Hi SB,
I am a stickler for customer service, and I have no doubt the service from the companies discussed in this thread is stellar. That was not my point, and there is a good chance that we don't agree on what was my point
but in the event that I just wasn't clear I will give it another shot...
I am of the opinion that when purchasing a certified part for a certified airplane, that will be operated in accordance to it's design, that parts functionality, performance and longevity, should be calculable and repeatable. Each and every time. This is not an unreasonable expectation, but ...
A part built to those standards requires an exact understanding of the aircraft it's going on, it requires engineering, testing during the design phase, testing during the certification phase, it requires a company with the financial backbone to weather litigation (read; it's going to cost more)
I am also of the opinion that for the majority of us who are gravitating towards experimental certification, the draw is the speedy availability of new technology, coupled with what is quite often a substantially better price point. But these two points just can't happen if we're to assign the standards required to meet the certified world.
You just can't have it both ways!
I agree that customer service is not limited to any one market, I just tend to believe that when you sign up for that blank canvas that comes with the experimental certification, you also sign up for a different kind of responsibility with regards to the construction of your aircraft. YOU are the designer / builder / test pilot. You are the guy who has to determine what parts will be compatible. And ultimately YOU are going to get to find out what works together well and what doesn't. And when it doesn't work well, you need to suck it up and try the next experiment, not bash the guys who are making this all possible.
I agree with oliver that when someone produces something 'for profit' they should be prepared to stand behind their product, but I also believe there is a limit to what we can reasonably expect within those parameters.
You (SB) said in another thread that " 'Cub wings' isn't as generic as you'd think". I agree with that sentiment, and would add that it spans the entire aircraft. Consequently, I'd say it's a pretty tall order to ask a component manufacturer to stand behind a piece as if it were going to be a 'one size fits all'. Could it be done? sure, but at what cost in time and money?
I really would have liked to say something catchy and simple like "I have no dog in this fight" but the truth is... I do... and it's name is GA. and I'd really like to not run another aspect of it into it's grave before my grandson gets to enjoy it.
Take care, Rob