Javron Cubs arrive 'Downunder'

[RanchPilot]

I can't believe where this thread has gone. Based on the report of one customer about one airframe, we're apparently now willing to write of an entire company? Give me a break.

First, Backcountry sends a replacement airframe halfway around the world to satisfy a disgruntled customer, and then gets to eat **** on the internet from that customer about poor customer service? I guess no good deed goes unpunished these days.

Second, the disgruntled customer is supposedly afraid Backcountry will sue his pants off if he posts pictures, but not afraid enough to keep him from slagging the company in multiple posts on this board? Something doesn't add up here.

Third, Backcountry now gets to defend itself against unsubstantiated rumors of legal gag orders, without any contextual information about who, what, where, when, or why? I think we are assuming an awful lot here, based on very little information.

I'm admittedly biased because I know and like the guys at Backcountry. I think they build a great product and have worked hard to address their customer service issues. Complaining about a company that doesn't stand behind their product is one thing. Bitching about one that has worked hard to make things right (i.e., shipping an entire replacement airframe) is quite another in my book.

Building and selling experimental airplane kits is a tough business under the best of circumstances, even without having to suffer one-sided public accusations and people jumping to conclusions that the whole company has gone to hell based on the complaints of one customer about one airframe.
Circular firing squads like these are what put good young airplane companies out of business.

[Nocub]

I can't believe where this thread has gone. Based on the report of one customer about one airframe, we're apparently now willing to write of an entire company? Give me a break.

First, Backcountry sends a replacement airframe halfway around the world to satisfy a disgruntled customer, and then gets to eat **** on the internet from that customer about poor customer service? I guess no good deed goes unpunished these days.

Second, the disgruntled customer is supposedly afraid Backcountry will sue his pants off if he posts pictures, but not afraid enough to keep him from slagging the company in multiple posts on this board? Something doesn't add up here.

Third, Backcountry now gets to defend itself against unsubstantiated rumors of legal gag orders, without any contextual information about who, what, where, when, or why? I think we are assuming an awful lot here, based on very little information.

I'm admittedly biased because I know and like the guys at Backcountry. I think they build a great product and have worked hard to address their customer service issues. Complaining about a company that doesn't stand behind their product is one thing. Bitching about one that has worked hard to make things right (i.e., shipping an entire replacement airframe) is quite another in my book.

Building and selling experimental airplane kits is a tough business under the best of circumstances, even without having to suffer one-sided public accusations and people jumping to conclusions that the whole company has gone to hell based on the complaints of one customer about one airframe.
Circular firing squads like these are what put good young airplane companies out of business.

There are many posts in this thread from many individuals and no consensus is present an any "firing squad". I would however seriously question any manufacturer who lets a airframe out the door with defective welding or rigging. That should never happen.

If the defects were so substantial that "The quality of the welding of the fuselage from backcountry cubs was such that two experienced New Zealand civil aviation engineers and and an engineer from a certified welding school expressed grave doubts as to the quality." Quote from "Ron" earlier in this thread. We are not talking about a minor missed weld we are talking something serious.

That is why I asked for pictures. I would want more information before I reach a conclusion. The suggestion that the manufacturer in the end agreed with the aforementioned conclusion of the Australian AME's and engineer and replaced the fuselage. Is in itself an admission by Backcountry of a catastrophic failure in quality control. Or an absence of it.

[RanchPilot]

That is why I asked for pictures. I would want more information before I reach a conclusion. The suggestion that the manufacturer in the end agreed with the aforementioned conclusion of the Australian AME's and engineer and replaced the fuselage. Is in itself an admission by Backcountry of a catastrophic failure in quality control. Or an absence of it.

You say you want more information before you reach a conclusion but then, in the same post, before receiving any more information, posit that Backcountry somehow admitted a "catastrophic failure in quality control"? I rest my case. One could just as easily assume that Backcountry strongly disagreed with the assessment of the airframe, but shipped another one to try and make the customer happy, nevertheless.

I have no intention of getting into a flame war on this board, and Backcountry can certainly speak for itself. It just pisses me off when, based on a one-sided story about a single airframe they've never even seen, people make public statements like these about an entire company:

"it seems the quality control was non existent;"
"it looks like the wheels have fallen off somewhere along the track;"
"It's too bad the quality of Backcountry went to hell;"
"Since they moved to Douglas things have gone downhill;"
"I think Ron is scared some one will sue the pants of him if he publishes those photos; "
"The suggestion that the manufacturer in the end agreed with the aforementioned conclusion of the Australian AME's and engineer and replaced the fuselage. Is in itself an admission by Backcountry of a catastrophic failure in quality control. Or an absence of it."


Are any of these statements based on personal knowledge or experience? Has anybody bothered to ask Backcountry for their side of the story? (to his credit, Bill did today, but only after raising additional unsubstantiated rumors) If this was your small company and you had tried to make things right with a customer, how would you feel about reading stuff like this?

Call me old-fashioned, but I think people should hear all sides of a story before coming to a conclusion--especially damning conclusions like these.

[SpainCub]

They way I look at it, if I was in Texas, and I dropped a couple of grands on a pair of custom boots, and when I received then they had nails coming through then, not only would I be in pain if I tried them, I would be very upset. If getting it resolved was a major issue, then I would make it beknown to all those in my circle of influence not only of the poor quality but the lack or poor customer service. (I am of the opinion that if something is a major failure, it should not take much explaining to get customer service resolving the issues with little resistance.)

Welcome to the internet, a place where as seen here, the circle of influence crosses several continents This is a place where people are able to post their "opinion" and "share their experience" regardless of the subject matter. The fact that this is a Cub community means that here opinion take on a higher level of scrutiny from all sides and it is up to the reader to evaluate the value of the opinion.

I think statistical data validates that there is no company out there that is defect free of any sort, else there would be no customer service just customer support

Having said that, when a company has a major fail with a product upon delivering it to a customer, how a customer reacts, is also and enduring indicator to the customer service they have endured.

Now talking especially about airplane-parts which in its own implies (or would expect) a higher level of scrutnity from a given company do to the safety implication involved. In the case of an airframe for a CUB which is made in an artisanal way, should further up the expectation on both end from a quality perspective. If delivery of this artisanal product for what ever reason is not on par with quality, the it merits serious doubts for the artisan. If the product is a safety hazard, then I would be incline to be grateful that somebody raised their voice and shares it with the community. We all know that customer service from this type of "company" is really speaking to the business person, if not the artisan that built the product. And if that falls apart, then the more the merit for someone in the community to raise their voice.

If for any reasons, the facts are not on par with the opinions, then there is a verily lively judicial system that mends fences for those unhappy with the turn of events. Trying to shut someone up is a clear indication someone is trying to keep the fact from coming to light.

My Opinion...

[BCSC]

I am Bruce Reed, one of the owners of Backcountry Super Cubs (BCSC). I have stayed off of this site for years because I am wary of the internet as a place where accusations are taken as truth as soon as they are written. However, I think it is time to set a few things straight.

Myself and two partners bought Smith Aviation from Nick Smith in 2006, with the original intention of moving the entire operation to Douglas, Wyoming. Unfortunately, the move took much longer than we planned because of numerous delays in the construction of the BCSC facility in Douglas. The original completion date was June 1, 2007, but we were not able to move in until January 1, 2010. I would have preferred to move in much sooner, but BCSC had no control over the factors which caused these delays.

In the interim, BCSC (at that time Turbine Cubs of Wyoming) contracted with Jay at Javron to build our PA-12 and PA-18 fuselages. BCSC subsequently decided to change to its own welding shop and, since the Douglas facility was not yet ready, purchased a building in Cornell, Wisconsin and moved the jigs from Javron to Wisconsin. In the winter of 2008-9, we teamed up with Wayne Mackey to develop a kit for Wayne’s SQ-2. We believe the SQ-2 and the other planes we are developing represent an exciting evolution of the original PA-18 design, leading us to focus our efforts in the Douglas shop on the growing demand for the SQ-2, the SQ-4, and our prototype LSA. In light of this decision, and the fact that we do not have room for 5 jigs in the Douglas shop, we elected to have Javron start building BCSC’s PA-12 and PA-18 fuselages again. This meant moving BCSC’s PA-12 and PA-18 jigs back to Javron, where they are now.

During the period when the PA-18 jigs were located in the Wisconsin shop (which BCSC has now closed), BCSC sent out a total of three airframes that were not up to our high standards. Unfortunately, Mr. McAulay’s original airframe was one of these three. All three have since been replaced by BCSC, reflecting BCSC’s commitment to stand behind its products.

During the time between the shipping of Mr. McAulay’s original kit and the replacement of his airframe, BCSC had already made the decision to have Javron build the PA-12 and PA-18 fuselages again, and had moved the jigs back to Javron. Contrary to the suggestion in this thread, Mr. McAulay does not have a Javron kit. He has a BCSC PA-18 fuselage made by Javron in BCSC’s jig to BCSC’s specifications under contract with BCSC. I respectfully disagree with many of Mr. McAulay’s comments on this thread, and am very disappointed to read those comments after our efforts to make this situation right. However, I have no interest in getting into a fight on the internet and that is not the purpose of my decision to post. I will simply leave it at this: any future BCSC customers who order a PA-18 kit will receive the same PA-18 fuselage which Mr. McAulay is now praising on this thread--built by Javron in BCSC's jig to BCSC's specifications.

I believe the quality and craftsmanship of our product speaks for itself, and would hope that anyone who has any questions about that quality and craftsmanship would take the time to speak to the many other owners who have built and flown our kits. Now that we have achieved our goal of making the Douglas shop a fully-integrated facility (Mackey fuselages, Axelson wings, and full C&C parts production), we intend to continue to focus the efforts of the Douglas shop on building our next-generation aircraft—the SQ-2, the SQ-4, and our new LSA kit. This reflects our commitment to innovating the toughest and most capable STOL kits on the market, without sacrificing top-end performance. We will also continue to sell our PA-12 and PA-18 kits, with Javron welding the fuselages for those kits for the foreseeable future.

Just like any expanding company, we have worked through some growing pains during our multi-year transition to Douglas. This includes these three airframes from the Wisconsin shop, which we addressed by replacing completely. We also recognize, and are aggressively trying to address, the customer service issues several of you have raised. However, as a number of you have noted in other threads on this website, the quality of our product has rarely been called into question. This is a reputation we worked hard to earn, and we will continue to work hard to deserve. We believe we build the toughest backcountry kits available. Anyone interested in gathering more information is invited to come tour our Douglas facility to see how those kits are built.

This will be my last comment on this thread. If anyone has specific questions or concerns they want to discuss in more detail about this subject, please send me a PM with your phone number and I will give you a call. If you have general questions about our company or our products, please feel free to contact Wayne Axelson at 1-800-862-1276.

Respectfully,

Bruce Reed
Managing Member
Backcountry Super Cubs, LLC

[Bill Rusk]

Excellent post Bruce. Great to see you on this site and to hear the other side of the story. I have emailed back and forth with ranchpilot and have had some of my concerns eased as well. I sincerely wish you and your entire team the very best.

Bill

[mike mcs repair]

..I would however seriously question any manufacturer who lets a airframe out the door with defective welding or rigging. That should never happen......

you should have seen the PA-12 ones a few years back... they even were FAA-PMA and all!!!! ask SB
(different company... the guy univair bought out..)

[mike mcs repair]

good post bruce,

you should post more often,

if you would have posted that 3 weeks ago, YOU could have avoided all the free bad 'advertizing'

[Nocub]

I am Bruce Reed, one of the owners of Backcountry Super Cubs (BCSC). I have stayed off of this site for years because I am wary of the internet as a place where accusations are taken as truth as soon as they are written. However, I think it is time to set a few things straight.

Myself and two partners bought Smith Aviation from Nick Smith in 2006, with the original intention of moving the entire operation to Douglas, Wyoming. Unfortunately, the move took much longer than we planned because of numerous delays in the construction of the BCSC facility in Douglas. The original completion date was June 1, 2007, but we were not able to move in until January 1, 2010. I would have preferred to move in much sooner, but BCSC had no control over the factors which caused these delays.

In the interim, BCSC (at that time Turbine Cubs of Wyoming) contracted with Jay at Javron to build our PA-12 and PA-18 fuselages. BCSC subsequently decided to change to its own welding shop and, since the Douglas facility was not yet ready, purchased a building in Cornell, Wisconsin and moved the jigs from Javron to Wisconsin. In the winter of 2008-9, we teamed up with Wayne Mackey to develop a kit for Wayne’s SQ-2. We believe the SQ-2 and the other planes we are developing represent an exciting evolution of the original PA-18 design, leading us to focus our efforts in the Douglas shop on the growing demand for the SQ-2, the SQ-4, and our prototype LSA. In light of this decision, and the fact that we do not have room for 5 jigs in the Douglas shop, we elected to have Javron start building BCSC’s PA-12 and PA-18 fuselages again. This meant moving BCSC’s PA-12 and PA-18 jigs back to Javron, where they are now.

During the period when the PA-18 jigs were located in the Wisconsin shop (which BCSC has now closed), BCSC sent out a total of three airframes that were not up to our high standards. Unfortunately, Mr. McAulay’s original airframe was one of these three. All three have since been replaced by BCSC, reflecting BCSC’s commitment to stand behind its products.

During the time between the shipping of Mr. McAulay’s original kit and the replacement of his airframe, BCSC had already made the decision to have Javron build the PA-12 and PA-18 fuselages again, and had moved the jigs back to Javron. Contrary to the suggestion in this thread, Mr. McAulay does not have a Javron kit. He has a BCSC PA-18 fuselage made by Javron in BCSC’s jig to BCSC’s specifications under contract with BCSC. I respectfully disagree with many of Mr. McAulay’s comments on this thread, and am very disappointed to read those comments after our efforts to make this situation right. However, I have no interest in getting into a fight on the internet and that is not the purpose of my decision to post. I will simply leave it at this: any future BCSC customers who order a PA-18 kit will receive the same PA-18 fuselage which Mr. McAulay is now praising on this thread--built by Javron in BCSC's jig to BCSC's specifications.

I believe the quality and craftsmanship of our product speaks for itself, and would hope that anyone who has any questions about that quality and craftsmanship would take the time to speak to the many other owners who have built and flown our kits. Now that we have achieved our goal of making the Douglas shop a fully-integrated facility (Mackey fuselages, Axelson wings, and full C&C parts production), we intend to continue to focus the efforts of the Douglas shop on building our next-generation aircraft—the SQ-2, the SQ-4, and our new LSA kit. This reflects our commitment to innovating the toughest and most capable STOL kits on the market, without sacrificing top-end performance. We will also continue to sell our PA-12 and PA-18 kits, with Javron welding the fuselages for those kits for the foreseeable future.

Just like any expanding company, we have worked through some growing pains during our multi-year transition to Douglas. This includes these three airframes from the Wisconsin shop, which we addressed by replacing completely. We also recognize, and are aggressively trying to address, the customer service issues several of you have raised. However, as a number of you have noted in other threads on this website, the quality of our product has rarely been called into question. This is a reputation we worked hard to earn, and we will continue to work hard to deserve. We believe we build the toughest backcountry kits available. Anyone interested in gathering more information is invited to come tour our Douglas facility to see how those kits are built.

This will be my last comment on this thread. If anyone has specific questions or concerns they want to discuss in more detail about this subject, please send me a PM with your phone number and I will give you a call. If you have general questions about our company or our products, please feel free to contact Wayne Axelson at 1-800-862-1276.

Respectfully,

Bruce Reed
Managing Member
Backcountry Super Cubs, LLC

Thanks for clearing this all up.

This site is probably a great place to participate in cub discussions, answer questions and gain market share.

[kiwi 180]

goes to show, there is always two sides to any story!

[ron]

yes very true kiwi 180.If I can be of any help to anyone buying an experimental please e mail me
ronmac744@xtra.co.nz

[FdxLou]

Don,
that is a lovely aircraft. you have done a great job and obviously put a lot of time into it. the RAAF roundel and kangaroo are a nice touch. thanks for your thoughts on the Dynon/Skyview. i will probably go with the 180 and Ipad.
cheers,
Phil

Good choice Phil.

Lou