Author Topic: Re: ARFs may not be for everyone? (Read 10710 times)

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #50 on:** October 29, 2010, 04:01:02 AM »

So it is question of durability then?

Nearly every one of those problems are addressed if you buy the ARC... Not much different than buying finished cores, tails, and whatnot from Aero Products or Windy... Which gets us back to what I said before..

The ARC business has been booming for years and years...

See comment from before...

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #51 on:** October 29, 2010, 09:04:39 AM »

I did not mean to insult anyone... You guys know I have the utmost respect for your abilities on all levels...

This is nothing I have not said privately before to each one of you individually....

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #52 on:** October 29, 2010, 01:38:22 PM »

As a sidebar to this, seems to me there's room for innovation, originality and pushing the envelope, at least widening the envelope beyond the familiar and common. Dan Banjok's Vista often comes to mind when I think about this. The Vista is a non-derivative competition Stunt war wagon. The aerodynamics and appearance are uniquely Dan's vision. Typical of him, he followed his muse. The design has proven itself competitive at the highest level of stunt. The super fat airfoil, moments, even the size of the plane, are quite a bit outside of the norm. But it works. He certainly enjoys the heck out of that plane. Similarly, he enjoys manifold other CL experiments. Great fun to know the man and follow along.

Can we mortal hackers on balsa do like Dan does. I believe many of us can design and build a plane that would be competitive in Intermediate or Advanced. Why not give it a shot.

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #53 on:** November 02, 2010, 09:28:37 AM »

THIS is the great difference in the hobby... Nothing is being designed and published... Everyone is afraid that their designs won't work. They have been corralled into "schools" by people who convince everyone that only "proven" designs will do well, or that any modification to existing formulas will result in design disaster. It's just really a form of snobbery....

As far as ARF's... Maybe Steve is right... Do like UHP and only sell ARC's. Skip the film covered versions...

Eric Viglione · « **Reply #54 on:** November 02, 2010, 10:19:27 AM »

Dennis & Brad - That's all well and good, but entirely off the thread topic. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Steve' original post... (Obviously my interpretation, Steve can correct me if I'm wrong) which, if I can narrow it down even further than just about durability or QC... it's also about TIME.

Patching up ARF/ARC's so that they would be competitive takes TIME, and you are still stuck with some things you can't upgrade like hot glued internals, wood selection, etc. TIME would be better spent for someone who already has mastered good building skills (the people in Steve's club to which he was referring are all great builders) to continue to roll his own.

I'm not talking about beginners or retreads or tinkerer's, or people who want to crank out a bunch of planes to try them out, or just looking to get in the air quickly, but ARE talking about existing competitors that are good builders and flyers being lured to these inexpensive ARF/ARC's thinking they will get BlueMax or Yatsenko quality for $150 and a little patching up. That is a dream that a few people are waking up from due to some harsh realities.

Steve and I are pretty much in the same boat, and we talk alot. We both want to compete at the higher levels. We both only have time to crank out about one serious stunter per year (sometimes longer), and we're both in the same rough age bracket (I got a year or two on him, max)

Using a proven design saves TIME

It would kill at least two or three years for me to implement my own design, plus subsequent changes, etc. and be competitive with it. It would be yet another set back in my program. I did this once before chasing different kinds of power trains. They all work reasonably well, but time was wasted learning them and deciding if I liked them better than what I had.

This is a mature hobby, and design has stagnated for a good reason, there's a lot of good stuff out there already. I'm very aware of the clock ticking on my best competitive years, which are right now. I'm more interested in pushing myself in the circle than in the design world. I have goals, and for me, personally, I find sticking to a winning design and proven power train to be my best bet at allowing me to participate in this hobby at the levels I wish to in the shortest amount of time. This also allows more productive stick time for me, actually practicing, not constantly second guessing design issues, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I have my own doodles on plan sheets and idea's about design, but those will have to wait until I get this "drive" I have to win out of my system while I still feel physically able, and this thing called "work" and running my own business under control... may even have to wait until I retire to try some of my own designs out. That, or when I feel what I am flying is holding me back somehow. But for now, it's no great loss, my ego can stand flying other peoples designs quite well.

EricV

Quote from: Dennis Moritz on October 29, 2010, 01:38:22 PM

As a sidebar to this, seems to me there's room for innovation, originality and pushing the envelope, at least widening the envelope beyond the familiar and common. Dan Banjok's Vista often comes to mind when I think about this. The Vista is a non-derivative competition Stunt war wagon. The aerodynamics and appearance are uniquely Dan's vision. Typical of him, he followed his muse. The design has proven itself competitive at the highest level of stunt. The super fat airfoil, moments, even the size of the plane, are quite a bit outside of the norm. But it works. He certainly enjoys the heck out of that plane. Similarly, he enjoys manifold other CL experiments. Great fun to know the man and follow along.

Can we mortal hackers on balsa do like Dan does. I believe many of us can design and build a plane that would be competitive in Intermediate or Advanced. Why not give it a shot.

Quote from: Bradley Walker

THIS is the great difference in the hobby... Nothing is being designed and published... Everyone is afraid that their designs won't work. They have been corralled into "schools" by people who convince everyone that only "proven" designs will do well, or that any modification to existing formulas will result in design disaster. It's just really a form of snobbery....

As far as ARF's... Maybe Steve is right... Do like UHP and only sell ARF's. Skip the film covered versions...

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #55 on:** November 02, 2010, 12:37:58 PM »

Clock ticking on your best competitive years. Eric. You're kidding.

Doug Moon · « **Reply #56 on:** November 02, 2010, 11:47:20 PM »

I think Eric's post is very informative and a good insight in how many partake in this hobby. If the goal is to learn to fly well and have fun along the way using a "proven design." Is a great way to go. Proven meaning it will fly well and trim predictably. Since the pattern never changes there are many many many designs that perform very well at all levels of the game. So why not pick with styling that you like and go for it?

Once you have really learned and honed your flying skills then try subtle design changes in construction and or numbers and see how it turns out. Or go for a whole new design. The flying skill is there and good enough to know when something is or isnt working. I think if one goes down the road of personal design without a good solid foundation in flying and trimming it can make the goals one wants to attain take alot longer.

But if the goal is to design a good working stunt plane then by all means get to it. For many that is the really fun part of the hobby and should be pursued as such.

I think most people like to do alot of both along the way.

Just my .02 on it.

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #57 on:** November 05, 2010, 08:48:12 AM »

ARC's and ARF's save time...

If I had my OWN company... There would be real ARF's and ARC's that don't need any help at all. It could be done. In fact Tom Morris was doing it. The money spent on a short kit was well worth it. Heck a pre-built for $700? That's cheap... Brodak could be building ARC's at his place with US made parts. It would cost more... but who cares?

Stunt people are kinda cheap really... that's the other thing... They whine over pennies... Not all mind you, but a lot...

bill mazzoni · « **Reply #58 on:** November 05, 2010, 10:18:44 AM »

My first opinion POST !!!!
You think some control line people are cheap. We had a Hobby Shop in the 80's and the R/C clubs have you beat. Examble= An R/C flyer came into our shop and wanted some engine mounting bolts but he only needed 2 and only wanted to buy a half of pack !!
My simple solution to ARF's= If you like em,build em. If you don't, then don't buy em.
As far as designing your own airplane. I just built my own design airplane. I took designs from other stunt ships. Wing looks like a GEO wing, Back of fuselage similar to Stilletto 660. Front of Fuselage looks like a SV-11. Powered by a Stalker 51. Plane is called "CHALLENGER" My other Challenger is a 1971 Dodge with 440 six-pak engine show car, Sassy Grass Green.
I plan on flying my new stunt ship next year. Haven't flown in the last several years because of health problems. Will try and make BRODAKS next year with my new stunt ship. Other projects. Vector 40 with electric motor. ARF Legacy- Super Tigre 60,
WE have a new flying sight in Southern New , New Jersey near Millville Airport an old flight training base for P-47's. I learned to fly at Millville Airport inthe 60's. Bob Hunt when he was younger spent time there with his father.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #59 on:** November 30, 2010, 12:27:59 AM »

No way. Control line guys are the cheapest, bar none.
Chris...

50+AirYears · « **Reply #60 on:** November 30, 2010, 01:07:42 AM »

While I have a number of CL and RC ARF models, my preference is building my own, either from kit or scratch. The only ARFs, if you want to call them that, that I really trust, are kits or scratch built models started but abandoned by other builders. Even the newer wood ARFs I've purchased strilke me as being very structurally delicate, especially with some very weak oriental ply and often spot gluing instead of fully glued joints. I just recently purchased a flite streak ARF, and after looking at the fuse, put a few inquiries on a couple web sites, and came up with the idea that I should not ues my other Fox .36X on it, like I hve on my FS kit-built. In fact, I recieved several replies that instead of using my other choice, a Fox BB .25, I should buy an OS .25 LA for it, with the suggestion the Fox will be too much power for the structure.

But, at least as far as the big picture, ARFs do seem to at least bring in new people, if just for a short exposure to the sport segment of our hobby/sport. And from the results of the people coming into our RC club through the ARF/RTF route, at least 1 in 10 seem to stay for a few years, while more of the older veterans seem to be building less andflying more with the ARFs.

sadams714441 · « **Reply #61 on:** December 27, 2010, 08:54:52 PM »

I agree Steve Moon,
As has been said many times here and other places. ARF's have a place. I my self am very able to build from kit form. 99% of us will never fly in the NAT,s. But allows us to FLY with friends. With the fast paced life some of us lead. Finding the time to build from kit form is not always there. An ARF fits, and allows some of us that use them the enjoyment of flying control line. With the reduced time building from kit form.

50+AirYears · « **Reply #62 on:** December 28, 2010, 09:55:39 PM »

Really, fly whatever floats your boat. My best satisfaction comes from flying a plane I built from raw materials, especially my own design, secondly fro plans. Then comes a kit built. Thirdly is the ARF/RTF. I just don't feel any of the construction quality of most of the ARFs I've had matched the external appearance, unless the ARF/RTF was from a kit someone started, lost interest in, and either sold to me for a good price, or even gave to me.

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #63 on:** December 31, 2010, 08:59:39 AM »

I have seen this as well at the R/C field where I fly. We have some great builders in our club that haven't built a plane in 10 years. They are all flyng cookie cutter arfs. Don, of Dons Hobby Shop, is the only one in our club that still designs and builds his own planes, besides me. Don and I are the only modelers in the club, the rest being flyers only. I think it is just the way things are, and are likely to continue. Personaly, I would rather fly a profile with a bad paint job, that I built myself, than to fly the best arf out there. I was given a Lanier arf back in the 70's when I was flying R/C pattern, and I assembled it, flew it once or twice, and gave it away. I decided then I would never assemble another arf. I just do not get any satisfaction out of flying anything that I did not build myself. Others have a different take, and I am sure they don't understand me either. So now we have two different hobbies. We have those that are modelers, and we have those that are flyers, and we have some in both camps. At least we are still enjoying a hobby, and I guess that is the main thing. As said above; to each his own.

Bill Little · « **Reply #64 on:** December 31, 2010, 08:18:03 PM »

This particular thread has been around a while, and I didn't really want to comment. I saw Steve's point in the beginning and pretty well knew that most people would not understand it. Instead doing as MOST people do today and throwing their OWN idea of what they want the point to be. Not actually commenting (or maybe not reading the whole post, much less ALL of the posts) on the original idea, simply interjecting their opinion.

it has been proven through educational research at different institutions that the vast majority (90%+) when involved in a conversation do not "hear" what the other person is saying. Merely waiting for the "noise to end" so that they can say what THEY want to say. People are not listeners from birth. It is a technique to be "learned" just like critical thinking is a technique that has to be LEARNED. We are not born with it.

If you have read this far (highly unlikely) then I am going to offer my take on Steve's point, which will probably not actually correspond with hardly any of the other "takes", it seems.

Steve said he felt that many of his friends would be better off spending their time on their own stuff than remaking and repairing ARFs. He did not say that ARFs are inherently good or bad for the C/L hobby/sport. He did not say whether they should be allowed to fly in J/S/O at the NATS. He did not say whether or not they should be allowed Appearance points at those few local contests that still use them. I did gather from what he wrote that his buddies were spending a large amount of time having to do "something" to an ARF. And I am sure that some of the time spent "doing something to an ARF" is at the field. That = time not spent flying. Which is the reason for being at the field. I also have gathered that a fairly expensive (anything that is ~$200 is expensive) ARF failed from a fault not of the pilot's cause. Something that self destructs is not a good thing for anyone trying to fly that piece of equipment.

So, I can totally understand that "ARF's might not be for Everybody". Leave the bickering about all "the other stuff" out of a thread that has nothing to do with "the other stuff". Start separate thread on "the other stuff".

Happy New Year!
Bill

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #65 on:** December 31, 2010, 10:26:13 PM »

Hi Bill,

Please see my post #50 for an explanation of why I split Steve F's original post into it's own topic and separated it from the original Brodak mfg. topic.

Actually, Steve F did say that ARFs were bad for CL and that they should die away. Here is his quote:

"Personally, I'd like to see Brodaks go back to expanding their excellent in house kit line and let the ARFs die away. My 2 cents (no, not a political diatribe) after seeing years of the ARFs come and go is that stunt was a better place without them. I don't think they brought hordes of new pilots into stunt, and the siren song of a killer big stunter without the effort required to actually build one left many dissapointed when the ARF simply didn't hold up under very hard use.
Keeping up with the myriad chinese QC issues with ARFs often left Brodaks factory people exhausted with just keeping up as they boxed and shipped hundreds of planes, then they had to deal with the scores of returns for shipping damage or QC issues. I think it left them *just barely* able to keep up with production of the existing in house made kits, and seems to have stifled the release of significant numbers of new kits.
I know even my club buddies might disagree, but as I watched them, skilled scratch builders every one, tinker and struggle away with whatever the latest ARF was, I can't help but feel that the ARFs stifled the development of pilots as well as kit production. Somebody who really wants to fly stunt deserves better than what the Chinese can produce..."

I was going to label Steve Fs new topic with a much harsher title but I tried to be as PC as possible.

I am very used to the ARF bashing since I came back to CL almost 4 years ago. I have tried very hard to be civil, even when most of the bashers have not been. As I and others have stated many times, the early CL ARFs had some problems, all these have been reported on and easily fixed. The latest generation of CL ARF/ARCs are very good and do not have any need for fixes or parts replacements.

These new CL ARF/ARC's are not yet up to the excellent level of modern RC ARFs, but they are getting closer every day. They are now as good as the majority of CL builders can produce from a kit. There are many great craftsman in the CL community, and I think it would take one of these master builders to make a plane any better than the beautiful ARC Impact from Steve Moon, or the outstanding ARF/ARC SV-11 from Randy Smith. I have both of these and they are very well built with light strong wood and all the HW is useable as is.

Of course everyone on this ARF forum is welcome to his opinion, this is why I gave Steve F. his own topic when he expressed his negative opinion on ARFs. But I think it is very unfair for anyone to denigrate the third generation of high quality ARF/ARCs of today based on the quality of first generation ARFs that were first produced over 5 years ago. This would be like me saying that CL Kits are terrible and they should die because they have die crush ribs, warped wood and poor plans and instructions. This all was true with the first generation of CL kits, I remember them well. But this is NOT true of the excellent third generation CL kits we enjoy today.

I have talked to many people including the manufacturers, and I can safely say that the # of problems with ARFs have been greatly exaggerated by the small group of ARF bashers out there. With over 12,000 CL ARF/ARCs in the world the # of problems is a very, very small %. My Brodak P-40 ARF is now over 3 yrs old, and it was built stock except for a CF push rod. It has over 400 flights, most off a very rough grass field and with a few bumps along the way, and it still flies just like new without any mods or changes and using all the stock HW. The covering is still like new too and has never come loose anywhere. I expect my SV-11 and Impact ARCs to be the same in three years too.

As I mentioned before, I think this tread has been very civil given that this is normally a heated subject. It has wandered off the path a little with the design issues, but in general it has tried to address the issues that Steve F. first brought up. Bill, if you were referring to the design posts, then I agree with you, maybe we should start a new topic on this interesting issue.

Happy New Year to all.

Warm Regards,

Bill Little · « **Reply #66 on:** December 31, 2010, 11:13:06 PM »

Hi Rudy,

I'm sorry, I didn't take into account that Steve DID say he wished Brodak would let his ARFs die away. I took it as a general statement that there was too many flaws in those ARFs (and "we" have two of them) and that it really hasn't brought in the numbers that some do like to expound upon. I take John's ARFs for what they are, and from that standpoint they can be a very decent product in my eyes. Yes, they have brought in some newbies, and retreads back, but not the thousands that some lead us to believe. And we only hear from those that have been introd'ed or brought back by the ARFs. Maybe there are as mnay or more than have come in or come back that have not been to ARFs? I don't know, and I don't think there is an accurate way to measure that statistic. It doesn't matter, really, as long as there are new people at the field!

I have, however witnessed many problems with ARFs. Both in building and flying, and repairing. I am SURE the quality will improve as it has in R/C, no doubt. Aaron flew his ARF Vector (probably the one ARF I have seen the least problems with) today for the first time. it flew just fine, and took very little trimming (so far) to be a good plane. It did, however, have to have the controls replaced, new hinges, a bunch of repair to the covering and the covering still is just so-so. Plus we had to seal all the seams of the various layers of teh covering to keep it from flying off during flight as has been reported and seen. Up side is that the plane is not intended as a first line contest ship. It is a back up of bad conditions and mostly a small plane to take out and practice with. Now this is with a person who has been flying and building (even for others) for a good while. It took a pretty long time to just get it where it is. Of course, it would have flown if it was just assembled right out of the box. But how good and for how long I don't know. For someone who has no background, it might disappoint, might not. For a serious contest flier, I cannot see them as the only way to go. There is a lot of work and modifications I believe that most of that type of flier would do. And the fact that there has been catastrophic failures, unrelated to building ability, of ARFs does their image no good. I cannot see Orestes, David, Billy, Paul, Bob, Bill, or a host of others entering a high caliber competition with one. Or even having one in a lot of those cases. Orestes might have a kit, and it could really be compared to an ARF, but it is in absolutely no way comparable to the ARFs on the general market. So, in theory, "ARFs really Ain't that good for everyone"! LOL!!

AS to design, I can see a new topic on that being beneficial. I see the actually "designs" as very good! The SV11, Vector, T-Rex, Legacy, and so forth are excellent "designs". And the newest ones seem to be getting better. But some of the construction methods used on the assembly line and parts included need to be looked in to. Again, ARFs have there place, but it isn't as rosy as some make it out to be.

Aaron just got an Electric Super Clown ARF package. Mainly because it he got it at well less than half price retail. It isn't a "Competition Plane" (other than possibly OTS, but not acquired for that), but an experiment. It was the very cheapest way to get into an otherwise expensive area of CLPA. $300-$400 and more doesn't sound expensive to many, but to a LOT of us it is an expense that we can't justify. That is a whole "nuther subject, though! LOL!!

A thread of "improvements to ARFs" might be a good one if it is kept civil and to the point.

Thanks, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Bill

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #67 on:** January 01, 2011, 03:37:14 AM »

Bill, how'd you get the controls out of the Vector? The crimped leadouts, even with the ends doubled back, concern me. I guess you drilled into the center sheeting and undid the bolt holding the crank. Also possible to cut into the bottom covering and replace leadouts that way. Shedding covering has been a constant issue with ARFs. What was your proactive approach.

I don't know that I agree with Rudy. I regard the discussion of ARF shortcomings, areas of possible faillure and annoyance, as a way of sharing useful information. It makes the ARF experience more likely to be a success.

I've a Vector ARF and a Vector ARC. Guess the ARC is a newer generation of manufacture. It uses pin hinges instead of the CA stiff flex binders. The notches for the barrel hinges are even pre-cut. Very nice. The older version had a balsa cowl, which I prefer, to the newer fiberglass replacement.

Crimped leadouts, nonadjustable flap controls, wire pushrods, I find problematic.

Bill, I like the twists, turns and sidebars of a typical thread. Even the passion. Similar to conversations I have with close friends, the overt topic giving way and morphing into issues more personal and pertinent. Steve's points are good. But airing frustration and proposing some solutions, also good.

It often seems to take a lot of time to get an ARF right. Even then, in many ways they are not as right as kit built or scratch built birds. Recently I did a first batch Oriental ARF that was sitting around since the first run of ARFs hit Carmichaels. Challenging. My Vector ARF, not so much.

I just finished an ARF Flite Streak. 28 days of jolly madness. Did a solid fuse with increased moments, rock maple and five ply. Fixed the controls with new leadouts, a carbon pushrod and a ball link. Cut a new stab and elevator out of hard 3/16. Covered the balsa with silkspan and dope. I punched a hole in the wing while trying to fit the new rod without cutting into the center sheeting. Patched it. Flies nicely with an FP 40 up front. Fast and smooth. Came out pretty light. Good sport plane. But the experience made me wonder if a scratch build, or a build from a rib kit, would be more time effective. Ultimately, no doubt, the result would be more satisfying. Which is, I think, Steve's fundamental point.

Early on in my retread phase I bought a previous Flite Streak ARF. Assembled it totally stock. Took a few hours. Even used the scary questionable plastic circle to anchor the pushrod end. Flew that for a season and a half, an LA25 up front. Very useful and fun bird back then. Got myself out of beginner using that combo. Many club member have assembled these planes without any mods. Usually they work quite well when powered by a 25 or a 20. Last pretty long until, inevitably, the hollow nose snaps. These days, I doubt that I would do an ARF Streak as is.

Bill Little · « **Reply #68 on:** January 01, 2011, 09:44:42 AM »

Hi Dennis,

On the Vector, it was a matter of cutting into the wing sheeting and carefully replacing the crank and lead outs. Mainly was going for lead out replacement, but once the crank was out, what the heck, the BC was replaced.

Yeah, there are reasons expounded upon that don't really interest me, nor are they even germane to my thoughts about ARFs. Many make good reading though when I have trouble falling to sleep.

ARFs will get better. ARFS will, unfortunately, get more expensive. ARFS might bring back C/L to it's '50s-'60s hey day, but don't think they, alone, could.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Author Topic: Re: ARFs may not be for everyone? (Read 10710 times)

Eric Viglione