The beef analogy is valid when you apply it to your desire to buy an ARF "short kit". You're getting the plans plus materials, which are invariably "lighter duty" in an ARF than with a comparable kit. The WACO is touted by Cox to be the Pica kit in ARF form; this is very far from the truth when you can see how both are built. The only similarities really are the outer dimensions of the plane. So, in that light, I felt sort of cheated by Cox, especially when you consider this ARF is almost $400. It's a nice ARF, but a far cry from how the kit would have built. I really wanted one of these planes (YMF WACO, not necessarily the Cox version). In retrospect, I should have looked harder for the kit, they are around, but not made any more, or sucked it up and really done it right with a Barth or Genesis 1/4 scale.

This is one reason I can't understand why you would want to build an ARF version of a plane, when there are true kits, and plans, of the same plane that are better engineered. You can still "build it your way", but you're starting out with Cadillac plans instead of the
Yugo ones. You can always change things around to suit yourself (one of the greatest fun aspects of building), but it's better to start off with something better.

One of the things not readily apparent when you read a test report on an ARF is durability. This thing gets put together, test flown, the report is written in glowing language about how easily it went together, how well it performs, etc. then it may not get flown again, or if it does, how often, and how well is it holding up after 100 flights? I haven't seen a long-term test like Motor Trend does for cars, that says "this ABC arf is so durable that we can't tear it up" kind of stuff.

In a way, I think it's refreshing; certainly a step in the opposite direction of the current trend, to want to build as opposed to buying it already built.