NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

When you finish with this poll, you can start another asking people why they don't build their radios or engines. After all, machine tools are available as are materials and components.


Ed Cregger

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

This is like the debate about R/C airplanes being a hobby or a sport. Building is a hobby, flying is a sport. (There - that's settled!)

I started in 1972 with a Falcon 56 kit and a bottle of Titebond, a used Futaba 4 channel with linear output servos and dry cells, and a new Testor's McCoy .35 with a chicken stick. Monocote was new on the scene, and CA glue was positively exotic - and very expensive. It took me 6 months of glueing, pinning, taping and getting help from a gentleman who donated time once a week to an aviation Expolrer post to get that Falcon flying. Probably had 100+ hours in labor and about $200 hard-earned 1972 dollars (at about $2 per hour, so there's ANOTHER 100 hours!) in it. NOT for the faint of heart. Back then, many newbies left the hobby after their first crash - if they even got the plane built, that is!

Today, a newbie can spend far less in real dollars and less than 10 hours time (way less, in some cases) to get in the air with a well-designed, reasonably straight airframe, a much better radio system, and a superior motor. When they find the limits of their flying ability (and Earth at the same time) they often stop at the hobby shop for a replacement on the way home and are back out flying the next week - or even the next day! They are not as emotionally attached to the plane (heck, there's a double fistful of 'em in the pits) and the cost is insignificant compared to the time. A $300 ARF (call that 10 hours pay) and 10 hours assembly is 20 hours, not 200.

Many, many builders cannot produce the craftsmanship found in today's best ARFs. Go to a IMAC contest, a pylon race, or a jet rally and see how many kit-built airframes are there. Go to a hobby shop and see what the selection looks like - 10x as many ARFs as kits. Price out a kit and the same model in an ARF - and you'll find out how much it costs for the satisfaction of assembling a kit. I've started stockpiling kits that I enjoy for my retirement, which is only 20 years away. I enjoy building. I also enjoy flying. I have 8-10 ARFs in the box, and probably 40-50 kits. I also have a CAD setup and a 36" plotter, 'cuz I REALLY enjoy designing and building my own ideas.

All aspects of this hobby/sport are satisfying. I know guys who love to build, some of whom NEVER fly - they build them and sell them to buy the next kit. I know some accomplished pilots who have never built a kit. Most of us are somewhere in the middle. I'm not interested in becoming involved in some aspects of the hobby at this time, but there are those who enjoy them as much as I enjoy my interests. Those that want to pursue building know I will help. Those that want to start flying, I recommend an ARF trainer and a kit for the second plane.

Of course, I'm not a "real" R/C modeler, as I've never built my own radio...........

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Tim, did you build the prototype of the Arrow?

Stickbuilder

Tim,

How often do you see ARF flyers have to reglue a firewall, or reattach and reinforce a landing gear rail, or hear about a wing losing it's covering in flight? Is there really any evidence of quality there, or is it strictly geared to the bottom line of Hobbico, and therefore the company song that you feel the need to sing? Maybe the pre-production prototypes do have some quality built into them, but the fact remains, most of the guys who assemble ARF model airplanes expect to have to do some structural work on these planes, just to have a chance of it living through the first flight.

I own model airplanes that have close to one thousand flights on them, and they are still structurally as sound as they were the day that they made the maiden flight. A few still have the original covering and it is in good shape. A good friend has a model that I built 14 years ago, and the covering is original, and the model has logged over 1,000 flights. This is not an unusual situation. How does the quality of the current ARF offering compare to this?

Again, this is not intended to be anti-ARF, but I personally don't feel that the guys that fool with these things are getting what they pay for. What will it take for the distributors to demand that the quality is built-in initially?

Thanks,

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

Stickbuilder

Ed,

This is a very civilized thread. Posts such as that are just begging for guys like me to get whizzed, and start unloading. Let's not do that to this one.

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

Barry Cazier

My Feedback: (17)

Stickbuilder...

My guess is that the planes you have over 1000 flights on are planes that go up...turn left once...than again and land. Short flights. Gentle flights. Boring flights.

I have many ARFs that don't make it to the 20 flights. Because I wring them out, full blown 3D. I crash them with pilot error and yet to have one come apart in the air. I fly them hard. Mostly your ARF guy is a 3D kinda guy. We don't expect 1000 flights. And I don't believe a full blown 3D plane would go 1000, no matter who built it.

Many of your ARFs, QQ, EF, AW, Air Wild, are as good as man can build them. They just don't get any better. They are built super light for 3D usage. If you go heavier you get a tougher plane. Does that mean it's built better quality? No. That just means it's heavier. And it won't fly as well. It's a real art to get a plane tough enough but not to heavy. Many of the ARF guys are doing it right. Even the medium quality planes like Great Planes and Hanger 9 do a great job on many of their products. The "performance series" Great Planes stuff are mighty good. The H-9 33% and above are as good as it gets considering weight vs. performance.

The public (me included) want light airplanes. We are willing to sacrific the plane to get it. Our planes won't last as long, but they will last long enough to do the job. Many contests are won by ARF planes. They do the job they are designed for and do it well.

I suspect many of the planes mentioned above will last (with maintenance) 400-500 flights. Buy then it will be time to get another. I'm also certain that a "stick built" plane would still be flying but wouldn't do the 3D stuff demanded by many. Just ain't gonna happen.

So build on....if you want to build go ahead. Me...I'm gonna stay with ARFs except I'm gonna build a few just to say I did it. Soon as a good 3D kit becomes available.

Thanks
Barry

Stickbuilder

Barry,

Go up, turn left once, then again and land? Not hardly. Actually one is a fairly hot profile. Remember the SIG Fazer? A couple more are purpose built fun fly airplanes. Another couple are Formula racers (and those do turn left.....a lot ). While others are competition scale models. These are not lead sleds, and no, they were not designed to flop around and hover. They were built to fly, and fly they do. There are a couple more that were built for scale aerobatics, again not for 3-D. Not all of we olde phartes fly a racetrack pattern and then sit and chew the fat with the other olde phartes. Some of us still fly them like we stole them (something that we were doing when your excretions were the color and consistiency of mustard).

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

Whistling Death

Ed, you are on your game today!

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

Yea, I sure will do some picture posting. Right now, I have a little 40 size ARF Ultimate on the building table. A nice little plane, and I did some mods to improve it, but still not much there of interest.

You would probably like the Hostetler Liberty Sport. It is huge, and full of sticks. The Pup is the same way. It is all scale, right down to the cross bracing in the wings. It should be covered with clear. Shame to cover it all up. I am a carpenter, and always thought a stick framed roof is a beautiful thing also.

Speaking of scale crimping, I have a scale Cessna 150 Aerobat, with scale crimping on the wings, and a fiberglass fuselage. It is ready to paint and cover (I bought the kit at the Toledo show a few years back, and got it that far), set up for a 70 4-stroke. Wonder if anyone would like to finish it. It will be a month of Sundays till I have time to finish it. You don't see too many good looking 150s out there.

Mode One

Well, I've lost interest in this thread, now. Too much I'm right and your wrong. I see I'm just going to have quit building R/C airplanes! Go strickly to ARFs and focus only on flying 3D, as that's what the real men in this sport/hobby do!

Stickbuilder

I'll probably get hanged in effigy for this, but here's the latest WACO that I'm working on.

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

This post would seem to be extremely inflagerous and instagatoritiously composed. The vinacular is challangiously worded and steeped in sarcasticallytoriousness.

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

Why, oh why, would you say such a thing?[] this plane is a beautiful thing.

Mode One

Stickbuilder, Are you crazy? You can't possibly enjoy doing this! Obviously this is an ARF that you have taken the covering off of, or are repairing, isn't it? You must really have loved this airplane to have gone through so much trouble! Is that made from that balsum wood?

Kidding aside, it looks like you've been having some fun and she sho looks nice!

ram3599-RCU, a little tip, try focusing, build and finish, one at a time! This has worked for me for 39 years! First R/C plane, summer 1968.

Stickbuilder

You wouldn't believe all the modifications that this one has undergone. It is a remake of the old Pica fifth scale YMF. The AMA owns the plans, and the WACO Brotherhood made the parts templates available to the AMA. Now, when you order the plans, you get the parts templates as well. This is the first time that you could ever build one of these from the plan. This one is the prototype that the templates were made from. This one even has an in-flight adjustable Horizontal Stabilizer (servo controlled) so that you can reset the incidence and make it fly tail high, without all the down trim.

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

Got me beat by one year, I think. I built my first one over the winter of 68-69 (had been flying LC for years of course) and flew in 69 with my Heathkit radio, and Cleveland Aeronca Champ. Focus? Yes, that would work. I guess I focus for a while on phases, often on multiple projects, like building, then covering, then engineering, then painting, and so on. Then I get bored or tired of all that and work on an ARF. Another problem I have is, I am always dealing. I'll get a project started, gather parts, maybe even get deep into it, and then many times sell or trade components for other things I want, which sometimes stalls out projects. I usually wind up with good deals, but it sure slows progress sometimes. All this while working full time with a wife and eventually seven kids over the years. I'll finish the ones that really trip my trigger eventually, like my Jemco P-47 Razor covered in all metal finish, and probably off others for someone else to finish, I usually have most of the hard stuff done.

krproton

Hi tailskid.

I didn't build the first prototype that was used for development and test flying. I built the second one that was used for the instruction manual and all the box and promotional photography (the "show" model)--the one you see in all the ads.

Barry Cazier

My Feedback: (17)

Stickbuilder...

That is one awesome looking WACO! You certainly can see the pride in your work.

Thanks
Barry

krproton

Hi Bill.

I'll try to answer all your questions:

1. "How often do you see ARF flyers have to reglue a firewall, or reattach and reinforce a landing gear rail, or hear about a wing losing it's covering in flight?" Mmm, I work in R&D, so I'm not on the "front lines" like our Product Support staff who fields all the complaints and talks to customers every day. Though I do get to events here-and-there and see a pretty good cross-section of ARFs and kits at our local club site where I fly. So to answer your question, I don't think I've ever seen any of the things you mentioned. But from what I hear (both internally and through external outlets such as R/C magazines, sites like this and letters from customers), I believe our Product Support department does a fair and honest job of compensating modelers for defective products. (I know there will be exceptions either way--probably there will be times when a customer feels he has been "cheated" and there are also times when we get "the wool pulled over our eyes" too and replace kits/give refunds for things that are the customer's fault).

2. "Is there really any evidence of quality there, or is it strictly geared to the bottom line of Hobbico, and therefore the company song that you feel the need to sing?" I guess the evidence of quality is in repetitive sales and the existance of the company--I mean, there is a building, a warehouse, a parking lot for all the employee's cars and lots of people inside that have jobs to go to every day. None of that would exist if it wasn't for a product that had a demand and customers who purchase those products. To take your question to the extreme, I guess that isn't necessarily evidence of quality, but I believe it is.

And when you say I am "singing the company song," well, I wouldn't do that because it's not why I chimed in on this one. I was just trying to share my own story. Anyway, "singing the company's song" would just be too transparent and I want readers to believe that what I'm saying is honest and from the heart. I was just answering Ken's original question of "why do you build ARFs or kits?" I'm just having fun here--same as just about everybody else.

3. "Maybe the pre-production prototypes do have some quality built into them, but the fact remains, most of the guys who assemble ARF model airplanes expect to have to do some structural work on these planes, just to have a chance of it living through the first flight." Well, that wasn't a question, but I'll try to address it for you anyway. Actually, the production models have more quality built into them than the prototypes. The project goes through a lengthy process and evolves from something unfinished and incomplete to a finished product. Believe me, you would always take a production model over any of the numerous previous prototypes. And I don't believe that most guys who assemble ARFs expect to have to do some structural work. Many (some) do add reinforcement, but often it's not necessary. Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one since none of us have any evidence or figures to back it up.

4. You were asking how the quality of an ARF compares to a plane that is over fourteen years-old with close to one-thousand flights? Well, I don't know. I don't know of any ARFs that old or have that many flights on them. Nor did I ever hear of a kit-built model that had that much flying either--until you just told me about yours. But I also don't think a model is going to disintegrate just because it's an ARF. Surely, over fourteen years you must have had to do SOME maintenance to your plane, no? Tighten some screws, a small repair patch, a little touch-up paint, a drop of glue somewhere? If not, well, wow! I wish your building and flying skills could rub off on all of us! [sm=wink_smile.gif]

5. "Again, this is not intended to be anti-ARF, but I personally don't feel that the guys that fool with these things are getting what they pay for." I will let "the guys that fool with these things" decide if they are getting what they pay for. Of course some don't feel they are getting what they pay for, but I feel that most probably do (see number 2 above).

6. "What will it take for the distributors to demand that the quality is built-in initially?" The only distributor I can speak for is Hobbico, (but I know other companies try as hard as they can too). We continually strive to do the best job we can. Many, but not all of the employees who have any input into model development are avid modelers (many of us award-winning) with years of experience who are passionate about what we do and the finished products we release--our passionate opinions even cause strong internal debate on how to do things the best way! One could ask "how passionate are the people on the assembly line overseas that assemble the ARF kits?" Well, this is the nature of the business and everybody (almost everybody) knows that the ARF they have purchased has been mass-produced. It is what it is. For the dollar, I submit that most of our customers feel they have gotten a great bargain--or at least a fair bargain I hope. I guess I'm just rambling now, but the bottom line is that, well I don't remember the bottom line anymore. Hey, our company, (and probably all or most companies in this business) are filled with people who take pride in what they do and truly care about the product and the customers.

I'm out of juice so that's all I got for you Bill.

Tim

Stickbuilder

Tim,

I really appreciate (and hopefully the guys that actually buy the ARF's do too) you taking the time to answer my questions. I didn't mean to sound confrontational, but reading the reviews in my favorite magazine, and reading the different threads here on RCU, I repeatedly hear about things such as firewall failures, due to too little or no glue at all. In the December 2007 R/C Report, Dick Pettit reported that the model (not one of yours) firewall had no glue in evidence on the sides of the firewall, and the entire firewall was loose. I have owned exactly one ARF, and again, not one of yours, but one from your major competitor. This one appeared to have been built using some type of hot melt adhesive, and the Firewall was loose, the retract rails had no adhesive applied, the belly pan did not come close to fitting, and one longeron was broken. I asked about this here on RCU, and the responses that I got were mostly hostile, for even asking such questions, and the consensus was that I should expect to have to do some work on the model, and it was still better than having to build it. I promptly sold the model, and have not explored another ARF. Again, thanks for taking the time to answer my concerns.

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

PJ_TankPilot

ARF vs kit threads are similar but still interesting reading.

It always seems that the majority of posters assume that when someone builds a kit, it will be better than an ARF. I personally know this assumption to be a bad one. I get asked to maiden aircraft on a regular basis. I always do an inspection first. The worst built aircraft I have been asked to maiden were kits, not ARFs.

ARFs come in good, bad and ugly. Rarely mentioned is that kits do to. If you have never had a bad kit, you are lucky. There are some real stinkers out there. Several posts have recommended that ARF people try a kit. I agree but recommend you do some research first. If your first kit is a ‘stinker’ you may not try another.

I scratch build, kit (if I can find one) or ARF depending on what the objective is. The quality of ARFs available today has changed the decision process.

ARFs have the same reputation problem as US built cars: They are a lot better than they used to be. We called the plastic fuse ARFs ‘Clorox bottles’ back in the 70’s and their bad reputation was justified. Things have changed, a lot.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

------------


Hi, Bill. I'm just one of those agitator personality types, I guess. <G>

The term "real modeller" needs to be redefined, I fear. Ditto, "R/Cer".

Plenty of ham ops would hardly speak to me when I was first licensed in 82. They were convinced that because I had a recently issued callsign, I had never worked on anything electronic with tubes. Back then, tube experience was the delineating factor that separated the newbies from the real hams. What they did not know was that I was an FCC licensed RF technician long before I bothered getting a ham tickets. After all, hams were just amateurs. <G>

Why we humans have the need to be clannish is obvious to anyone thinking of how things used to be long ago. Unfortunately, being clannish today merely eliminates the possibility that we will make lots of friends and connections throughout society.

There is nothing wrong with finding friends with similar interests. That just makes sense. Being evangelical about scratch building/kit building borders upon being a personality flaw as far as I am concerned. It is one thing to be willing to help others in one's specialty. That is good. It is another thing altogether to be evangelical, and then if they don't convert, to shun folks because they do not enjoy the same aspects of the hobby as you. I have friends on both sides of the fence. I try not to exclude anyone over such petty differences.

Yes, there were times when our hobby was much more technical than today. It had to be back then. But, time changes all. There is nothing we can do about it, except to show others the enjoyment that we have with our particular specialty. Just as not everyone is cut out to be a Marine, not everyone will enjoy building planes, engines or radios. But you know this, I'm sure.


Ed Cregger

Barry Cazier

My Feedback: (17)

Stickbuilder...

I can't believe you are as passionate as you are against ARFs when you have onlybuilt one. Actually, you didn't say whither or not you even built it. Did you? You did mention you sold it right away.

I guess I have to defend ARFs. I love them. And in this area I'm a veteran. I have built over 25 ARFs. These span 9 different manufactures. I gotta say I have been satisfied with every one of them. I felt all were a "good buy". Certainly none of them were perfect but all fit the bill for what they were. Especially as you go bigger in size and cost the quality gets better. The QQ Yak I believe is the best quality plane I've built. And the best flyer. Hard to fault it. Again, it's built very light. Mine weighs 16lbs 4ozs. It flys very very good.

I also gotta say that I'm fully capable of doing a decent repair on a plane. From landing gear problems to complete front end repair. I've even completely rebuilt a crashed wing. I've developed "building skills" from doing my own ARF builds and repairing my own crashes. (although I receive plenty of help from my friends)

I've only been in this hobby for 4 years and if I had to build every plane I've owned I'm guessing I'd of only owned 4 or so. Wow!!!! Look how much great my experience, flying skills, and enjoyment have been because of ARFs.

Another thing that is really enjoyable to me is to give my planes away after a few flights (those that make it that long) I've given away 40 size, 90 size, 120 size and two 50cc size airplanes. They were complete with servos, receivers, and engines in several cases. I gave them away so I could make room for other projects and to help less fortunate than me in our club and for the advancing of the hobby in our area.

I find the "give away" program very enjoyable and invite you and other "builders" to join in on the fun. How about that WACO for instant? Fly it a few times and then give it away to a friend. Yeah...that will help you enjoy the hobby more. Let me know what you think.

thanks
Barry

Roby

I really liked the comment about building your
own radios and engines.

I wonder if he has a family or did he just buy one
almost all ready to go.

Regards, LOL
Roby

JCINTEXAS

Barry quote:
"Another thing that is really enjoyable to me is to give my planes away after a few flights (those that make it that long) I've given away 40 size, 90 size, 120 size and two 50cc size airplanes."
__________________________________________________ _
Barry,
Please put me on your list for the planes you give away. I would deeply appreciate anything between 40 size to 55cc airplanes. I live in Texas, but I will gladly drive up to Idaho to take delivery. Let me know when to be there and I will treat you to a great steak dinner, or your choice of any other dinner.
Regards
JC
"I've got 3-green"