Go Back  RCU Forums > Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more > The Clubhouse
Reload this Page >

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Notices
The Clubhouse If it doesn't fit in any other category and is about general RC stuff then post it here at the Clubhouse.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Old 08-27-2002, 11:59 AM
  #26  
lnorris
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

I'm glad this isn't an option anymore. We already have so many complaints about radio interfence when the equipment is built to very tight standards.

It makes me shiver to think that people want to build their own transmitters.
Just think, in 10 years or so, you may be saying this about planes. Just substitute "structural integrity" for radio interference and "plane" for "transmitter".. You know the radio's we use, even today, are not exactly the "cutting edge" of technology. They are the result of low cost, limited distribution, and 10-15 year old tech. Oh, and built in mind for the average joe who can't figure out his VCR.

And that is all fine and good. I'm not saying that they should not build them this way. But it impacts those of us who would like a little customization.

I think it would be great if transmitters would come in "kits" with the electronics allowing you to customize and program it how YOU like it. I never built a heathkit transmitter but I wish I had.

After all, it is a hobby, you'll only get out of it what you put into it (and I DON'T mean money).
Old 08-27-2002, 12:10 PM
  #27  
Blackie
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Blackie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,894
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Well I have one solution for those of us that don't like or have time nor space to build a kit and that is to purchase one built by another say perhaps a swap meet or at a flying event. Only, you are still faced with the same problem as with an ARF, how well was it built? Maybe purchasing from a reputable person.

Randy
Old 08-27-2002, 12:20 PM
  #28  
can773
My Feedback: (1)
 
can773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Posts: 2,286
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Originally posted by lnorris
After all, it is a hobby, you'll only get out of it what you put into it (and I DON'T mean money).

You got that right, after countless hours of flying and not building I managed to acheive a semi-finals placing at the 2001 F3A Worlds........
Old 08-27-2002, 12:27 PM
  #29  
tmproff
My Feedback: (5)
 
tmproff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Humble, TX
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

I must lean towards the argument saying that you should have an ARF as your first plane. The problem with a newbie building their first kit is "heck, I KNOW what I'm doing" Then proceeds to put the wings together without putting glue all over the joiner (yes I've seen this happen) or uses only 2 bolts to mount the engine (yep) and lastly uses all 3 feet of fuel tubing on a .40 sized plane (seen this too). Usually the ARF directions are much more focused at explaining every little detail, and the KIT plans assume you have some experience and tend to skip a few steps. As every hobby has a progression of skill and prestige, I have to say that ARF's are mostly easy and non-unique, and Kits tend to get all the "oohs and ahhs" All in all this hobby is for fun. What's fun to one person might not be fun to another....and who are we to judge what others think is fun? Some people just can't change.
Old 08-27-2002, 12:27 PM
  #30  
Blackie
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Blackie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,894
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Hey! Jim,

I went and checked out your worlds flight with the Fokker, congrats on the landing though I didn't get to see it.

Randy
Old 08-27-2002, 12:47 PM
  #31  
lnorris
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

cann773.

Well congrats. You put a lot of hours in flying and got something out of it (thus proving my point). Not knowing what you flew I'd still guess that the amount of time you saved with an ARF is trivial compared to the amount of time you spent flying.

Again, I fly ARF's, I'm not an ARF hater. I just wish they wouldn't take the place of kits for those of us who can build.

I'm impressed with people who can fly well. I'm also impressed with people who can build well. People that do BOTH though are the cream of the crop.
Old 08-27-2002, 12:52 PM
  #32  
tmproff
My Feedback: (5)
 
tmproff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Humble, TX
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

My newest kit GP Super skybolt:
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	23212_7030.jpg
Views:	8
Size:	50.3 KB
ID:	14395  
Old 08-27-2002, 01:00 PM
  #33  
Gordon Mc
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: , CA
Posts: 7,964
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Originally posted by Jim_McIntyre
For example, just this weekend I was told by an ex student of mine about an ARF seaplane they bought. The engine pylon wasn't glued in! It was tight enough to fool them during assembly but, on maiden, full throttle pulled it out! Luckily no one was hurt!
Hi Jim,

Yeah - I've seen some ARFS that are not as well built as I would like - but unfortunately the same goes for kit builds. Regardless of who built it, there may be errors that need to be addressed.

Note that just because someone chose an ARF for their trainer, that doesn't mean that you consider it ready to fly when he drags it out to the field. Typically when a beginner brings an ARF trainer to our field, and asks for help flying it, the first thing I do is tell them that we need to thoroughly check their airplane over, and that there is a very good chance that some things will need to be redone. If we can redo it at the field, great - but don't be surprised if you don't get to fly your new plane today. Then I systematically check every part of the airplane that I can - while explaining to the new guy what I am looking for, why, and how to fix any defects that I find.

He learns from this process (some quicker than others!), plus I get a level of confidence about the integrity of the airplane I am about to fly. I yank and twist on the engine to see whether the firewall or engine mount moves, I try to pull the control surfaces off of the airplane, check how well the fin & elevator are attached (typically suggesting that tri-stock be added at the tail surface to fuz joints), check whether he loctited various parts, examine the quality of the joints between fuz sides & bulkheads, etc., etc. Then I try to I drum it into the guy that because vibration, flight loads etc may cause issues to show up later, we will redo these checks after the very first flight, and then they should be redone periodically thereafter.

In addition to letting me have some confidence in the aircraft, this process teaches him about the things that are important to check. When he gets his next plane, we'll do the same - and so he is schooled in checking for the aircraft's integrity, and should spot issues like an unglued engine pylon on his next plane... unless he's been totally ignoring everything I told him ;-)

Now, granted - there are some things that I can not fully check - e.g. the inside of the wing because of it being covered. However, by twisting the wing slightly and watching how the covering moves I have been able to detect ribs that were not glued to the spars in one case - and that was actually a kit built aircraft (CG Eaglet), not an ARF - so any building issues that are hard or impossible to detect during your inspection apply to a completed kit as well as to an ARF.

Later,
Gordon
Old 08-27-2002, 01:10 PM
  #34  
tmproff
My Feedback: (5)
 
tmproff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Humble, TX
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

After having a few kits under my belt, I just can't understand people not getting sufficient glue on a rib. When people build ARF's, they probably build 50 wings a day in some jig, I can understand them doing this.
Old 08-27-2002, 01:35 PM
  #35  
Jim_McIntyre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont, ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Hi again Gordon,

Yeah, I do all of the above and then some (like putting the wing across my knee as I explain G forces to the shocked face. :surprised

This particular incident was an ex student relating his recent adventure.
Old 08-27-2002, 02:36 PM
  #36  
can773
My Feedback: (1)
 
can773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Posts: 2,286
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Originally posted by lnorris
cann773.

Well congrats. You put a lot of hours in flying and got something out of it (thus proving my point). Not knowing what you flew I'd still guess that the amount of time you saved with an ARF is trivial compared to the amount of time you spent flying.

Again, I fly ARF's, I'm not an ARF hater. I just wish they wouldn't take the place of kits for those of us who can build.

I'm impressed with people who can fly well. I'm also impressed with people who can build well. People that do BOTH though are the cream of the crop.

lnorris

Actually I only have one ARF (not finished yet) and have built all of my other planes from kits with the exception of one of my older Finesse 2+2's which I had professionally built for me. I have built no less than 9, 2 meter pattern models from "kits" (composite molded fuse, pre cut some even pre sheeted foam wings) and I dont remember how many sport models I have built. I would consider myself above average for building skill. I would not build my pattern models but the cost of having them come pre finished is too high for me to justify.

ARF's should not replace kits but I dont think they are a bad thing that is ruining the hobby, like IMAC they are a fad that will pass in due time hahaha that was a joke for you serious IMAC guys from a pattern guy hehe.

Anyways here are some links to ZN Lines site with pics of my Evolis that I built painted and covered just so you all know that I am not a kit hater

http://www.znline.com/photos.php?sou...39371&index=18

http://www.znline.com/photos.php?sou...39371&index=19
Old 08-27-2002, 03:07 PM
  #37  
Jim_McIntyre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont, ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Originally posted by Blackie
Hey! Jim,

I went and checked out your worlds flight with the Fokker, congrats on the landing though I didn't get to see it.

Randy
Thanks! Have you seen the pics coming up on the MAAC website now? Some nice ones starting to appear in magazines too. I think my Grandmother may be reconsidering the scale of this 'toy airplane meet'.

A truly humbling experience competing with people of that calber.
I'm still waiting for video of that landing... I've seen countless videos/pictures of my botched takeofs.

There will be a next time and I will build much bigger... 1/6 scale triplane, swirling winds and pavement are not a mix I care to repeat! At least I still have the plane, in fact I'm touching up the pavement scrapes to get ready for some local scale rallys/contests coming up soon.

Again, Kudos to APC props. Who would have believed a prop could survive a full throttle stop on pavement only to be re-fired and flown successfully!
Old 08-27-2002, 03:14 PM
  #38  
Crashem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jewett, NY,
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Hello everyone,

I got to tell that this thread and the other thread on ARF vs kits are great. It's nice too see so many different view points. I have been in and out of this hobby/sport for the past eighteen years. When I first started an ARF was a plane you bought from another club member or friend. While I do not consider myself a master builder or flyer I do enjoy both aspects of this hobby. I own several kits and Several ARFs both are great!!. As to which type of aircraft is better I would have to say neither. Since I would term all of the models today as (A)most (R)eady (T)o (F)ly. With the main difference being the time it takes to make the model air worthy. Now before everyone gets up set think about this for a Second. You buy a kit from a reputable manufacturer it has been fully tested and proven airworthy BEFORE being kitted. The manufacturer will usually provide step by step assembly instructions. it will most likely be made from balsa, ply, spruce and corvered with monokote, ultracote etc. You will need to use Epoxy, CA or some other adhesive. No please don't misunderstand I am in no way attempting to belittle the skill and craftsmenship of any builder my only point is that when you compare building materials and construction methods they are similar. An ARF from a company like Hanger 9 in my opinion is constructed in such a manner that I think it would be difficult for the average modeler to tell the difference (I got one of there Cubs 4 years ago and let me tell you the craftsmenship was outstanding) What I am trying to say is that if you compare the end products they are so similar that it makes the models origin irrelevent. If you enjoy building keep building. If you don't go for an ARF and have a blast.

As far as hobby stores not stocking building supplies because of all the ARF models out there I think this is simply because this is a business and businesses as we all no are out to make profit or go bankrupt. The CEO's of these manufactures are simply responding to the demand. I do not think that reducing ARF production would increase kit manufacture. I think ARFs have kept some of these manufactures solvent. Without ARFs who knows maybe Sig or Great Planes would be out of business.

Being out of the hobby for a couple of years may have given me a different perspective of hobby stores in general. When I got back into it The first thing I did was go back to the stores that I used to use guess what they no longer exist!! I did happen to find a Chain hobby store I won't mention the name but let me tell you this extremely high prices with people who know next to nothing about RC planes. They are good about giving advice even if it is wrong. To give you an example last time I was in there kid and his father want to get a plane. the clerk starts telling them how easy it is to fly and if the buy this firebird XL and watch the video and read the instructions they can fly it no problem.. I couldn't believe it never once was club or instructor mentioned. The guys who ran the stores I remember were all active members of the local clubs and actually Knew something about the hobby. I think that when it comes to the quality of today's hobby store's Technology Not ARFs have caused their demise. Look at R/C U or ezone what Great concepts to be able to share information with such a large and diverse audience. Look at mail order and internet shopping want the best price on something post a message and people resond with suppliers. How can we expect a local shop to compete?

Just my opinion
Old 08-27-2002, 03:33 PM
  #39  
gpmikemorse-RCU
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Garrett Park, MD USA
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

An ARF from a company like Hanger 9 in my opinion is constructed in such a manner that I think it would be difficult for the average modeler to tell the difference (I got one of there Cubs 4 years ago and let me tell you the craftsmenship was outstanding) What I am trying to say is that if you compare the end products they are so similar that it makes the models origin irrelevent.
I think you're mostly correct, but not completely. An ARF has to be covered, then put in a box to ship. In my experience, that means that even for .40 sized trainers, the wing halves are covered first in the factory, but the modeler has to assemble the two halves. That's not the case with any kit I've built, in which the halves are joined before the wing is covered.

I saw the wing fold in flight on a Tower Hobbies .40 Trainer ARF. There was absolutely no reason for this, since the plane was just flying along. I inspected the remains, and found that the owner seemed to have followed the instructions completely, but the designer evidently thought that a little piece of light ply epoxied into the wing halves would hold the wing together. In fact, the balsa center ribs had actually torn apart although the glue joint held.

Compare that with a kit, where the piece that joined the wings would be longer, and you would have better access to make sure the glue was in the right place. Plus, all the kits I've built recommended glassing the joint, something you cannot do easily (or at all) with an ARF.

The reason I'm telling this story is not to deny your statement that ARFs are well built, but only because I felt so sorry for the owner of the ARF I saw crash. He had paid $100 or so for a well-known plane from a well-known company. As far as I could see, he had built it exactly according to the instructions. And I saw with my own eyes, it just suddenly fell out of the sky. Fortunately, nobody was hurt, and the engine and receiver were fine.
Old 08-27-2002, 03:58 PM
  #40  
Crashem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jewett, NY,
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Plus, all the kits I've built recommended glassing the joint, something you cannot do easily (or at all) with an ARF.
Thats I good point I did Glass my cubs wing. However on one of my first Eaglet 50's I built the elevator fell right off in the middle of level flight while my instructor was flying it (The older Hot stuff thin CA didn't work well with plastic hinges my instructor told me then he showed me how to use toothpicks to pin the hinges) I do this on any airplane ARF or kit. I wonder if part of the problem with ARFs is experience. I have made many mods to parts that I didn't deem "good" and I always replace the hardware in a kit or ARF with Sullivan or Dubro (I have had great luck with these products). A lot of the things being said about ARFS could possibly be attributed to lack of experience in building. I do not believe that a new comer will have as could an experience with their first plane ARF or Kit if they go it alone. I did and it was 6 eaglets later that the local hobby shop owner took pitty on me and took me to his club and taught me to fly. One of the first things that I tell people is to look for a club near you before you build/buy I know that the gentlemen that taught me in the summer of 1985 did more then teach someone how to fly they provided sound advice and skills that I use on every model today.

Maybe some of the master Kit builders could hook up with your LHS and provide a how to assemble RC Seminar or maybe a free Assembly Tip flyer.
Old 08-27-2002, 04:11 PM
  #41  
Blackie
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Blackie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,894
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

gpmikemorse, I noticed you mentioned "Tower Hobbies", in my experience TH or known to be on the low end of the industry, their products are not of the same quality as most of the popular name brands products.

Even if it were say a known brand lets say for example a World Models ARF trainer in most cases the manufacture would replace a structure defect, I would even think that TH would pick up the tab here as well. If you built the kit yourself then you would already know what kind of structure you have but say if a weak joint cased the kit to tumble to the ground who would pick up the cost here?

Randy
Old 08-27-2002, 08:08 PM
  #42  
Crashem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jewett, NY,
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

gpmikemorse, It just occured to me that maybe a reason why when an ARF implodes in mid air for no apparant reason we may look to the manufacturer as the cause is because they built it not us. And it does seem to be human nature to need to find someone to blame. Know I don't say this to cause trouble. It just Occurred to me that with a kit since you assemble 80% 90% your self there isn't really any way to go back to the manufacturer and say hey this was a poorly designed model and I want my Money back. After they get done laughing they will blame you for the defect after all you built not them.

The reason I say this is because I just bought a GWS Slowflyer for the backyard (Great Little plane) however this kit and use the term loosely will fold its wings in a steep dive or loop. Now thanks to the people here and on ezone I knew about this little defect in advance and corrected it. To date GWS has not rectified the situation modelers have. (Isn't this always the way) GWS also incorrectly labeled the CG on their Zero I know of several modelers who called and got replacement kits free. Maybe you might know of a kit maker that will replace a "flawed" kit on the say so of a disatisified customer I don't. I'm not bashing kits I am pointing out that sometimes buying a prebuilt can work in your favor. BTW wasn't it the Tower trainer that had the if you crash it with an instructor we'll replace it gaurantee. Sounds like your friend would qualify.
Old 08-28-2002, 01:49 AM
  #43  
M Gill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Martinsville, NJ
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

There are flyers and there are builders and there are those that are a little of both. If you are a builder, don't buy an arf. You will find little enjoyment from it. You should be building from a kit, or (dare I say) scratch building it. If you are a flyer, buy an arf (but the warning is that you will be at the mercy of the quality of the manufacturer and that your plane will look 'cookie cutter')

If you are a little of both, buy an arf AND a kit. Fly the arf while you are building your REAL modeling project. It doesn't hurt to get in a little stick time with an airplane that you have not invested a lot of emotion into while you are building something REALLY special

Mace Gill
The Aeroplane Works
Old 08-28-2002, 06:25 AM
  #44  
AirplaneDan98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the middle of nowhere.
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

I think that flying is 50% of the hobby and building is 50% of the hobby. I agree with Jim_McIntyre in that if you just fly it's not much different than nintendo. My definition of a modeler is one that builds and flies.

As for me, if I don't have time to build, I don't have time to fly. I have no intentions or desires to buy an ARF. I don't like to profit from slave labor.

The debate about which is stronger and which is better built will never end. But for me I at least know if I didn't like something I can fix it. That piece of mind is priceless to me.

And when it comes to busting them up, it's been my experience that 90% percent of the time it can be repaired. So it's definitely good to know how to repair it when it gets a little to low.

Just my two cents. Dan
Old 08-28-2002, 09:27 AM
  #45  
Geistware
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

AirplaneDan98,
I consider myself a fair flier but I have never been able to build a plane that I would show in public or would fly straight. (built 2). Why should I limit my flying ability with my inability to build a decent plane?

I also have seen guys who were expert builders and could not fly anything past a trainer. I met a guy last weekend who has no desire to fly but build 33% models that anyone would drool over.

This is a hobby. People should enjoy the portion of the hobby they prefer. Building, flying, or both.
Old 08-28-2002, 10:52 AM
  #46  
FilipM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA,
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

I think it is best for a begginer to go with an ARF trainer. My old Avistar trainer last year was very tough, straight, pretty light at 5.25lbs with an OS46SF, stood up to my terribly hard and fast early landings and flew very well in every imaginable way. The covering was very good and easy to see. The assembly was painless - later I built one for someone else in two lazy days.

Compare that to taking a few months in bulding a kit. Then learning to cover at the same time, which can be royal pain in the ass. And please keep in mind that while you may be able able to build a kit in week that doesn't mean a complete newbie can or even wants to. It can be a daunting task. Plus this hobby is not like scale plastic modeling where the actual building process is the entire hobby. Flying is the point of it in the end, not just building. I don't know if any of you ever do plastic models but would you consider it a cheapening of the hobby if a new modeler chose to build a simple cheap kit straight out of the box without using all the available resin and PE detail sets and painted the camo on his FW190 by hand instead of a Pasche dual action airbrush?

I was briefly involved with the hobby in 1995, and back then ARFs were utterly terrible. They were heavy, used plastic moldings for turtledecks, cowls, pants, wingtips, stabtips, had the foam backed sticky covering and were usually ugly as sin.

But that was 7 years ago.

Now any good ARF has a painted glass cowl, pants, is all wood, covered in Monokote/Ultracote, they are pretty light, built straight etc. All in all much much better.

And it is in no way the fault of an ARF if some guy isn't careful enough to glue the wing at all, why would you trust him to build a kit. What would he not glue together there? I have never seen ARF instruction book where they do not clearly point out to use large amounts of 30 minute epoxy on the wing joint.

ARFs are fine, well most are, except that nasty evil WM T34.... Right Gordon?

Filip
Old 08-28-2002, 11:24 AM
  #47  
Jim_McIntyre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont, ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Originally posted by FilipM

And it is in no way the fault of an ARF if some guy isn't careful enough to glue the wing at all
But who's fault is it if the wing fails because the spar wasn't glued in, or the pod (seaplane) wasn't glued in, or the sher web was insufficient or... any one of the myraid other failures occurring?

Sure a poor builder can mess up. But, generally, when someone has that much effort invested, they pay attention to little details like did I glue that spar and, it matters to them if something seems loose as they're covering, they don't think "not my job" or "what the h*ll, it's almost quitting time" or "if I don't cover it, it'll be one less unit and the boss already warned me about being slow this week".... :stupid:
Old 08-28-2002, 01:09 PM
  #48  
tmproff
My Feedback: (5)
 
tmproff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Humble, TX
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Jim, I just can't believe that holds water.

1. Where are these built?
2. How much are they getting paid for building them?
3. Ok, they might care on the first 1000, but what about after that?
4. Repetition is always a doorway to mistakes.
Old 08-28-2002, 01:31 PM
  #49  
Jim_McIntyre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont, ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

Originally posted by tmproff
Jim, I just can't believe that holds water.
I think you may have misread my post.
You appear to be agreeing with me....
Old 08-28-2002, 01:34 PM
  #50  
tmproff
My Feedback: (5)
 
tmproff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Humble, TX
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues

they don't think "not my job"
Yeah, after further inspection I see what you were trying to say...I apologize. Those double negatives always got me.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.