ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

I am reading in some of these threads that there are those that believe the ARF's are destroying the hobby.

Can those of you that believe this please explain why you believe this? I say this not trying to start a beef as its all in fun. I am just curious to your thoughts on this.

I myself have reasons to build the ARF, and I am sure everyone has already heard this in previous threads. However I am! a tad bit embarrassed when I enter an event and the person next to me has a build kit be it scratch or not ask me the question about my plane "is that a kit or an ARF" I then tell them what it is and later find out their's was built from a kit/scratch, This is when I think to myself that I wish I could have said the same thing. *shrugs*

One thing is a big factor between the two and that is cost.

Randy

Re: ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Hey Randy, you were serious about the invite to debate this on another thread eh?

Well, I've posted numerous reasons (mostly tongue in cheek) but, let's kick it off anyway.

(b)ARFs;
- cheapen the hobby by making it little more than a step above Nintendo
- Are a poor introduction to the hobby, resulting in the wrong impression by people entering it (especially when left with a plane they can't repair).
- appeal to the lazy nature of humanity, resulting in less availability of good building material and tools.
- Are a safety hazard: aircraft built by underpaid employees who are driven by piecework incentives do not have product safety as incentive.
- Provide the wrong impression to the public (toys like any other, just bigger and more $)

Well, that should be good for a start. :D

Re: ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Had to help you out here (I'm not all bad) ;) .

A good friend anwers this question "if you can't tell the difference, then it doesn't matter does it?". :p

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

I don't really mind ARFs. Some are better than I could build (well maybe covered better) And since I only have time to build about 1 plane a year, ARF's help when I dumb-thumb one in. Of course that is because I tend to build the more complicated planes that take awhile.

My complaint against ARF's though is when manufactors only produce a plane in ARF form. I enjoy building and take offense that Sig doesn't think I can build a 300XS or Cap 231. I can name off plenty of 1/4 scale ARF Edge 540's but only two kits.

There is more to this hobby then spending a wad of dough to try and get an airplane to fly like a helicopter. I built a small profile in two evenings once so it is possible to build with little time if you manage the complexity of the project.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Well Jim - I usually find myself agreeing with you, but I guess all good things come to an end ... ;-)

I always recommend that beginners start with an ARF. Main reasons: (1) It's more likely to be straight, so that the student isn't trying to learn to fly with a crooked aircraft; (2) The student is less likely to be devastated (and hence leave the hobby) when he looses an aircraft that cost him $200 than if he looses something that took months to build.

As for safety - (1) There are some very well built ARFs out there, and (2) Even if the underpaid employees building the ARFs don't pay as much attention to detail as you & I do when building, they probably at least know how the job SHOULD be done, which most newbies don't. In many cases newbies don't come out to our field until AFTER they have assembled their airplane, by which time some of the kit-builds are simply beyond redemption.

Ideally I would like to have a newbie learn on an ARF trainer like an Avistar, and then an ARF low-winger like the World Models T-34, and be assisting them on gradually working on a kit-build of their 3rd or 4th airplane while they are learning to fly. If I can slow down their first build project (because they are not in a hurry to fly it), I can convince them to pay more attention to detail, and create some good habits.

Gordon

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Hmm, I would think more people leave the hobby after crashing their ARF than after crashing their built trainer. After all, if you built it, you could probably fix it.

Something about the old adage, "Easy come, easy go"..

And my trainer was an LT-40. I built it mostly when I was at home sick with the flu. I don't think it's possible to screw that plane up anymore than a poorly assembled ARF.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

It's not the "could" part that's the problem - it's the thought of putting all that work in again, especially if they barely got any use out of the first aircraft before losing it.

If the student gets enough flying time in, to get "hooked" before losing the first model that he's put so much time into, then he's more likely to be willing to keep at it than if he gets 30 minutes worth of flying out of something that he spent 4 months building from sticks.

Furthermore, anyone who quits after crashing an ARF that they had very little invested in, probably wouldn't even have tried the hobby in the first place if ARFS were not available...

YMMV,
Gordon

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Well I am in the middle of building my first kit but I am finding it not user friendly at all. The kit was handed to me and is an older kit made by mid west. The instructions are very vague. I believe this kit is referred as a builders kit not for a first timer maybe this is why I am so discouraged. The name of the kit is called the Beercat livewire, yes thats right not bearcat but Beercat. Its considered a bipe trainer with a closed cabin.



The kit has set on the bench now for over three months. Any suggestions are welcomed.

Randy

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

I think you're right. Then maybe the question should be, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Edit In:
Blackie: Your first kit is always the hardest. Basically share here what has you stumped. Nothing like putting a couple of hundred minds on a problem.

Re: Re: ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Point #1. At one time (long before I was around I am sure) I beleive that it was fairly common to build ones own radio system, or at least assemble one from a kit (Heathkit I think??).

Do we do that anymore, I think not. Has the availability of pre fabricated radio systems cheapened the hobby? Or has it made it more accessable to the masses of people who dont have time or knowledge of how to accomplish such a task as building a TX.

Point #2. If you smoke the earth it wont matter much ARF or kit, in many cases both will be unrepairable, unless you build bricks that could survive a nuclear blast, in which case you would be better with the ARF cause it would likely be lighter and fly better.

Point #3. Less good building material and tools??? Last time I checked ARFs are still built of balsa and ply, how can that possibly reduce the amount of avaiable material???

Tools??? Less tool availability, I am sure that Snap On is not terribly concerned with the modelling industry and will continue building tools for some time to come.

Point #4. No the safety hazard is the first kit built by a beginner who has no clue what he is doing and had no one check it out, so on the first flight it falls apart, or is built so crooked no one can fly it. At least there is some consistency in ARF's.

Point #5. They are toys, and for the most part the public doesnt even know this hobby exists so how does one form an opinion about something they dont know is there?

Once they do find out I am sure more will be driven off by the fact that we only build complicated kit models that take months of effort and time only to have them crash. If they can just buy it and fly it they are more likely to try it and thus get hooked and continue in the hobby (building kits if they so choose).

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

That is all fine and good IF there are kits to build. I believe what we are slowly coming to is an ARF only hobby... Like I said early, I am having a heck of a time finding kits to build.

Oh, and for the record, I WOULD have rather built my transmitter.

And true, if you "smoke it into the earth", it probably won't matter if it's ARF or not. But the majoriy of crashes are not total losses. Ripped out gear, cracked wing parts, etc.. Most ARF owners I've seen with these problems improperly repaired them. Leading to more crashes, more bad repairs...

It all boils down to the fact that you get out of it what you put into it.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

What kind of kits are you looking for? I have never had a problem finding one.

Build a TX in your basement that can do what a Futaba 9Z can do and do it with the same reliability, then go and build me an engine that will match the YS 140DZ, and I need 2 of each matched for my competition models (which are essentially ARC's and are basically identical).

If you dont completely wipe out your model in a crash then you are not trying hard enough. :D :D :D

Just for the record I only have one ARF and have not finished it (had it for 2 years, see not even enough time to build an ARF). It is an EZ Beat On 50 and is remarkably well built, straighter and lighter than most of the sport pattern models guys build from kits.

Almost all of my building is from pattern kits (kevlar/carbon fuse, foam balsa wings) so its not like I have not seen it from both sides.

I am currently building a Seduction FS, a ZN Line Evolis and will soon be into my new ZN Line Enigma.

I just think that the ARF's are ruining the hobby is being blown way out of proportion.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

I would never recommend an ARF as a first plane. Consider this: many people are over anxious to get up in the air. They think that flying an airplane is no different that driving an R/C car, (Or playing Nintendo). Building their first plane does several things:

1 It gives them time to "cool their jets" and realize just what they are getting into.
2 It gives them time to talk to club members and get some "Ground School".
3 It gives them the opportunity to learn valuable building techniques which we ALL know will be coming in handy some day.
4 Building (in many cases) is like flying, you need to learn certain steps first. Then take one step at a time. If you start out with an ARF, then go to an intermediate ARF, and THEN try to build something, you have essentially skipped two of your first steps.

Who, as an accomplished flyer, wants to build a trainer as their next plane???? Obviously, no one! So what do they build? maybe a war plane, or a biplane, or something else that has building techniques which are WAY over their heads because they have never even laminated two pieces of wood together (steps they would have learned building their trainer). Look at the situation that Blackie is in. If Blackie had started building back when he started flying, granted, he would still be cussing out the bad instructions (We've all been there) but the problem wouldn't be a production stopper.

*Note to all ARF'ers who want to try to build: Take a look at something like the SIG Wonder, or SIG Ultimate Fun Fly. These are two kits that are a snap to build, won't cost a fortune, and you can have a BALL with the finished product!

Are you going to do a lousy job on your first plane? Hell yes! But the next time you build, you will remember not to build two right wings! Which kit would you rather have a ton of balsa filler on, your $80 trainer, or your $160 Pattern plane (Or Extra, Cap, Edge, etc)

Sorry, this argument doesn't hold water with me either. If a newbie was going to build for the first time, I would give him my phone # and tell him that if there's something you don't understand, of doesn't look right, call me. I don't want a dangerous or warped plane on my field either. But not long ago, there was a thread about a regular park-plane flyer who came to the field with his first Glow powered ARF which ripped itself in two on a low pass because he didn't know that he was supposed to GLUE the two wings together! (A builder would have known this!)

And to address some of can773's comments. You're right, if you smoke it, it doesn't matter what it was. But I just spent the weekend an hour from here helping a guy (an accomplished flyer BTW) who couldn't fly his Tiger ARF anymore because one wing bolt hold-down was broken, and he had no idea how to fix it.

And as far as your #5 comment goes, imagine this: First, remember that the general public doesn't even know this hobby exists. So when they hear about it, are they impressed? Well, imagine that you go to someone's house and they want you to look at their collection of "Tall Ships". They tell you, it's really exciting because "They really float!". and you see these beautiful sailing ships with all of the rigging and brass and you say"Wow, that's cool, did you build them all by yourself?" and they say, "No, you just take them out of a box and put them in the water!"

Not so exciting. Hmmmm, sounds like toys.

As a final note: My all time favorite airplane kit (The GP Ultra Sport) is no longer available...

But you can still get the ARF!

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Ok I'll bite............ My first plane was an Avistar, an ARF. I bought it before I was in a club. It was a cinch to assemble and take to the field and learn how to fly with an instructor. My second plane, I built, it was a 4* 60. I remember getting home and opening up the instructions and thinking " What the hell is CA, what the hell is a leading edge, what the hell is a former. When I went for my next flying lesson I asked my instructor all these questions and he explained them to me. After that the plane building was a piece of cake. So IMO I think a first plane should be an ARF so the student can assemble it, find a mentor to learn from, then build because he's gonna have a ton of question to ask.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

How about a good 1/4 scale Giles 202 or 300? How about the Katana or Extra 330? Or how about a 60 sized Edge 540 (DL designs is the only one I've found)..

You CAN find these, sometimes. But you really have to look. But how many ARF's are there of these?

Onto warbirds, how about a good 40 sized p-40? Heck, the only 60 sized I know of now is the Top Flite.

These are just the off the top of my head.. And I could build a 9Z. The electronics would be a challenge but possible given good instructions and I know I could program it much better.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

ARTFs are not all bad, what do you think you are getting when you buy a ready built plane off of ZNline or PLprod?

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

So is the new home for the ARF's are King link?
http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...924&forumid=59]

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Midwest makes a 25 ish% scale G202

Desert Aircraft sells a 40% Katana S, and a 2 meter Funtana (3D version of the 2 meter (1/4 ish scale) Katana)
Aeroworks also sells one
PL also sells a 2 meter kit of the Katana (used by Seba in Ireland at the worlds)

ZN Line makes a 2.5 meter Extra 330S (33ish % scale) kit, they also make a 25ish% scale Extra 300S

The edge you already found one, and I am sure that you could find a few warbirds if you looked around. Spend a little time and you will find what you are looking for, I found these in all of 3 minutes.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Originally posted by MinnFlyer
4 Building (in many cases) is like flying, you need to learn certain steps first. Then take one step at a time. If you start out with an ARF, then go to an intermediate ARF, and THEN try to build something, you have essentially skipped two of your first steps.

Nah. As I already pointed out in my post that you replied to, you can help the guy learn to build his next plane while he's flying the first one. He doesn't need to understand which part is glued to which other, in what order, in order for him to learn to fly. Building and flying are two completely different skills, and are not interdependant - you can learn either one first. BTW, for full-scale flying, I'm really that I learned to fly before I started work on building full-scale aircraft ! ;-)

Not all kits have bad instructions like the one Blackie is experiencing, so there is no need for your trainee's first kit build to be a disaster... unless he refuses to listen to your advice about kit selection, or you fail to give him such helpful info.

Plus, you are assuming that everyone wants to learn how to build - maybe they don't, and why should they have to if they can buy ARFs or ready-built models ? I have designed various model airplanes of my own - yet I am not arrogant enough to insist that no-one else should fly model airplanes unless they have first designed their own one in order to have a rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics; I have built my own TX and RX, but am not arrogant enough to assume that everyone else "needs" to do the same in order to properly understand how their R/C system works... I also built my own car (the one in my avatar) - but I'm not arrogant enough to tell everyone that they should not be allowed to drive a car until they have built their own... (etc, etc) so why on earth should a model airplane be different ?


In my experience of the local guys who hate ARFs, much (but not all) of the ARF bashing is just misguided snobbery. Kit building is the way they did it, so it's obviously the only valid way.

In some ways this is like the debate that pops up periodically over in the jets forum, where there are die-hards that insist that you absolutely must use a ducted fan for your 50+ high-speed flights and your turbine sign-off . I had one guy lecture me about how I (as an AMA designated Turbine sign-off CD) should not allow sign-offs that used high-speed prop planes, because the experience gained in flying a ducted fan is in his opinion invaluable when you transition to turbines. Turns out this guy hadn't even ever flown a turbine yet, so he had no clue whether his much vaunted DF experience was useful at all, far less invaluable... but in order to feel that he didn't waste his time flying DF's first, clearly everyone else should follow the same path as him, and I should force them to do so before signing their turbine waiver. Go figure.

BTW, since you said your favorite kit is no longer available - if its your favorite, presumably you built at least one already, so you should have old plans and/or parts tracing lying around, right ? So, just scratch build the airplane. I've done that often enough for out-of production airplanes. If you can assemble parts that someone else cut, its no big step to cutting them yourself. ;-)

YMMV, which is fine.

Gordon

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

can773, I meant 1/4 scale for all of them. I know there are some larger kits but that isn't what I'm looking for. Midwest's is close (27%) but that's it. Believe me, I've searched... There are some choices here and there but not like the 1/4 scale ARFs that you see everywhere.

My point is, ARF's are REPLACING, not supplimenting kits which, IMO, is a BAD thing. I do NOT hate ARFs but really resent the realization that someday soon, I may have to start scratch building to avoid them.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Randy,
I am not an ARF fan by any means but I try to keep an open
mind and observe what's going on around me and why.

ARF's do have a place in this hobby but are ignored or looked down on by many. (usually by people who build well). I'll try to
give you an example from my experience at some scale meets.

You show up with ,lets say a Spitfire, Your pride and joy,you built
it ,detailed it ,and went out above and beyond normal effort to
make it nice. This of course took many weeks of work.

No sooner do you set up your tent when a guy shows up with
his Spitfire that is an ARF complete with weathering and all
panel lines. Even though many of the details may be wrong,
this is the plane that gets much of the attention and the "item"
that "you "are now measured to. This doesn't give you a warm and cozy feeling toward the ARF.

Sometimes I feel a little sad for those people who may be missing
out on 50% of the fun of model airplanes but it's their choice.
However...........many of the builders I know are doing the ARF
thing.......nothing wrong with that but they have paid the dues
and understand structures,loads,etc. and how the whole package
works from the inside out. (huge benefit)

This past weekend I went to a scale fly-in ,50% of the planes
entered were ARF's. I am embarrassed to admit that I brought
the only ARF I own to a scale meet. (GP Ryan STA). I had to
swallow my pride but I did want to fly my new plane.

ARF's have come a long way but in my opinion..........still have
a long way to go. I don't plan on getting another for quite some
time...if ever.

FYI at a scale event when it comes to pilot judging , I don't
vote for any plane that didn't fly and /or any ARF's.

Roby

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

I really don't understand the big argument here. My first plane was a GP FW 190 arf. I still have not flown this plane. However, I did learn a great deal about repairing on this plane. (it was in need of some serious tlc) My second plane is also an arf (solo trainer) I have had 4 crashes with this plane. All repairs were done by me, and the plane is airworthy still LOL. my third plane is a GP Easy Sport 40 an arf, and a really sweet flying plane on a super tiger 40.
My fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh planes (Tiger 60, Hog Bipe, Cloud Dancer, and a Mosquito) are all kits. I am currently working on the wing for the Tiger. I would not have ever thought to try this, if I had not learned on my arfs first. This is just my opinion. Loren P.S. The FW 190 flys excellent, on a 46 fx, my buddy Ric flew it for me. It only required some aileron trim on the first flight, and landed in one piece. My rookie repairs worked! Like it or not, arf are here to stay. (Imagine the threads when the manufactures perfect the fiberglass fuses like Kyoso's AT-6)

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

I'm glad this isn't an option anymore. We already have so many complaints about radio interfence when the equipment is built to very tight standards.

It makes me shiver to think that people want to build their own transmitters. :)

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

I bought my first plane ever in the fall, built it over the winter and took it to the field in the spring to see it fly. This was the first time that I had ever seen an RC plane fly. I had no idea that any of the club members would have helped me because I had never been to the club before. Over the years I had seen several others arrive at the field, the same way I did. Having an ARF would have helped us all.

This was the first and last plane that I have ever built. Not because I don't like RC, but because I don't like building.

Most people feel that if you are into RC that you enjoy the building side as well. This isn't always true.

My next plane will most likely be an ARF so that I don't have to go through the pain of building.

ARF's versus KIT's the saga continues
 

Wow! And I thought this subject truly was the proverbial dead horse. :surprised

While others just like to 'stir things up' a bit. ;)

Seriously, this subject can be taken two ways.

1) "ARF bashing snobbery" where people genuinely "look down their noses" at people who do ARFs

2) People who are genuinely concerned with the impact (pun intended) ARFs have on the hobby

The first category is typical stupidity from weak minded people and requires no comment. :stupid:

I like to think I'm in category #2.
For example, just this weekend I was told by an ex student of mine about an ARF seaplane they bought. The engine pylon wasn't glued in! It was tight enough to fool them during assembly but, on maiden, full throttle pulled it out! Luckily no one was hurt! :mad:
This is a popular ARF from a well known manufacturer! Even the most inept builder would be unlikely to miss that step... OTOH, an underpaid piecework type person who's under strong incentive (produce or be fired) is much more likely and it shows in the horror stories we've all heard/read/experienced (I've re-built quite a few for students). Even if 50% of the stories are fables, it still leaves an unacceptably large number of incidents to be accounted for.... :eek:

It would be bad enough if this were an isolated incident but, it's not. Not only can this situation (and others like it) lead to bad experiences with the hobby but, it causes me great concern for safety. :mad:

Oh, and I once built a heathkit radio back in the '70s. :cool: :D