ive been building & flying kits for over 20 years now. i finally bought an arf< hangar 9 super stick. i must say that i had to do a number of modifications to the plane to suit me and to also make it safe to fly. im not picking on hangar 9 just arf's in general. it sucks to see all the arf's coming out all the time, especially of classic kits like cubs,extra 300's,big sticks and of course the sig kadet line. i know i will stick to kits in the future.

ARFs appear to be the wave of the future. As for the quality of them, this is an issue that has been debated many times here in the forums. From what I read in the reviews the quality is getting better, as the modeling community has demanded it get better. You still read the occassinal horror story, however ARFs ar here to stay. As for myself, I love a good kit. I have not yet fallen into the buy the ARF mode, although dollar for dollar, I can see the day coming. Good luck Dave.

I think there is another issue with ARF's in that people don't have any time invested in the buildiing process, therefore they tend to be more careless about what there doing at the field. At least here in Albuquerque. They horse them of the ground and put themselves and others in dangerous positions. If the had time invested in it instead of there credit card, they might be a little more carefull about what they do with the aircraft. Just my opinion and you know what they say about those.

I have been building for over 27 years and have just done a few ARFs. I hate to see a newbie bring one to the field. Some are OK, but some are really bad. I have seen so many with joint problems, firewalls come loose and stuff like that. It is easy to fix if you catch them, but how many are flying around and don't know what to catch. It just teaches newbies to fly lesser quality stuff and not care.

Well... unfortunately you had to pick a POS like the H9 Super Stick for your first ARF, from which to form you opinion on ARF in general. It's the bottom of the barrel of what H9 sells. They called the "Super" series of ARF their "Value Series", as supposed to H9's Ultra series which are their higher rung "Premium series". Had you asked around a bit and spent just a few more buckaroos on the Ultra Stick (or any of the other better ARFs), your impression could have been entirely different. Many of the newer ARFs show amazing quality and craftmanship. Case in point, the Sig Kadet Sr. ARF I just put together is every bit as well built, if not better, than the one I kit-built 12 years ago. IMHO, it's also built better than every kit-built Kadet Sr. I've seen in the past 3 years (probably 6 total).

Then again, why do I get the feeling your mind was already made up even before you decided to buy that first ARF?

I have had to eat a lot of crow here in the last year. I used to be an ARF basher. Then I started seeing a few of the newer ones, and soon afterward, I started reviewing them. When I was awaiting the arrival of the first one, I remember thinking "Now I have to put my personal feelings aside, and give this thing a fair shake". To my utter amazment, the thing was incredable. I have reviewed about 8 or 9 since, and there hasn't been a bad one in the bunch (This coming from a former ARF BASHER!).

I still build, and HIGHLY recommend building (You need those skills for repairs!). But I will no longer bash a product sight unseen. I had to eat an awful lot of those words I said in the past.

What do you guys think about the quality of the H9 Funtana?

Thanks

But then you haven't seen mine yet . I've never yet seen an ARF that is built better than I do building my own.

However it is true that many newbie's kit built planes are very scary and of questionable safety. It's not just an ARF issue.

Geraldo, I will take your word that you're an excellent builder. Good for you. Personally, even though I started this RC hobby more than 20yrs ago and have since kit built and scratch built countless planes of all sorts, I do try to keep an objective eye when it comes to evaluation these latest ARFs - without my ego clouding the picture. Fact is, most ARFs today are built better than 90% of the kit builders can muster. An even for the other 10% who can build better than the ARF factory, the deciding advantage is TIME, not skill. And unfortunately, time is a scare commodity for the vast majority of us today.

I would much prefer a newbie show up at the field with a well-engineered factory jig-built 95% finished ARF, leaving very little for the budding RCer to screw up, rather than requiring the poor sap to try to learn to BUILD and FLY all at once. The chance of success is much higher and so is the retention ratio.

As to the complaint that ARFs needing work to "get right", well..., by all means, do it! I made modifications to my ARFs all the time - some questionably necessary, others pure builder's embellishments. Everybody's idea of what is good construction is different. ARFs and kits can end up being identical airplanes. Difference is: kits give you a package which is 20% finished; ARFs are 80% finished.

I've had a few ARFs myself but none at present. I just don't seem to get very attached to them and when I need room in the shop for more planes to build the ARFs are the first to get sold. I just assembled a shiny new 60 size Graupner Patty Wagstaff Extra 300s ARF just before the Holidays. Very nice quality for an ARF but fairly heavy construction. It was a lovely model and flew very nicely. I put about four flights on it and then was bored with it and so it got sold.

As far as kits being 20% prebuilt, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The Sig Senior kit you mentioned comes as little more than a big box full of sticks and a set of plans. Almost the same as scratch building except the ribs are pre-cut.
Same goes for the Sig Liberty Sport that I'm building currently. Big box of sticks and a vac-formed cowl and pants.

I can tell you one thing,after 27yrs of building kits,you'll never see a arf in my shop.Some may be good,but to go and say there better than 90% of the kit builders out there is saying alot.Yes some newbeis planes may not meet the best of builds,but if they like building they well get there one day.

NdFrSpeed

Kits vary in quality and ease of construction just as ARFs do. Some kits like the Sig 4* series and the Somethin' Extra practically build themselves. The running joke on them is that that you open one of these kit boxes, slip a bottle of thin CA, reclose the box and shake it for 2mins, open the box and out pops a built airframe. Even the supposed builder's kits are still a shortcut compared to the actual amount of time to cut a kit for true scratch building. Now, don't go cheatin' by buying sticks and preshaped LE and TE, neither. We all know true scratch builders stock nothing but balsa planks and 2x4 blocks. Been there, done that.

I have had no less than 40 ARFs go through my hands (bought and sold) in the past 2 years - H9, GP, TF, WM, CG, Sig, Lanier, you name it. I feel somewhat qualified in making an overall judgment on the "State of the ARF" today. I can honest say that the old complaints against ARFs, most of which were very legitimate, are a thing of the past. Common complaints such as:

1. wrong wood grain, shearwebs for example
2. Heavy construction
3. Shelf paper covering
4. shodding workmanship

are becoming increasingly N/A. Those surviving offenders won't live on for long. ARFs are getting bigger, better, flashier and more sophisticated everyday, while the cost of ARFs is making kit-building all but economically nonsensical.

Yes, one can still choose to build for the pure joy and pride of it all. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I, too, still build. But I do so knowing full well I'm just being a masochist, sacrificing spare time I don't have in order to please the balsa gods.

At the end of the day, there is no denying the inscription printed on the currency that drives this RC industry today:

[b]In ARF we trust.[/i]

I build about 50/50 ARF's and kits. I'm currently building a Sig Citabria which is almost a scratch built job with instructions. I have to agree with Volfy, almost. Many of the kit-build airplanes at my field are pretty grim. Not 90%, but maybe half. I suspect that the average structural integrity of any given airplane at the club field has improved due to ARF's. Not the other way around.

When I was "assembling" my Patrick Extra, I was amazed at the build quality and clever, well engineered, design. I simply don't have the skills or time to build that straight and true.

So...I have to disagree with the premise that ARF's pose an increased exposure to safety risks.

The scary safety issues come up when a guy shows up with an ARF, no knowledge, and no experience and figures that because he once flew a paper airplane in study hall that this thing will go for him. Our club insists that guys get help or go elsewhere. We don't want to have to do first aid unnecessarily. CTTOI, this is true, ARF or kit....

This is an issue I raised before in the ARF forum and almost got blasted with rotten tomatoes. I brought up the incident where Jim Ross lost his finger tip when taking tach readings and the whole firewall of his ARF departed, the prop then merrily took off his finger with extreme prejudice.
I know some guys don't have the time to build, but I have always had a mind-set that this hobby is about making time to do it, otherwise don't bother.
Instant gratification is nice at a fast food joint when you desire a whopper, but not when the whopper can remove digits or limbs from your person due to a lack of ketchup.
I do believe ARF's have a place in the hobby, and a big one nowadays, especially when it allows guys who want to learn to fly, and just don't have the natural skill to build. Building does require a certain level of God given talent that unfortunately some people just don't have. That's when it is up to us builders to really help them out as much as possible to ensure that their ARF's are safe before they venture into the wild blue yonder.
As builders, it is our mandate to more or less cheer them on to go into the hobby as far as possible, and try to urge them into building some day, instead of degrading them so they build up a chip on their shoulder, thus balkanizing the local club and the hobby itself.
All I can say is that ARF's are great for a beginner who knows absolutely nothing, and wants to learn. It is important I think for us to help get them into the air, and at the same time, cheer them on and teach them how to build.
Building truly is an art form to itself. One that can be learned, but also requires a certain level of talent.
Another problem though, is that with ARF's, even though we spend time inspecting before they fly, we can only inspect about 20% of the airframe, the rest is covered, so we are out of luck.[] We just have to do the best we can do.

I for one, will never trust a poor slave in some 3rd world Asian country to build my plane for me. Sure, I'm all for a global market place, that's what capitalism is all about, thus spreading freedom along with it. With engines, parts, and materials, fine. But, with manual labor building my plane, FORGET IT!!! I would like my body to stay in one piece, thank you. If I lose finger, at least I will have the inclination to be angry with myself, and not looking to file a lawsuit to blame someone else. It sounds morbid, but provides a certain level of peace of mind.

Patriot

The responsibility of ensuring the model aircraft as a whole is flightworthy and safe to operate ultimately rests with the owner - regardless of whether it started out life as scrtach-built, kit, ARF and whether the owner did the building himself or commissioned someone else to build it for him.

I too regret Jim's unfortunate mishap. I don't want to be overly critical on Jim and say that the product manufacturer has absolutely no responsibility to maximize product safety, but Jim made two decisions that, in the final analysis, were the principal causes of the accident:

1. Taching at WOT standing in front of the prop. A BIG NO NO!
2. Installing a G38 gas engine (2.3 cu.in weighing 71 Oz.), when the manufacturer recommends 1.20-1.50 (2-stroke) or 1.20-1.50 (4-stroke), most of which weigh less than 40 Oz.

Would the firewall have fallen off if the engine were a Saito 1.50 burning 30% heli fuel at full song? Perhaps. Nevertheless, going beyond the manufacturer's recommended engine range means that the modeler is responsible for reinforcing the airframe to withstand the added stress. Would you be as critical on the kit manufacturer if the accident occurred similarly with a kit built 1/4 scale Extra? Many of us reinforce the firewall on our kits, and we also do that with our ARFs as we deem prudent.

This isn't a issue of ARFs or instant gratification. Rather, it's an issue of personal responsibility with regard to ALL model aircrafts.

Glad somebody brought up the issue of saftey. When an engine rips out of a H9 Corsair or the top wing comes off a GP pitts or the rear fues breaks in half on a GP Giles it's a saftey issue. I have never seen anybody address this, they only complain about the loss of the airplane. Fact of the matter is that some of these arfs have serious structural weaknesses, some of them are hidden some are obvious all are potentially lethal. At some point the manufacturers will have to test there prducts better. Bob

90%! My arse! These ARF's are build in China and Korea by guys that could care less whether it crashes. A person who builds a plane invests the time to make it right. Anyone can believe their ARF, (ARF is an acronym for puking) is better than my home built plane but I'll put my planes (one right now) (4th plane total) up against anyones ARF any time! The same people that build sunbeam stuff at Walmart put those ARF's together.

My point on safety I think is one that only waldo and spokman seem to have grasped. It is true that the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner of the plane. But, when the plane is fully covered and only a small part of it can be seen for inspection, then how can you make sure it is safe? The only way, would be to remove all of the installed covering and go through all the joints yourself, then invest more money to recover it. Sounds like a waste of time when the whole idea is have a safe model fully built to begin with. Hence, back to my original point. And that is, it is best to be built by yourself with care to ensure integrity.

NEVER trust someone else to build YOUR plane!!!

When the industry has no standards that MUST be followed, unlike full-scale needing strict FAA certification prior to flying, then you are flying something that may look great, but because it was built by some guy who could care a less, then it is a recipe for disaster.

And yes, Jim seems like a great guy, but I will concede it would have been best for him to be behind the prop while taking tach readings. I hope everyone sees the thread where he showed his poor hand all mangled like that, hopefully it can prevent future accidents, especially when dealing with ARF's.

Patriot

Like I said earlier, ARF's have their place, but in my book, not a very big one.

Sorry, but in this instance I have to disagree. If Jim had built a kit to the manufacturer's specifications, and then mounted an engine of nearly twice the displacement recommended by the manufacturer, it's entirely likely that the end result would have been the same. He should have reinforced the firewall.

ARF vs kit will most likely be an ongoing issue, and I doubt that even ARF bashers can say that they haven't improved dramatically in the past few years. That's likely to continue. And as Volfy (I believe) pointed out, a kit built by a new guy could be every bit as unsafe as the ARF he assembled. It too would be covered, preventing the instructor from properly checking glue joints and reinforcement. Where's the difference in safety??
Dennis-

Yes DB, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Safety is a personal responsibility that is all encompassing - kit or ARF.

It dumbfounds me why checking and reinforcing an ARF is such a issue. If folks who are supposedly master craftmen view building model airplanes themselves as an art and a worthy challenge, how is it that they are stumped by a piece of thin covering film? It isn't at all dificult to peel back the covering to add more glue, tristock, and/or firberglass/carbon fiber, etc. I've done that many a times with ARFs. If you can't peel back and reapply the covering (Ultracote is great at that, Monocote doesn't like to be peeled back once attached), you can easily cut away a portion of the covering, do you reinforcements, and reapply a new piece of covering. I've done that too. If you plan the cut lines carefully and try for area not usually seen (e.g. underside of fuselage), the fix will hardly be noticed.

Heck, I've butchered up brand new ARFs, with reinforcements as an excuse, and ended up with a much improved airplane. Here's an example of one. It started out as a World Models Super Stunt 60. Mine is now an Super Stunt 120:

1. Converted it to a taildragger, with the appropriate reinforcements
2. Reshaped the tail feathers, and sheeted the bottom of the horizontal stab
3. Reinforced the fuselage forward section and firewall
4. Sheeted the top and bottom of the fuselage rear section
5. Chopped off the Stik-type wingtips
6. Added additional shearwebs
7. Added quad flaps
8. Installed a 1.20 4stroke

When I brought it out to the field, some guys asked if it were a H9 Ultra Stik 1.20. Most didn't have any idea what it was, but all thought it was a beautiful airplane. When I rattled off all the mods I did to it, some scratched their heads wondering how I did all that.

So... why should the words Almost Ready to Fly stop me from having fun building and ensuring the safety of my aircraft at the same time? ARFs save me from having to frame up from scratch and still allows me the freedom to modify. I've even turn ARF into ARC by ripping off all the covering. Do you have to do all THAT to your ARF? Of course not. You should do what you think is prudent.

If you are as ingenious and take as much pride in craftsmanship as you say you all are, then this topic should have been a non-issue from the very start.

The arf vs kit debate probably won't go away like everyone says, and yes, they have gotten a lot better. I have built a couple that I really like, but the main problem you have with an ARF only builder is that he doesn't know what needs to be beefed up unless someone goes over it and shows him. You have the same problem with a new kit builder as well though. Anyone over powering a model should at least talk to people and find out what needs to be beefed up to make it stand up to the added power. Unfortunately, if they are new, they don't know to do that either. Its kind of a double edge sword. What do you do.

They do make some pretty nice ARFs though. (never thought I would hear myself say that.)

All I can say is:

I have seen many (MANY) kit built planes go down due to structural failure.

Just my worthless .02
It seems to me, to be a matter of preference. ARF or kit, coffee or tea, Mac or PC. Its what YOU like to do. As far as the safety of ARF's vs kits, a kit can also be poorly put together. I "built" 1 ARF so far, and I changed a couple of things, like the pushrods, instead of using the cheap z bends they put in the kit. So I can't comment on ARF's after 1 experience. I love to build, so kits are the way to go for me, and eventually from scratch. But I would never "shun" anyone for having an ARF. Maybe they just like to fly and have no interest in building. Like I said IMO, its just a matter of preference, and neither "sides" should bash each other.
Joe

Bought a SIG. Cap 232 last year. If I designed it myself, it would have ended up pretty much the same. Glue joints good. The only thing I did was to put a three in. wide glass strip around the centre section. Q 42 on batt. ign. The point is, I would have ended up with the same plane with more time and cost. Yes I do a lot of scratch building on planes you can't buy as an ARF or kit.