShop]

I think there are a couple of lessons to learn here:

1.The guys who post on FG are, as a group, pretty savvy and very observant. Not much gets past them.

2.If you have a problem with an RC product which the vast majority of users find to be high-quality, it's not wise to come in flaming with both barrels. Far better to take a humble position, ask for help, and learn from the experience. If the product was at fault, someone else (who isn't looking for a refund as is therefore impartial) will point it out, and it will carry a lot more weight in that case.

[madmax]

Gents, I just nuked the first post in this thread as it was way over the top, apologies for not doing so earlier. Sonito, sorry to see your loss. I fully understand your frustration but know that there are many friends and folks who respect AW here, and calling someone dick weed in a public forum isn't our gig. This things on notice, please keep this conversation respectfull to all parties. Thanks guys. MD

[Malves]

	Quote: Originally Posted by falconpilot
	Alot of guy work on budgets, and use the best they can afford. Sounds like the servos had the torque required

I am one of them. I'm building a 74" Yak, but I wanted to build a 88" Yak. I could do the 88" with cheap equipment, or the 74" with good equipment. I chose the 74" because I will be able to build it right, with peace of mind knowing that my hard earned money was well spent on good appropriate equipment that will have a much less risk of causing a failure.
Guys that work on budget, should know better where they put their money and how they do it.

It is clear that the equipment choice was very poor and inadequate.