hahaha!

Ah yes, the infamous Hangar 9 Corsair "Not Enough Glue on the firewall picture". I was waiting for it to show up in this thread! That picture has been used by almost every oponent of ARFing to substantiate claims of poor ARF quality. That picture has been floating around these forums for a year or two. (Maybe three??)Anyway, Jim, I'm not implying you are trying to substantiate anything. I'm remembering other, older (and much hotter threads...FLAME ON!) You're argument is valid and its a good picture to show everyone (especially new ARF pilots).

When ARFs first hit the market a few years ago the quality of some (most?) of them was lacking and in unexperienced hands they were dangerous. Bad combination! Everyone thought they would need to bring a hardhat to the field or risk having a warbird fall on your noggin!

ARF construction has come a long way in the last year or two. MOST (not all, some still stink!, but most) of the ARFs are now built to the standards of the average builder. There is enough glue, support, etc for a safe airplane. Contrary to what "Millitant Builders" would like to believe, buying and flying an ARF in 2006 is as safe as building and flying your own kit.

I know this because I inspect the ARFs that I assemble and have seen the differnce a few years make. But more importantly by everyone's own admission, the flying field is FULL of "SHI**Y" ARFs. Yet with all these ARFs out there, there is not an overubundnace of them crashing. Not to mention that not every crash is structural either. As far as I can tell, ARFs don't crash anymore or less than kits do.

The bottom line is that while there COULD have been mass produced accidents, most ARF assemblers (but that, I mean the people building them not the factories) cared enough to look at what they were assembling, fix any problerms they discovered and shared the knowledge with others at the field and on the forums so that event never happened.

Proving once again that its the people, not the planes, that create a safe environment.

You make a good point. I also think many of the accidents have been avoided by the scares such as this being well communicated. I bet there were more than one who took (and now take the time) to inspect their ARFs and correct any issues before committing to flight. There will always be cheap knockoffs as long as there are cheap modellers (and we know there are many of those). My worry is that there will not always be those with enough knowledge to catch and correct these issues before they become an accident.

I've often been chastised for raising these concerns, I don't mind being branded an alarmist or elitist if I save even one incident from happening.

No, I don't think I'm an elitist, in fact I'm currently enjoying a little Kyosho Pitts. I had it on the highest recommendations that this was a well built ARF. These recommentations made me far too complacent as I caught a loose firewall at the flying field after a flight.... it's now fixed but, I will not be so complacent again.

Yes, this is an ARF. Direct to me from a Chinese workshop somewhere over there, I assembled her and mounted a brand new SK50 2-stroker. I installed my radio, connected the controls and it was off to the field I went.

This was 15 months ago. About all I accomplished was to get 2 tanks of fuel through the SK. After 30 minutes of taxi trials and running the engine rich, the gear blocks gave way and the gear wires were flopping all over the place.

Disgusted, I brought the Chipmunk home and hung it from the rafters in the basement. I don't recall draining the tank nor wiping the airframe down I was so ticked. bad practice and childish, I know, (heck, I'm only 52).

Anyway, Dad, who's 79 wanted to fly the dang thing so down it came last week and I finally have it ready to go again. New rock maple mounts, 5-ply birch ribs and basswood triangle stock all over the place, the gear wires appear to be solidly secure at last.

My point is this: buy an ARF, (from almost ANYbody) and you had better look 'er over REAL close. The Ultra Stick 60 I bought was so light, it scared me to start the engine I had installed! That Corsair isn't a cheap model. Granted the photo may be dated but the 1000 words it represents, STILL ring true.

Here's my Chipmunk, ready to give it another go:

You bet! There is no doubt that you need to give the same care when you assemble an ARF that you would when building from scratch. I can't think of any kit I have built that I didn't put some personal touches on that strayed from the plans! You really can't be TOO safe!!

I do that same thing on any ARF I buy. Look it over REAL good and beef it up where I see fit. I believe that most people do that. I always thought that was part of the "ALMOST" in ARF!

There is no excuse for the bad job Hangar 9 did on those older ARFs. They are much better today. I wring the heck out of their 27% Extra 260. It's built really light too. However the more I look at it the more I understand the design. When I build, I tend to overbuild! A lot of guys I talk to say that's not necessary as long as you build it right and light. You also need to fly the plane the way it was designed. The 27% Extra is a good example of that. It did't stop me from reinforcing the landing gear and firewall though!

Getting used to flying a plane like that within its envelope made me a better pilot I think!

Good Luck with that Chipmunk!

Hello all,

It is obvious that nowadays, the ARF quality is getting better and better. But we will never get to a point that all ARFs are all 100% properly made. There will be always exceptions because these are made by humans and we do make mistakes. The same goes to kit builders too. It is very VERY unfortunate that some hardcore builders I know keep putting down ARFs. I heard things such as "... those are POS.... I will never touch them with a 10 foot pole... " and so forth. Closed mindedness really hurt themselves and deny them of the wonderful things that this hobby has to offer. I really respect kit builders as I know it is not a simple task of converting a pile of balsa into a work of art. I am building one right now and I know how much it is involved. I also have the greatest admirations for those factory workers who work at a dollar a day that can produce such high quality building job. I have inspected all my ARFs and I tell you that their skill level is way above mine. Try to cover your plane with a clothing iron and see how well you fare with those guys. DP

Well said....

However, here's the case against junk-ARF's...when a modeler goofs or takes shortcuts, whatever...it's one aircraft on one field endangering perhaps one individual, (ok, maybe more).

Junk-ARF's are mass produced, show up all over the place, (the US, UK, Europe, etc) and are potentially hazardous to thousands and thousands of people. The impact on the hobby is enormous...and usually negative. Look at my photos a few posts back...I had rebuilt the landing gear blocks and had everything else WELL checked out...or so I THOUGHT. Now, look at the "after" photos here.

I never dreamed that a glass-filled nylon mount would snap with MINIMAL force as this one did...better on the ground than in the air...I shudder to imagine what would have resulted had this occurred while flying over fellow modelers and spectators!

Not only do junk-ARF's all look alike, they need to be stripped, examined, rebuilt-repaired-reinforced and recovered before flying.
There is a REASON these machines are offered as ARF's and not ARC's...An almost-ready-to-cover model DISPLAYS it's quality...or lack of. These things cover all that with a nice finish. All that glitters, my friends...

This doesn't make them such values afterall in my opinion. I do realize that there are true quality ARF's on the market BUT these don't sell for $129.00 either! Dave Patrick, Hanger 9, Horizon Hobbies, etc. all market great qaulity models so please, don't misunderstand me...I am speaking of the clones and knock-offs flooding eBAY and others, hawked in magazines.

Caveat emptor!

PM

What I do not understand, is why is it OK for an ARF to need a lot of work to make it "what it is advertised to be". If you bought a new car, TV, stereo, microwave, model engine, or any other item that was not "as advertised", would you be satisfied with it? No, you would return it to the seller.
Off my soapbox now.

Great point...

May I attempt to reply? Most of the folks that buy ARF's to make 'em what they're advertised to be, are modelers.

Most folks that buy TV's, stereos, computers, etc., aren't electrician's, engineers or technicians. Sprucing up a television to work is beyond 99% of the people that buy them. What percentage of ARF buyers do you suppose, never picked up a bottle of CA?

ARF's are "user-friendly" in that all the tools, parts and stuff to "make them what they are advertised to be" is readily available and easy to manipulate. Not many folks know their way around a schematic or epoxy-board.

Likewise, the know-how to bash or reinforce or repair an ARF is usually inherent in the owner/builder/flyer.

AND...ever try returning a model airplane over the Internet, telephone or worse, your local hobby retailer? Especially after you've assembled it??? No- waaaaayyyyyyyy........

I don't know, maybe I'm way off base here, LOL...

:-)
PM

So your say if "Joe Mechanic", or "Joe TV Repairman" buys a new car or TV that needs a bunch of changes to make it work, he should just accept that.
What am I missing?
Do you suppose if the guys bought all the "sub standard" ARFs, complained over all these years, instead of just fixin em up, maybe the quality would be there by now?
C'mon guys, if you lay down, you will get walked on.
BTW, I have bought several ARFs, and had several parts replaced, by complaining to the Mfgs. I'm doing my part.

Thats true. Why is there this impression that ARFs are bought by people that never flew a plane before? I mean ARFs are not "Ready to Fly" out of the box. You need to already have a bunch of stuff to use them. ARF's get you 95% of the way there and leave it up to you to finish.

I'm building a TF P-40 right now and in that manual it clearly says that I am responsible to putting it together right. TF is counting on ME to make it flyable. They are not responsible for it. I don't see why ARFs should be thought of any differently. Just because some of the work is done for you doesn't mean you should forget everything that your common sense tells you to do. If you don't check an ARF, you sure as heck are going to build a sloppy plane as well.

On the subject of bad ARFs, I just finished an article in this months Fly RC for an AK Models SU-27. This is a kit in which the author needed to adjust wheel size, takeoff pitch differential and ENLARGE the elevator to get it to fly right! He still seemed to like the plane. Bad models are not only regulated to ARFs!

As far as the mass production "Planes Crashing by the Hundreds or Thousands" argument, its just not true. ARFs are EVERYWHERE. Yet somehow there is not a mass hysteria brewing as people run for their lives to avoid crashing ARFs. For the one person that had the firewall come unglued on their Hangar 9 Corsair, there are thousands that never had a problem (maybe even more). However, the pictures of successful planes never seem to make it in the forums. Just because something is mass produced does not mean a problem in the production of one unit is mass produced as well.

If I bought a car or TV that was put together with hot glue instead of CA or epoxy, then I would definately be working on them before I used them. I know of an ARF that lost the whole tail section on short final. Hot glue was found! A UCanDo ARF.

How about a trainer that didn't have the engine area/cheeks fuel proofed. Sort of the same as not tightening down bolts on a car or insulating wires in a TV.

What about using shelf paper for covering. Saw that too. Kind of like having to strip your car and paint it yourself. I could go on but some ARF fans won't read what we have to say about some of them.

An ARF being built in a shop in China by people who don't fly, don't want to fly, and couldn't care less about us flying will not be built to the normal standards of normal hobbyists. Plus, add in cost cutting, stupidity like using hot glue, cheap hardware to save a few dollars per copy, and you have ARFs.

Okay, some ARFs may be good. I like to build myself. I trust what I build and I don't trust mass produced ARFs.

Wow, this thread sure has drifted away from that 1st posting....

I'm gear up on this topic, having enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts and viewpoints.

Clear skys, y'all...

PM

I thought the original post had been answered.... it depends on who is asking and how they ask.

So... if ARFs are not failing everywhere, how is it that most have witnessed them failing and many can post pictures to prove it?

I recently horse-traded for an ARF Pitts (couldn't resist the pretty little beast, and I convinced myself ARFs must had improved). The D*mn firewall nearly fell off in my hands while casually flipping the prop!!! [:@][:'(]

It's repaired now along with a few other frailities I came across after a closer inspection. They were a hazard last time I dabbled, and remain a hazard. I'm off to the worksop to finish my Pica Waco.[8D]

Jim,

How's the PICA WACO coming along? I'm covering the wings on mine now, and will be applying the paint this next week. Should be in the air by September.

Bill, AMA 4720

Back to the orginal question, being new to the hobby and building my first kit. "Not assembling an ARF as my trainer was a super star which got me into this hobby and now I can not stop tinkering" The 4 * 40 that is currently on my bench already has a few flaws, finding out the hardway the best way to and which glue to use in certain places. I believe that with ARF's and the "Detail" that comes on them is something for a beginning kit builder to strive for. I would be pleased if somebody asked if it was an ARF.

One thing I believe everyone overlooked on the original question is that, he asked the response of somebody "looking" at a plane and asking a question. This does not get down to the quality of the glue joints, or a dependability of the plane. It's all apperance, and I know I got in to my first kit not wanting something that looked like every other plane out on the field.

I don't think that aspect was overlooked, it was brought into the discussion by reference to unsafe ARFs on the market....I agree, as you infer, safety cannot be determined by a casual "look".

As was answered, the question cannot be answered without knowing context. A casual modeller may truly be interested in getting a clone of your model while a good builder friend may be razzing you.... Granted, it's an over-simplification but I can generally tell an ARF from a build by attention to detail and quality of covering. The high gloss plastic printed coverings and sub standard hardware along with the half dozen clones sitting beside it on the flightline generally give an ARF away. If you're really not sure, check out the owner, if he's busy chewing glue from his fingers, or has matching paint marks on his clothing, it's probably not an ARF, if he's wearing a polo shirt with a turtle logo ... it's an ARF!

Oh, and to stay on topic with the Forum, my Waco is coming along nicely thank-you! She's all covered and I'm working on the lower wing farings now... %$@%-ing plastic [:'(], if it gives me anymore hassles fitting, I'll be scratching up a nice pair of wood fairings.

Lower wing fairings??? Is yours a 60" version, or what WACO are you doing? I thought you were doing the 1/5th scale version of the PICA YMF-5. I have my fuse, tail group and top wing primed, and ready for paint. I used roofing flashing aluminum to replicate the lower fairings and the rudder and horizontal stap fairings. Looks like the real thing.

Bill, AMA 4720

Pictures would be nice

-tychoc

Shortly, Shortly...Everything is blown apart for priming and painting.

Bill, AMA 4720

Pica 1/5, I believe it's a 72" wingspan. I did build a 1/6 once, I think it was 60"....

Sorry, no recent picture, the wings are covered now.




roof flashing aluminum, hmmnnn... interesting choice of material, I'm most comfortable with wood, I redid the middle wing faring on my DR1 (it was plastic as well) with the same approach I'm considering;

They start getting to be fun along about here in the build don't they?

Bill, AMA 4720

Do you realize the irony of the Pica Waco ? Its now an ARF from Cox. People might genuinely ask , "is that the arf or the kit".

Back to post 54....I noticed the landing gear on the Chipmunk is not at the best angle for landing. On mine I bet the gear forward and it worked out much better. Capt,n

I actually start getting a little depressed at this point. I guess it's because I can see the end of the build getting near. Oh, I still enjoy it but, once I'm getting close to paint I'm already eyeing up the next build. It's all I can do to keep from starting the next project and sometimes I simply can't resist.... that's when the workshop get's really messy.