My brother purchased several magazines for me the other day which was a treat b/c I long ago stopped subscrsibing due to the lack of nuts and bolts type informative and how to articles. Of course I will quickly glance through newstand copies at times and realize again that they're just large advertising mediums these days. One thing jumped out at me..... Anyone irritated with the use of the term "build" when describing ARF assembly? The magazines are no help here as all they cover are ARFs and use the build term rather than something like "assemble". I freely admit that it's picky.. bordering if not full on anal of me to think about this but it's bothersome having started back when if you wanted to fly.. you "built" kits, which I still do.

Don't get me wrong... I fully see the advantages of ARFs and think they're great in terms of bringing new folks in, helping to lower costs in many other areas, ..reducing the obstaclesto getting started, etc, etc. I just get ruffled when you occassionally see coverage of say Top Gun... for instance Matt Chapmans Gorgeous Bipe that took 3 years to "build" or any other kit or scratch build and on the next page someone who "built" a Hangar 9 Cub ARF in 3 evenings complaining b/c he needed to widen the servo cutout 2mm or that pushrods didnt line up exactly. Yeah.... I know I'm living in the past but feel fortunate to have cut my teeth on RCM.

Ok.. I feel better now... apologize for the rant!