The OTHER Kevin in San Diego
Jan 29, 2007, 01:11 PM
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:10:59 -0500, "RobZip" <no time@me.net> wrote:
>No, what I would expect is a servicable part, fit to serve the purpose for
>which it was intended. Whether it serves that purpose with any amount of
>durability or long service life isn't the matter at hand is it? When the new
>part arrives fresh out of the package in a condition that renders it's
>function similar to that of a crash damaged part, I feel my objection to be
>reasonable regardless of price.
I don't disagree with you, but the reality is, the Blade series of
helis are, well, toys. I own one of the 1st generation CPs and I've
modified the hell out of it and have run into similarly bent
mainshafts right out of the bag. My solution was to forgo the E-Flite
parts and buy third party pieces. Not the best way to go if you don't
like tinkering or have some disposable income. My CP as it sits now
does fly pretty good, but for the money I've put into it, I could have
had another Trex 450.
>I'm well aware of the concept of using low cost parts to get a product to
>the market at a certain price point. Looking at the variety of upgrades from
>different sources for these birds, it is reasonable to presume one could
>expect more satisfaction and better service by purchasing the upgrades.
>Along with that, the manufacturer should have an understanding that if their
>initial offering is of such dubious quality as I've seen, that the customer
>will be discouraged from further investment or repeat business with them.
Precisely why my CP is about 40% E-flite and 60% upgrades. The low
cost "disposability" of these things is what keeps them selling. That
and some shops "Oh, these are easy to fly" sales pitches.
Some people like to upgrade (I'm one of 'em) when the need arises, but
these things will never be the same in build or flying quality with
OEM parts as an OEM product from Align, Hirobo etc...
>No, what I would expect is a servicable part, fit to serve the purpose for
>which it was intended. Whether it serves that purpose with any amount of
>durability or long service life isn't the matter at hand is it? When the new
>part arrives fresh out of the package in a condition that renders it's
>function similar to that of a crash damaged part, I feel my objection to be
>reasonable regardless of price.
I don't disagree with you, but the reality is, the Blade series of
helis are, well, toys. I own one of the 1st generation CPs and I've
modified the hell out of it and have run into similarly bent
mainshafts right out of the bag. My solution was to forgo the E-Flite
parts and buy third party pieces. Not the best way to go if you don't
like tinkering or have some disposable income. My CP as it sits now
does fly pretty good, but for the money I've put into it, I could have
had another Trex 450.
>I'm well aware of the concept of using low cost parts to get a product to
>the market at a certain price point. Looking at the variety of upgrades from
>different sources for these birds, it is reasonable to presume one could
>expect more satisfaction and better service by purchasing the upgrades.
>Along with that, the manufacturer should have an understanding that if their
>initial offering is of such dubious quality as I've seen, that the customer
>will be discouraged from further investment or repeat business with them.
Precisely why my CP is about 40% E-flite and 60% upgrades. The low
cost "disposability" of these things is what keeps them selling. That
and some shops "Oh, these are easy to fly" sales pitches.
Some people like to upgrade (I'm one of 'em) when the need arises, but
these things will never be the same in build or flying quality with
OEM parts as an OEM product from Align, Hirobo etc...