Brodak Claims

While browsing through a Brodak catalog Saturday, I became somewhat perplexed when I came upon the Vector, designed by Randy Smith. Brodak claims that this model was "Designed by multiple NATs winner, Randy Smith." I then looked up former NATs winners and did not see Randy's name anywhere on the list. I know that advertisements tend to be a little bit of a stroke, to get our attention. BUT, I would expect the president of a great organization such as PAMPA to more honest in his advertising. If Im missing something or if I'm off-base here let me know.

Giving him the benefit of a doubt here, let's call this a "lapsus lingua" (Latin for "slip of the tongue" or maybe "fingers on the keyboard"). The intent was probably "multiple contender" or "multiple top 20 placer" or some such. We have all been guilty at times of letting our tongue get in front of our eye teeth so we can't see what we are saying until we make that major boo-boo (never happens on this forum, does it?) I am sure it was not his intent to purposely mislead people and one of those things that just "got into the copy" by someone and was never caught until after the printing. I have had the latest catalogue for several weeks now. I wonder how many of us caught it until you pointed it out. I didn't.

What's Latin for keyboard?

I think Randy's airplanes have won several Nats. That fact may have been edited by a lay person who inferred a bit more than he shoulda.

I think his engines have made it to the top few also.

The Vector 40 won three NATS in the Junior division flown by Dondi Garrison,1994,1995&1996.He also won Advanced in 1996.

Larry,

While I see no pattern here, the claims you cite are of a piece with some pre-election claims made by Mr. Brodak. To wit: Accuracy was not the point.

Considering that Mr Brodak runs several successful businesses and is active in several more local organizations, I doubt very seriously that he writes and approves everything that ends up in print under his businesses name. I beleive that copywriters usually handle those tasks.

As dificult is it is for many of us to get our own writings 100% straight, I'd be willing to cut the boss some slack.

Copy error dosn't equal conspiracy (Yet!)

O-o-o-o-h! I can see it now....a caption under every product description: "I'm John Brodak and I approve this message!"

Unfortunately, the Brodak catalog has a few other boo boos.

Check the profile warbirds and you may note that each has been "tested more than any other plane...." blah, blah. Somewhat impossible to achieve.

They have also not corrected the Lagg 3 data. The plane is another one of the 48" span/480 square inch jobs, but the data shows it to be much bigger.

It might not be all John's fault. His marketing folks may simply be non modelers.

I HOPE YOU HAVE A SET OF LAGG-3 PLANS I HAVE AND WING IS 54"
HEY WEST COAST THE ELECTION IS OVE. WE MUST NOT TEAR DOWN BUT BULD UP PAMPA. WERE IS THE LOVE LARRY. WE MET AT THE 2000 NATS HEY AN HOW IS YOUR MAN WITH THE STILETTO. BRING GLOVES AGAIN SO THAT I CAN WARM UP THE PITCHING ARM.
JOSE MODESTO

No big deal, but the kit boxes say 48" span, which is why I shied away from it.

I know it's splitting hairs,but the catalogue doesn't actually say that Randy Smith won the NATS.It reads,"A multiple winner at the United States Nationals,Randy Smith designed the Vector 40 to combine...",it could have been worded a little bit differently,but I don't think there was any intention to mislead anyone.And since the Vector was a multiple NATS winner,it seems there is some truth in advertising.

Picky Picky Picky

>I know it's splitting hairs,but the catalogue doesn't
>actually say that Randy Smith won the NATS.It reads,"A
>multiple winner at the United States Nationals,Randy Smith
>designed the Vector 40 to combine...",it could have been
>worded a little bit differently,but I don't think there was
>any intention to mislead anyone.And since the Vector was a
>multiple NATS winner,it seems there is some truth in
>advertising.

I do believe that you are correct, Dale. I checked both the old and the new catalogues and they contain the same wording. SIG used a similar statement in advertising the Chipmunk. It, too, is a multiple Nats winer (Junior and Senior). There are more events at the Nats than just Open. Junior and Senior are official events for which there are true Nats winners.

And, as you point out, the claim is made for the plane, not for the designer. Truth in advertising. Not even a slip of the typewriter.

Fox 15, multiple event winning engine.

event: Fox 15 hurl.

One of his advertisements shows a Thunderbird picture and calls it a
Smoothie ,or vice versa.
I Don,t think this was deliberate; nothing would be gained doing this.
Just a mistake.
You don,t make mistakes? I,ll be sure and edit all your next posts
for content and spuellinnng.

Don,t f,get to edit the pontification. Steve

>One of his advertisements shows a Thunderbird picture and
>calls it a
>Smoothie ,or vice versa.

I call Smoothies T-Birds all the time, and v. v.

>While browsing through a Brodak catalog Saturday, I became
>somewhat perplexed when I came upon the Vector, designed by
>Randy Smith. Brodak claims that this model was "Designed by
>multiple NATs winner, Randy Smith." I then looked up former
>NATs winners and did not see Randy's name anywhere on the
>list. I know that advertisements tend to be a little bit of
>a stroke, to get our attention. BUT, I would expect the
>president of a great organization such as PAMPA to more
>honest in his advertising. If Im missing something or if I'm
>off-base here let me know.
>
>Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks.

Hello Larry

I hope your doing well, about the ad, it was intened to mislead NO ONE .

The catolog doesn't say Randy Smith is a multi NATs winner.
The Vector 40 did win several US NATs in jr sr .

What it says is
"A multiple Winner at the United States Nationals"

it goes on to say that " Randy Smith designed the Vector 40"
The ad is truthful and was not written to misslead anyone.

I have never claimed to have won the US NATs , and certainly not multiple times

I hope that clear this up . The kit has been out for quite a while now, is a very great selling kit, and I had not heard of the confusion before

Regards

Ron, you are mistaken about the Lagg. It is indeed 54", not 48". True, it is one of the Warbird series.

This subject has been discussed here. The Lagg was designed by another person vs the 48" Warbirds, as I recall.

I can't recall the name of the designer of the 48" ones, but he occasionally posts here.

>Ron, you are mistaken about the Lagg. It is indeed 54", not
>48". True, it is one of the Warbird series.
>
>This subject has been discussed here. The Lagg was designed
>by another person vs the 48" Warbirds, as I recall.
>
>I can't recall the name of the designer of the 48" ones, but
>he occasionally posts here.
>
>Currell

Currell,

The designer of the 48" warbirds can't post here anymore, because he is not with us. The late Mike Garmon designed the first Brodak Warbird series, the ones with 46 to 48" wingspans. Thankfully, his co-designer, Willis Swindell, is still with us and still plays around with one of the designs in the series that never got kitted.
As far as the add goes in the Brodak catalog, at the time of the Brodak warbird series release they WERE more carefully tested than any other (Brodak) offering. I think every one of the models with the possible exception of the BF-109 had somebody build a prototype off the actual plans they were going to use for the kit, and the models were pretty heavily flown and the plans tweaked as needed from the test program. The forum's own Bill Little built and flew the Zero prototype, Willis did the Mauler and FW-190, Mike did the P-51 (I still have P-51 #1 downstairs in the shop), I think either Mike or John Tate did the Hurricane prototype. So you had guys all over Virginia and North Caroline working on that thing to get the kit right for Brodak, back when it was one of their early offerings. They were pretty well tested by the time all those guys were done.
I would agree though, that the add copy is now dated, and the refined and tested blurb does not really make as much sense as it once did. I think those guys at Brodaks these days are too busy doing new products to bother going back and updating the copy on old adds.
The original prototype models have held up pretty well-The P-51B prototype is still in good shape and has been flown in competition this year. Phil Spillman has the FW-190 prototype, and the Mauler prototype still resides with the Norfolk Aeromodelers, used primarily for engine tests now. Bill still has the zero, but I think it needs a bit of repair.
They are pretty good flying planes, even today with all the other stuff from Brodaks.
Steve

Steve is correct about the prototypes. I do still have the #1 Zero, and hope to get it back into the air this next season. Along with a prototype P-47 Razorback.
Mike Garmon did the design of the original series and they were really well tested in competition. A proven wing with good numbers for a 35-40 size profile. Many commented that I flew the Zero better than any of my other ships at the time. And that was with an almost worn out Max 35S! hahaha
We still miss Mike.
Bill <><

>I have never claimed to have won the US NATs , and
>certainly not multiple times.

>Randy

Hello Randy, please believe me when I say that this question was not actually put to you. It in fact was not. I merely questioned the wording ( maybe the way the sentence was punctuated?) But it in no way questions you or your integrity. Please accept my apology if I offended you in any way.

>Hello Randy, please believe me when I say that this question
>was not actually put to you. It in fact was not. I merely
>questioned the wording ( maybe the way the sentence was
>punctuated?) But it in no way questions you or your
>integrity. Please accept my apology if I offended you in any
>way.
>
>Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks.

HI LARRY

No I was not offended, no apology is needed.
The description was written to tell about the airplane, not me, I just put in my post to clarify the description

Regards

>I hope that clear this up . The kit has been out for
>quite a while now, is a very great selling kit, and I had
>not heard of the confusion before

Advertising notwithstanding, I have been *very* impressed with the performance of the Vector 40's I have seen. Even the one powered by a lowly Fox 40 Stunt (talk about your Sparky Special - very heavy, and not much power at all - and don't even get me started on the oily mess!). We timed the first lap - close to 10 seconds. Not a lot of get up and go. But it just motored through the pattern.

It got me to thinking, that's for sure.

Much ado about nothing..

The ship has, in fact, won multiple Nats.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Let us not be too particular; it is better to have old secondhand diamonds than none at all." -Mark Twain

Holy c**p, you guys are picky!! My company isn't even 1/10th the size of Brodak's and it is still quite a task to make sure everything you say or do or print is accurate.

If you already know what he means, then why are posting such nonsense?

Wot Larry and Steve says.

Methinks Larry has tto much time on his hands.