Mikel-t

My Feedback: (12)

JUST THAT SIMPLE " Name the ARF you purchased that did not live-up to Expectations and why?

POLL QUESTION HAS BEEN REVISED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING.

Rudolph Hart

I don't see a point to this.Arf's make flying easier and quicker..no it ain't what it used to be

Mikel-t

My Feedback: (12)

Dear Old Fart: Perhaps the questions is too confusing. The questions is not to VALUE the advent of the proliferation of Almost Ready to FLy airplanes to our hobby. Rather, it is a POLL to obtain opinions of many ARF buyers that were proffered a product that did not live-up to expectations of the manufacturer. Now, taking this explaination and reinterpert the question, perhaps your response will focus on the "POINT" of the poll and not the "justification" of the polling question. Thank you Mr. Fart.

Hill202

My Feedback: (24)

The manufactor's expectations were met the minute we purchased one.

and quit picking on Old Fart !...

carrellh

For me it was a World Models Sky Raider Mach I. It wasn't a new release or anything, it was just an ARF I did not like at all.

I think, in general, an ARF trainer is an ARF trainer. But, this one flew 'differently' than the other ARF trainers I have flown. I cannot pinpoint a specific reason but I never liked it. My brother felt the same way when he was flying it.

The 'sister' plane, Sky Raider Mach II, is a totally different story. We both really like it.

ColeTrane

My Feedback: (1)

Didnt liveup to building expectations, flight expections or both/either or?

ColeTrane

My Feedback: (1)

IMO when purchasing an ARF, a portion of the money is for the modelmanufacturer engineering/design... If this is the criteria then I'd have 2 ARF "Flops".. The BH Models Pitts S1A and H9 1/4 Scale Cub(fabric version). BH Models Pitts 1.20 size:Assembled per manufacturers rec.both upper/lower wings were built/engineered with the incorrect wing incidence angles, relative to theh-stab.In this case, the setup wasbackwards and very hard to correct with pocketed wings, pre-fabbed cabanes etc, etc. Top/forward wing had +1.5* and the bottom/aft had +2.8*, all relative to the horizontal stabilizer...Wings also had severe wash IN... No bueno. After correcting all this,its a great performer with a DLE30cc in the nose.... H9 Cub 1/4scale: Again I built (ahem..."assembled") per manufactures directions, RH wing +6* wing incidence and LH wing +3.5*...Yup, RH wing was POSITIVE 6 degrees! The pre-built wing spar pockets were built with <3/8" of variance.The Cub is now my most reliable, stable bird I own, powered by a Zenoah G23 mag. Wings are matched at +2* positive wing incidence, 6* DT, 2* RT.

All in all, both the above mentioned manufacturers make great products, maybe I got2 lemons, IDK... Either way,when purchasing an ARF your paying for someone elses engineering and design. Every modelI own & fly, either kit or ARF gets verifiedwith an incidence meter...period. At least ya know whatcha got.....

Spend your money wisely??

foodstick

The original G-shark Giant scale sport plane was a real piece of work...they earned the name G-snap, one crash at a time

Mikel-t

My Feedback: (12)

So far so good. The reasons we purchase an ARF is 100% an individual choice, naturally. To some of us its the kind of plane we always wanted to own. To most all of us we need to be hyped in order to pull the trigger on a purchase. How often is the case that what we thought we were getting turns out to be " Disappointing" Materials, Flight behavior,design, etc.

BTW: I never saw the G-Shark?

foodstick

The G-shark was maybe the first ever giant scale arf, And it was a decent looking airplane.. It came out probably 15 years ago, it was made in Mexico I think...

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Sea Turd by Lanier

kerwin50

I remeber the G shark and almost bought one

ec121

My Feedback: (2)

I have always figured that the ARF was just a starting point to get the major part of the construction done. I expect to have to do some corrections on about all of them. BUT, I was disappointed with the RC Guys 33% PItts when I got it. You couldn't touch the cowl without the paint coming loose and chipping off when it flexed. Almost impossible to repair. Also the incidence is off. Had about 2in of down elevator trim to fly level. If I get a deal on a plane, and it has problems, I suck it up and go on, but this plane was disappointing for the price paid. Too many other brands out there to gamble on another one of their planes.

Oberst

Ok, to be very honest I have to say none of them. All ARF aircraft I have bought through the years ( Including Nitroplanes [X(] ) was fine just the way they were. It was my building skills that wasn't up to par to some of these ARF models. Some ARF aircraft are more of a " Builders ARF," some more than others. It all depended if it was worth the time and effort to "Butcher" the aircraft to make it look good and fly well.

But don't forget, when ever we buy a ARF it is always a "Hit or Miss" when it comes to the quality. I bought one type and brand model that was really good, and when I crashed the plane and ordered another one, the 2nd same plane was terrible.

All I can advise is to keep practicing your building skills. There will be a time when you might be not pleased with a ARF, but will know how to correct all the problems with it. Build a few kits and that will also help improve your building skills.

Hope that makes sense.


Pete

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

Sea Turds and G-Sharks.....those both bring back some memories. I laugh now, though it wasn't so funny back then.

MetallicaJunkie

The G Shark made in Mexico?

I have the GShark and the G Shark trainer, bot were ARC and didnt fly well also the H9 Pulse 60 is on that list, it dint fly sporty enough, and was rather weak

landeck

My Feedback: (1)

I have been flying the Pulse XT 60 for three years now and I find it a great flying plane. It has held up very well.

Bruce

daveopam

My Feedback: (9)

Way back when ARF first came out. I bought a Hobbice ASAP Extra 300. The covering was a thin layer of foam with plastic on top. The plastic layer had all the color and decals built into it. Along with the CG mark on both sides of the plane. It went together fast. However the CG was marked wrong on the fuse, so it lasted about 15 seconds. It was not a bad crash, but the wing panel could not be repaired. Under the covering was ribs and spars with no LE. That was $250 I could have wiped with and been less mad about.

david

gmeyer-RCU

My Feedback: (9)

I will second the hobbico AWARF extra 300 but by far for me was the VQ magic 25 gave away the 300 threw away the VQ.

MetallicaJunkie

lol i remember those, i had one... the Ultra Sport arf, and Patriot arf were crap too... foam covered wood, and cheap plastic parts

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

Yes, but they LOOKED great! Count me in on that sucker list as well. I had never flown w/retracts so I went for the 45 size EZ Chipmunk. It was heavy so I put a Webra Speed 61 in it! Fast, fun, but nothing left but a smoking hole after a less than graceful arrival one day....

That was the first and last plane I ever flew with retracts...... HUGE nose down trim change when lowering the gear.

ColeTrane

My Feedback: (1)

Dang! I was/am so close to pullin the trigger on this bird. A friend picked uptheir (RC Guys) 152 Aerobat and is pleased...so far. After my BH Pitts dismal initial impression, Ive been lookin for another bipe ARF.

MetallicaJunkie

haha i remember those EZ arfs Hobby Shack had em

MANFRED

My Feedback: (27)

Anything VMAR

P47Tbolt

My Feedback: (20)

For me it was the first design Seagull Edge 540 60-90 size.
put it together and balanced it by the instructions.on maiden flight
as soon as it took off,tail dropped and nose went straight up.VERY tail heavy,
gave full power to the super tigre 90,gained altitude and finally got it to level out.
took about 10 tries to land that thing.had to land it like a harrier but with some speed or
it would snap out of it.Seagull was no help on balancing it,so I added around 6-8 ounces of
weight to the nose.flew better but had to land hot. got rid of that thing.