8178

My Feedback: (17)

There’s been discussion about the dearth of ARFs in the “Classic Pattern” world. I’ve always enjoyed the fact that there are so few ARFs available of the “Classics” (plenty of kits and plans though) so if you want to fly a “Classic” one you get the pleasure of building one. Kind of a cool club of precision RC flyers that have the skills to build a machine that can be a champion. The image of Ralph Brooke building his Crusaders in-between Patients in his dental office comes to mind as real champion. He was a skilled builder of the tools of competition, a skilled champion flier and determined competitor.

There are fewer ARFs today than there were back in the day and some of the ones that are available now don’t look much like the original, e.g. the Intruder. Other than some US based custom building operations that create some very nice aircraft it seems like the ARF manufactures don’t have the talent to build a decent “Classic Pattern” ARF.

So what do you think, do we need them and why?

TFF

I think it depends on where you are coming from. If you are reliving the old days and what you did to get there you would probably be building. If the old pattern planes just hit a fancy and you want to try it, you would probably go ARF. The one thing is these planes were tools for a job. You can do a better job of re-engineering them in to ARFs but they wont be represenitive of what it was like better or worse.

BERUSTY

My Feedback: (3)

Do we need "Classic Pattern" ARF's

Great subject, interesting observations, interesting context and YES we need "Classic Pattern ARF's.

Reason 's why ARF's are good for 'Classic Pattern":

1. If there is demand in the market place, products will be developed and offered in the market place.

2. Greater diversity of products created by demand not "you shall buy...this!" will naturally provide price and therefore quality diversity...crappy stuff cheap and unbelievable stuff very expensive.

3. Greater demand in the market place will also expand venues, events maybe even competition both static and flying.

4. Potentially, higher quality products with higher volume will create lower prices allowing greater numbers of modelers to experience a classic.

4. See 1 - 4.

In my opinion, one of the greatest challenges (risks if you are the producer of said kit)...how big is the market for these toys...10, 25, 50, 100? Personally, I own $70 ARF's and $4,000 ARF's. The global market (number of potential products) for the $70 ARF is a jillion where as the $4,000 ARF market is fewer than 250.

There will always be a group of talented and highly skilled modelers creating lovely models from scratch and/or kits. Additionally, there will be others who will acquire modeling skills and experience with an ARF who may be inspired by the "Masters" and gravitate to a conventionally or classically built model.

Rusty Dose
Team Futaba
Team YS Parts and Service
Love to buy a quality Joe Bridi Escape ARC or ARF for $600

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

On one hand, I'm not opposed to anyone having access to buying an ARF (although I don't support the idea).

On the other, I would like to see classic pattern contests enforce the BoM rule.

Classic Pattern models were never just a means to and end. That is, there creation has always been greater than simply being a tool to win a contest (sorry TFF). You can't separate the skills and experience needed to design and/or build a competitive model from those needed to fly it. Look at the people who won national and world championships from the late '60s through the '80s. Almost every one of them won with a model they designed and built. It was all integral to the sport. Those guys were world champs because they could design and build great flying models. It was assumed you were a skilled craftsman.

Classic pattern is one of the last refuges in the hobby where building is so much a part of what it's all about. If you try to sever those two components - designing/building and flying - then it loses half of its essence. It becomes no different than 3D or IMAC. It's no longer unique within the R/C hobby.

I wasn't flying pattern thirty years ago, but the the primary reason I love classic pattern today is because it still remains an area of craftsmanship and modeling skill. I really dread the day when that vital component is lost. For one thing, it will no longer be classic.

David

ron9844

My Feedback: (65)

HORRAY,Raindve

Keep the ARF's OUT

Ron9844

8178

My Feedback: (17)

Some great points David. It is really mind boggling how many different designs there are in the “Classic Pattern” world. At the time it seemed like there was a new idea and hot new design every month. They were distinctly different in their design and look too! Everyone was trying new design ideas to do their best to beat the competition. A visit to CAsniffer website at http://www.trentonrcflyers.com/pattern/pattern1.htm sure drives that point home hard.

It would sure be hard for an ARFer company to figure out what design would be the best seller.

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

This is a tricky discussion, not because of the fact that there are those pro-ARF and those agains but rather because the definition of an ARF can be a fine line... I'll elaborate.

I'm in agreement with Rainedave's point of view and to a large extent enjoy classic pattern because of the challenges posed by often starting with a piece of paper and "creating art and machine through mental visualization". The rest is simply watching your hands move in concert with that vision. This applies to flying too. Lacking the musical skills of Mozart, it allows me to compose a symphony which commences its fourth movement upon lift off (at least, it moves me to think of it that way).

Having said that, its worth mentioning that an ARF is a model which is "almost ready to fly". Various degress of that exist. One could argue that the large number of classic glass and foam models are ARP's (almost ready to paint) since the fuse and wings are "already built". Further, some classics come kitted with all of the typical work required for retract, radio, engine and various other "installations" already done. An example of this would be the FK SBA recently on auction. This model could be viewed as as an RTA (ready to assemble). Further, in today's competitive pattern world, many designs are "painted in the mold" - that certainly has to qualify as a RTA-ARF model. Although, conceptualizing, sketching, designing, cutting, building, carving, sanding, finishing and flying might still be part of the true classic repertoire, there are several "classic instances" where much of this has already been done. To my mind, all these models fall under the category of ARF's. They may not be cheap film covered interlocking laser cut ply structures but they are still ARF's.

On the other hand, you have world class pilots such as QS who might spend 4 months setting up a "rather simple" pattern bipe of his design which is already built and covered. Does such a talented pilot and designer not merit the title of master craftsman and top pilot because he "had an ARF made for him"?

I think it's all a matter of the source and the intent. We classic pattern aficionados like to see ourselves as having talents and skills a notch above the average ARF flyer - this I would agree with. However, the creation of or the existence of classic pattern ARF's, doesn't diminish this provided the same rules we apply in our every day builds also apply there. The existence of a classic pattern ARF, per se, doesn't necessarily involve an ARF company to make it cheap - in all senses of the word. Companies such as OXAI (at least in the beginning) might be an example of such a concept. Companies run by various members of this forum, who certainly are master craftsmen, also may be producing ARF's - at least to some degree. In fact, it could be argued that unless one is rethinking a kit or a design or I suppose, scratch building, we are actually all building ARF's sooner or later.

I'm ready for the fireworks heading my way...

David.

AndyKunz

I happen to like the lines of the old Pattern (ballistic moreso than "Classic") planes. I fell in love with them in the 70's at a contest not too far from my house. There were C/L Combat, Towline FF, and Pattern that stuck in my mind, and they were all the kinds of planes I actually built and flew over the years. I'm sure there were more planes there, but those are the ones that I remember. Seeing those jet-like looks screaming ("What's a muffler?") at super high speeds up and down the runway and touching down gracefully not far from me are memories I hope to keep until I'm at least as old as some of you From my somewhat limited experience with true "Classic Pattern" (pre-proportional) planes, they are more like flying aileron trainers due to their benign handling. I get more fun flying a warbird than an aileron trainer. Now, if I'm using the wrong definition of "Classic" then please correct me. I would say Classic was long over by the late 60's.

That said, I don't particularly like ARFs, and I don't build very many kits unless they are of my own design (translation: I have assembled some ARFs, I build some kits, but when I design and kit something I must build 20 of them for others). I really don't like building kits all that much, but I really enjoy taking a concept and bringing it to completion. Call me a snob, but building a kit that somebody else designed just doesn't bring the same satisfaction as building something that I design. If I design it, I like to make sure it's the absolute best I can do with the outline.

That said, I also recognize the need to have ARFs available if you want to sustain and grow a segment. So my vote would be YES just to see more guys flying more planes and more planes of interest. It would be really fun to have a plane flying past that moved as fast and grooved like the old models I remember from that contest, but making no noise. Oh wait, I have one of those!

Andy

sugarfox

My Feedback: (1)

Hi everyone, "don't pay the ransome, I've escaped". Haven't posted much lately due to the back surgery and other lame excuses but I can't resist this one. In a perfect world we could have it both ways. An arf comes from a "kit" origionally doesn't it? So just throw the parts in a box with a plan and let me build it. Make it an arf for those who want it that way. While I'm dreaming make mine with a button on the plan so when the structure is built, push the button and its professionally covered, and I'll take it from there. After 30 years in the profit and loss world of retail management I realize that my dream wouldn't work. Its just a shame that those who do not build will not enjoy the satisfaction of seeing their creation fly. Its just the direction that society is headed. " I want it, and I want it now!" Just a sorry state of affairs in my book. I suppose arfs have their place, but just not in classic pattern. Building it is just part of it, then, and now.

Off my soap box, back to covering the Banshee...........rregards Sugarfox

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

Ultimately, no one can stop us from designing and building our own models. Even if I'm the only one at my field who still designs and builds (and fortunately I'm not), I'll still continue to do it. So, in that sense, I don't feel like my own hobby is threatened by ARF's.

But, I do not see anything exclusive about building. The fact is that most modelers try to be inclusive. Look at the information that is shared in the build threads in this forum. Modelers love to help others who are new to building. For me, learning to use a transmitter had a much greater learning curve than becoming fluent in reading plans.

I designed and kitted my Sure Shark for two reasons. One was to try and give a boost to 1/2A, and the other was to encourage people to build. I sold the first 75 or so kits for $20 each. I made $4 per sale, but like I said, I didn't do it for the profits. I've now sold over 125 kits all over the world. If I've managed to get at least a few people interested in building, along with the excitement of 1/2A, then my goal was met.

Classic pattern (late '60s to the mid '80s for me), like 1/2A, is a great segment of the hobby for getting involved in modeling. There are so many plans and kits available along with a bunch of talented modelers who enjoy sharing what they know. Buying an ARF just seems like a missed opportunity to me. Like sugarfox said, you're never going to feel the same sense of satisfaction as you will from building and flying your own model.

There's also the whole fascination with flight that I've had all my life. As a kid I was amazed by the Wright brothers. They wanted so badly to fly that they kept building machines until they could. On a much smaller scale I did a similar thing. I kept building models until I finally learned how make them fly. I still feel that same pride and reward today when something I design or build takes flight.

So, maybe it's a generational thing. I understand that not everyone today needs to have the "I made that" sense of accomplishment in order to enjoy model aviation. In fact, sometimes I get a bit over-critical and wonder if the "I bought that" sensation has replaced it. Being successful enough to have earned the credit or disposable income necessary to buy an expensive ARF is certainly an accomplishment, and I'm not putting that down. But, I can't separate my lifelong interest in creating something with my own hands from the part of the hobby that involves using the transmitter. It's all part of the same thing for me, from beginning to end.

David

RFJ

I tend to think of it as almost two seperate hobbies - designing/building and flying. I enjoy both but if I had to choose just one it would be designing/building. I consider that I am having twice the fun and enjoyment as the ARF brigade

Ray

8178

My Feedback: (17)

Yes, the FK SBA Speeda has a slight shadow of the dark side on it with the glass fuselage and pre-covered balsa wing and stab. Fortunately for me the kit I found was badly hacked up and has required some effort to fix all the messed up parts to get in back in kit form! I also did my best to sand off the dark side shadow!

When I use the word “ARF” I’m referring to the present day ARF copies of the “Classics”, e.g. the Tower Kaos, Intruder and to some extent the Great Planes Big Stik. Some of these don’t look much like the original “Classic”. They are knock offs of the “Classics” that are fully ARFed with pre-covering and are mostly snap together to get them ready for flight.

So the question is do we need manufacturers to create new ARFs that are knock offs of the “Classics”.

Trisquire

I don't think so. I would probably start from scratch anyway, because I like to build light and I prefer certain color schemes.

I like the older pattern ships. They were in the magazines when I was a kid. But we're probably too small of a market for the manufacturers to give much consideration to. Most hobbyists don't particularly care what happened in the '70s & '80s. They just want to fly their sport, 3D or scale model. Preferably, a replica of a full scale aerobatic plane, i.e., Extra, Edge, Sukhoi, etc. Maybe its the IMAC influence.

Tom

RonMcCormick

My Feedback: (4)

“Do we need Classic Pattern ARFs”? what a provocative question…
From my perspective the answer to that question is NO, but I know the question is broader than yes or no.
Those of us who came up through the ranks of trainer, first low winger, beginner pattern plane, advanced pattern plane, full blown competition machine and all along developing build , trimming, flying and competition skills in each division up to master class probably don’t want and certainly don’t need an ARF. Many would be so finiky(?) about the quality that only the very best company would get their business. What we do like is very high quality kits from which we can build a competitive airplane. Back in the “good old days” I never bought a kit and used the wood from the box, most went in the bin and I drove to Al’s in Elmhurst and he would let me into the balsa room where I would weigh and select competitive wood to replace what came from the kit. By the way, the worst kit I saw back then was the Mach One. (sorry if I offend anyone) some of the blocks of wood that came with those kits could only be use for fire places.(the Mach one itself is one of the most significant pattern ships in the evolution an excellent design and now that excellent laser cut kits are available I will build one) . By the way, my original Mach one kit is on the shelf still, the wood has been chip away at and most parts are missing, whenever I’m working on a project that called for dense hard pieces I would go straight to the Mach one kit confident I would find what I need. The top builder fliers didn’t even want a kit, just a set of good plans (another subject) from which they could build.
The flip side of the coin says “YES’ because it would improve the sport by providing more options. This is a very strong position one that can’t be discounted and may be the defining answer. This argument will win me over to the YES box. From my view my LHS would not be available to me if it were not for the hundreds of RC car people coming through the door and only a few RC airplane people. So if it will get more interest in pattern and activity in clubs and products from mfgs and ultimately more choices for me I would be foolish not to support the idea.
But I think this is purely a marketing question, I don’t believe an opinion poll will provide the answer a smart company would need to make the decision, a more complex method would be use and my gut feeling is no, it would not be a good move from the marketing perspective. (these words will be here 5 years from now mocking me LOL when companies are tripping over each other to sell ARF pattern planes “I hope”)
Well there you go, one man three answer to a simple question, hope I didn’t offend or ramble too much

Atlanta 60

My Feedback: (18)

Mike McConville (Hanger9) has made an appearance here in the past...I've even seen him mention classic pattern ARF's...He would be a good person to talk too...

I know this forum has allot of folks who are excellent builders and wouldn't have it any other way...I personally prefer to build...But as much as I hate to say it, I believe that ARF's do have their place...

I'd much rather see a guy flying a classic pattern ARF than not flying a classic pattern plane at all...

stuntflyr

I'm new to r/c, new to any r/c event and like the older models and especially BPA and SPA stuff.
I'm "building" an ARF Tower Kaos right now as my "low wing trainer". (It's not crap, I peeled the cheesy trim tape off and tightened every-single-surface of the film and put on my own trim, but it's a nice, straight model.) It's a design that everyone knows the name of, and seems to either have had one, or knew someone that had one. Good market.
I'm probably going to buy another one, as this one may not last and I'll wreck it too bad to repair, etc. I'm very glad they are around. I need them right now.

The question is; How many other designs are as instantly recognizable by the whole of the r/c community?
Moreover; What design would be number two in the recognized SPA/BPA /Classic Pattern ship portfolio that a big manufacturer might make?
Market forces being as they are, I don't know if it would come to pass with the biggies.

I'm glad there are a few builders of their own models here (and we're lucky to have so many good ones that post their stuff), but one poster wrote that he has his "un-ARF's" built be some custom builder and doesn't like the idea of ARF's? Did I miss something? Is this a form of bought-model snobbery? RTF's only?

I come from C/L Stunt (BOM for appearance points, otherwise a 15 to 20 point hit on one's score, per flight), and the idea I can "build" (put together?) a good ARF and compete without the score card hit is refreshing to me, as a beginner right up through the ranks. Surely a couple of good ARF's couldn't hurt. But, I'll probably be building my own stuff soon enough, from kits, glass fuse with pre-sheeted wings!

Reinstate BOM for Pattern...??? You guys should read the CLPA forums some time for an ironic laugh...

Chris...

BERUSTY

My Feedback: (3)

Grow "Classic Pattern"...offer ARF's!

The single greates catalyst for technological break-through, diversity of consumable products, increased quality of consumable products is demand, consumer demand and the opportunity for PROFIT!

The single greates catalyst for winning a precision aerobatic event SPA, BPA, F3A or IMAC is practice. An ARF does not give competitor "x" a trophy. It could be said that an ARF could help an average modeler have a better chance to have a sharper "tool" and with less time required to prepare...more time to practice.

Rewarding "building of the model" or even "creator of the model" may add a competitor or two and inspire others to create/construct their models. Adding a "K-factor" for builder of the model or an over-all flight impression may be an appropriate incentive.

The "builder of the model" rule, rather the INTERPRETATION was a part of the 1979 AMA Nationals. Dean Copeland, a long time master scale modeler, member of the AMA Contest Board flew a beautifully built and finished Byron Original's Pitts. The Byron Pitt's featured molded foam wings, fuselage, empennage and fiberglass cowl...add 100 hours and you can fly. Even though Dean did a masterful job of glassing, painting and detailing his model...HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO COMPETE IN SCALE! Today, one can begin to build a World Scale Masters entry with a BVM jet kit...an even higher level of pre-fabrication and work completed.

A precision aerobatic plane is not complete when it is ready to fly...it is complete when it is trimmed. The art of flight trim can be is as much an art, as building. The sport has had enough issues with local elitism (local club members turned off by obnoxious pattern fliers) over the years...ARF's are a bridge for the future of creating interest.

Consumer demand makes the market...not a few dictating what is best for all...like what cars we should drive.

Rusty Dose
Team Futaba
Team YS Parts and Service
Capitalist

ron9844

My Feedback: (65)

I'm just starting back into the hobby after a long layoff, and have built a few ARF's which for the most part would be fine in the manufacturers would use only 2 really important things, REAL PLYWOOD and most important GLUE that holds the plane together. If the ARF manufacturers jump in you will wind up with is everybody making the same planes (like now YAKS, EXTRAS) and no variety and if it really takes off then you will have ARF manufacturers that will make really upscale ARF's that nobody can afford and there goes Classic Pattern to the people with money instaed of the average everyday flyer. Also with ARF's you go to the field and everybody has the same plane and the most popular in the same scheme.

Ron

dhal22

i have thought about buying the intruder as a practice plane for learning to fly pattern but i don't even get to fly enough to practice[&o]. so an arf would work for me. it wouldn't hurt as much when i crash.

Free Bird

I grew up as a "pattern brat" calling for my father when he competed in the mid 60s to the mid 70s, and have fond memories of seeing the Kirkland's, Kraft's, Bonetti's, Bridi's, Jim Martin etc. flying at the same contest we were at. I used to watch them fly every chance I could and studied every move. Now, I've been building ever since I could hold two sticks of wood in my hands. So for me, one of the biggest kicks is in building the model and then flying it. There's a lot of pride in crafting a model from a kit, plans or from your own design. While I do believe (like others) that ARFs do have their place in our hobby/sport, I also believe that the vast majority of "today's" modelers are missing out in a very important part of the hobby by not building their own model. If anything, I'd like to see more classic ARCs. That way there would be classic designs available to those that don't have the time or building talent, but they would at least get a taste by finishing the model. Just my .02 cents.......

FB

8178

My Feedback: (17)

I gave the only two ARFs I had to my RC club to make more room in my shop for new build projects. They plan on selling them to make some extra cash for the club. Seemed like a good thing to do with them.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

While I can appreciate the sentiment, I think we need to take a step back here, especially regarding that last statement that it "...would no longer be classic".

I am trying to leave my personal sentiments out of this because part of me appreciates the skills of building that seems to be going away in favor of "disposable planes" that all look the same. If you recall, I said in my first M.A. article that building and painting of your own classic, is one of the things that makes building a vintage model "new and different".

That said, we have to separate our own personal likes and tastes out of the equation; we have to remember that the PLANES are the classics, and that the art of building is a whole separate issue. A faithfully reproduced plane is no less a "classic" if it is hand built from templates, or produced in ARF form by a responsible manufacturer who is faithful to the original design.

We must remember that not everybody shares the love of building we do; why should people who love to fly but not build be deprived of flying a classic design? Why should these folks be excluded from "the club" of classic enthusiasts. Who know, perhaps the building end of the equation will develop over time if we are not too snobbish about the emphasis being placed on building as well as flying in order to be included. We shouldn't look down on other modelers who may be attracted to a "classic design" just because they were not exposed to and taught the same buildings skills we have learned over the years.

The MODEL is the classic, and the modeling experience is made all that much better if we also are the builder of that model, but we shouldn't make building a "litmus test" regarding whether or not modelers appreciate and want to fly these models. Dan Hines produces many classic airframes out of fiberglass/foam. Is Kirkland's wood Intruder more of a classic than a quality made fiberglass/foam Intruder from Dan? Just like we shouldn't insist that all classic designs be made out of wood, in the same way, why can't a good ARF manufacturer produce a good "classic" ARF? It all depends on the faithfullness and quality of the final product.

Just my opinion

Duane

smacfe

Well let's see...... gays in the military, tax refunds for those who don't pay taxes, massive bailouts for failing companies, and classic pattern arfs. The meek are well on their way to inheriting the earth.

stuntflyr

Is it OK to cover my kit built Hester P-63 (should I have built it from plans?) with Monocote, or do I have to use silk and dope?! You Orange County guys are a bit more conservative...
Chris...

KLXMASTER14

We need folks flying these things in numbers at the field if there is to be a future for classic pattern. An ARF, despite those of us who look down upon them is an excellent gateway for an interested party to become involved, and increasing our ranks. Once involved, a new participant has the option to pursue developing the skills required to build far better aircraft that they can take pride in owning.

-Robert