William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Okay folks, let's see how many know what scratch building really is.

You are welcome to post your nasty cracks and snide comments. And I'm sure there will be some well reasoned statements also. The well reasoned ones, of course, will be the ones that agree with me.

Haw.

Let's have some fun here, I've started it in the way I worded the poll.

Bill.

EDIT: I messed up trying to change this, had to start over. wr.

ThunderAI-RCU

Given the fact that I am currently building the piper meridian from my own plans and didn't use anyone else plans I will say that I am scratch building the piper meridian. My definition of scratch building means the following:

You design and build from plans you create from an aircraft of known type.

Someone who designs an aircraft from the ground up is not scratch building they are designing an aircraft. Thats my twist way to look at it, and I see no problem with that approach.

To say that scratch building only includes original designs is a little abstract and not true to the process of building.

One thing for sure, scratch building is NOT building from plans.

probligo

If the semantics turns you on, fine. Go read a dictionary.

I build my own designs.

I adapt other peoples designs.

I build from small threeviews in magazines after re-drawing.

I build from photocopy enlargements.

I build from plans.

I build from kit

I have one ARF

I enjoy building and flying. What else is important?

ThunderAI-RCU

Because to some people semantics is important. I can not fault you for your ignorance of this fact as it really isn't that important. Its a personal preference to control and semantics. The fact that it is subjective is a problem in itself, that is why a definition gives us common ground when comparing building. After all this is a building forum not a flying forum.

coxsairforce

My Feedback: (2)

I have not done much scratch building but It seems to me just building from some one elses planes would be some kind of scratch building. But I can see both sides to this fight. Why not say we both scratch build? Say one level is scratch buildng( building from others plane but with your meteral ) 2 scratch building complete( scratch building from your own plane). Now lets go build and injoy or hobby!

RGM

My Feedback: (5)

OK I'm in. First off I think that most folks feel that building from a set of plans that someone else has drawm is plans building. Building from a set of plans that they have drawn is scratch building. And for the most part, I tend to agree with that line of thought. My feeling is that some folks carry the clinical definition of "scratch building" a bit too far. In that EVERYTHING is done by the designer/builder. That NOTHING in the proces of completing the project that someone else has built/desgned/produced etc etc, is used in the completion of the project. But just how far does one carry that point of view? Does the designer produce the paper on which the project is drawn? Does he make his own glue? The computers/programs which are used? The pens/pencils that are used? The motor that is used? Even the old argument about the designer needing to grow and harvest his own balsa wood to qulify as a true scratch built. Of course not. Thats absurd and unreasonable. I think that the spirit of the term is what counts. If someone designs their own version a P-47 and utilizes Robart retracts, does that mean it is not scratch built? In my view, designing the plane, drawing the plans, and building it, qualifies as scratch building. Had he used Zirolis or Meisters plans, then it would plans built. I am well on the way to completing plans for the plane that is pictured in my avatar. The cowl and wheel pants will be done by a commercial manufacturer of those products. Does that disqualify it as being a true scratch built? To a purist, most likely yes. My sense of accomplishment, however, is not lessened by that in the least. Again I think that the spirit of the term is what counts here. My hat is off and I bow in admiration to those exceptional people that have the ability to manufacture their own retracts, motors, wheels, tires etc. Believe you me though, I ain't one of 'em. FWIW

Cdallas2

So let me get this straight.

To be a scratch built airplane - I have to design it myself. But my wife can bake a cake from scratch while using a recipe.

This is just silly.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Chris:

Only if she uses no recipe is it a "Scratch" cake.

And of course it's silly. Notice how I worded the poll?

Bill.

flianbrian

There is no definitive definition, there is and never will be common ground.
This is all pi$$ing in the wind and nothing will be decided.

(Kinda fun though to see folks get worked up over such trivia!)

coxsairforce

My Feedback: (2)

I like to make pancakes from scratch. I started with some one elses recipe and changed it some. But I mix every thing myself. So I guess I dont make scratch pancakes after all. Thats a shame my kids really like them better! I have yet to meat a woman that calls scratch made from no recipe. even my mother ( who happens to be the best cook on this planet) calls scratch simply mixing your own from a recipe even tho the recipe changes at times. If you buy a mix it is simply a baked from a mix.

Chevelle

My Feedback: (2)

I will take this post in the spirit that it was intended, just for fun.

For me, "scratch" building is building without the benefit of precut or premarked parts. Someone acquires plans, either theirs or someone else's, and builds it. The example of baking a cake is a good one, assuming that it is from a recipe, not from premixed ingredients out of a box. (Although, I have been known to try to pass of that culinary masterpiece known as Kraft Macaroni and Cheese as "homemade".)

The phrase is "scratch built", not scratch designed. That would be "designed from scratch", an equally admirable task.

I humbly offer my personal definitions....

ARF - A plane that has been fabricated by the manufacture, including covering, that requires the assembly of several subcomponents such as the wings, fuselage, tail, landing gear, etc. The product is complete with the exception of minor hardware.

Kit - A product that includes all the raw materials required to complete the plane along with plans and instructions. The components are either marked or cut in the bulk material or the plans include shape outlines. The product is complete with the exception of minor hardware, possibly covering and other items that are left to the personal tastes of the builder.

Scratch Built - A plane where the builder starts only with plans. The builder has to select and acquire all raw materials, hardware, covering, etc. to complete the plane.

Designed from Scratch - A plane whose plans are either the original creation of the designer or require modification from existing plans or other inspiration such as the full scale version.

Just a reminder. I'm not offering these a some formal definition. They are just how I regard the differences. It is not my intention to convince anyone that they should change their minds on the subject. These just work for me.

Oh. I've bought ARFs, built kits and am presently doing a design from scratch that I will eventually scratch build.

papermache

My Feedback: (35)

I second Chevelle's definitions. I never claimed to be a designer/builder, but I AM a Scratch builder. Designer/builders are scratch builders too - they just add an extra step. These definitions are good ones. Thanks Chevelle.

papermache

Mike James

I'm not "worked up" about it, but I am in agreement with Bill. When you are the designer, you're adding an element that occurs in none of the other "types" of building... Creativity. Emulation of somebody else's work is perhaps flattery to the original creator, but the true artist THOUGHT of it. I prefer the artistic approach, and will always say "I'm an artist... Whether I'm a good one or a bad one is everybody else's subjective judgement."

Parphrasing a musician hero of mine:
"If you can exactly copy the Mona Lisa, it is still only a pale imitation of the original."

I don't consider designers (including myself) to be "better" than other modelers. On the contrary, designing something, and working out the all the"issues" can be a humbling experience. To me, creating a completely original piece of work is simply more gratifying. If I build an ARF, perhaps because I'm in a hurry to just go fly, that's fine, but there's no comparison in how I feel about the work. Whether it's "better" or not is subjective.

Designing and scratch building is certainly more interesting to me than other types of building, and I always respect those modelers more, if for no other reason than because they made an extra effort that most others won't do,or don't want to do.

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

The root of the problem is this... people want recognition for the efforts they put forth.

The guys who start with 3 views, design the plane, build it from raw stock and finish it want to be recognized apart from the guy who starts with plans.

If I assembled and ARF, I can be proud I put it together, took notice of areas that needed beefed up and assmebled a good flying plane.

If I built a plane from kit I can also be proud that I glued the parts together squarely, checking for proper alignment, then finished/covered the plane myself... maybe even designed my own covering scheme.

If I built a plane from plans, I can be proud that I hand cut from raw stock all the components that the plan called for, modifed to my own taste, then did all the above.

If I designed the plane from 3 views, coming up with my own plans, then did all the above, I could be proud of the extra work I put in it.

But how do you differentiate a person who designs/builds a little 40 size plane and covers it monokote from a guy who builds a warbird from plans, glasses it, overlapping panel lines, rivets, weathering, etc...

Truth is, the guys that are so ardent to differentiate the "levels" of building have entirely missed the point. Building is a personal satisfaction thing not a comparison thing. And perhaps it's not ARFS but the very attitude from people that "if you don't build it the way I do then it's sub standard" that is causing new people to refrain from building or even staying in the hobby.

We take our baby, our pride and joy, and show it off to people, because we'd like to get some outside appreciation for our efforts. Only to have some shmuck try and categorize it and place it in some level below his.

What I build has absolutely NO peers. It is the utmost to be found. It cannot be placed in some sub category because it is the highest category there is.

You see... my planes are in the "built by David Johnson" category and there are no sublevels. When I stop at the end of the day I often kick back with a cup of coffee and enjoy the results of my labor. I bask in that wonderful feeling of accomplishment. Whether it's an ARF or a "scratch-built"... noone can take that away.

I truly hope everyone can enjoy that satisfaction without care for another's definition.

Here's one of my latest... I built it... and regardless of whether it was a kit, a plan or designed myself... it tickles me to no end.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

David:

That's a very good way to look at it, and a good philosophy for all of us.

And your Ultimate loks good to the point you have it.

You were talking about the Ultimate, and not that ugly bracket thingy supporting it, weren't you?

Haw.

Bill.

coxsairforce

My Feedback: (2)

Well said david !!!

CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

Well, I see a lot of bias in the way the poll has been set up.

It may be only me that reads something else into this. However, most Californians are getting tired of the bias based telephone polls lately about the upcoming recall on Governor Davis. This poll has that theme. And like the telephone calls they all seem to be aiming the person towards a specific thought and have a common theme and go something like this....

"In view of the large cost for the recall, and the rotten economy caused by Washington, and the further economic turmoil that will result in a change of governor, and that no challengers have the near five years of experience in today's office, and it was all funded by a disgruntled Republican trying to overturn a legally elected official, do you agree that the recall is a bad situation?

Yes.

Then you agree and I can mark you down as against the recall?

Hell, no. I want that S.O.B. outta there, and now!

Then do you agree he should serve yet another three years and be removed from office legally?

No.

Then you don't think he ought to be removed from office and I can mark you down as against the recall. Thank you for the time.




You have to listen hard to the question(s) and answer appropriately as to your own thoughts, not those placed onto the page by someone. If we take everything that has traditionally been taught to us and used by us, scratch building takes on one connotation. If we go by what the questions within the poll are directing us, we can only derive yet another opinion. From what I have been accustomed to, building is one phase of the concept, and designing is yet another.

I particularly dislike the the addition of the note above:

".....I don't know any better"



and this sends a bias into the poll. It reads like the poll is meant to be argumentative, directing you to one viewpoint, and not a multiple collection of opinions. For anyone to agree to number two, three or any viewpoint other than number one, also is stating that they are an idiot.

Chevelle has really hit the spot here. I also would like to expand upon a remark by Chevelle, in that to design an airplane means it has to be totally original. Thus you cannot design nor scratch build a B-17. It was already designed once and in strict accordance per above, it cannot be designed twice, nor can it ever be scratch built, or scratch designed. I think the music and the movie industry often has lawsuits arguing if a particular small idea is stolen or not. For is a musical rendition of a tune plagerism, or a way to escape royalties? Some people don't like how the question is asked and say NEITHER.

In view of what is noted above, I have a more appropriate poll to take.

Yes or no, do you think this one is bias?


Wm.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

William:

Of course the poll is biased. It was deliberately biased. I wanted it biased.

Now go back and read the first post. The entire poll is intended to be a joke, something for us to enjoy and not argue about.

Soapbox switch -> ON

Frankly, I've had more than enough arguing about the definition of "Scratch Built," I know what it means to me, and I have many times voiced my thoughts about plan builders claiming their Ziroli/Holman/Palmer/WhateverDesigner plane to be scratch built.

Any large airplane is a major project, and the builder should be proud of doing a good job. And no less proud of a small plane. But I just can't see calling it something it's not.

The one that really galls me is the "Checkbook" modeler, showing off "His" airplane. Not so bad when he's careful to give credit to the builder, the one who truly "Owns" the plane, but that seldom happens.

I regret AMA dropping the "Builder of the model" rule, but I also understand why its elimination was a good idea.

Soapbox switch -> OFF

Bill.

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

Can't seem to get a better set of plans for that ugly thing

Actually it's a Pitts Challenger III "scratch built" from modified Miles Reed plans...

It's actually MUCH further on than that...

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

David:

Sorry about the mis-identification. I was going by the wings, wingtips, and vertical fin shape. I'm not that "Up" on the late aerobatic biplanes. Or monoplanes either, for that matter. Is that an Extra? A giles? A Stevens Akro? No question on the Caps, they're the godawful ugly ones. (Let me get my flame suit on, please)

Yours still looks really good.

Bill.

Chevelle

My Feedback: (2)

Mordib and CoosBayLumber make a good point. It is easy to fall in the trap that there is some ranking or additional sigificance to the categories. (I'm sure that none was intended.)

There is none in my eyes. It's about the sport of R/C, seeing these planes in the air, controlling them through simple or complex maneuvers to the satisfaction of the pilot...of the pilot!

What right do any of us have to have higher regard for the scratch builder over the ARF flyer? Is it acceptable to rank the competition pattern flier over the laid back slow flier or the sail plane enthusiast? Of course not. That's what makes this sport so great. There are plenty of interests for everyone. Just look at the forum listings!

If that is kept in mind then I see nothing wrong with discussing the language of our sport. It should help with conversation, not as a tool to put down a perfectly legitimate corner of our sport.

Oh. One thing that I need to clear up. At least by my definition, if one were to build a B-17 from plans derived from full size plans, then they would be a scratch designer. I guess in my mind, if the plans were not specifically designed for R/C, then it would be a scratch design. I hardly think any of us is about to build a scale version of a B-17 EXACTLY like the original except smaller. Design work must be done. From the outside it may look like a B-17 but significant design work would have to be done to move to the R/C world.

So, just by my definitions, a B-17 can be scratch designed. It can also be scratch built. If all one started with was the plans, then they would be a scratch builder.

David Cutler

Bill,

I notice in another thread on this subject somebody mentioned 'If I bake a cake "from scratch" I don't have to make up my own recipe'.

I was wondering if anybody had flown this cake before, and what engine is the best for it?

As with a lot of discussions like this, it all boils down to definition of words.

Myself, I don't think it can be called scratch building until you grow the balsa trees yourself and mine the bauxite to produce the aluminum for the engine crankcase.

I know someone who would call scratch building when he has to carry out that onerous task of switching on the transmitter AND the model after his butler has assembled the model at the flying field, and fueled it up.

[sm=bananahead.gif]

-David C.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

David:

I just don't understand why nobody has checked the "Squeeze a tube of glue into an ARF box" button.

Haw.

Bil.

toy264

Summertime in South Texas..chiggers, mosquitos, love bugs, fire ants...EVERYTHING I do is scratch built!

coxsairforce

My Feedback: (2)

I have a book from the publishers of airplane news on scratch building. It is by Rich Uravitch. In the introdustion he states "scratch building is the process of producing a , starting with little more a set of plans and a healthy dose of initiative. Purists say scratch-building means to draw the plans, do the engineering and build the : but most ers think that falls into the category of designing and as such goes well beyond the requirements of scratch-building".
I see RCU must think the same way or they would have a forum for plan-building or at lest include it in the title to this forum( scratch building,aircraft design,3d/cad,plan building)