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...

Amen

Personally, I'd like to see Brodaks go back to expanding their excellent in house kit line and let the ARFs die away.

Maybe let their super-expansive line of ARF's shrink tremendously, and let it focus more on beginner/intermediate kind of ships.  Of course, Brodak knows how much Brodak's makes on the ARF stuff, so it's his decision.

Somebody who really wants to fly stunt deserves better than what the Chinese can produce...

The Chinese can produce much better than the Chinese generally will produce.  I know, directly and indirectly, several folks who get stuff done in Asia.  They're good businessmen without a lot of respect for quality or for us, so if you buy from them you have to keep track of quality yourself, and keep complaining it up.  Of course, once you do that it gets reflected in the price.  If you want absolute top-notch stuff you need to get it somewhere else, and the price will really reflect that.

No way man....ARF's aint for no one no how, except some folks.  Some folks like ARF's and they needs them....but not everybody.  Did I mention the plane I thought was an ARF but turned out to be an old Ringmaster of mine.  Of course that reminds me of the time I flew a McCoy .35, now there was a motor...best motor ever!

Whats cabin fever?  We get out all the time....why I was just out a month or two ago!

Rudy,

Thanks for the post.  I fly some arf's more because it allows me more air time.  I understand pride in building a kit and that quality control is hit or miss, but for myself who just got promoted to intermediate it allows me time to learn the full pattern.  Just one man's opinion.

Arfs have their place, simply from the standpoint of time and effort. Choose the right Arf and you're in the air far faster than a scratch or kit build, especially so when it come to a full fues plane. Not all Arfs are equal. My Oriental Arf, first batch sent over five or six years ago, took lots of this and that and some hardcore re-engineering to make it decent enough for my liking. The Vector Arf, on the other hand, about to be assembled in my shop, looks straightforward good enough. The issues with the Oriental that took me lots of time to think through and fix, (engine mount on angled-in bearers, pinched space for control horn link, nose heavy) not a problem with the Vector. Vector Arfs in my club have proven durable excellent fliers. My Primary Force was a season long frustration, due to its soft vibration prone fues. Arf Flite Streaks when powered by an LA25 and the like, a nice quick to the air fun fly stunt trainer. More engine and the nose pops off sooner rather than later. An LA25 should make it through a season or two, before the front end lets loose. Ahh, then there is the covering...

I think in the ARF/ARC debate there are two fundamental questions.
1.  Is the ARF/ARC good for the top level CLPA fliers?
2.  Is the ARF/ARC good for the sunday/sport flier and beginner/intermediate flier?
Because it seems to me that the biggest group of nay sayers are those top level CLPA and die hard BOM pilots.  Now I am NOT saying this in a bad way, I think that anyone that spends hundreds of hours building a competition ship will be a little miffed when someone walks in with a monocoated, ten hour, wonder plane and enters "their" competition.

I firmely believe that ARFs/ARCs have a place in our sport of flying control line model airplanes.  I for one, like building my own planes, but also have two ARFs, a Nobler that I really like, and an Oriental that has just been completed but not flown.  I'm a sunday/sport flier by the way.  Never entered a competition unless I absolutely had to.

I guess my biggest problem is....I just don't understand why anyone is actually debating this at all!  If you like ARF/ARCs..buy them and enjoy, if you don't like them....don't buy them and enjoy watching us "fiddle" with them!

Norvaldo has a very good point.

I also have one of Randy's excellent SV-11 ARCs. This plane as delivered, is light, straight and strong. It is as good or better than over 90% of CL builders could produce from a kit. It is built in jigs using very good quality wood. If the pilot has the needed flying skill then this plane can take them to the top at any contest from their local club to the Nats. This is also true of Steve Moon's outstanding Impact ARC. Mine is as close to perfection as Randy's SV-11 is. Again, a plane that is the equal to any plane at the Nat's.

These two new ARCs are not your grandfathers ARF/ARCs! .... Thanks to John and his team, our CL ARF/ARCs have come a long way over the past several years. They have worked closely with their mfg. to make continued progress on improving our CL ARF/ARCs. If you have not seen these latest planes, then you do not realize how far our CL ARF/ARCs have come. It is misleading and unfair for anyone to imply that ARF/ARCs are not very good because someone based their evaluation on past products that are now 3 generations old. I have 9 CL ARC/ARFs, from one of the very 1st TF Flight Streaks to the latest CLPAs planes above. So I have seen the progress and it has been steady and rewarding.

We have about two generations more to go to measure up to the fantastic RC ARFs available now, but I am confident that John, along with the many outstanding designers in the CLPA world, will continue their quest for constant improvement and we will have even better planes in the future.    ....... We can dream that Someday we will have: lots of CF, out of the box take-apart, built in quick release hatches, ready for ECL or wet power, quick build technologies, etc., etc. 

I am very pleased to see all the positive comments/posts about our CL ARC/ARFs. It is encouraging to see these. I have to figure that someone out there likes them, when you combine both CL ARCs and CL ARFs there have been more than 12,000 of them sold over the past several years! 

I think a lot of CL flyers will be impressed with the new CLPA ARF/ARCs when they get to see more of these flying over the coming months. 

Regards, 

ARF / ARC / KIT ? A kit is only a half step up from the ARF/ARC. You don't select wood. You don't cut wood. You don't shape wood.

Scratch building from a plan is real modeling/carpentry. How many left do that?

And now I hear our top drawers are having the "pros" build their wings and tails for them. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

"ARC"s in the Walker cup?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing any of this...only those who do without thinking about it.

This non-competitor could care.   


W.

I always am a little in the dark when someone comments that arf/arc's haven't brought folks back to cl. They brought me back, plain and simple. If anyone thinks there have been no more patterns flown because of those 12000 some arf/arc's out there, I think you are not looking at reality. For those of us who enjoy them, and at this many airplanes it seems like there are a lot of us who do, there are a lot of patterns being flown that would not ever be flown without them. Take that many people away from local contests and do you have enough left to have a decent contest? If there are only one or two fliers in a class, is it still a contest worth competing in or just a fun fly? Seems to me that the more people who are flying at a contest and the more that are in each class the more fun all of us have. I fly the pattern to fly it the best I can with an airplane that I think looks nice. If I think an arf/arc looks nice then that is good enough for me.  I still enjoy seeing the work of people who enjoy building. They are wonderful to behold. But not what everyone wants to do. A lot of people just like to fly stunt. So why not just let everyone enjoy rather than try to poo poo some or make believe its not happening? There IS room for everyone.

just my 2 cents worth.

bob branch

Tim

I don't think you are wierd. Sorry. I have enjoyed building kits and scratch builds all my life. But I don't feel much like it any more. I still enjoy flying tremendously,both rc and cl. I enjoy the people in both. I still build one or two models a year. Probably will build 2 kits and finish one scratch build this winter. But I have probably done a dozen arf's this year alone in rc and cl and will build some more this winter.  But next year I will be flying arf/arc's when I compete in cl. I really like the ones I have and they fly very well. For me I do not feel the need to do a full build. I am sorry that offends some in the hobby. But I fly for my enjoyment, not theirs.

Other beginners and intermediates seeing you fly a full build airplane (kit or scratch) may entice them to do the same, or they may find like me that the ard/arf does what they want. Either way the more the better to me. Will I be at the NATS next year? No. I have no interest in that. Its been shown you can compete there with an ARC/ARF if you want. Doesn't mean the person who wins will, but you can still fly and compete.

bob branch

We have had ARCs and partial ARCs in the Walker Cup for many years.

  Rudi, I don't think this is correct, and I hope we aren't straying into "Peabody" territory here. The only thing that could be construed as an "ARC" is Orestes's airplane, and that has been validated as MEETING the current interpretation of the BOM. Otherwise, that's it - there have been no others, and I know all the players.

    Brett

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Walker and the wonderful Cup named in his honor. I stand by my comment that, after studying his history, I'm sure he would be heartbroken if he knew that ARFs were not allowed to compete for his Cup.

   All I can say is that the vastly overwhelming percentage of those surveyed did not want to eliminate the BOM and I think you will find that attitude even more nearly universal in the competitive ranks. The event is far more than the flying, and I find it sad that a highly aggressive but very small group is so desperately working to undo that. Particularly when at least some of them are doing it, or encouraging others to do it,  for perceived economic gain.

   Mr. Walker was about providing toys for children. That's a very laudable goal. He was noted for being a difficult person to work for, because he was so insistent that "a child will never be disappointed in an American Junior product". But stunt competition (and to be honest, any competition event) has never been nor will ever be about children.

    It's my personal opinion that allowing ARFs to compete on an even basis probably contributed to the demise of almost all of the current competition events. At the very least, allowing them didn't help stem their losses. Stunt is about the only growing event in national competition. Even in off years (like this year) it tends towards the largest single competition category at the NATs.

    I note that given my personal knowledge that there are very very few "component" parts in Walker trophy competition in recent years, and those are marginal cases even to *me*. And if anything, national competition is going to get more picky on this topic, not less.

    But I realize that I am not going to convince anyone. This is the same argument we have been having for about 10 years since a few people saw the profit potential in selling ARFs and decided to mislead people about the relationship of ARFs for sport fliers, and competition rules used for one week a year. ARFs are welcome in all competitions outside the Nationals and have been since 1974 or so. They will not be allowed in National Competition for the foreseeable future, and I will continue to advocate that.

    Brett

   p.s. and just to be clear, I am not Anti-ARF. I am anti-"changing the rulebook to permit a tiny few people to buy $3000 RTF models to fly for a National Championship" - because at its root, that's where this all started and ultimately what it is all about.

Brett

Actually I think there are two discussions but people are trying to think there is only one. I could not give a hoot in heck about bom at the NATS and most people who fly primarily arf/arc's couldn't either. A few will, and in my earlier post I was not referring to the Russian planes but an electric T-Rex that was flown at the NATS this year,  though I am aware of the planes you mentioned as well. For folks like yourself who fly at the NATS my guess is most of you feel your scratch planes can fly better than most of the arf's/arc's that are out there. Ya, there may be an exception and I can see how some would feel strongly about that.  I think the NATS having bom is not a big issue for the majority of 12000 arf/arc's flyers out there. They are primarily being flown locally.

And speaking locally, the bom rule is in effect at my local contest and I am not able to fly an arf there due to the appearance points. I fly an arc in it but I would prefer to fly an arf. The next closest contests from the one and only local one I have allow arf's and no appearance points are awarded but they involve a minimum of 8 hours driving to attend. These local fliers can often make the difference between a competition and just having a demonstration event in some classes. I hate to see those fliers essentialy told you cannot compete with the planes you fly because you will loose the points awarded for appearance and are thus just window dressing.  I think its two different issues. I don't see why there cannot be a national way to accomodate both.

just my humble opinion,
bob branch

Orestes is in. So. The way the rules stand these days if you finished and covered the plane and assembled the big pieces you're BOM legal in JSO. ARCs obviously qualify.

"And speaking locally, the bom rule is in effect at my local contest and I am not able to fly an arf there due to the appearance points."

Hi Bob

You should encourage them to use PAMPA classes at this local contest, that way anyone ...CAN...fly ARFs in the contest

If They do already use PAMPA classes  you ..CAN...fly them

There is  NO  BOM  rule in PAMPA classes, and I cannot remember the last contest I saw that didn't use PAMPA classes
Regards
Randy

Back on topic for a minute. Which is ARE ARFS worth the work to make them work. After spending two days plus doing a profile fues that will last for an ARF Streak, I'm beginning to wonder about my ARFing opinion. At this moment I've a genuine old fashioned 1/2 inch balsa motor stick with genuine old fashioned maple mounts sandwiched between 5ply 1/8inch. All sanded out, looking good, ready for silkspan, filler and dope. While I was at it I cut out 1/8inch tail feathers. So there I've got nearly half the model made new. I've the ready made wing to slip in and... except there's a bit of hitch in the controls which I almost but not quite fixed and... forget about a Tom Morris setup which I prefer and the trailing edge has the dreaded S curve Streak warp...  definitely needs a new piece of balsa to really fix that... Makes me want to do a wing from scratch. My personal question of the day. AM I ARFING MYSELF, after all, when choosing to ARF.

As for Peabody. It's my opinion that he gets summoned by some to stand in for the Boogie Man. BOO! As far as I'm concerned he's blue collar foot soldier blunt and FUNNY.

Or FAI.. (The rest of the world)

Hi Norvaldo,

Thank you for reminding us that the rest of the world does not use Appearance points or the BOM rule, therefore ARFs are allowed to compete without any penalty. That means that over 95% of the planets population has survived just fine without this rule. When I see photos from other countries contests on this forum or in magazines the planes still seem to look very nice and all the pilots have big smiles on their faces and everyone seems to be having a lot of fun!   

I hope more CL flyers from outside the USA give us their input. I think that more people in this country need to see that the planes will still be nice without the BOM and without appearance points. And they may come to understand that if we remove this rule we will not fall off the edge of the earth. The experiment has already been done decades ago and it was a great success for 95% of the planet.    I have heard from many CL people that ARFs have had a positive effect on the number of CL modelers in their area, with no negative effect. With over 12,000 CL ARFs out there in the world, there have to be a lot of pilots that are having fun flying CL! :-)

As my good friend Bob H. says: "we need to become more INCLUSIVE in CL and less EXCLUSIVE!"

Thanks again for your input.

Regards, 

Yeah. I always preferred Dos Equis to Carona. Bars in the NE always seem to have Carona, rarely have 2 Xs. Or do you mean the 2Xs over the eyeballs when Mr. P lands one (verbally of course) on the chin of any various cartoon characters in our fair... and lovely... HOBBY!

Negro Modelo.....even better!

Honestly, I can't believe I just read this whole thread. It's been said over
and over....there's room in the hobby for everyone and every type of model,
scratch built, kit, ARC/ARF, rescued from the trash can, etc, etc.

I'm currently scratch building (heck, I even helped design the plane) a new
take apart plane, I have an ARC Impact on the wall I fly occasionally (and
it's awesome), I have an electric kit built Imitation, a kit built Gieseke Nobler,
a component kit G Nobler, a scratch built Simons Shoestring, etc, etc. And,
I have a company that sells ARCs, component kits and other items. I think
you get the picture here. There's room for all of it. Just because one person
feels that one area of the hobby doesn't benefit them that doesn't mean
that it doesn't benefit someone else.

Later, Steve

The VISTA.

  I feel you're pain Steve! I would be a little upset if I spent $250 on an ARF only to have it fall apart on the 3rd flight and never received a refund or a replacement. I have had a few ARFs as well, and pretty much all of them have been junk. Gavin has a Smoothie ARF, it flies good but every 5 flights I am gluing something back on, or taping the covering back to the plane. I had an Oriental ARF hanging in my closed by the ledouts (this is how I store all of my planes) and opened the door only to find it laying on the floor with both leadouts broken at the bellcrank. The quality has not gotten any better to my knowledge and there is no reason to think it will. Use anything you would like but be cautious when standing around someone that is flying an unmodified ARF.

 I do not see where having an original design has anything to do with this topic???

...
  And further I apologise for lacking the intellectual brilliance to design my own stunter.  If I ever come up with anything that improves the current state of the art, I will be sure to design my own plane around it...

Yes, and keep it a secret, Steve. Then go kick some butts with it! 

L.

"The greatest truths are the simplest." -A.W. Hare

Hi Steve F.

Your Quote from your post #45  "....... This wasn't supposed to be some general anti ARF rant!  This was supposed to be a comment in another thread that got deleted and then reposted as a stand alone thread for whatever reason. ...... "

RE: the split of the two topics, please see my post #4 to you on this thread, and Randy S. post #10. Your post was only misplaced for a few hours until Randy S. helped me by moving it back here. Again, I am sorry for my mistake.

The reason I split the topics is because Dick P's informative thread was on a very specific, narrow topic RE: the loss of a major CL ARF mfg. Your post on his thread began to go in a new and different direction when you started to denigrate ARFs and extol the benefits and preference of Kits over ARFs. Your new subject is fine with me and led to a lot of informative input. I just thought it deserved its own Subject TITLE and to become it's own thread. I'm sorry that this seems to have offended you in some way, that was not my intent. 

 As you can see, your post did take this in a new and different direction from Dick's subject, as shown by the many comments made here. I may be mistaken, but this seems to me to have been a very civil discussion of an important topic that belongs on the "ARF" forum more than anywhere else .... maybe someday in the Rules area too?. I'm confident that it will continue in this civil and informative manner. :-)

For those that think a discussion of this important topic is futile, then I think they miss the point.

Regards, 

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....

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...

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

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...

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

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. 

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.

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, 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.