ORIGINAL: MikeL
ORIGINAL: gboulton
Nor is it true that ARFs won't teach you about kits, nor kits about ARFs.
I'd like you to explain this to me. I think it's wrong, and that's just a product of my experience.
I'd argue that a great many ARFs DO require exactly the skills you mention:
I've never had an ARF that required sanding, shaping, and covering
Every ARF I've owned has needed ONE of those skills to produce a high quality model. Covering? A great many of them need that skill or some of those techniques to tighten up covering, tack down some that's come loose, seal gaps, etc. Sanding? I've lost track of how many tail groups I've sanded for a precise fit on ARFs. Shaping? Is cutting a cowl to fit a particular powerplant not "shaping"?
You go on to say:
Nor have I had a kit that required the knowledge of which hardware to junk, how to properly inspect for damage or poor glue joints, how to know which areas appear suspect and in need of reinforcement, and even very simple things such as stripping covering without damaging the underlying structure.
You've never had a kit come with hardware? You don't examine your own glue joints for quality, or the wood in the kit for damage? You've never modified a kit to reinforce some areas, or lighten others? You've never had to recover an ARF due to color preference, crash damage, or shipping damage?
The things you mention as being "specific" to one or the other are ABSOLUTELY part of each.
Let's take your glue joint example:
You say you don't have to inspect a kit for poor glue joints, but do inspect ARFs for this issue.
I'll ask, then...WHY do you inspect ARFs? Is it because you have learned, through kit building, the properties of a reliable and strong glue joint? If so, then clearly your kit experience taught you something about ARF assembly. Possibly several somethings. Perhaps kit building taught you where glue joints tend to fail, so you inspect those areas more closely, or first, on an ARF. Perhaps it taught you the outwardly visible signs of a poor or quality glue joint, so you now look for those signs in ARFs. Perhaps it taught you the cost of glue joint failure, making you more dilligent when inspecting ARFs.
Maybe it's the other way? Maybe you had an ARF with poor glue joints, the failure of which cost you an airplane. While this certainly would make you more likely to check such things in the future, would it not also stress the importance of the process when kit building?
=======================
The original point was, and remains...Airplanes do what they do for the reasons airplanes do them. While it's obvious that kit building is a different overall skillset from ARF assembly, the FUNDAMENTALS that make one successful at either endeavor remain the same. Perhaps in one arena you're "performing a task", while in the other inspecting to ensure another person performed it to your standards...but recognition of the importance of the task, the signs of quality work, and methods of repairing poor work are shared between both arenas.
Indeed, I'd even go so far as to suggest that experience in one arena IMPROVES your skills in another.
A recently released ARFs can teach a builder quite a bit about new techniques and materials that save time, weight, or cost. The builder may or may not choose to employ them, but they are a fine example of their use in a production machine. Building, as well, can aid in one's ARF assembly in knowing some of the critical areas to examine, techniques for modification/repair, or understanding of structural considerations.
===================
In short, I would NEVER suggest that assembling ARFs can teach you to be a kit builder, or that building can teach you to assemble ARFs. But remember...what I said was that each could teach you ABOUT the other. A straight, true wing is a better flying wing, whether your building skills taught you to inspect for that, and how to correct it if problems are found, or your ARF assembly revealed to you a new method of achieving it on your next kit.