RCU Forums - View Single Post - AFR'S WHY NOT KITS
View Single Post
Old 08-19-2006 | 08:42 PM
  #111  
Stickbuilder's Avatar
Stickbuilder
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 8,678
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
From: Leesburg, FL
Default RE: AFR'S WHY NOT KITS


ORIGINAL: Buteos

I guess that there are a great many ways to look at it and each way would be based on who you were talking to. If person has never built he may consider the assembly of an ARF building which is where the problem is found. If you go by this rule then a kit would either be built or assembled and a scratch builder would be building. This can be very confusing if you base it on different point of views.

Bob
Bob,

This argument has been discussed in various venues for years. The accepted definitions by those who have, and do use the different methods are, again as follows:

Scratch building: You design the model, and you draw your own plans (or use the tree method) you cut your own parts, and you build your model.

Plan building: You use the plan that someone else drew. You cut your own parts. You build the model.

Kit building: You use the plan that someone else drew. You have someone cut the parts, or purchase the parts. You build the model.

ARF: You finis assembling the sub-assemblies that someone else build and covered.

Do I need to specify the difference between an ARF, and an ARC? If so, I will be glad to.

If you use a plan that Jim Messer drew, and if you build a piper cub from that plan, the correct terminology for that model is: A Jim Messer piper cub.

If you use a plan that Nick Ziroli drew, and build a Corsair, then the correct terminology for that model is: A Nick Ziroli Corsair.

If you have Mace Gill Cut the parts and make up a kit from the Nick Ziroli plan, the correct terminology for the model is: A Ziroli Corsair cut by the Aeroplane Works.

You never take credit that is not due you in this hobby. Stating that you scratch built a model indicates that you did all the work. Failing to give credit to the designer or draftsman is at least Plagerism, and may violate copyright statutes. Plus, It's downright dishonest.

Think i'm wrong? Take the time to read the captions in any model publication, or look at the results of any sanctioned contest.

That ain't just my opinion, That's the truth.

Bill, AMA 4720