Turbobruce

My Feedback: (3)

Very stupid THREAD!!!

I CAN'T BELIEVE I READ THE WHOLE THREAD!!!

Complete waste of time.

rmh

What if'n you build from NO plans - just make it up as you go along?
I do lots of those (and so do other old farts.)

Stickbuilder

We (RCU kit builders) are in the process of building the Bulldog in 1/3 rd scale. Several of us are involved in the build, and I'm in the process of building the fuselage, and will do the pre covering assembly, and setting the incidences and the engine mount. It's big (really big), and it will be finished in the same scheme as is yours. We have the permission from the owner of the plane to do this one, and we will be raffeling the ready to fly model with the proceeds going to charity. It is to be powered by a 100cc twin. I was handed a laser cut short kit for most of the fuselage (sides and formers) and the rest is all from the plan. It should be killer when finished.

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

I've tried that Dick, once. Plane flew pretty bad for about 3 minutes until it crashed. At least the engine made it out OK.[sm=lol.gif]

todhog

My Feedback: (9)

Same here, back to Flying Giants.


Todd

P.S. I bought my ARFs already built.

Stickbuilder

Okay Barry,

I'm going to keep my end of the deal though. I have my hands on a nice 150cc twin, and (gulp) it's the expensive one. You guys give me a heads up on what airframe I will enjoy most. I am capable of flying whatever has wings up to and including 3-D profiles, so let;s hear your reccomendations. You want us to come together, well here's your chance. Give me some ideas.

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

Barry Cazier

My Feedback: (17)

Stickbuilder...

I'll keep my end of the deal too, just not right now. Maybe next spring or winter. I'll keep you posted on what I get.

Right of the bat for an ARF that big (I don't own anything even close to that size) I would thing a H9 Ultimate biplane. QQ Yak 107" or the AirWild 40%. Any of those would be nice.

I'm sure many others will chime in. That's just something to think about. If you know where to look for those, fine, if not say so and I'll post some links.

Thanks
Barry

Aerohead

My Feedback: (37)

I have built my share of models, and built from plans. I enjoyed the building and was proud of my results. But you builders that come on here over and over, giving the ARF fliers a hard time, and try to make them feel like they should be ashamed for making that choice are just a bunch of bored malcontents. Why can't you spend a little more of your time at the building table instead of spending it here, trying to run these guys down?

rmh

feeling picked on?

F2G-1

My Feedback: (13)

One should be very carefull and explain to what degree they 'built' the plane, that way, nobody gets there feelings hurt.
Geez, come on now!

When I read "TF staggerwing build thread" I know its an arf, I know much of the work has been done by some poor asian for a cup of rice, I know the planes are all going to, for the most part, all look the same. So why on earth would I critisize the originators choice of words?
Thats whats going on here, all this BLAH BLAH over a verb.

This is a constantly evolving hobby. 25 yrs ago 'build a plane' meant lots of glue and time. Today, it can mean many different things - scratch, plans, short kit, reg kit, arf, arc, etc, etc.

If it is the intent of one to pass off an arf as a kit or scratch built plane, then shame on them. But I dont think that is the intention most of the time, and doesnt warrant a punch in the face.

I had comet kits when I was a kid. My fingers still hurt from all that cutting! When die crunch came along (gullows) I was in heaven!

Fly what you like, and build what you like. I can appreciate all airplanes, no matter how or where they where created, built or assembled.

Ted

warbirdmustang

My Feedback: (21)

Guys,
I too came from a time in this hobby when there were no ARF's. I now own a few, and they are very good airplanes. I do however believe that a fella who builds his own can be a little more proud of his efforts because of the craftsmanship involved.I like scale models, and I don't think it is fair to put an arf along side a built model in competition because the judges are looking at two different things. However there is a class for the arf fliers. I think part of our hobby is lost when we as a whole choose not to build anymore. I run Beagles for hunting as another hobby, and it too requires some learning on my part to effectively train my dogs, much the same as developing the skills to become a good builder. Should ARF's be banned? Nope! But I do believe that a craftsmans airplane that is hand assembled by someone who has taken the extra time to learn the skills should stand a little prouder than a generic boxed airpplane should.
Bryan

Stickbuilder

Nobody is getting put down. I just asked which airframe should I get to use with the engine I just got. I'm willing to try this ARF thing, and if I don't like it, I can always scrap the airframe and build my own. That ain't a put-down, that's a fact.

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

Panzlflyer

My Feedback: (15)

This is the Giant Scale forum, not ARF only and it is a forum. Go get a dictionary.

How do you get a thread removed if you are the starter, I got my question answered.

dlwood

Well I do not know about the rest of you but I "build" my ARF's. I take pride in a clean assemby, measuring, double checking, fitting, modifying where necessary or wanted, detailing, componet selection, learning.

I have a kit stashed that I want to build to perfection when I learn enough.

I have seen plenty of crappy stick builts, I have seen a very few that are better than the ARF's.

In the world of cars I know a guy that buys some 4130, some sheet aluminum and builds from scratch. He is very gifted and builds fast straight cars. He however finds it practical to buy the glass bodies, engines, and fabricated rearends. So is it an ARF?? I think not.

The bottom line ARF's are practical for many. Lets fly.

gboulton

My Feedback: (15)

Well...of course not. it's a car...it's nowhere NEAR ready to fly.

(Sorry...I COULDN'T resist)

I do think, however, that your post brings up a VERY valid observation.

You mentioned that you take a great deal of pride in clean, quality work. You spend the time an effort to produce an end product that is of the highest quality you can achieve, presents the best appearance it can, and is as mechanically sound as you can make it.

IMO, that's craftsmanship...doesn't matter how big or small the pieces were when you removed them from the box...or whether those 24 bits of wood were already glued together or not. When you apply your skills and talents to producing an airplane that is A) What YOU want it to be and B) of the highest possible quality you can achieve, then you have, imo at least, "served the hobby well" so to speak. Whether it's called "building" or "assembling" or, for that matter, "coagulation" really doesn't matter.

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

Well said.[sm=thumbs_up.gif]

warbirdmustang

My Feedback: (21)

Thanks, MRBIGG. I also think if we all got out from the front of these silly computers, and quit fighting over which kind of airplane kit should be the best, we would all have time to build our own! With that said, I'm going to the basement to work on my current project!
Bryan

Highlights

bull$%^it, .....................

My own father refuses to buy an arf. His enjoyment is the building of the plane. So much so that he really can't fly yet. never really cared to learn. I myself have built many planes too. My friends say I am rediculous. The planes I turn out should not be flown they say. Too risky to lose. Back in the day the arfs available were nothing more than cheap toys . Something else should be said for todays arfs. Many are beautiful. PLain and simply however they are practical. If we are speaking strictly of "scratch " built planes than there are differant matters to concern yourself with. Scratch built planes are always a gamble. Thousands of hours go into the production of one and yet there are never any guarantees of the fight quality. Kits are differant. They have been proven from prototypes. So really , for those of you out there who beleive you are purists, get a life. Who has the time any more. I'll gamble on the arf of my chioce. Take pride in a clean assembly and fly it hard. I will leave my ability to construct and build things for a day at work. Thanks though. To each his own. Give the non builders a break. Everyone has differant priorities.


Mark

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

Yep, some people just don't have the skill to scratch build. Maybe I should say have not developed the skill because they have not put together any kits which would give them some of the skills needed to scratch build if desired. But does that mean we should put these people down. NO! My good friend doesn't build or assemble ARF's himself. Just doesn't care to. It's all good and we all make it to the same place eventually--THE FIELD!!!!! With that being said, I'm fittin' to ASSEMBLE an ARF hopefully by next week when my new Extra 260 gets here. When that gets done, I'm going to have to do something about this 50cc Decathlon that won't get out of my head. Whether it be building a kit or scratching it because an ARF is not available.

rmh

The latest ARFS have " shake well before opening " on the cartons --this assures that all the parts are fully positioned and the models are ready to fly--

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

"Building" is doing what YOU want to end up with a flyable airframe at the field of your choice. If it's an ARF, or a scratch-plan, stick-built, AMBROID-glued Sterling Stearman PT-17 - it all ends up the same.

Pointless to bash anyone because they choose to assemble. If they wanted to do "more", they *could* get a kit - MAYBE.

When ARF's were B-A-D, they were NOT much fun to play with. [&o]

BUILDING my Sterling Stearman PT-17 from a "kit" where I had to replace 50% of the parts because of Sterlings' "Sterling" die-cutting was *NOT* a labor of love. It was a horrifying experience at poorly-fitting construction of pieces of lowest quality imaginable. And when it was DONE.... I was TERRIFIED to fly the thing for fear of breaking all those hundreds of hours.

That was THEN. (1980-something).
This is NOW.

I would not be staying in RC if the ARF's weren't available and as good as they are. ANd that is simply the way it is. I enjoy playing with them. Sure wish that was "okay" with everyone.

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

[sm=lol.gif] too funny Dick!

crash080

I've been designing, building and "assembling" planes for almost 30 years. I've enjoyed doing both. In fact I currenty have two planes on the bench. One is a Steen Skybolt of my own design from three-views provided by Steen Aerolabs and the other is a Great Planes Super Stearman. I've enjoyed designing/building/assembly both of them, and my knees will probably shake just as bad on the Stearman with 40 horus invested in it as they will on the Skybolt with over 500 hours invested. Do I think that modelers are missing something by not building? Yes. Does it really matter no! We need to be encouraging people to join the hobby and if ARFs are the key to doing that then so be it. I for one will encourage and help any and all who needs it regardless of ability, building skill or the type of plane they fly. Besides that, the quality of ARFs today, unlike in the '80's, is far beyond that which is achievable by many modelers. ARF's allow a larger percentage of people to fully enjoy the hobby/sport. Kind of like shape skis and oversized racquets. I think everyone needs to know the basics (e.g. how to stick build and apply covering or properly carve a turn) but that is my opion and I do not impose it on others. Do I encourage people to kit build at least one plane for the experience? Yes.

In the end it's about getting out there, flying and having fun! Besides the majority of models eventually get "re-kitted" and at that point it really does not matter...