Hi guys, i was just reading several posts here on RCU complaining of BAD quality wood parts in the "upper cost bracket" ARF's such as Cermark & Hangar9

THAT"S NOT GOOD![&:]

There used to be 3 ARF's categories:

1- the ones that would not fly well & their covering would fall off (no names here, but we all know which one those are)

2- the CMPro's (type); nice but some work needs to be one to make it a viable flier

3- H9, Cermark, Thunder Tiger....(an others) which cost twice the $ of the no. 2 category where you just install the gear & go fly...

RIGHT?

well lately it seems the no.3 category has "joined" up with the no.2 category in quality BUT stayed at 2x the $$...[:@]

WAS UP WITH THAT trend?
(please no bashing; just the facts)

Maybe it's because the mfgs realize that most modelers "expect to modify, change and reglue, and rebuild" a few items, so why worry about quality. It will sell anyhow.

It’s a language barrier thing

Hmmm, a few years ago I had the H-9 Miss America that had the covering on one wing come 90% off in flight.

What catagory would that fall into?

I do this regardless of brand. I would at least like to see decent covering on them which would cross one area off my list of "do-overs"
I usually get the plane, make minor mods, fly it for a season,if its worth it, I do a complete rebuild which still saves time over a kit.

I have built dozens of ARFs of many brands and build for others, so I build even more than the average guy will. Lazar cutting and CAD has leveled the playing ground for most manufacturers from a design and fit standpoint. Types of glue, airframe prep, supplied hardware, and quality of wood, fiberglass parts, paint, and covering is still where I see most differences. I find name brand kits to be better overall in all these areas and more expensive for that reason, I suspect (but still not perfect). The cheaper kits can be improved by the builder, and IMO, need to be in many cases. Hence the new term 'builders ARF'. You either spend time or money, and in some cases, both.

Personally, I prefer the better quality glass work, paint, name brand covering that I can purchase matching colors to, better hardware, and usually the lighter airframe, that these better kits build into. However, not a single 'ARF' that I have ever built, has left my shop without some mod or extra work to improve it in some way. Every manufacturer out there now, cuts corners somewhere to save money. I put the 'corners' back in, sometimes for looks, sometimes for safety, sometimes for longevity, sometimes for all the above.

It's not which catagory it would fall into but which weed patch it fall into.

I'm relatively new to RC and the WHOLE deal as far as kits and parts goes is really strange about how suppliers treat their customers . The public seems to ask for abuse ...like sell me crap ...I"LL BUY it all day long and love it !!! All the above comments are extremely interesting and insightful to someone just entering the hobby so to speak. I KNOW the situation only from a persective of 2 years history. I have been told there was a time when things were alot worst for people building ARFs or infact there were none. So to people who have been around a while they seem to accept LOW quality as just "THE WAY THINGS ARE" , sort of like how the old AUTO industry treated Americans in the 70's . We should just be thankful we have planes reguardless how poor they are, sort of backwards thinking of the 50-70s era I thinkl. My first thought as a newbee in the hobby was when they said ARF it MEANT ARF. It was a shock to see how much included parts were useless, poor quality ( not airworthy ) , warped , unglued , ect . Having to buy new landing gear and hardware as most is useless or poor quality in practiacally ever kit. But , as somestated , the public buys it regardless and seems thankful to be "HAD" .

Hanger 9 have come the nearest to meeting my expectations as a newbee and as what ALMOST READY TO FLY means. Reengineering the plane is NOT an ARF or even something I want to do at all and get NO enjoyment out of hours of working out problems to sucessfully make a flying plane .........I PAID THEM to do this at the counter.. If I use what is in the box , shouldn't I expect it to be flyable more than one time? I have found that H9 will in fact fly with the parts included. And yes beefing up seems a good idea. Also why any manufacture doesn't consider LANDING the plane a n important issue. You would think that money on the wood and landing gear would be PRIME importance. I read mag articles and 40 size planes and above are almost never built with the stock components. Why is landing gear or retracts even included I don't know , if nobody ever uses them ? Seems a waste of material , time and effort to pack the stuff. I have found H9 to be acceptable with the addition of alittle epoxy to the railings and they include better wheels than most.

Recently I bought a KMP , and frankly that is the worst quality I've seen for the price. It does look scale , but almost everything hardware wise is trash and will have to be replaced. I've waited four months for a part so I can start the building. It is a nightmare and I'm almost to the point of thowing it in the dumpster. Horrible kit. Worth maybe 150.00 not 500.00

BOught the new Cermark Spitfire and it was a much better experience .. ......... No major parts to buy or stuff that didn't fit or work. I used everything they gave me Only issue was the retract railings , which seems to be accepted by our hobby that we should be ok with buying planes that we must fix to fly new out of the box.

It seems the companies that provide a fiberglass fuselages feel like thats enought( they've done us a favor) and eveything else in the kit is allowed to be inferior quality or pure junk that has to be replaced. I don't care how scale it looks , it is still JUNK if the thing doesn't have the rest of the kit that is worth the effort to build and requires 50 hours of addition labor to reengineer and 500.00 in addtion replacement part to get it off the ground. The Cermark was the first to sort of break this feeling with me , they provided me with scale fuselage and enought stuff to actual build the plane like on the box cover. Even with the poor ply retract railings , and lack of hardwood in that area the new Cermark Spit was not bad to build ( easy) compared to someothers I've opened up lately is a baby step in the the right direction. HOpefully people will vote with their wallet and not encourage the NOWHERE NEAR RTF airplane kits.