Are they safe?

Well, kinda, sorta, usually, maybe. It all depends on where you got it, and who built it. You know where you got it, ie the hobby shop. But who built? You will NEVER know. Unless you go to Thailand, China, or where ever it is they concoct these things, and knock on the malnurished, and starving slaves door.
To give you a historyof myself to better understand my thought process, you must read this thread that Jim Ross posted a while back from an unfortunate injury sustained by an ARF when taking some tach readings.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_83...ey_barf/tm.htm

I recently have just gotten back into the hobby after not building any planes since I was 18 years old. I am 33 now, so my little break due to military service aboard a submarine for the last decade has finally come to an end. As a teenager I loved models. I have been building them since.... well, forever, as far as I can recall.
My first RC airplane I built at the age of 15 was a Sig Smith Miniplane. Man, what a chore, but was always my favorite. When I took my little Smith to the field, all the old timers told me that I could not learn to fly with such an unstable plane. They were correct. So they said, go buy an ARF trainer and come back in a week. So, I went to the hobby store once again, and found an ARF. I didn't know what ARF meant. But, when I found out, I thought, "What's the fun in that?" So, I figured I would by another kit, a "trainer", and then go back to the field. The Smith took me 5 months to build. The trainer took me two weeks, and it was a kit. (OK, an easy kit) Some kits are harder to build than others.
I learned something new. I honestly thought, ALL planes were built from a pile of sticks, like my Smith Miniplane. I didn't know anything about die-cut parts, OOOOOO, neat. (Come on, I was only 15yo)
Anyway, when I decided to get back into this hobby earlier this year, I didn't want to buy and build another trainer, as I remember getting bored of my first one in about a month.
I most certainly didn't want to "ASSEMBLE" an ARF, even after the guy at the local club suggested it. I think he just wanted to get me in the club now and get me out there flying, which I admire, they seem very receptive and a friendly bunch, which is a great quality in a club, unlike some, but that is a differant topic.
So, anyway, I went out and bought a Citabria Pro (Balsa USA) which I am now in the process of building. It flys like a trainer, yet can do advanced aerobatics later on. And of course, it is a "REAL" kit. Some of you may have seen some of my threads on questions about engines and covering etc. I just need a little boost to get back into this, which is why I love this website. What a wealth of knowledge.
I have always felt like building really is the biggest part of this hobby, and is a display of ones character and willingness to MAKE TIME to do it right. Patience truly is a virtue.
Anyway, I will never trust someone else to build my planes. And I truly believe that anyone who wants to build......I'm sorry, "ASSEMBLE" an ARF, should not only be inclined, but required by Federal Law to see this poor mans hand on the thread listed above.

Patriot

OK, the Federal Law requirement is a bit much, as I hate the government butting its way into my life, but I think you all get my point.

Here we go again!

I'll keep that in mind the next time I pull out my poor-quality, about-to-fall-apart Composite ARF Extra.

Ill take an arf over a kit any day of the week. Id rather fly than glue my fingers together. You can tell most of the hard core builders, they dont know how to fly, but build amazing planes only to crash them...

Anyway, I can build kits no problem. Just choose not to. There are some great quality arfs out there.

Here is one of the arfs I enjoy.

AMEN!

Have to admit....I have a couple nice ARF's and have never gave safety a thought. I have an Aero-Works Edge and a Gator R/C G-202. I prefer flying instead of glueing fingers together. To each their own......ENJOY THE FLIGHT

JohnVH,

"TUCHET". You have, I believe a very valid point. More time spent building, less time flying. Thus, high quality ARF pilots have more refined flying skills. I am not a competition pilot, but do know the ropes. I do believe there are two types in this hobby, flyers and builders. Scale competitors usually are not as honed in flying skills as aero-batic p[pilots who fly the extras, giles etc. But, it seems i like the beauty of the scale built warbirds and WW1 planes. It is a skill to build, one that I enjoy. Also, a skill to fly, one you enjoy. All I can say to both of us is:
If you buy an ARF, "Be careful, check its integrity."
If I fly, "Be careful not to crash into some old lady's living room."

Patriot

Since you've taken a 15 year break from RC, you may want to go to your field and expose yourself to some of today's ARFs before you go blasting them. Jim Ross's accident was very unfortunate but it is the exception and not the rule.

not true.

[quote]ORIGINAL: yep4


I wouldn't go around saying that at my club. Some of the best builders are great flyers also

Are you the same "Patriot" who posts in the Trash bin at Flightlines Forum?

Patriot I think it clear you don't know anything about the new breed of ARF's, either get up to speed or go back to the sub. To imply that builders can't fly as well as ARF pilots is almost as stupid as saying pilots fly ARF's because they can't build. ARF's out sell kits 10 to 1 so I guess by your logic the majority of us are dangerous.[sm=disappointed.gif]

First of all, I wasn't the one who said builders can't fly. That was JohnVH. I simply agreed with the notion that, if one spends all of his time flying and does no building, then will be on average, not ALWAYS, but on average a slightly more skilled flyer. You don't see real fighter pilots in the military fixing their own planes, nor the mechanics flying them, and each for a reason. Don't get me wrong, I know that guys who have done this for a long time tend to be fantastic pilots, but I do think overall, my logic stands. And no, the sub can do fine without me. Man, people get offended way too easily.
And in response to RCFlyerNYC, No I don't believe I am the same guy, since I have never posted there.

Patriot

haha, I said Most of them crash. Which is true. Ive seen scale master vids, and alot of stupid mistakes done with some very great models..yank and bank! I will say this, there are those out there that can build amazing models and fly them very well, but there is not as many of them as there are the arf assemblers that fly well! There is nothing wrong with going either way, I enjoy building kits....just prefer to fly them.

Here's how I see things. Most of the builders "nowdays" are older guys. Sure, there are some young builders out there. As far as builders not being able to fly as good as guys who fly ARF's, I believe that it is because that the majority of the builders, older guys, simply can't see as well as they used to. I know some older flyers that have been said to be some of the best flyers around, when they were in their prime. These same guys tell me that their eyesight simply isn't what it used to be, and that their reaction time is nowhere near as good. Makes sense to me. I guess I'll find it to be true when I get their age, that is if I live that long. As far as young builders not being able to fly as good as guys their same age who build ARF's, I can't quite say. I know two guys who love to build, and they're my age, 32. They are two of the best flyers at my field, but they have been in the hobby since they were 12. I can see though, how ARF builders "can" sometimes be a bit better at flying than kit builders. Kits do take time to build, and ARFs don't. When the kit guy is at home building, the ARF is at the field honing his flying skills, which can ultimately lead up to him being the better pilot. These are not facts, just possibilities.

I have only been in this hobby for three or four years now, and I learned to fly very quickly because of ARF's. I have built one kit and the rest,which have been many, ARF's. I am not a kit builder. I do not have the time nor patience. From talking to many older flyers, ARF's have come a long way. They tell me that it is very hard to build a kit for the price you pay for an ARF, and the ARF is nearly as good in quality as a home-built. If an old-timer tells me this, you can bet I believe him. I know that it is hard to believe that any ARF can be as solid as a home-built kit, but the truth is that the ARF's are growing better and better in quality each day. Just my two cents.

John

Before this discussion tumbles into the sewer I'm gonna add my .02c.

The question is: are ARF's really safe?
The answer is absolutely yes.
JimRoss's accident is clearly not entirely the fault of the ARF. I spent about an hour going through the whole thread. I truly feel bad for JimRoss, and I absolutely appreciate the fact he shared his mistake with everyone here so that someone else will not have to go through what he did - what a GREAT guy.
Several key points to ponder:
1. A G38 was clearly outside the manufacturers reccomended engine range. The excuse was it doesnt put out as much power as a glow 1.8. Well, a glow 1.8 doesnt have the mass and vibration of a G38, therefore the firewall absolutely needed more support than was given. I would never <ever> put a gas engine on an unpinned firewall - EVER! Even JimRoss admitted as much.
2. Jim says he flew about 10 times on the combo before the incident. Was there ever a postflight integrity check of the firewall? Looking at the pictures, it would seem to me there would have been some evidence of the firewall loosening before there was a catastophic failure. Admittedly SIG has some responsibilty to ensure the firewall was better mounted, but so does the "assembler". Good on SIG for standing behind thier product and now over engineering the firewall.
3. Why would anyone ever tach an engine - especially one of this size - from the front? Thanks Jim for graphically showing why this is a very bad idea.

When you "assemble" an ARF, you share the responsibilty of its airworthiness with the manufacturer - just like you would when "building" a kit - if there is substandard material in a kit, do you complain that kits arent safe?. They are not sold as RTF, they are ALMOST ready to fly. Sure, there is no grace in "assembling" them, but the buyer still as to put them together. I too like so eloquently stated ny JohnVH would rather fly than glue my fingers together. But when I put an ARF together, I take the time to ensure that the critical areas are properly supported, and constructed. I dont trust them to be assembled correctly, I verify they they were - that is my responsibilty. If I deviate from the manufacturers recommendation, I assume the risk.

Bottom line: Not everyone enjoys the tedium of constructing a model. I appreciate the fact that you do, there are kits available for you to purchase and build. For those of us who dont, there are ARF's. So lets go fly, build or whatever brings us to the hobby, share it with those around us, and most of all, have FUN!

Roger

John,

Well put, and courteously, too.

My comment for Patriot : I've heard categorizations of Submarine guys. You've heard them, how do you like them? Like, a hundred guys go out on a Sub, and fifty couples come back. How's that for accuracy & courtesy? About as accurate as your characterization of ARF?

Your post (and mine) - waste of bandwidth. Let's try to contribute something when we post.

Good luck.
Dave Olson

Good thread......... When I got into planes about 8 or 9 years ago, I was told by a guy that I bought out, that you were either a "builder" or a "flyer". I built my first few planes, but because I was learning, I got tired of patching them back up, and gradually began buying used planes, or ARF's from my LHS. I just wanted to get back in the air, as quick as I could. I enjoyed building, but I liked flying better. A few years back, there were a few ARF planes that were very weak in construction. Sloppy, or no glue joints, crappy glue at that, and mis matched, poorly fitting parts. I won't bash names, but it was common knowledge with my flying friends, that certain ARF's had to be completely stripped down, and re-assembeled before you could safely fly them. I think that time, and word of mouth, has eliminated many of these bad situations. HOWEVER, I think everybody should at least go over ANY ARF, and check all the critical areas, like firewall, wing joiners, etc. etc. And of course, if you're going to install a larger engine than recommended, you need to beef up all those areas. My last two ARF's have come from Vector Flight. And they do a good job at gluing etc. There are even glue fillets in appropriate areas, like the firewall, etc. I think it just comes down to using a little common sense. I too, had an accident with a Great Planes spitfire, with an OS40FX running at full throttle sitting in the holder of my flight box. The end bracket, (the one in front of the wing, holding the plane), came loose and it ate my right hand. 22 stiches total. It's OK now, just a few dead to the touch areas, but everything works fine. (NO I don't have pictures). Like I said, a little common sense goes a long ways to being safe and having fun.

A g38 is NOT out of range for the Sig 300XS, sig recommends the FPE 2.4 ( 40cc ) engine for this plane and shows the engine being installed in the instruction manual. The g38 (38cc ) may be a few oz more in weight, but the FPE 2.4 makes 10 more lbs of thrust!


FYI: he called sig before the install of the g38 and they gave him the go ahead!



ON ARFS: Very hard not to go with an ARF today, unless you LIKE to build. The business of judging each other over what type of plane you have is nonsense. I see it all the time, even at my field....." is that an ARF???" .....YUP, ......Oh, guys it is an ARF. I am the best pilot at my field, I do not have one kit built plane in my hangar at this point, most of my old timers have now switched to ARFS.

We make changes to kits, we make changes to ARFS..............has a firewall NEVER came out of a kit built plane???

Scar, 50 couples is in fact the common joke, and funny one at that. Reality is, a hundred guys go out, and when they all come back, a couple of the wives have moved out and cleaned house while there man was out doing his duty.

But, back to ARF issue. I know my posting was shall we say, lacking in courtesy to some who love ARFs. I particularly think they are fine as well. My issue was, when buying an ARF, don't trust someone else to build your plane, please go out of your way during assembly to make sure it is done right. That's pretty much it. I admit, when I saw Jims hand, it freaked me out a bit. Not the blood and gore, but the fact it happened in the way it did, and to a really good guy. I have read his posts, and can't say a bad thing about him. Another reason I really added the link, is hopefully for those who have not seen it, they will, and perhaps learn from it to prevent the same thing from happening again.
I admit I am just getting back into the saddle here, but am trying to relearn as fast as possible. I just want to pass what little wisdom I have to those who may not have yet experienced this. The loss of a digit is no way to learn a lesson. I don't wish that on anyone. All I know is that if I do ever purchase an ARF, I will be more than vigilant during it's assembly process, just if I started to build it from scratch.

Patriot

I read that post too. My only input is - think about the airplane. The printed recommendation is up to 1.8FS. We're talking about a 73.5" wingspan! While I realize the website shows an FPE 2.4, and the SIG folks said go for it, lets use a little common sense. The airplane was designed for glow - period dot - the addition of a gas engine requires a lot of modification, in this case pinning the firewall as a minimum. Think about it, Jim had epoxied triangle stock to it - even he realized he was on the ragged edge! SIG's addition of aluminum to the firewall is a clear indicator they hadnt thought it out well before the recommendation of a 40cc gasser IMO this is the one place SIG really goofed - I'd like to talk to the engineer that made the initial rec to go ahead and strap on 3lbs of vibrating mass to an unpinned/unreenforced firewall. If you think a 1.8 FS can stress the firewall as much as a 40cc gas you're fooling yourself. I stand by what I posted and we can agree to disagree.

I agree that some arfs ar in the category of "barfs", but they keep me flying while i am building my next kit. Patriot you should check out Vector Flight planes. They look and sound like they are better built than most builders could achieve. Should live up to your standards, i will let you know more when mine comes in and i test fly it!

Bullfrog, let me know how well it is built, and post a pic when you get it put together. If you find anything of particular that needs fixin' or tweekin', let us know.

Patriot

Well all I know is, I really like to build, but I REALLY like to fly. There are some great ARFs out there in all price, and size ranges. I will build kits in the future, but the alure of getting to the field sooner is too much often times. There are a few ARFs in my hangar and they are all excellently built.

Patriot...Welcome to RCU, Home of the RC Experts!

quote]Man, people get offended way too easily.[[/quote]

Stick around, it gets good sometimes.

MY .02
I joined a club in the local area this year and one of the older members (20 years) told me that ARF's have brought alot of people into the sport that basically don't have the time or ability to build a kit. Another joined in the conversation and commented that he thought ARF's have saved the sport. I personnally built a kit for my trainer, a Sig Kadet Seniorita. Turned out to be a very nice trainer, but it took me 3 years to finish. My current and next planes will are and will be ARF's, I don't have the patience or time to build a kit these days. Now that I know how to fly, I want to spend as much time doing that as possible.