ARF quality
 

I just started working on my great planes venus tonight. I pulled everything out, fired up the iron and expected to have to work over the entire plane. Much to my amazement, the covering was absolutely perfect. It's a pretty complex covering job on the venus too.

I read a lot of posts where people state that ARFs are garbage and kit built planes are much better. Well maybe that's true with someone with 25 years of building experience. Looking at the venus arf and having built a carl goldberg tiger 2 kit, I can say without a doubt, the venus is built much better than I build. The covering looks 10 times better than mine does.

Now my great planes big stik arf wasn't done as nicely. It was probably on par with my building and covering skills. So that makes me wonder, did I just get lucky with my venus? Or is the venus is built on a better production line than the big stik?

RE: ARF quality
 

Wait a couple of days.....once out of the bag, they seem to develop bubbles :(

Jerry

RE: ARF quality
 

I was one of those ARF bashers. But now I'm a total convert. If the goal is to fly, the selection, price and quality of most (not all) ARF's now, it's hard to justify building one from a kit let alone scratch. Two small children also helped push me to a total ARF fleet. I never complain about re-ironing. It all depends on the temp and humidity on the particular day it was built in Asia, how many hot storage containers it sat in on the way and the weather on the day you open it up at home. You may get lucky but probably not.

RE: ARF quality
 

I remember when things built in Japan was junk, they kept improving until now, some people look for made in japan because they view it as high quality.

Now that the asian ARF builders have gotten it right, the quality is hard to beat.

RE: ARF quality
 

Seems like most arf's are pretty good now-a-days compared to even just a couple of years ago. When ever I get mad about an arf's quality I just take a look at an old Haug Superstar that I won at a club fly-in, boy what a piece of junk that thing is compared to what is offered now. The only good thing about this plane was it was an arc and I could see all the problems and fix them before I assembled it. I'm not sure what was holding this thing together because there didn't seem to be any glue any place on it and I think they used some sort of plywood for most of the construction. The wings were foam sheeted and all seemed well with them until I tried to mount the wings to the fuse, they mount on a tube like the S.E. but the hole for the wing tube runs crooked in both wing halves so it would be impossible to use them the way they are. It's a shame because I think the plane would be a riot to fly but it is just a piece of junk the way it is. Maybe I'll just strengthen the fuse sides and epoxy the wings on it some day just to see if it really flys.

RE: ARF quality
 

ARF's have come a long way, My lanier dart from years ago is a testiment to what was leading edge for the time. Now the arf planse that we buy are really kits that are prebuilt for you. Years ago they would use molded parts and tough plastic on foam to offer an alternitive to building, but now all you find is the same stuff you do to build one, wood wings, built up fuselages, built up tail feathers. In fact, the best value I came across is the Phoenix models sukhoi .46, for $85.00, and the quality of GP (minus the hardware), you can't scratch build it that cheap! For the average builder today, the arf's are right on par with their modeling skills. However in time the best ARF's out there will show their signs of poor glue joints and covering jobs, the firewalls will work loose or a joint in the wing and the covering will sag in the sunlight the first time it's left in the sun for more than 2 hours. Hell, I've even had some of mine bubble and sag from just sitting in my car for 1/2 hour. I still prefer to build but half the planes out there they don't offer a kit for, so I have to scratch build instead, it makes me laugh when I show up with one of my planes and guy's ask where they can get one. Watch how fast they walk away when you tell them that it's scratch built and they can borrow the plans to build one themselves. Today, I only own 4 ARF's because no one makes a kit of them and I didn't think that I could scratch them cheaper than I bought them for, but I stll own more kit built aircraft than I ever will arf.;)

RE: ARF quality
 

I was never really an Arf basher. Many people just expect Arfs to be perfect. Those who do are the first to bring their planes back home in a garbage bag. Arfs save you a lot of time and effort but there are a few simple modifications to do which is nothing much but if not done will cause you problems. Then they are great.

RE: ARF quality
 

funny my Big Stik 40 was nearly flawless in construction and covering bubbles... It's really just a chance with ARF's... Most are great because if they werent that is all you would hear about seeing that these days it seems like 8/10 planes are ARF's, at least in the Texoma area...

RE: ARF quality
 

Some ARFs are bad (Black Horse) and some are good (World Models/Phoenix), some are great (GP/Hangar) and other superb (Kyosho). Best is always to check things out. I got the Kyosho AgWagon and I was amazed with its quality. They have done a great job with it. Of course nothing beats a kit.

RE: ARF quality
 

Best i have ever seen is Extreme Flight...i got there Profile Edge 540T, and hands down it is the best ARF i have ever "assembled".

RE: ARF quality
 

I will never buy another Kyosho ARF, I received a Giles 202 for Christmas and in my opinion for 249.00 it was total crap! Here's why, cowl= fiberglass reinforced ABS, result? a cowl with many cracks held together buy the glass, so it ended up looking like trash, the cowl as well as the wheel pants. Construction= light-ply which delaminated very easily especially the formers inside the fuse. It was really an overpriced kit, probably because they had some Japanese pattern flyer endorse it.

RE: ARF quality
 

Just finished up my KANGKE Monocoupe ARF this is by far the best one I have seen yet .This plane looks like a very good built kit!

Lonnie

RE: ARF quality
 

The arf quality today is nothing to complain about.
Most of the ARFs i have built went together very nice and looked a LOT better than i could and a lot of people could build.
I like the Phoenix,Seagull,Great Planes,and Hanger 9 ARF's.
Arfs give you a little of everything..a little building experience and engineering,but most of all they get you to the feild to fly in a matter of hours not weeks or months as kits would be.
Here is my newest ARF from Phoenix Models!

RE: ARF quality
 

P40 ... she flies very nicely ...

RE: ARF quality
 

You have to remember what the "A" in ARF stands for. 20 years ago they were all;) real junk. 10 years ago, much better junk. Today, they really have improved, and I can't imagine how good they will be in the nxt 5 years or so...........

RE: ARF quality
 

As an avid kit builder from years back, I will admit it...ARF's are here to stay and have gotten (on the whole) a LOT better in just the last few years. With that said, I still have a couple of reservations. First, I personally WILL NOT buy an ARF from a new company (seems like more every day) until I have seen one in person, seen it fly, and seen how it holds up for several flights. There are still too many makers out there that use some version of "Crap-o-Coat" covering that starts to fall off like wall paper in a rain storm after just a few flights, and is difficult or impossible to match, or repair. Second, even a great covering job with a good quality covering job (I still only buy if they are covered with Monocoat or Ultracoat/Oracover, and a lot more do now!) can cover up poor assembly methods, with too little glue, or the wrong wood and/or structure.

I now do support some of the better ARF makers out there, but am choosey about which ones!

Lee

RE: ARF quality
 

Greetings,
I tip my hat and extend my respect to every builder that came before me that kept the hobby alive untill I returned.
Because of you, the manafacturing teqniques used to cut kits has improved, selection has been increased and you demanded better quality that I take advantage of, every single day.

I am a 100% ARFer, and have been since I got back into the hobby 9 years ago or so. I wasn't talented enough at building to satisfy my pride necessary to stay in the hobby 30 years ago.

We (ARFer's) only have you, the experienced kit builder to thank for the outstanding products that we enjoy today.

RE: ARF quality
 

Now that's a way I never thought of before! Congrats on returning.....

Jerry

RE: ARF quality
 

I have been flying a Kyosho Pitts for a year and a half and it has been outstanding.Sure,I tack some of the covering down occasionally,but other than that the quality has been amazing.ARF'S are here to stay and I think it is where the hobby is heading in the future more and more.

RE: ARF quality
 

The quality of some of todays ARF's is excellent. While I don't mind doing a kit build on occasion, the covering and finish on some of the ARF's is much better than I could do myself. I just finished building a 3Seabees Fokker DVII where I made major modifications to install a RCV 120SP engine (radial mount) where it was originally designed to use a Saito 120 in a beam mount. I used the RCV because I didn't want to cut out the front cylinders of my dummy engine to allow the Saito cylinder to poke thru. The RCV is also a gear reduced drive which allows me to use a prop that is almost scale size. I am very impressed in the quality of the 3Seabees models.

RE: ARF quality
 

hey airbear does that fokker try to nose over real bad? Like on the sym?

RE: ARF quality
 

I just finished my GP Giles G-202 yesterday and I have to say that it was immaculately built...

RE: ARF quality
 

The Fokker that has the noseover tendency is the DR1 Triplane. That is because it has a short coupling for CG and a high center of gravity.

I haven't flown my DVII yet as I just completed it but from what I understand it is supposed to be an easy biplane to fly.

RE: ARF quality
 

Never nosed over my DR-1. Not once in over 12 flights and a few extra landings.

RE: ARF quality
 

I’m building a Great Planes Venus 40 also. I bought it on a whim; it looks like my old kit built Ultra sport 40, which is 10 years old and still flying. The plane’s parts are flawless, the covering will start to sag a little when the humidity drops due to air conditioning, and the water leaves the wood. It’s got regular mono cote, so just turn up the iron and have at it, it will smooth right out. I have built a few planes in my time, I’m not exactly a hack, but I don’t build them this good. Watch the leading edge of the wing, the wood is a little thin, and will crack if you push on it too hard. The stab, wing, wing pan, vertical stab, all fit like a glove, and line up perfectly.

Imagine working on planes every day for a living, using nothing short of professional tools and jigs, your skill level would be a lot better than the average person who has time to maybe build a couple of planes per year. Thats why I think these ARFs are so good, I don't know why they wern't this good 7 or 10 years ago.

When installing the wing pan, I thought epoxy on just a 3/32 sheet edge was a little weak, so I CA. glued ¼ support blocks on the inside to mate up with the wing surface, that way you can keep the mono coat right up to the line, and not have any wood showing. Another nice thing is the standard mono coat colors; you can get all the colors at your local shop. So far I haven’t had to patch any mono coat, except on the dual servo areas. I’m using a mini servo for each aileron to save wait. The servos are smaller than standard, both servos weigh less than one single standard, and their combined torque is greater than a standard servo use for two ailerons.