Do we need better defined categories?
 

It appears now that the Warbird section is completely taken over with ARF threads. I don’t mind ARF’s, I even built one but don’t you think we need some separation? I know most people fear change, but this is getting bad. We need more specific categories. Piling EVERYTHING with an insignia under one category is ridiculous. All input appreciated, even the little guys with the big keyboards, I want your input too! (Don’t be offended, I enjoy sarcasm as humor.;))

Dion

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

I think you could split out ARF's from building. Maybe ARF's should just stay in ARF's.

Carl

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

While I agree that there are more ARF threads, it is also a trend in the industry. More and more ARF warbirds are being produced and purchased by modelers. I really enjoy following the building threads, as I prefer to build kits rather than ARFs, but I don't want to split up a category into to many new sections. Warbird Kits, Warbird ARF's sounds good,.. but I wouldn't break it down any further.

People that are familiar with the EZone would know how this can be disasterous. On a few occasions, a thread category has been split over there, and now there are so many categories that sometimes threads don't get seen often, or responded to. For example, Scale Models became Glow to Electric Conversions,... then there was a new spawning of Electric Warbirds, Fuel Warbirds, Fuel Scale, Electric Scale,... it just got to be a mess.

What's great about RCU, is that there are so many more people using the forums, and willing to share information to help other modelers.

my 2 cents.....

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

What do you mean when you say ARF ?


Hangar 9, VQ-Model, ModelTech and much more ?

What's about the models from CMP; KMP; YT ?
I think they all are ARF and Build kits.You have a lot of work, if you want to have a Scale model.Weathering, Decals, Retracts and so on.

Or FC; Sist; ?
Ready Fuselage and Wings.Prepared for all Components, but much more work for finishing the kit.

Or an kit like Arizona Models; Flair; TopFlite; Balsa Usa ? A lot of wood and a whole of work.

Don't forget the Scratch Build Models.

Sorry about my bad English

1. YT 2. Flair 3. ModelTech

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

With the amount of recovering and kit bashing that goes on here I think it all seems to blend in together.

I have gathered some great tips from all of you who build and just 'Put together' these War bird and war plane aircraft.

I say keep it simple, keep it as is.

Brad

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

My $.02,
I think the forums should be split like this:
ARF/RTF:
Warbird / Scale
Sport / 3D

Kit /Scratch Building:
Warbird / Scale
Sport / 3D

How about a category called "Will this motor power my plane?" [sm=surprised.gif]

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

nicostoffi, I definitely see your point but I think Robs got the right idea. At least it could be split into ARFs and kits. I build both and I wouldn't have to scroll through the forum as much to get what I what to know. Thats the only reason I see for splitting the thread, easy navigation. I agree we don't need a sub forum for every warbird interest.

I use to have to dial the phone and never thought to complain about it, now I want to click a mouse less. I'm ashamed I had something to say.

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

"With the amount of recovering and kit bashing that goes on here I think it all seems to blend in together"

Good point, well, raises the question of where do you draw the line of ARF / Built.
Just how bashed does an arf have to get to slide over to the Built side?

I'm a scratch builder, and floods of XBrand ARF Assembly/Retract-Intsall questions kinda dilute what I am looking for. Nothing wrong with that, but I'd like to see some seperation of assemble from build. Just my 2 cents

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

While there are some planes that cross the lines between AFR and Kit, such as Composite and Aerotech planes, Most would agree that a kit is one that the builder fashions from non-recognizable separate parts (wood, glass, etc) to one that is a recognizable structure.
I would like to see the distinction between the AFR's and the Kits. I have both and I build both. Separating the categories helps reduce the amount of "information clutter" available on the net. My .02

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

While we do have an ARF forum and many military posts go there, I feel this forum should stay as is. Its Warbirds and Warplanes. If you feel the need, then post in the Scale forum. There are many that benefit from this forum whether its built or assembled. After all, a JUG is a JUG is a JUG! I like to go through and see what people have done whether its built or an ARF. What prevents someone from stripping the ARF and covering with FLightMetal or fiberglass and paint. Why not split it further into Monokote warbirds and fiberglass and painted warbirds. Surely those that Monokote really dont want to take the time to fiberglass and are therefore less in stature than the master builders!

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

Oh, and your POLL selections SUCK!!!!

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

The poll options are formed in an obviously biased manner: either we agree with the 1st option, or we are:
1) Lazy
2) Fearful of change
3) Apathetic
4) Unsure of our reason for existance
5) Think there is nother better than ARFs

Should have added:
None of the above: why fix it if it ain't broke?
OR, I like ARFs AND kit built/ scratch built warbirds

A warbird is a warbird, be it from an ARF, kit, or scratch built.
Some ARFs are vastly inferior to some kit built/ scratch builts, but other ARFs are vastly better (in looks. structural integrity, and flying traits) than some kit built/ scratch built warbirds.
And, as others have mentioned: what about all the kit bashing/ modifications going on with ARFs. Some are putting more work into an ARF than others do a conventional kit, and with the results to justify it.

Can't agree with any of the options offered, so I won't vote.

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

LMAO:D That got me! I was trying to get people to call themselves lazy! LOL

Great points, but things get lost in the pit of Warbirds. I'm getting to where I don't even like to look in here anymore, sifting through all the what prop for my ARF questions.

Great ideas there. I like that last category!:D How many times do we here that?

Right now we have "Warbirds" being built in the kit section that many people may miss. We have ARF's being built in the Warbird section. Personally I think this is a mess, I just wanted to see what you all think. Thanks for the input and participation I enjoyed reading all of your posts.

Dion

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

Yes, don't misunderstood.
This is also my point.
I think a Warbird is a Warbird, ARF, Kit or Scratch Build, Gas or E-Power.

It looks like a Warbird and hopeful fly like a Warbird ( or die like it ) ;)

And like a other User said - many people will take much more time for an ARF as a Kit.

Please very sorry about my bad English and don' misunderstood me ;)

best wishes

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

A warbird is a warbird. Where is it written in stone that it must be built from a box of flat wood in order to be "worthy"? That's pure rubbish!

Leave the forum the way it is. It works, and is very much used and participated in as is.

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

Yes they are all warbirds but the point of this would be to ease navigation to what you want to see. Its not to separate some with stars on thars because they scratch build or make planes from wood they've personally grown. There are over 120,000 posts in the warbird forum and that seems to warrant a little organization of ideas. If your interests cover the whole spectrum warbirds as mine do, the proposed split of warbirds, to ARF and Kit forums, would only make your interest a mouse click away.

Some one had once proposed WWI and WWII but I don't think that would make an even enough split of interests. I don't think arf and kit would be even either but it's the best distinction I can think of that might organize all this great info.

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

At no time did I say that if it's an ARF it's not worthy of respect, not sure where you got that. It's simply organization and navigation, that's the issue.:eek:

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

Personally I think Dion is on the right track. When "surfing" this site, I'm looking to view ideas and/or issues of a certain aircraft. There is a "Warbirds" option, but it's mixed with Kits and Arfs.
I build/ fly both kits and ARF's by the way.
If I'm looking for ideas, say on my next project - Hangar 9 Hellcat (when will they release that baby anyway!!!!), I have to look/post in both ARF/RTF and Warbirds. And for my current project, a Top Flite Bearcat, I look in Kit building and Warbirds.
I think it make since to split the categories as I've outlined above.
Change it/ don't change it, I still enjoy this site and appreciate all the sharing of information and ideas.

I forgot, there is also the "Scale Aircraft" forum.

So where do I post questions on the Hangar 9 Hellcat? Warbirds and warplanes? Scale aircraft? (Yes I would call it scale) or ARF/RTF?
What if I crashed it while Sport Flying? Would those questions go in Kit building or Sport Flying? [sm=bananahead.gif]

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

More catagories just means more posts in the wrong catagory.:eek:

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

I never look in the ARF forum, but I always check out the warbird forum. A warbird is a warbird, no matter how it's built.

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

The lots of idiots angle...mmm nice!

Moderators can help on that I think. I think it would be easy to figure out what is what, I mean it says ARF on a box most of the time. A kit that was started by another person and almost finished would not be posted in the ARF section. RCSCALEBUILDER has a very effective system and it's even broken down by individual designer and manufacturer. (just can't talk about scale outline on that site)I'm not asking for that here, just a better way to organize all of this and keep it in one spot, not spread all over in these what are now very general categories, unballanced has some great points. I don't prefer civilian aircraft, so looking through the SCALE forum can be a problem. Is it hard to find specific things with a search? No, but what if you are just looking, things get missed that you may have wanted to see when you are just scanning over hundreds of posts.

With giant only fly-ins it seems that giant scale guys like to keep to themselves, so give them a Giant Scale Warbirds forum.

Just ideas, I know it'll never change but it sure would be nice. Man it would be so much easier to find things that interest me and I wouldn't have to look at things that don't! I'll keep dreaming...[&o]

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

I am with the idea that Warbirds are warbirds....
I sometimes build from a wood kit that requires lots of sanding etc...and other times ( most other times now ) I "BASH and ARF " into a personal / unique Warbird that leaves people guessing if it was a kit or an ARF!!
so I am thinking along the lines of UNBALLANCED AND DIONYSUSBACCHUS...
[8D]

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

WHAT????

All this whopla and you don't even have the authority to make a change.... pppfffttttt:eek:

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

That is one of your poll options.

It seems to me that you want the forums to be "organized" and "seperated" so that you do not have to click through a couple pages of the "same" forum. Which would indicate to me who is leaning towards the laziness you suggested..... :)

RE: Do we need better defined categories?
 

You get the wrong indication from that. I like to be organized, makes things more efficient and many people mistake efficiency for laziness and a mess for hard working.;)

I hope I made some laugh with my sarcasm, that was my intention but I see at least one that took offense as usual. Accuses me of being up tight! Here is what I said: The poll questions were just for fun, I really just wanted to see what others thought is all.

I have many powers, but RCU change I cannot!:D I can't even have a signature on my posts, admin disabled that! lol


Thanks again!