Scratch,Plans,Kit,there IS a difference!

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Call me a curmudgeon,but I reaaaallllllyy get ticked when folks don't differentiate between scratch built,plans built,and kit built.

Scratch built is just that,start with a few scratches on a note pad,and from that,develop a design,then build a model.This is a long and rewarding process,usually involving a lot of compromise and false starts along the way.If done right it's the ultimate satisfaction in modeling.It,s the antithesis of kit building.It'an original art form,and as such is satisfying to the artist regardless of the opinions of others.

Kit building can be satisfying in that a great deal of craft is required to do it right.The finishing process especially can be rewarding,and allows a certain amount of satisfaction.

Plans building falls somewhere in between.It allows the selection of materials to be more critical,and also for a certain amount of structural or stylistic change.It is however,no matter how you slice it,NOT scratch building.It is building a kit without the wood in hand.Someone else has done the hard work,the design calcs,or the trial and error,or both.They've done the structural design that makes it both strong and light,and they've done the styling which probably led you to build it in the first place.

So,PLEASE,don't misuse the terms.

Sorry about that. I am guilty of using the term when building from plans. I won't do it ever again, honest. You sound just like those olde fahrts in model railroading. cheezz.
I do, however, agree with your definitions and understand your point. I truly belive this came about because you have yet to receive your issue of Stunt News, which I received two days ago.
I did my own design and scratch built from my design, three 1/2A trainers, and one free flight that was a total disaster. I have kept to proven plans or better kits ever since. You are a rarity in this hobby and I really admire your skills in building absolutely beautiful models. Now, lay off the coffee and go see if your issue of Stunt News is in. Or else I'll start a conversation, Ha, on BOM!!

>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>Call me a curmudgeon,...

O.K., you are a curmudgeon.

Surely you jest! This is an attempt at a joke right?

Ron, I kind of have to be the Devil's advocate on this one, too.

I scratch built a Nobler once. But I did use plans. How else could I be sure I was building the Nobler?

When my Mother baked a cake, she quite often made it from "scratch". But she got out her recipe book. If the ingredients came from a box, it was a mix. If they came as individual ingredients, it was "made from scratch". Didn't much matter if it was her recipe or someone else's.

I have designed and built my own airplanes and I have also built from plans. And I have also modified plans. I would consider any of these scratch building since all of the ingredients had to be assembled, measured, stirred and baked--er, cut and glued.

Sadly, my Websters Dictionery doesn't help on this one, since out of 26 possible definitions for the word, "scratch", the closest I could come is the following:

"Arranged or put together with little selection of material; haphazard".

Doesn't sound at all like our modeling efforts, does it? Maybe we dont' build from scratch at all.

I would have to agree with you here, - I would also add that there is the middle ground between the three distinctions, namely kit bashing and plan bashing. I've built the Banshee wing a number of times - 36 inch span, 48 inch span - various tips,flaps and planking, half rib arrangements, the only thing that remains the same is the airfoil. I am almost completely a scrath builder at this point but if it wasn't for the progression of learning kit building, plan copying and part production I wouldn't be able to say that. My important parts are almost always a copy from a plan, such as the airfoil, but the rest of it can be whatever you want. Fuselage lengths and Balance point being the only other set formula I try to follow. I have three scratch planes at home right now that are all being retrofitted because of balance point being to far back on the wing.

P.s. This doesn't keep me from buying as many kits as I possibly can either.

My big problem with building, whether it is scratch, plans, kits, ARC, or ARF, I've NEVER come even close to building a plane exactly as it is supposed to go. Heck, I rarely follow my own plans!! So what is a guy supposed to do with an Old Tyme kit or a set of classic plans? I naturally will extend this an inch, cut that to a different curve, add a few bulkheads, make the motor profile mount instead of inverted or upright, etc. Who cares, it's still MY Genesis, or Impact, or Thirteen, even if it's a bit different.

>My big problem with building, whether it is scratch, plans,
>kits, ARC, or ARF, I've NEVER come even close to building a
>plane exactly as it is supposed to go. Heck, I rarely
>follow my own plans!! So what is a guy supposed to do with
>an Old Tyme kit or a set of classic plans? I naturally will
>extend this an inch, cut that to a different curve, add a
>few bulkheads, make the motor profile mount instead of
>inverted or upright, etc. Who cares, it's still MY Genesis,
>or Impact, or Thirteen, even if it's a bit different.

This is what I was talking about: we are getting off into the area of the ancient Greek passtime of sitting about for hours and arguing over how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin.

Ron,

You're kidding, Right? Did you start this just to see how many people would jump in? I confess, I just couldn't help myself! Slow day in the shop.

"Scratch" building is not the same as "Scratch" designing. IMHO! If I take a set of Ed Southwick's plans for the Skylark and cut every piece by hand, I sort of think I "Scratch" built it.

Scratch design: Beware all! I have been formulating a design for many years which will do 5' corners and will have the ability (even in the hands of a sport flyer) to do a perfect pattern in 40 MPH winds. I will not share this knowledge with any of you yet, as this is not a completed design. :>

Test flights have been very good with 5' pullouts from vertical (either direction) to be automatic with no bounces. Working on the Hourglass to improve the 3rd corner and should have that solved by November. If this works then the "Super-Zoot" stunter will be available to all for a mere pittance! I haven't decided on a name as yet. Suggestions would be most appreciated! Kit prices F.O.B. Pampa, TX: $1.95 for ARF version, $1.65 for ARC. Plans $1,500.00. If you want to "Kit bash" then you can't use the name I come up with!

>Suggestions would be most appreciated! Kit prices F.O.B. Pampa,
>TX: $1.95 for ARF version, $1.65 for ARC. Plans $1,500.00. If
>you want to "Kit bash" then you can't use the name I come up
>with!
>
>Later, John

Hmm.. How about "Vapor"

>>Suggestions would be most appreciated! Kit prices F.O.B. Pampa,
>>TX: $1.95 for ARF version, $1.65 for ARC. Plans $1,500.00. If
>>you want to "Kit bash" then you can't use the name I come up
>>with!
>>
>>Later, John
>
>Hmm.. How about "Vapor"

Or "Chimera"...

Finch, Jake,

GREAT suggestions! "Effusive" is at the top of the list!

>Finch, Jake,
>
>GREAT suggestions! "Effusive" is at the top of the list!
>
>Later, John

There you go, now we got it cranked up!

Jake

PS: One other suggestion is the "Nebulous": it's the only PA model design in the universe you can squirt under a closed door with a turkey baster and have it come out on the other side intact...

>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>
>Scratch built is just that,start with a few scratches on a
>note pad,and from that,develop a design,then build a
>model.This is a long and rewarding process,usually involving
>a lot of compromise and false starts along the way.If done
>right it's the ultimate satisfaction in modeling.It,s the
>antithesis of kit building.It'an original art form,and as
>such is satisfying to the artist regardless of the opinions
>of others.
>
>Ron,
I classify scratch building as you describe it, as "clean sheet work." My Backfires are "clean sheet" ships. That said, I don't see it as superior in any way, or more or less satisfying then some other type of effort in stunt. A well done ARF, to a newbie may provide even more satisfaction than my "clean sheet" Backfires.

We cannot make general statements as to what is more or less satifying to someone else. It may well indeed provide more satisfaction for you! The Backfire series provides tremendous satisfaction for me, because it is EXACTLY what I was looking for in a stunt ship in conjunction with the then new Saito 72.

I actually derive tremendous satisfaction contributing to Windy's Pro Stunt Video series. I get a great deal of satisfaction contributing to the this Forum. Sometimes, I can't decide which activity gives me more satisfaction!

I say, lets skip the semantics and focus on enjoying this "Golden Era"
in control line stunt.

>I classify scratch building as you describe it, as "clean
>sheet work." My Backfires are "clean sheet" ships. That
>said, I don't see it as superior in any way, or more or less
>satisfying then some other type of effort in stunt. A well
>done ARF, to a newbie may provide even more satisfaction
>than my "clean sheet" Backfires.
>
>We cannot make general statements as to what is more or less
>satifying to someone else. It may well indeed provide more
>satisfaction for you! The Backfire series provides
>tremendous satisfaction for me, because it is EXACTLY what I
>was looking for in a stunt ship in conjunction with the then
>new Saito 72.
>
>I actually derive tremendous satisfaction contributing to
>Windy's Pro Stunt Video series. I get a great deal of
>satisfaction contributing to the this Forum. Sometimes, I
>can't decide which activity gives me more satisfaction!
>
>I say, lets skip the semantics and focus on enjoying this
>"Golden Era"
>in control line stunt.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Milton:You've just agreed with me.Read my last carefully,it says satisfying to the artist,regardless of the opinions of others.As to other forms of satisfaction they are what you make of them,I'm talking about building a model airplane.The "newbie" may derive as much satisfaction from his ARF,but he certainly can't claim to have scratch built it.

This is not a semantic discussion,nor is it etymylogical or sophistic,it's phylosophic.It has to do with recognition of relative merit.I would far rather see your "newbie" show up with a poorly done kit than an excellently assembled ARF.I'd be even more impressed if he built it from plans.And unless we recognise these relativities,he'll probably never be a scratch builder.

My scratch built from plans are called "bogus." My own are my dreams that became reality with no plans. Fly or not they are my scratch built, that were build.

Ya know, at one level this whole thing is in fact kinda silly.

On the other hand, folks like Ron, who really do "build from scratch" **fully and completely deserve** a short-hand way of describing what they are doing versus knuckle-draggers such as myself who merely build from plans and most recently took out all his "creative" talents and abilities in modifying a SIG Skyray 35 into a Cool Volvo-like Skyray 20.

Ron obviously meets the scratch-builder definition. So does Al Rabe. Paul Walker, especially with the B-17 twins. There are others who qualify as scratch-builders. But, ya know, there really aren't many. Give them their due, I say. (Even if the message should probably have been delivered by someone other than a craftsman of Ron's caliber.)

As long as the definition of terms has been brought up, what about "kit-bashing?" I see this applied to simple modification of existing kits where my understanding of this term indicates that two or more kits would be robbed of individual features in order to make one unique model. Further, my recollection is that the term comes from model railroading where they do indeed combine multiple kits to build, for example, one structure.

I have, however, noticed something missing in Ron's life: Actual spaces between words. Ron, can I mail you some extras? Always glad to help.

D a n

LAST EDITED ON May-12-04 AT 10:07 PM (CDT)
 
>
>I have, however, noticed something missing in Ron's
>life: Actual spaces between words. Ron, can I mail
>you some extras? Always glad to help.
>
>D a n

Ron B.
F4Fguy

D a n :

There are supposed to be spaces???

Please send some (FEDEX overnight preferred).

Thanks in advance,

R o n B .

Edit:
PS:OOORRRRRR....Spaces?...We don't need no stinkin' spaces!!!

Well...I sort of see what you are trying to say. The fellow who taught me to build from plans told me to take those plans and cut out an entire kit before starting to build. Heh, a plans-kit if you will.

Back when I was a teen, I was pretty low on cash. I built an original profile, not from plans, but from and idea. It came out a little nose heavy with a ST35 (and then a ST46) and a flimsy pushrod from the looks of the pictures. It would turn well well enough, but might have had a lot more potential than I ever realized.

Wish I still had it to play with, now that I know a lot more about trimming. Don't even have a set of plans, but do have the important numbers, airfoil source, and some pictures. Might have to build one again someday and see how well my memory serves...

Heck, let's see if I can post a pic...before you think arggg...what a nasty piece...remember this was done by a teen on his desk in his bedroom and only the most rudiment of tools, a hard back single edge razor, sandpaper and my Mom's iron. It took for ever to score plywood to the point to snap it clean! Monokote was new to me (and a lot of others) and it showed. It's amazing what you can do when you really want to.

Man, tools sure do make life easier these days, but for some reason I build slower than ever! Used to knock stuff out in a few weeks. Go figure...

So, what year was this? Does it qualify for Classic or in your case OTS? We need plans as that is a good looking plane. You are judging stunt at Marietta this weekend , right?? Hint.

Well for my 2c, you ain't scratch built it if you ain't made your own balsa tree first. Then there is dug up your own ore and smelted it, cast and machined your own engine parts etc. Did I mention make your own ore in the first place?

I have never ever before met another modeler who did not think scratch built meant anything other than not built from a kit and own design to mean that they personally designed it. I think I will stick to this meaning as it seems to be understood by the vast majority of modelers I meet. Surely that is the whole point, to communicate clear meaning to the majority.

>I have never ever before met another modeler who did not
>think scratch built meant anything other than not built from
>a kit >
>Regards,
>Ken

Ron B.
F4Fguy

You've led a sheltered life.Check some of the other posts in this thread.

Ron B.

P.S.: Come on over to the mine sometime,I'll show you my balsa greenhouse.

Not that it matters, but I too have always understood the term scratch building to mean not built from the kit.

However, my father built a homebuilt full scale plane (from plans he bought, a Hatz CB-1 biplane), and when he took it to flyins, it was always referred to as plans built, which I do believe to be more descriptive. It was a rule thing I believe to diferentiate those built from kits.

I only see this a really mattering in the case of categories in competition, where the definitions should be defined in a glossary of terms in the publication containing the rules.

I have usually heard designers say they designed such and such. I havn't heard them refer to their designs as scratch built. So unless it is important for rules compliance, I really don't think there exists much confusion, and certainly no disrespect. Neat discussion, I will probably herewith start to refer to my planes as plans built. However, the furniture I build, I will just say I built. No confusion there, kits are very rare in that hobby (although they do exist). And in that endeavor, I rarely differentiate between the furniture I design, or build from drawings.

The R/C scale guys have solved the matter of special recognition as far as competition goes with their "Designer Scale" category.

>You've led a sheltered life.Check some of the other posts in
>this thread.
>
>Ron B.

Yeh, I am only 47, a young wipper snapper really

Back in my day we had to grow our own balsa. We could'nt just go down to one of those new fangled "hobby shops". And we had to cut our our own planks, sheets and spars with our Tom Nix pocket knives. And we had to make our own glue, yea from boiled down horse hooves. And we caught, killed and distilled laquer beetles for that "Front Row Finish" Thats the way is was and we liked it, WE LOVED IT. Cmon Ron, there has got to be much more important things in you life to occupy your mind. Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks. Im still shaking my head

What about the modeler who designs and draws their own plans and then sends them to the laser cutter. What do we call them? Also, do we have to create our own airfoil to be considered a true scratch builder?

After giving this some thought I do tend to agree with your statements concerning scratch built or plans built. I think like others have mentioned that we have made it mean something intirely different over the years. I also think it is more difficult to accurately duplicate someone elses design than creating my own.

Hmm, I'll have to scratch my head with one hand and my backside with the other on this one.
For any plane that I have designed myself, though few, I have made plans rather than just start slicing balsa. Now are we going to differentiate between purchased plans and home-made plans?
I have never heard the term "plan built". To me, scratch building is when you have to make the parts.
But it does generate some discussion.

George

Edit: Additional thought. Might the word "Designing" also fit in this discussion?

Hi Ron:

I wood (;o respectfully disagree...Scratch built is NOT a kit without the wood!

Don't confuse Original Design with the building process.

I would argue that if I build from a plan, I have fabricated, FROM Scratch, as many pieces as someone else that built an Original Design FROM SCRATCh.

I in fact, make control horns, leadout sliders, control slider nuts, landing gear, tanks, wing cores, molds for panels, etc. .

Design and Build are two distinct disciplines.

No argument from me though about the added respect one deserves for doing both the design and the build.

MHO

"By definition,the Nobler already existed as a design ,therefore you cannot scratch build one,unless you build a new design and call it "Nobler"."

Sorry Ron but that's Bollochs!

For a start we've got one verb here describing two activities, designing & building. On the subject of designing I'd ask if there has been really anything more other than design refinements over the last couple of decades anyway?

If you scratch build a Nobler I don't think there is too much controversy about who actually designed it? If you claim to have scratch built a Nobler, I don't think anyone would jump to the conclusion that you actually designed it?

Scratch built is exactly that, built from the start, like and identical to building from plans but not from a kit. How do you get designed into it?

Wow, a thread on the proper definition of scratch built. Everybody involved in this hobby understands what is implied when you use the phrase scratch built. It simply means the fabrication of the parts required for frame up. I have never once thought that when a person says they scratch built that it also means they designed it.

I know the board has been slow lately but come on!!!!!!!!

>By definition,the Nobler already existed as a design
>,therefore you cannot scratch build one,unless you build a
>new design and call it "Nobler".

But these are your definitions and can not be quantified or identified elsewhere. "Common knowledge" does not cut it. "Common knowledge" varies from area to area, era to era, etc. Where I come from "yawl" is a three masted boat. Here in Georgia, it is the first or third person plural. Ask Brit for a rubber, you get an eraser. Ask an American and you get a Trojan. Both are "common knowledge" to each.

As I tell my wife from time to time, "That you say it does not make it so."

Ron, this is probably a pet peeve not worth falling on your sword over.

V/r

Ron B: Oh, pleeease.

>in the modeling world,"scratch built" has always had the
>connotation of,from design to finish.

With all due respect, since when Ron? This is the first time I have ever heard of this definition. I have never known the phrases to also include designing. Please provide some history, or examples.

Hmmmm.. Scratch built requires "design"?

Considering that quite a bit of what we call "design" in Stunt is not much beyond re-styling, its valued added to the "scratch" classification might be questioned.

My Gran used to make her fabulous biscuits "scratch" (no Bisquik), I cannot say if she designed the recipe or not!

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." -Mark Twain

>My Gran used to make her fabulous biscuits "scratch" (no
>Bisquik), I cannot say if she designed the recipe or not!
>

Doesn't Hardees advertise that their biscuits are made from scratch? Surely they use a recipe. I would hate to think that every baker at every Hardees designs his own version of the biscuits they bake!

Maybe common useage of the word should prevail.

(You still do a good job of both designing and building, Ron, even though I am not a big fan of weathering which you also do quite well.)

...Doesn't Hardees advertise that their biscuits are made from scratch? Surely they use a recipe. I would hate to think that every baker at every Hardees designs his own version of the biscuits they bake! ...

If they do, so far, all I've tried have created good recipes
Their gravy isn't bad either

F4FGuy brings up a controversy that swept through the free flight rubber powered world a few years ago. This question has been addressed by various people in MA magazine and other mag's and their take on it was just as F4FGuy states. Scratch built is different from plans built which is different than kit built.

When I build one of my own designs, I refer to it as "My Own Design" and therefore avoid the whole discussion. I agree with Ron in concept but reality is not so clear.

Now we are going to get off into all kind of weird areas like going to South America and cutting down your own balsa trees and sawing them into stock sizes yourself...

>Now we are going to get off into all kind of weird areas
>like going to South America and cutting down your own balsa
>trees and sawing them into stock sizes yourself...
>
>Jake

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Jake:

If you're cutting them for your own truly "scratch" built airplane,why should they have to be cut to stock sizes?

Ron B.
Edit:
PS:Maserati,when it was run by the Maserati brothers,made their own bolts,nuts,and hardware.

>>Now we are going to get off into all kind of weird areas
>>like going to South America and cutting down your own balsa
>>trees and sawing them into stock sizes yourself...
>>
>>Jake
>
>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>Jake:
>
> If you're cutting them for your own truly "scratch" built
>airplane,why should they have to be cut to stock sizes?
>
>Ron B.
>Edit:
>PS:Maserati,when it was run by the Maserati brothers,made
>their own bolts,nuts,and hardware.

I know guys that make their own rifle barrels too, including the rifling machinery used to cut the lands and grooves.

>I know guys that make their own rifle barrels too, including
>the rifling machinery used to cut the lands and grooves.
>
>Jake

Ron B.
F4Fguy

So do I.

>>I know guys that make their own rifle barrels too, including
>>the rifling machinery used to cut the lands and grooves.
>>
>>Jake
>
>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>So do I.
>
>Ron B.

I understand the theory of what you are talking about, but the majority of ALL modeling (and firearms, boats, cars, etc. and so on and so forth) is still nothing but a duplication in one form or another of an already pre-existing pattern, no matter if the maker is aware of that or not.
"There is nothing new under the sun".

Maserati. Hmmm Italians, and we all know it is common knowledge that they are obsessive to the point of being kinda crazy. Just ask my wife. Ha:P

>Maserati. Hmmm Italians, and we all know it is common
>knowledge that they are obsessive to the point of being
>kinda crazy. Just ask my wife. Ha:P

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Or mine.(D'Abruzzi)

Ron,

I guess I'll share the flames. I'm on your side, strangely enough.

As an example:

I built an SV-11 from a kit. While I did make some stylistic changes, it was still a kit built plane.

I built an Impact from plans and again made some stylistic changes, but it was still a plans built Impact.

My new plane is scratch built. I designed the plane (indeed doodling on some notepaper and playing around with Larry's StuntribX), drew the plans on real paper with real pencils - well drafting pencils and ships curves anyway -, selected the balsa, built the plane and finished it. It's probably not a world beater, but I like it and had a lot of fun doing it. Doesn't take anything away for the other planes. I had fun with them too.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Ion:

A plans builder.

>Ron, it's OK if in your dictionary a scratch builder is one
>that starts from nothing exept a piece of paper and a
>pencil.
>Just let us know what does your dictionary calls a guy that
>builds fron a set of plans.
>
>Ion

But the real truth is that they don't. No matter what the structure et al might be they are still following in the track of someone else who has already been there before they were.

Ron,

Question:

I design my own plane from scratch, build it, fly it and like it.

I then draw up a full set of plans and build a second.

Is the second plane no longer scratch built?

After reading all this, I am beginning to believe more and more that the meaning of a word depends on its useage. the word "Bad" used to mean bad until, in certain circles, it came to mean "good". Then it was used on a flag in an olympics saying "we are bad" and its use gave offense when the intent was exactly the opposite.

I am thinking now that the original intent or meaning was to make without a recipe. When a person baked a cake or biscuits from scratch, they not only added the necessary ingredients, but trully added them in a haphazard way, no measuring (pinch of this, handful of that) and no recipe. (Webster: "Arranged or put together with little selection of material; haphazard".) Later it came to mean any product baked not using a premeasured mix. There have been homebuilt planes where the plans were "scratched" out on the garage floor with chalk. We would much rather use well drawn plans today (I would, if I was flying in it). I have a couple of planes that I built in my youth that just "happened". There were no plans. A little of this, a little of that, and I just slapped it together. They flew. They would be Classic legal. But there are no plans. Hmmm. With no offense to Ron, I think, as in baking the cake, the word has evolved in its useage to mean a pland not built from a kit.

Oh, well, it doesn't really matter in the flying. And this was a good diversion from some of the other arguments we got into. And no one (hopefully) took anything personally. That's good.

>Ron,
>
>Question:
>
>I design my own plane from scratch, build it, fly it and
>like it.
>
>I then draw up a full set of plans and build a second.
>
>Is the second plane no longer scratch built?

Ron B.
F4Fguy

It's YOUR design and YOU drew the plans,any YOU build from them are scratch.

>Since the ARFS are coming, I guess a guy that buys a ARF and
>tears the covering off or performs other mods is called an
>ARF-Scratcher.
>
>New word for the model community is:
>
>ARF-Scratcher---one that modifies almost ready to fly
>aircraft.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

The term you're searching for is "ARF Basher",as in "those bashers won't let me say I built it",or "bring that ARF over here so I can bash it".