Building the Nobler ARF as it comes

I may have missed it, but has anyone tried to build the Nobler ARf as it comes from the factory. I have read a bunch of posting on how to modify everything that comes out of the box (except the wheels) but I can't remember any posting about stock building from the instructions.
Thanks in advance for your input, and I await to see how long this post takes to drift into non topic discussions. What do you think Dan?

Joe:D

>I may have missed it, but has anyone tried to build the
>Nobler ARf as it comes from the factory. I have read a bunch
>of posting on how to modify everything that comes out of the
>box (except the wheels) but I can't remember any posting
>about stock building from the instructions.

I've seen a couple built without embellishment. This was a mistake. The controls were far too fast, and they both had very significant alignment errors in the same direction (implying that there was some systematic alignment issue in the fuselage construction). In addition, the controls tended to bind due to the Mickey Mouse leadout clip thing.

I think all the parts for a good airplane are there, but you still need to pay attention to the details when assembling. At the very least, it needs attention in alignment, control ratios, and the leadouts are simply a non-starter from a safety standpoint.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-11-03 AT 11:33 AM (CST)
 
Hi Joe

Yes, I have assembled it exactly as instructed without any changes except for a larger tank to suit a Brodak 40. Since flying it, I have also replaced the wheels for less air drag. Those supplied, 2½ x ¾ sponge create so much drag below the CG that they affect the turn rate with sluggish inside and turn-on-a-dime outside. I have yet to fly it again, so cannot yet ascertain the difference.

I followed the instructions explicitly, to the letter, if for no other reason than to discover if it was what Topflite advertise it as being. No problems whatsoever, with everything aligning as it should and no errors in sequence.

EDIT: Following Brett's comment, I marked the three datum lines on my building board from the fuse before assembly, and could not fault the alignment. The wing location bolt holes in the T/E were about 3/32 of an inch out, which was no big deal.

If I have any discontent, it would be with the quality of the covering on the tailplane and fuselage. The wing was near perfect, but dozens of longitudinal creases on the fuse were annoying, and I still haven't got all slackness out of some areas of the tail.

I found it to be as they say - ALMOST Ready to Fly. It certainly does not "conform" to today's style of airplane, but is it intended to? - or is it intended to be a recreation of a 1957 airplane AS IT WAS THEN ! ! !

If you want to update such items as bellcrank/leadouts etc etc then by all means go ahead. The obvious limit to that concept may well be that you shouldn't have bought an ARF to begin with but built off the plan.

Ken D from downunder where your upright is NOT our inverted.

Except for replacing the leadout wire with heavier wire, --and I left the clips in, I built it pretty stock. I didn't glue the wing in, instead opting for a takeapart feature. Overall I think it flies pretty nice. I don't think I have any major alignment issues, and anyway, simply readjusting the elevator control rod length fixes 90% of small misalignments. Even without taking the wing off, I can get to the pushrod through the canopy, which I jsut taped on as TF suggests. Others guys have measured the alignment and have found it right on. That doesn't mean that it can't be screwed up, but that there is some variablility.

I did replace the tank with a larger 4oz Brodak tank.

Big Country Joe,

Ken Burdick almost literally tossed his ARF Nobler together, put a grungy old Fox 35 in it. Although I had to get it running while Ken was helping Booker chase a FF model, all looked great, Ken had a good time flying it. No comments concerning state of trim, but I didn't ask.

Then Booker called a week or so later, his had gone together easily and the first flight was reported to be terrific. He did have some sort of failure with a leadout, this (evidently) taking place as the model rolled to a stop.

As I don't have one myself, have only had experience in looking at Steve's kit, fiddling with Ken's completed model, don't have any strong opinions.

Thanks Dan, your input always welcome (dispite what I may say in public you almost always seem to have a handle (no pun intended) on CL problem approaches.

I have been getting some "off site" E-mail replies to my initial question which seemingly indicate that building the Nobler ARF as per instructions is more prevalent that one might suspect.

One offshore modeler went on to indicate that some experts can't see the forest for the trees.

Joe

LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-03 AT 09:21 PM (CST)
 
>
>One offshore modeler went on to indicate that some experts
>can't see the forest for the trees.
>
>Joe
>

Let's see how many get to be planted "Noblarf Trees", due to control failures, or due to PE from "too fast" control ratios. They cost $110 each, including shipping, so why is a few bucks extra for Tom Morris control bits a bad thing? Steve

EDIT: I added the photo I took of a sample of my Noblarf flap/ele. horns. You can't see it in the picture, but visually, up close, I would NOT swear on a $1 bill that there is any solder or similar on any of the four. The concept is ok, tho the levers are shorter than ideal, and I might have used them if there was any evidence of solder or brazing. But there was not. As I have not learned to silver-solder, (one of these days) I put my trust in Tom's products. How about I just use a 6" handle spacing?

LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-03 AT 00:32 AM (CST)
 
Steve

It's not a bad thing at all, if that's what you wish to do. However, the point I was making is that Topflite's ARF is in keeping with the Nobler as it was in the late 50's - fast controls and all. That was the way everyone flew in those days, as opposed to many today who expect the model to fly by itself. Certainly, the control ratio is quite high, and all that means is that is has to be "flown" and "finessed" through manoeuvres instead of just yanking on a string!

An Afterthought: Think of high-ratio controls as a challenge to keep consecutive manoeuvres in the same place - a challenge to fly the pattern today as it was flown 40+ years ago.

As for the controls, there are many of my vintage who, in the years of the Nobler era, built bigger, heavier and higher-powered airplanes with control systems a lot shakier than those in the ARF, and NEVER had a leadout break or control systems failure. The ARF represents that era in time - if anyone is dissatisfied with it, they are free to change whatever they like without casting aspersions at Topflite for selling an inferior product or using inferior components.

It MUST also be kept in mind that this is a commercial production with all the attendant cost restrictions. Should TF have chosen to use Tom's style of system, it would have no doubt added considerably to the manufacturing cost as well as depart from the original concept. If any of today's fliers have trouble with high-ratio controls, then consider how much easier things are today than then - yet no-one is really flying the pattern any better because the most difficult variables to be dealt with are not in airplanes but in the human factors that apply to us all.

To me, the bottom line is - You buy an commercial ARF airplane? - You accept it for what it is and what it's meant to be, and not bitch about it not being up to home-build standards! I still say full marks to TF for an excellent product, even if it is Made in China.

>To me, the bottom line is - You buy an commercial ARF
>airplane? - You accept it for what it is and what it's meant
>to be, and not bitch about it not being up to home-build
>standards! I still say full marks to TF for an excellent
>product, even if it is Made in China.

To me. the bottom line is - you saved 3-4 weeks by not having to build the whole thing, why not take 1/2 an hour to fix obvious and easily-corrected shortcomings in control and safety?

Brett

I must question your assertion re "shortcomings in control and safety?"

Why is having to "fly" it a shortcoming? I have to repeat - "That was the way everyone flew in those days." It MAY be a shortcoming by today's standards if you never learned how to fly in the first place. In that respect, it's not suitable for beginners, who at the same time wouldn't have the expertise to change things anyway. It's not easy flying high-ratio control, but it's sure a hell of a lot more fun! If someone purchased an ARF intending it to be a competition-standard airplane, they will definitely be disappointed. To quote the box label - "The Control Line Legend Continues."

Why is the control system as supplied "unsafe"? I've heard of solid wire lead-outs breaking too - are they "unsafe"? I've heard of Brodak Lead-Out cable breaking - is that "unsafe"? There is always a certain element of risk with any control system. The ARF's system as supplied worked well for more years that I care to remember, so why is it suddenly "unsafe"? If 24 thou cable is too weak, then what will happen with 15 thou lines? The supplied lead-outs are bound as per AMA specification - is that erronous too?

Not I, now anyone else who I have seen, is asserting that the ARF MUST be left as is - merely that it IS adequate and therefore MAY be left as is, and will result in a 1957 Nobler, not a 2003 Nobler. Spending a little time replacing things is not bad in itself and fine if you wish, just not absolutely necessary to begin with - depending on your expectations. Perhaps it's just that everyone nowdays is so hung up on technical sophistication that the forest has disappeared.

There has been so much said, and so many opinions expressed, about the ARF Nobler, perhaps the subject has about been done to death.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-03 AT 02:10 AM (CST)
 
>I must question your assertion re "shortcomings in control
>and safety?"
>
>Why is having to "fly" it a shortcoming? I have to repeat -
>"That was the way everyone flew in those days." It MAY be a
>shortcoming by today's standards if you never learned how to
>fly in the first place.

Oh. like me, and Ted Fancher, and Paul Walker, David Fitzgerald, and on, and on, who advocate slow controls?

Listen, I have no idea who you are, but we have a really good testing method for statements like this. It's in Muncie, in early-mid July. Better bring your "A" game.

On further consideration, I'll have a fly off against you - and I'll fly *your airplane" with 1 practice flight. Then we'll see who knows how to fly.

> In that respect, it's not suitable
>for beginners, who at the same time wouldn't have the
>expertise to change things anyway. It's not easy flying
>high-ratio control, but it's sure a hell of a lot more fun!

I find things that work well "more fun" than things that are a struggle.

>Why is the control system as supplied "unsafe"? I've heard
>of solid wire lead-outs breaking too - are they "unsafe"?
>I've heard of Brodak Lead-Out cable breaking - is that
>"unsafe"? There is always a certain element of risk with any
>control system. The ARF's system as supplied worked well for
>more years that I care to remember, so why is it suddenly
>"unsafe"?

What the heck are you talking about? I have been doing this an awfully long time, but I have never, ever seen the arrangement in the ARF Nobler - a little wire clip with tight right-angle bends to which miniscule stranded leadouts (once you remove the plastic coating) are attached? The thing has only been out for about 2 months, and I've already heard of two of them breaking - and this in the few that still have the stock setup.

I really have no idea where you are coming from on this one.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-03 AT 07:36 AM (CST)
 
Is the breast-beating really necessary?

The fact that you do not "know me" simply adds to your level of "superiority" does it? I'm a past Australian National Champion. That puts me in a similar league with Brian Eather, and he placed 10th in a World Championship. I'm NOT exactly a beginner, and don't appreciate being talked down to as though I am.

I am NOT advocating high-ratio controls - merely that the ARF has them because the ORIGINAL had them ! ! ! To change them to today's style is to detract from what that original was.

Of course, slower controls are better, but that makes it more of a 2003 Nobler than the original.

As for that "challenge for a flyoff"? - your arrogance is showing!

EDIT: Having been a school teacher in my working life, the habit dies hard. You may LEARN something Brett. The "a little wire clip with tight right-angle bends" is NOT in itself any problem. Study up on your metallurgy and you will learn that the molecules happily rearrange themselves from a straight line to a sharp bend. It is attempting to modify or straighten that bend that creates stress fractures, and always on the inside of the bend as compression is de-compressed. Left alone, those little clips are as unlikely to break as the engine bearers due to a fault in the grain of the wood - it's "possible"! AND, as I have absolutely no idea of your age, I will give you an earned piece of advice - "Grow up, little boy!" My opinion is no less either right or wrong than yours or anybody else's, but I'm not demanding that you accept mine as a "gospel truth"; just the opinion of someone who started with these yoyo's, as a young lad in short pants, in 1950! Is that long enough to have gained some experience? In my "opinion" the ARF quite accurately reflects the age in which it originated, and that is ALL it purports to be. You want to buy one and modify it? - that's fine, it's your perogative.

I'll now, after that edit, say no more in this thread.

Not I, now anyone else who I have seen, is asserting that the ARF MUST be left as is - merely that it IS adequate and therefore MAY be left as is, and will result in a 1957 Nobler, not a 2003 Nobler.

Ididn't know that 1957 Nobler were monokoted

Is the breast-beating really necessary?

I thing Brett was just trying to bring you back to your senses

The fact that you do not "know me" simply adds to your level
of "superiority" does it?

What makes Brett a superior flier is NOT the fact that he does not know you. His skill do not depend on that

I'm a past Australian National
Champion. That puts me in a similar league with Brian
Eather, and he placed 10th in a World Championship.

No, it does not. Brian makes them good props...Do you?

I'm NOT
exactly a beginner, and don't appreciate being talked down
to as though I am.

When we say whatever we want to say we're bound to hear what we don't want to hear

>
>As for that "challenge for a flyoff"? - your arrogance is
>showing!
>

I think Brett said that out of desperation

God bless you!

In Christ,

> I'm NOT
>exactly a beginner, and don't appreciate being talked down
>to as though I am.

Neither do I.
And, I don't appreciate it when you suggest I "didn't learn to fly". Big talk, sounds like to me - and now that it's clear that the proposed flyoff is unlikely, I guess it's pretty easy to do.

I fly against the best pilots who have ever flown this event, on a regular basis - most of whom advocate the same things I do. I guess they never learned to fly either.

I'm done. Talking won't solve it - I'll prove my piloting skills the old fashioned way - by competition.

>(snip) It's not easy flying
>high-ratio control, but it's sure a hell of a lot more fun!
>If someone purchased an ARF intending it to be a
>competition-standard airplane, they will definitely be
>disappointed. To quote the box label - "The Control Line
>Legend Continues."

I am going to jump in here and try to cool things off. I think Brett was objecting to the fact that just because it is a "legend" does not make it correct or safe. Much has been learned since those days, and what *may* have been acceptable then is no longer acceptable. I do not own one of these planes, nor have I seen one "as packaged." But I have seen them fly, I do have a copy of the instructions, and I have a complete set of the original controls that one modeler sent to me. (He replaced his and sent the supplied stuff to me so I could see what everybody was talking about.)

Yes, I, too, believe the controls are too fast and definitely--no, DEFINITELY--unsafe.

>Why is the control system as supplied "unsafe"? I've heard
>of solid wire lead-outs breaking too - are they "unsafe"?
>I've heard of Brodak Lead-Out cable breaking - is that
>"unsafe"? There is always a certain element of risk with any
>control system. The ARF's system as supplied worked well for
>more years that I care to remember, so why is it suddenly
>"unsafe"? If 24 thou cable is too weak, then what will
>happen with 15 thou lines? The supplied lead-outs are bound
>as per AMA specification - is that erronous too?

Certainly other leadouts have broken. Hey, wings have folded in flight, but we still use them. The real point is that anything that flexes can and eventually will break. The point is to keep it from flexing, or at least to control the flex.

I have not pull tested the 24 thou cable used for the leadouts, but in a straight pull, when new, no flexing, they will probably be stronger than the flying lines. And it is not the first bend, as you mentioned, that breaks them. It is the second, the third--the flexing. We tried .025 solid leadouts on a well-meaninged, and similarly reasoned out, but bad advice and lost two ships. It was not the strength of the wire as such, but the fact that even .025 solids, without bushing them, will flex in flight at the point where they are wrapped around the belcrank. That slight "give and take" is what breaks them. We have never had .031 solids fail the way we set them up without bushing them, but Matt has now gone to .045s. Are they needed? I don't know and don't want to have to find out. We do know that those he is using now are safe and will not flex in flight.

What are the .024 lines made of? They are not the same stuff we use for flying wires are they? How well can they take flexing? If they were put through a brass "C" tube busing where the ends are brought together before crimping (preferably wrapping) *maybe* they would be safe. That would not only keep the ends from flexing at the belcrank but keep them from wearing through. The way they are now constructed, it is going to be a race to see whether the leadouts or the belcrank fails first. But one or the other is going to go. And it won't take many flights to prove this. We have already had reports of failure within the first two or three flights. Even if the majority last longer, this is not acceptable.

>Not I, now anyone else who I have seen, is asserting that
>the ARF MUST be left as is - merely that it >color=red]IS adequate and therefore >color=red]MAY be left as is, and will result in a
>1957 Nobler, not a 2003 Nobler. Spending a little time
>replacing things is not bad in itself and fine if you wish,
>just not absolutely necessary to begin with - depending on
>your expectations. Perhaps it's just that everyone nowdays
>is so hung up on technical sophistication that the forest
>has disappeared.
>

I will grant that there are things that are choice. But I don't think at all that it is a matter of being "hung up". I, for one, would want to be able to adjust the tip weight and leadout position. OK, they didn't do it back then. They didn't know how to. We know how to, so why not do it? Why build a plane for a compromise that we know will be incorrect, when we can build in adjustables to get as close as possible. (Oh, I know, if we build it "as-is" it won't last long enough to worry about trimming. Maybe that's the plan. And, let's face it, a lot of people buying it won't know how to fly and they are going to crash it anyway, "sophistication" or not.)

And I am not trying to be flippant or a bad boy or anything. (Sorry, Dan, if I stole your monicker. Nothing intended against you.) I am merely stating an opinion based on observable fact that the controls, as provided, are unsafe, they are too quick, and if the adjustables were built in (these can't cost that much) it would make a much more enjoyably flying plane for those who know how.

Assemble as is, fly it, have fun. Will it eventually crash? Yes! But then every model built, no matter the methodology, will eventually crash.

I love my Nobler ARF. I can fly the pattern with it and I am satisfied. Am I a competition flier? No, not yet, but I have fun and that is what is important to me.

Forget all the techno stuff. Just fly it!!!!

Louis;

It is painful to lose a plane because you make a mistake in learning to fly the plane, pattern, weather, etc but we expect theses things to happen. Losing a plane because we built it wrong, especially when we knew how to do it right, is completely unacceptable. In talking to rc flyers who bought high performance ARFs a lot of them have said they had to make a lot of changes to the plane to make it safe some said they spent as much as 100 hours on their ARF. This is no different than the control line ARFs both are not basic trainer planes they are high performance aircraft and if you see something YOU think is unsafe FIX IT.

You can say that the plane is intended to get new people flying who are going to crash anyway so having leadouts that will break isn't so bad. Lets apply this logic to cars: we all know that teenagers have more collisions than older drivers therefore it's OK for them to buy a car with worn out tires since they are going to have a wreck anyway. DOESN'T WORK FOR ME!!!!

Producing a product that is prone to crashing, or is hard to fly because the controls are quick may be profitable in the short run but will it create a group of new hobbiest who will buy the next ARF plane you bring out. We are looking for new people to join our ranks and good ARF planes can help accomplish this. People will be looking for something that is properly designed and built and flies easily, doing something wrong because we did it that way in 1957 isn't and acceptable answer and with the current level of litigation will only result in lawyers making lots of money. Think about all the people who have bought Cox plastic bricks on a string to fly these wind up either crashing on the first flight or they never get the engine started. These are the people you run into everywhere who tell you something like "I tried that one time with one of those plastic planes", you can't get them to try it again even after they see you flying a good plane. If new flyers have similar experience with the ARFs just substitute the name Top Flite for Cox.

A lot of the sales of the first run of planes have been to long time flyers who bought one just to see if they are any good, always wanted a Nobler/Flite Streak, had one years ago, to give to their grandkids, etc. How many of these people are going to buy the next plane Top Flite, Brodak, Sig or whoever produces? If the plane is one I've been thinking about building possibly otherwise highly unlikely.

My 2 cents. I don't think the stock control "speed" makes the plane unsafe, and prone to crashing--unlike the thin original leadout line. It may make it tougher to fly smoothly, but on mine at least, it feels fine.

>Louis;
>
>It is painful to lose a plane because you make a mistake in
>learning to fly the plane, pattern, weather, etc but we
>expect theses things to happen. Losing a plane because we
>built it wrong, especially when we knew how to do it right,
>is completely unacceptable. In talking to rc flyers who
>bought high performance ARFs a lot of them have said they
>had to make a lot of changes to the plane to make it safe
>some said they spent as much as 100 hours on their ARF.
>This is no different than the control line ARFs both are not
>basic trainer planes they are high performance aircraft and
>if you see something YOU think is unsafe FIX IT.
>
>You can say that the plane is intended to get new people
>flying who are going to crash anyway so having leadouts that
>will break isn't so bad. Lets apply this logic to cars: we
>all know that teenagers have more collisions than older
>drivers therefore it's OK for them to buy a car with worn
>out tires since they are going to have a wreck anyway.
>DOESN'T WORK FOR ME!!!!
>
>Producing a product that is prone to crashing, or is hard to
>fly because the controls are quick may be profitable in the
>short run but will it create a group of new hobbiest who
>will buy the next ARF plane you bring out. We are looking
>for new people to join our ranks and good ARF planes can
>help accomplish this. People will be looking for something
>that is properly designed and built and flies easily, doing
>something wrong because we did it that way in 1957 isn't and
>acceptable answer and with the current level of litigation
>will only result in lawyers making lots of money. Think
>about all the people who have bought Cox plastic bricks on a
>string to fly these wind up either crashing on the first
>flight or they never get the engine started. These are the
>people you run into everywhere who tell you something like
>"I tried that one time with one of those plastic planes",
>you can't get them to try it again even after they see you
>flying a good plane. If new flyers have similar experience
>with the ARFs just substitute the name Top Flite for Cox.
>
>A lot of the sales of the first run of planes have been to
>long time flyers who bought one just to see if they are any
>good, always wanted a Nobler/Flite Streak, had one years
>ago, to give to their grandkids, etc. How many of these
>people are going to buy the next plane Top Flite, Brodak,
>Sig or whoever produces? If the plane is one I've been
>thinking about building possibly otherwise highly unlikely.

Some are obviously to ate up to get the point. Fly it and have fun. That is the point.

Did I change the leadouts? Yes. Did I have to? No. Is the ARF capable of providing safe fun out the box with no mods? Yes.

As always, throw a rock and the person who gets hit will squeal.

Who is going to squeal now?

I am hearing here that the controls are too quick. What about them can't be adjusted by moving the pushrod in on the bellcrank or narrower handle spacing? Is it the flap/elevator ratio?

Could you describe the problem in a little more detail?

Flap-elevator ratio is about 1 to 1. I think people think there is just too much motion for a given input. You could always drill another hole in the bellcrank. Personally I think it feels fine, but people have told me that my controls are too sensitive for their taste. On the other hand I feel that their planes feel dead. I guess it is what you get use too. Certainly it isn't "unsafe".

I have built two of these in 100% stock form and they are both performing flawelssly. The alignment is practically perfect on both models. If it comes out off there is a better than 0 chance the builder blew it during construction. I built the first one in a bout 8 hrs and the second one in half of that. That is from box to flight line. The clips seem to be no problem. Control system speed is fine if the plane is setup the way Top Flight suggests. Using an LA 40/46 with the stock muffler. The stock muffler is heavy enough to set the cg right in the pocket for nice flying plane with good capabilities. Go by the book and should work just fine. At least the ones I have built did.

Gentlemen;

Let us remember why we were so happy to see the ARFs produced. The possibility that new fliers would buy them, have good experience and become hooked on this hobby. What is the biggest problem a new person faces, IMHO it is overcontrolling the plane. How many of you have seen a new person put a plane through a sin curve flight with the amplitude getting bigger until the plane hits the ground. When someone here asks how to balance a new unflapped plane for the first flight he's told to balance the plane at about 15 to 20% of chord, use the inner hole on the bellcrank and the outer hole on the control horn. The instructions from the manufacturer should be basically the same however for the FS the balance point listed is about 30% and the instructions say to use the middle holes in the bellcrank and control horn.

This is what a lot of us mean by the control being too quick, not for some one like Ted Fancher who can fly a 500 point pattern with a brick, but for the guy who would have trouble keeping the best plane Ted has ever had straight and level.

Steve,
Have you given it the hammer test . By that I mean chuck it up in a vise, and hit the arms with a hammer (since you aren't using them anyway.. I am curious to hear what happens. My pair looked just great-visually that is.

Here is a picture of the controversial bellcrank clip.

So Howard? What is your opinion? Build as is or change some things?

I'd give it a hefty pull test to see if the clips fail. If they don't, they probably won't get weaker over time. I would still worry about them binding. It looks like their moving freely would depend on the part going through the hole being perpendicular to the bellcrank. The leadouts will pass the pull test, but are subject to wear. They are pretty wimpy: .020" diameter. I'd change them.

>Steve,
>Have you given it the hammer test . By that I mean chuck
>it up in a vise, and hit the arms with a hammer (since you
>aren't using them anyway.. I am curious to hear what
>happens. My pair looked just great-visually that is.

I wuz thinkin' that I might cut the binding wire and see if I can peel it off and see what's under there...solder, braze, or paint. The other issue, is what if you already have a decent flying PA airplane, and need something to practise with? These controls, too fast for sure, are not going to help you a lot. I think you are WAY better off with REALLY slow controls...going to a 6" handle spacing is much better than having to use 1.5" spacing. I can't explain it in Brett's scientifical terms, but my guts tell me that having to use a close handle spacing to slow the control response is a very bad thing to do. I'm not looking to handicap myself with crappy controls. The rest of the airplane is quite decent enough. I'll have more fun with mine than you will with a stock one.

On the other side, I talked to Mike Haverly yesterday, and he told me Jim Booker's point of view. TF has a warranty on these things (I have not read the fine print), and if you modify it, they won't back the warranty. Personally, I think it is such a PITB to ship an assembled airplane, that they won't get many returned. I would be happy enough to be able to buy a replacement wing or whatever is broken.

I can fly well enough to keep from planting an airplane under normal situations, but turbulence and control failures are not to be triffled with, IMHO. I can make sure there were no control failures. Always have, always will. The turbulence, I can't do much about, and I'm not happy about it. Steve

Clips ? I just purchased a Nobler arf and upon inspecting
the control system I noticed that the leadouts were just
looped through the bellcrank. I would feel safer with the
clips than without. I don't think it would take to long
for the bellcrank to saw through the leadouts.

I suspect the reverse will happen, the leadouts will saw through the bellcrank.

I used .025 stainless stranded leadouts on one plane that had a surplus of power and line tension. After 18 years (no joke... but in truth the plane had under 100 flights on it) I finally tore it open for a repair and found that the those skinny little leadouts showed no wear at all, but they had nearly sawed their way through the aluminum Perfect bellcrank.

So I think the Nobler clips make some sense but bushing the bellcrank would of course be better. If they now have the same thin leadouts going directly through the (soft metal) bellcrank with no bushings, then that's vastly worse than before and it's the bellcrank that will eventually fail.