johnc1go

My Feedback: (9)

I think it would be a good idea for RC clubs across the country to mandate that new joins will build their first airplane from a kit or from plans, of ARF's allowed as first airplane. Now I don't expect this will get alot of play from people as it would probably have the adverse affect of limiting the number of new recruits to the sport of RC flying.
How many times have you seen a new guy join your club with the latest ARF only to go out and dork it within a week of soloing? He then comes back with a cobbled up heap of wood and covering that can barely hold itself together on the ground let alone in the sky. This new guy knows nothing about repairing broken airplanes because he doesn't understand how they are put together. The new guy also is careless with his new airplane because he has very little time and heart in building it.
I don't have a problem with ARF's in general, I own a couple of them, but I have also put in my time building airplanes from sticks also. What I see more often now is this new generation of RC pilot that has little regard for his plane or airplanes around him because he hasn't put in the time and heart required to build from a kit. This "throw it away, I'll get another one" mindset is in my opinion bad for the sport.
So there it is.....I tossed it out there, I'd like to hear what some of you fellas think.

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

I imagine that most Nascar drivers would be as inept trying to fix their racecar after slamming into the turn four wall from getting bumped. Flyin' and buildin' are two completely different skill sets, and some are good at one or the other. Sure, I think that anybody ought to be able to replace a fuel tank, mount wheels and prop, but crash damage and structural construction are foreign concepts to some who are good flyers.

I do think that instruction in the basics of aerodynamics and aircraft systems should be taught along with stick wiggling, though.

yellerchamp

My Feedback: (42)

yeah I remember after earning my pilot's license my instructor said now before you fly you must build your first plane.................

RVM

I don't care what they fly. I just want a good selection of kits to build like there used to be.

Mode One

No! This is supposed to be a hobby, done for fun, remember? We have enough mandating already! I understand where your coming from, but, can not agree with your position!

APIA

If that were the case, there would only be a few in my club...

johnc1go

My Feedback: (9)

Thanks for the input fellas. I knew I was taking a very idealistic and un workable position on mandating kit building when I started the thread, I was trying to show that the new generation of RC'er is much different in mindset than the salty dogs that came of age when the acronym ARF was unheard of. The first club I joined had some guidelines I had to follow to get in and there was a strong degree of pride from the club guys for what they did. To join my club, I had to first attend three consecutive meetings, then I had to not only have my AMA card, I also had to acquire a fully functioning plane. The plane had to be be inspected for airworthiness, and then all who were present at my third meeting had to vote me in or out. Nowadays, the clubs just seem to want to grow their membership anyway they can.....get your AMA card and send us a check and you're in the club.
Well enough about that, this is a thread for kit building, I suppose I should be talking about this at the clubhouse forum instead.

inverted flyer

difficult to mandate it - and arguably not a desirable thing -

it's like some people are Q and some are James Bond ...that is, some are great at making and some at piloting/trashing planes - so it would be unfair to exclude the guys who have a talent for piloting but none for building ... .... most of us are in between

I don't have any ARF's and totally see the point in what you say - I wouldn't be flying today if I hadn't built my own planes and been able to repair them - and it brings you a whole new dimension as you understand the structures of the plane etc.

I think the best thing is to encourage kit building and point out the huge advantages...and to have a culture of respect the great cradtmanship that goes into a well built kit - everyone can appreciate the lighter weight, clean joints and custom covering job that only kit builders can get - lead by example ... my glow 4 stroke powered SSE flies at 76oz with a full tank and it looks swell too - an ARF SSE can't hold a candle to it

i.f.

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

[quote]ORIGINAL: Johnc1go-RCU

Thanks for the input fellas. I knew I was taking a very idealistic and un workable position on mandating kit building when I started the thread, I was trying to show that the new generation of RC'er is much different in mindset than the salty dogs that came of age when the acronym ARF was unheard of.
[quote]

May be that most 'salty dogs' built kits for that very reason----there weren't any ARF's to choose from, or very few of any quality. Time and experience benefitted more than the r/c flyer-- the ARF makers got a lot better, too. Remember back in the late '50's and early '60's when the little hand-held Japanese transistor radios got popular? Our Tx's today have more range than those little radios did, but look at what's out there now. The progression of ARF's will be this way, too; like it or not, we better get used to greater availablility and better quality ARF's, and maybe the same, but more likely less, good kits.

I much prefer kits, because of the individuality when you build your "own" plane. Bur face it, when you can get a couple of ARF's done and be flying them both and having that kind of fun, while the kit is still only half-built, it makes a great argument for ARF's. I'll continue to enjoy both.

jamie_duff

Again, as others have voiced above I dont think any new rules are the answer.

I do agree with what you say though. IMO those who have no interest in the engineering are dangerous in the air. Not due to any lack of flying skills, but due to a lack of understanding of the loads involved. Anyone care to collect figures on the number of inflight structural failures of ARFs compared to kit, scratch or plans built models? I suspect that the builder would be less likely to pull the wings off than an ARF.

Then there's the attitude difference. I do believe that the "disposable" mindset is more common in ARF people, whereas those who build do not consider crashing an option. Of course, to every trend there are exceptions, but at my club you can bet your boots that if it's windy and there's only one model flying - it's the ARF guy flying it.

I used to have a friend who took an interest in the hobby a few years ago. Not being very good with his hands I built him his first plane - which he destroyed trying to fly by himself (he was good on MS Flightsim - how hard can it be???). Being a bit p'ed off he then furnished himself with 3 ARFs and become the most cavalier, reckless person I've known with a model. Flying at dusk, strong winds, passers by on the runway, no insurance - you name it. The guy was an idiot. To the best of my knowledge, he still is - I haven't spoken to him for a while. This person is real, and yes he's extreme. He's a manifestation of everything the conciencious flyer fears............

The funniest thing was his first winter. Complaining about the bad weather and the lack of flying I told him that winter was the building season. He screwed his nose up at me (I have a P-51 on the bench, as well as a Mossie and a T-6. I also stripped my P-47 for re-finishing) announcing that building was boring. Yeah, well I have two halves to my hobby - he's twiddling his thumbs for 6 months of the year.........


As said before, leading by example is the only real option. Selling the idea of setting aside the ARFs and at least trying a build is the better way to go. No-one's expecting Scale Masters quality, but basically if you want a scale model (be honest - is there a single "scale" ARF that doesnt look stupid?) , if you want a safe model (plastic clevises, dry joints anyone?) , if you want something slightly different to the norm - you gotta be able to build.


In short, I personally feel that the ARF route encourages newcomers to think "toy" rather than "several pounds of wood and metal hurtling round at 60mph".

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

Great points, Jamie, and typical Yank fashion, I agree and disagree with each one of them.

My first thought at your comment, " 'disposable' mindset is more common in ARF people", is that if I have $500 to $1000 invested in an ARF, I hardly consider it disposable, and still use due care and judgement when I fly it. On the other hand, when I stop and think about it, I do seem to use even MORE 'due care and judgement' when it is something I built from a kit, and it's a windy day. It may be the same or maybe less money involved, but how do you measure the amount of time and sweat, and sentiment wrapped up in a kit that might be less so in an ARF?

I have seen more than a few kits come apart in the air from overstressing an 'underglued' airframe, may be as many ARF's but I haven't really compared. When you take your comparison regarding "interest in engineering" and "lack of understanding of the loads involved" to the full-scale crowd, I think the extreme minority of general aviation pilots have much of a clue about how their planes are put together. They trust the mfg's and their engineers to know that stuff. True, they do need to know their plane is incapable of an 8 g turn without folding it up, but not necessarily the construction techniques that prevent them from it.


I agree pretty much with your last two paragraphs; it's hard to understand why someone would consider building as "boring". I consider it one of the most relaxing and enjoyable things I do (flying is the other). I think "twiddling his thumbs" might be a poor choice of words for sitting idle, though. Isn't "twiddling our thumbs" what we do when we're flying?
And I have seen some ARF's that look really good, but yeah, there are some stupid looking ones too.. BUT, what you said about "if you want something slightly different from the norm, you gotta be able to build" is right on the money.

The guy you mention sounds like the personality type who cannot build because he has no appreciation for the engineering, nor the patience for the task, and although he might be fairly good at the sticks, hasn't got a clue about the concept of safety, prudence, or cause and effect. If not r/c planes, he's probably just as dangerous driving a car.

I haven't said one one about one of the original ideas in the thread, the one about making a rule. Doesn't even bear consideration; too many rules already, trying to protect idiots from themselves, while doing nothing but hamstringing everyone else.

rcmiket

While your at it make them build there own radio and brew there own fuel. I love to build and fly ARF's and the problem is?

blw

My Feedback: (3)

There are people who build their own radios. Some make their own fuel too.

I've seen some of the if-I-crash-it-I'll-buy-a-new-one attitude. I don't think that makes them as safe as someone who has some sweat put into their model. I have to agree with Jamie.

David Cutler

Excellent point.

When I started in the hobby, we had to do precisely that. In fact it is the lack of cheap radios to buy at the time that made me shy away from radio control and stay as a control-line flyer.

It's only recently, when I came back into the hobby that the freely available stuff hooked me again. If I had to cut out my ribs by tracing their outline from the drawings on the plan, and build a plane without any instructions at all, I probably wouldn't have bothered coming back.

-David C.

hopkimf

My Feedback: (56)

Building a plane certainly gives the modeler the opportunity to learn construction details and some insight on how to repair a model after a crash. But building and flying are two separate subjects. Many (not all) of the builders I've seen are better flyers than the ARF crowd. I believe the reason is the builders have been at it for a long time. I've also seen ARF pilots who started with a simulator, and flew their first ARF immediately. Some have developed into skillful pilots quickly. Whether you build or not, the key to success is knowledge and effort.

My only concern is with the ARF pilot who isn't really into the hobby. That's the deep pockets type that buys a big, fast plane way before he's ready for it. It's irritating to watch these types at the field, and there is the potential for serious problems. That's the same group that gets into motorcycles, boats, full scale planes, etc. just because they have the bucks and it's something to try. It would be interesting to hear how various clubs handle this situation with rules, training, etc.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

Then there are the videos of guys happily crashing their ARFs. I've seen a number of those on RCU. Maybe it is just me, but I don't really like seeing someone intentionally destroying nice planes.....

aimmaintenance

Maybe it's a bit different in my club but I can think of several guys that started out flying arfs and after a couple years went ahead a built a kit. They still fly and buy arfs but now they are hooked enough on the hobby to build kits also.
I think arfs are great. (and I've never had one) I think that we would have fewer people in the hobby today if it wasn't for them.
I think if you sit back and watch for a couple years you will see the same thing that I have. People will start with arfs then turn to kits after the hook is set.

dmcmike

My Feedback: (14)

someone is going to make a large amount of $$$ one of these days, re-issuing some of the old 'classic' kits, i.e. the AAMCO line (Aeromaster), some of the old TopFlite sport/pattern stuff, Midwest, Veco, Goldberg, Sig, and on and on. With the advancement of technology in laser cutting the parts, once the file for a particular kit is setup properly, a lot of these can be done as single kit runs or short kits. and I'm pretty sure that the licensing details could be worked out with the original designers / manufacturers of the models, with a fee paid for each kit. Hey, they're not getting any royalties now, are they?

But requiring a new 'modeler' (and I use that term loosely here) to build his first model is a bit of a stretch. Yes, I started out when the only arfs available were ugly, heavy plastic things that didn't fly very well. Remember the old Lanier Arfs? There wasn't much choice if you wanted a good flying model, you built it, simple as that. And while the new Arfs' are tempting, look good, priced reasonably, fly pretty well, they're still not built by a 'modeler'.

Now if the ARF manufacturers were smart, they'd start making available a Kit of the planes they offer as Arfs, probably boosting sales, reputation and the bottom line!

acobra

My Feedback: (40)

OK, here’s my two cents worth. There are two kinds of R/C’ers now. There are the flyers, the ones to whom flying is the major thing in this hobby and there are the modelers.
The flyers may or may not build; most likely they buy an already built model or an ARF. They think that flying a plane is all it’s about. To a large margin they are those who are coming into the hobby at this time. They have income that allows them to purchase their way into R/C with minimal time or skills involved. This is what the mass marketers are focusing on, disposable income and lack of time, therefore that is where they place almost their entire product so it is the most visible part of the hobby to a newcomer. Even if someone new to the hobby was inclined to build, his (or her) choices are very limited due to the lack kits, local hobby shops and mass information.
Some of these flyers thankfully, will become builders down the road if they are so inclined and at that time they will become modelers.
Modelers who both build and fly are the true backbone of this sport and to paraphrase none other than Burt Rutan who commented that while ARF’s have there place in the hobby if true kits and true builders disappear the hobby itself will die within two generations. Modelers are the modern day equivalent of the “Renaissance Man�. They must posses a great variety of skills not just that of flying a R/C model. Admittedly most of those coming into R/C today will never become modelers, they will remain flyers, hopefully the ARF’s will bring in enough new blood that those who do chose to become modelers will be enough to make up for the “die off� present day modelers.
To try to force a flyer to become a modeler through an imposed requirement is a noble thought but that is all. We must encourage and educate them to the full enjoyment of this hobby buy leading them into the building side as well. We also need to let it be known to the suppliers that if they don’t give some support to the building side they will eventually lose all those windfall ARF profits.

Frank

fokker20planes

Here is an idea I did not see mentioned. (If it has been my apologies!) Why not have an experienced builder (That is also a club member) put on a kit building class. Those club members who want to learn to build, can sign up and participate in building a real kit. It could be a trainer like a Sig kadet etc. and when the students have finished building it, it would then double as a club trainer. Don't make it mandatory to build a plane, but give them an opportunity if they want to learn without the fear and stress that some might feel. Just a thought.

Kwigen

There is the other side of the coin. Guys who build great airplanes who aren't very good pilots. They are a much smaller group then flyers who don't build, but I'm guessing we all know someone who fits that mold.

I think our biggest challenge is to connect with the younger ARF/electric park flyers. Let's face it, we are at a time in our hobby where going it alone is easier then ever, and a time will come when some of these flyers will step up to larger AC with stronger radios. They may not be familiar with the rules of the RC sky, or the general courtesies of our hobby.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

I've watched the thread develop with a bit more than just passing interest. As a builder I am definitely frustrated at how good kits are pushed off of the market because of ARF's coming onto the scene. As a moderator of the Beginner's forum I've watched as some people who swore up and down that they could NEVER build a plane because they just don't have the time or the skills, but then after they actually tried it they are completely hooked on building. The didn't realize that it's not as hard as it looks. So because of that I think that everybody should at least try it once, although I know that most will never try it.

But with all that aside, here is the point that I would like to add to this discussion. I think that REQUIRING somebody to build before they can fly is a very very bad thing. Think about it this way. They people that build now do it because they love it. They love watching the plane that they build take to the sky, and they took the time to build that plane properly because it's their plane and it was a labor of love building it. But if it's required for everybody to build a plane before they can fly I can assure you that there will be a group that will want to slap it together so that they can fly. So instead of a well built reliable plane they will have something that was put together anyway they could make it happen. This could, and would, result in some planes trying to be flown that are truly dangerous because they weren't built properly. These types of planes could be dangerous to even put in the air. The point I'm trying to make is that you just can't force somebody to do what they don't want to do.

I do think that a lot of these people that fly ARF's should have to learn to repair their planes too. How many times have you seen somebody damage an ARF and just throw in the trash barrel because they don't have the foggiest idea of how to fix it?? And why should they fix it anyway, they can just buy another ARF and get back in the air by next weekend? I myself have pulled more than a few ARF's out of the trash at the field that I have repaired and put them back in the air as good as new. Sometimes this is a good source of income for my hobby account when I resell those repaired planes to others in the hobby. Heck, once I even sold it back to the guy that crashed it. He bought it from me because I was selling it for less than they new ARF would have cost so he saved money that way.

I may get a large amount of flak for this next statement, but I feel that the ARF's built today are designed and built with the attitude that they won't last forever. I'm not saying that they aren't built well, because I have seen some truly amazing ARF construction jobs in the last few years. What I am trying to say is that I don't think that you'll see somebody with a 10 year old ARF, or an ARF that has 400+ flights on it. They just aren't built for the long run or with durability in mind. The planes will simply wear out in time. But how many built planes have seen that have that many flights on it?? I see them all the time. I have one that I build that broke 400 flights last year, and I have another plane build by a master builder at our field that is 15 years old and is still as good as the day he built it.

I do know that the comments about the durability of ARF's is a bit off topic, but I felt that it does go along with our discussion here. One last comment and I'll put the soapbox away, I promise!!

One reason why ARF's are so popular is because of the instant gratification generation. These are the people that want to buy a plane in the morning and be flying it that afternoon. They show up at the field all the time with their big expensive fancy ARF's. And these are also the types that go from hobby to hobby to hobby. This year it's RC planes, next year it's fishing, the year after that it's golf, and so on. We've all seen them so you all know the type that I am talking about. I had one that I taught to fly last year that soloed and 4 months later he said "I can do all the tricks out there now so I guess that I'm bored with this hobby now!!" Yes, you heard right---- 4 months and he had done it all!!!!! One thing that I am seeing more and more of is that those who start off with ARF's and actually stay in the hobby will later try kits. They get tired of showing up at the field with their ARF's and their planes looking like everybody else's plane at the field. Or they want to see what's involved with building. Whatever reason they try it and fall in love with building. Those are the people that are going to keep this hobby alive, not the instant gratification group.

Ok, getting ready to put the soapbox away. I tell a lot of people that I have a prediction to make. I predict that kits will come back. It may not be next year, it may not be in 5 years, but they will come back. Eventually the hobby will sort itself out and all the young people buying ARF's now will want kits in 5-10 years.

Ken

waagbuck

My Feedback: (1)

The proposal being discussed in this thread leans too much toward the "stick" approach. It relies on the false assumption that the problem of not enough kit-builders can be solved by mandating it.

Why not try the "carrot" approach? Everybody who builds a kit in a given year gets a discount on club membership or their name thrown in the hat for a prize? Building from plans or your own design? Name in that hat more than once.

The point of this is not to get everyone to build a kit. With ARFs the way they are and time the way it is, you'll never accomplish that goal. The prize is also irrelevant to those who build purely for the enjoyment. The point is to attract the marginal kit builder . . .

Tailgunner-RCU

"


No flak here. I agree with this. I find that the planes I built simply fly on & on...The ARFs don't.

dmcmike

My Feedback: (14)

... gotta agree also! how many of you have seen somebody pull out a 20+ year old arf and fly it? I've got a couple of planes that old, and use them quite frequently whenever I feel like playing inverted limbo! Just got back into flying after a 3 year layoff and the first thing I did was pull out an old SuperHots to dust off the sticks!