A brief ARF rant....

I wonder how ARFs would have impacted where I am in the hobby. I honestly don't know.

Would I have been encouraged to build a kit, or would I just keep buying (assembling) ARFs?

I'm working on a kit Oriental right now, but to be honest, I fully suspect that the ARF kits coming for the Oriental will be superior in workmanship, etc...I could give any number of examples.

Plus, in terms of pure dollars, getting the ARF ship in the air would cost me far less than half the money I'll end up spending getting my kit built version up.

In the end, all that matters is that people have fun and enjoy the hobby. But the more I think about it, the more I understand peoples interest in this topic.

For me personaly, I'm happy that I've learned the pleasure, and pride, in building a ship from a box of sticks. As I get back in, I may well have an ARF in my fleet at some point, but I'll always be looking for the next sjip to build.

Sorry for the rant, just sharing some thoughts.

Off to make the fuel tank fit and to mix some aeropoxy for filets

Tom,

It sort of depends on what your goals are. I think it's a lot easier for a beginner to fly someone else's light, trimmed plane that try to learn to build and fly at the same time. Flying a local expert's hand-me-down or a straight, light ARF is more likely to teach you to fly well than fighting a poorly build or trimmed, first try plane.

On the other hand, there's sometime to be said for the learning process. You'll certainly get to fly at a more competitive level much more quickly flying a well trimmed, good flying plane, but I don't know if the journey would be as satisfying. Different people, different goals.

I know one of the most compelling elements to this event for me is having an idea and seeing it go from my head to paper to wood to flying and being quite satisfied with the result. With out the many, many, many failures, poorly built or trimmed planes and ill-conceived notions littering the path back to when I started this, that would not be possible and so, my enjoyment of the moment would be substantially diminished.

But that's probably just me.

My opinion is that ARF's will raise the bar as far as enhancing the ability of most to learn how to fly a straight and light airplane. They will set standards for those that assemble kitss, or scratch build.

See Ya

>Tom,
>
>It sort of depends on what your goals are. I think it's a
>lot easier for a beginner to fly someone else's light,
>trimmed plane that try to learn to build and fly at the same
>time. Flying a local expert's hand-me-down or a straight,
>light ARF is more likely to teach you to fly well than
>fighting a poorly build or trimmed, first try plane.
>
>
That is absolutely TRUE. Most beginner I found, don't really know that their model is way out of trim. A lot of time, they just think its their lack of ability, when in many case the model is way out of wack. We have many beginner in our club start with the ARF Flite Streak and withing a few month their able to do the AMA Beginner pattern.

Having a well trimmed ship and good engine is the key. Its better to wreck a few ARFs while learning to fly before you work 1 or 2 years on a real stunt ship.

>I know one of the most compelling elements to this event for
>me is having an idea and seeing it go from my head to paper
>to wood to flying and being quite satisfied with the result.
>With out the many, many, many failures, poorly built or
>trimmed planes and ill-conceived notions littering the path
>back to when I started this, that would not be possible and
>so, my enjoyment of the moment would be substantially
>diminished.
>
>But that's probably just me.

Randy,

Naw, that's a bunch of us. For what it's worth I think you're doing just fine in the process of transferring thought to reality. Your new ship is beautifully integrated aesthetically and within the noise factor trim wise. I couldn't agree more that the pleasure you'll experience when it all gets dialed in will are far exceed that likely to come from a good flying ARF. Not a whine on ARFs, just a pat on the back for taking a concept from dream to fruition. Hard to put a price tag on that.

Love those curved wings!
Ted

There is a place for both in most of our fleets. I compete with built airplanes because I need the extra couple of appearance points but my ARF Nobler sure makes a good back up. I love my ARF for allot of reasons but mainly because I don't have a small fortune invested in time or money and will fly it in conditions I would never dream of flying something I had spent 6 months building. This will eventually make me a better pilot because I am learning how to deal with 25+ mile an hour wind without having my stomach in knots. I have another ARF Nobler in the box and should something happen to this one, a couple of days and I have it's replacement ready to go.

I am also planning on buying a Brodak ARF Pathfinder as soon as they are available. I am running ST 46's in classic and I need a test bed to play with venturi configurations, mufflers etc. The Pathfinder is the perfect solution, again without investing several weekends to build something.

I think ARF's are a good thing for the hobby and have their uses no matter what level you are at.

>I wonder how ARFs would have impacted where I am in the
>hobby. I honestly don't know.
>
>Would I have been encouraged to build a kit, or would I just
>keep buying (assembling) ARFs?
>
>I'm working on a kit Oriental right now, but to be honest, I
>fully suspect that the ARF kits coming for the Oriental will
>be superior in workmanship, etc...I could give any number of
>examples.
>
>Plus, in terms of pure dollars, getting the ARF ship in the
>air would cost me far less than half the money I'll end up
>spending getting my kit built version up.
>
>In the end, all that matters is that people have fun and
>enjoy the hobby. But the more I think about it, the more I
>understand peoples interest in this topic.
>
>For me personaly, I'm happy that I've learned the pleasure,
>and pride, in building a ship from a box of sticks. As I
>get back in, I may well have an ARF in my fleet at some
>point, but I'll always be looking for the next sjip to
>build.
>
>Sorry for the rant, just sharing some thoughts.
>
>Off to make the fuel tank fit and to mix some aeropoxy for
>filets

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Tom:

As Randy says ,it depends on what you see in the hobby/sport and what you want out of it.
If you are only interested in flying,and see the airplane as only a necessary tool,then ARFs are for you.The airplane then takes on the aspect of a tennis racquet,a golf club,a baseball mitt,etc..Under this scenario,flying well then becomes the total aim and training the body to perform is the process.

If you see this "thing we do" as something more than that,as I do,then it becomes a different thing entirely.It becomes an intellectual and emotional thing,as well as a body skill.It takes on an aesthetic,mind engaging aspect as well.Without this aspect,there is little to engage the beginner or the expert beyond the physical.

I have little hope of convincing anyone of the first persuasion to embrace the second,but,I really feel that the ARF will ,eventually, kill PA(MODEL)PA,or at least reduce it to an esoteric curiosity in a world of RC park flyers.I offer free flight and U.C.Combat as examples of areas of modeling which have gone,or are going,down this path.

Even(or perhaps especially)in RC ARFs have had a negative effect on the long term interest.Our local RC club has a fairly steady membership in numbers,but,the roster changes 50/75%each year.The perennial members are all "builders".The ones who come and go are all ARF fliers.If numbers alone are what PAMPA is all about,then embrace the ARFs.If long term,stable membership is desireable,avoid ARFs like a plague.

Ron,

Don't get me wrong. I do think ARF planes have their place. But the place I see is likely different than the place others see. I think it's a fine training mechanism and can be nice for more expert flier in specific situations. I wouldn't have minded having a good flying ARF last year when I lost 2 planes in one contest and had nothing to fly till spring when I could get another plane together. Some, like Da Dirt, just like messing with them in a fun, sport flyer sort of way and use them in competition occasionally for the fun of it.

But I'm sorry to say I agree on the possible long term consequences to CLPA. I suppose we'll see. Much like parents that complain about the violence or sex on TV then continue to watch TV, I suspect some will fume about ARFs even as they buy them.

Everyone has made some really valid points about the ARF's and I have gone on record here in the past as saying that if Brodak ever did an ARF of the Legacy or Vector I would never build another airplane. Well I don't really mean never but I do have to say the TF Nobler ARF and the Brodak ARF/ARC examples I examined at Toledo in April really impressed me. I have been building for 25+ years and I hate to admit this but the ARF's I have seen are nicer than anything I have built recently right down to and including the film/Monokote finish. Would I fly an ARF in a contest setting? Probably not unless someone came up with an all ARF/ARC division.
For me the ARF/ARC airplanes have a place because I just don't have a lot of time to build and they offer an alternative to flying the same old airplane time after time.
I still love to build but I think the ARF's are neat.

I like ARFs because it is ALL I have time to get ready to fly!

I have a Jamison on the board, wing completed. That is 6 months from box to this point. It took 2 years to open the box.

And I am actually a very fast builder. The wing probably has 6 to 8 hours work in it. And it is VERY nice (RSM does make a superb kit!)

Of course, I have spent 20 times that amount of time going flying, but you have to make your choices....

>I like ARFs because it is ALL I have time to get ready to
>fly!
>
>I have a Jamison on the board, wing completed. That is 6
>months from box to this point. It took 2 years to open the
>box.
>
>And I am actually a very fast builder. The wing probably
>has 6 to 8 hours work in it. And it is VERY nice (RSM does
>make a superb kit!)
>
>Of course, I have spent 20 times that amount of time going
>flying, but you have to make your choices....

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Larry: That's kinda what I was saying.You make your choice as to what's important to you.That's a whole different thing than saying "I don't have time to build"!

In the long run,however,that choice has consequences.The significant part of your statement is "it took two years to open the box".And you're right,Eric does make a fine kit,and,now that they're lasered, there's no excuse for not building them.

I seriously doubt I will ever own an ARF. What I like to do is fly models I have built. I have friends who are happy to fly bought or borrowed models or ARF's. I have no problem with that. I think the availability of good ARF's will move more people into CL. Whether they become like me, or stay happy with ARF's, is their problem, not mine.

I have been pretty much anti-ARF in the past. However, one day I had a conversation with a young man who was cleaning up his RC trainer-type ARF. He told me something about his busy life, and bemoaned the fact that, although his trainer no longer challenged his flying skills, he could not find the time to assemble a higher performance ARF. Had it not been for ARF's this person would not have been flying RC.

My present attitude is that ARF's will make CL available to people who could not consider it before. This is fine, so long as I do not have to wait too long between flights.

We really need two things: An attractive, modular-replacable trainer, possibly electric, which also could be modified with off-the-shelf components for higher performance. Notice all the Aerobird, etc. replacement parts hanging up in your LHS.

Secondly, we need a pattern-capable, attractive electric ARF.

I know that CL will be quite different 10 years from now regardles, but I'm 69 years old and it is possible I may not care.

>My present attitude is that ARF's will make CL available to
>people who could not consider it before. This is fine, so
>long as I do not have to wait too long between flights.
>

These people had better know how to fly. The people I see buying the ARFs is people who have been flying all along. A newbie won't know how to fly it. If he makes an attempt he will wreck it. If he doesn't know how to build, he won't know how to repair it.

One flight, one crash, and it is back to video games. I don't see these bringing a lot of new people in.

From Randy:

"Some, like Da Dirt, just like messing with them in a fun, sport flyer sort of way and use them in competition occasionally for the fun of it."

That's part of my current view toward ARFs. However, in combining them with 20FPs, what we call the "Brett Tune-Up," I am also using them to learn a lot more about CL Stunt, at least one set of power characteristics that I like, flying in wind (these things just punch through most of the bad stuff!) and to try whack-job trimming techniques.

Some of which I avoided in the past. I mean, how far can you move the leadouts forward? What happens when they are too far forward? Is it really a disaster? What about flying seriously tip light, will that sucker eat ya, and if it doesn't what is the effect in calm, breezy and windy conditions?

All at little cost, absolutely no risk to my contest models.

And I'm telling you guys, *meaningful* answers to above questions, a lot more I have not listed, **will not** be offered up on this site. Or in Stunt News. Or in a phone call to a buddy. Fact.

The ARFs have a place in CL Stunt, simply need to be applied as one would with any tool. Correctly and with the exact application foremost in one's thought processes.

There will be pressures placed upon our hide-bound-in-tradition event. I do not believe they will be negative. I do not believe they will be of significance, let alone substantial.

>There will be pressures placed upon our
>hide-bound-in-tradition event. I do not believe they will be
>negative. I do not believe they will be of significance, let
>alone substantial.
>
>Dan

Very well said, but not so sure about the substantial part. Only time will tell, my crystal ball hasn't done so good lately.

I'm about as hidebound and traditional as you can find, so my first reaction when word of the ARF Nobler came out was "end of the world".

My wife tells me that on (rare) occassions I might possibly be wrong, or not fully correct, so on thinking and observing further, I'd like to break it down to three questions.

1. WILL THEY BRING IN NEW MODELERS? Sure, but if we can't or don't find ways to keep them then they'll leave again much like the ARF R/C folks do. If we can't find ways to bring some of these folks all the way in to the hobby we have nobody else to blame but ourselves.As the ARF field grows, there are many things we can do to accomplish this if we are willing to put in the effort.

2. WILL THEY BRING BACK INACTIVE MODELERS AND HELP KEEP OUR AGING FRATERNITY IN THE SPORT? Absolutly and especially in two ways. First, the "empty nester" and the retiree with new leisure options can dabble again. The feel of a Flite Streak on the lines is a great way to bring folks back in.
Second, many very skilled racing and combat fliers will find that 5 second laps are friendlier than 2.5 second laps as the birthdays accumulate. Put an ARF Nobler or Cardinal in their hands and more than a few will find that stunt is enjoyable and achievable. I'm not comparing ARF's to certain "quality " enhancing medicines on the markets today but if the analogy fits......

3. WILL THEY CHANGE COMPETITION? Sure they will but so have tuned pipes, composites, foam wings and many other things. We are rational (mostly), eccentric (99.5%), and SHOULD be able to develop ways to maximize the benefits and minimize the loss to the quality of the sport/competition aspect of the hobby. I took 28 years off myself, and a lot of the changes such as the skill classes would have shocked me when I quit in '73, but now I see that the combined wisdom and leadership we're blessed with has done wonders for PA.

Personally I think that at the top end, advanced and expert, there is good reason to reward contestant built models. For one, design progress in this sport is not a commercial function but a participant function. Remove that incentive and stagnation WILL result. Should the amount of incentive (appearance points) remain as it is in quantity or in structure? Good question! More in expert and less in advanced......don't ask me. Watch, analyze with an OPEN MIND (oh that strains some of my mental muscles!), and do what is needed and maybe, just maybe, in another 28 years some of the younger types will be debating things such as should AMA allow mini-nuclear reactors in stunters?????

Len: More flyers=More political clout=more flying fields= shorter waiting lines.

Jeff W.

>>Personally I think that at the top end, advanced and expert, there is good reason to reward contestant built models.<<

I think this is a good point. I see no problem in Beginners or Intermediate flyer using an ARF apart from the concern that flying an ARF isn't teaching them to build. But as Dan notes, it does help in teaching them how to trim and that's certainly worth something.

>Len: More flyers=More political clout=more flying fields=
>shorter waiting lines.
>
>Jeff W.

I agree that new modelers are good (of course I said "modelers" not flyers). However, the above argument always reminds me of the ARRL (Ham radio guys) and their logic. They are always wanting to get more people into the hobby so they can get more clout to keep their present spectrum and, hopefully, get more frequencies. Then, when they get more people, the bands are too crowded so they need more frequencies.

"More flyers=More political clout=more flying fields" Uh, don't expect the government to build fields for us. We are going to have to locate or build our fields ourselves, either individually or as clubs. Political clout won't help. More flyers might put more people in a club (in urban areas) who might build a field. But the lonely guys in the "boonies" will still have to fend for themselves.

Len:

Agreed! None of ous expect the government to build fields for us. We'll settle for just letting us do our thing undisturbed.

Jeff W.

Even though I enjoy building. Heck, I probably enjoy building more than flying. I can forsee an ARF in my future for training purposes.

Maybe it is just my ego or maybe it's the "old school" mentality, but I can't see myself competing, even in Beginner, with an ARF. I just wouldn't feel right about it.

Now, if ARFs had been available when I was first getting into the hobby, I may well feel a lot differently. For example, if a majority of people in my class were flying ARFs, I would not have hesitated to do the same.

I can only help to wonder if I would have discovered, or embraced building. Losing a hand built plane hurts a lot. A lot more than losing an ARF, that's for sure.

By the way, thanks for not letting this thread get ugly. I was afraid that it would turn into mess

I really am enjoying seeing the diversity of thoughts.

Without Constant BOM rant threads, this group has to have some 'Ultimate Evil' to rant about.

I think laser cut kits were the end of modeling, in fact, kits were the end of true modeling. If you couldn't draw it out and cut it from a hunk of balsa with a rusty pen knife, you ain't no modeler.

Besides, you can't bad mouth the Nobler ARF's too much. Thanks to stuffing my Mustang this morning, that's all I have to work with till I get a Vector done, which of course is still in the BOX! Granted, it's right on schedual. I am supposed to finish a flooring install this morning and move some furniture, then after they lay the carpet tomorrow, it's airplane building time.

Clean:
Sorry to hear about your Mustang. Pictures of the oversized P51D that I promised and that
I was unable to post here are on the way via e mail assuming I can come up with your e mail address.

Please tell me you are kidding about kits being the end of modeling

But, point taken. I'm sure people freaked out about it at the time.

I have magazines from the 30's which have ads for ready to fly free flight contest models. Also many ads for airplanes which can be flying in a few minutes or a few hours out of the box. I think model aviation has alway had a large element of impatience. Nothing new about that!

The present offerings in CL ARF's are all aimed at a person with some skill and knowledge. They are not beginner airplanes. The market is obviously the active flyer who does not care to build, or the former flyer who wants to get back into CL with a minimum of fuss. The present generation of ARF's is not designed to move beginners into CL, and will not do so to any great extent.

If the objective is to create a market based on fresh faces in CL, then the tool is an airplane package suitable for a fairly rank beginner. (Read the beginner columns in the RC forums and see what kind of person I am talking about.) Whoever provides this package, mass marketed, will do a great favor to CL, I think (and maybe make a few dollars).

And yes, numbers do matter. We lost a city flying field, two fenced grass circles, here in Austin, because CL died. When the city asked the RC guys about the field, they said it wasn't needed any more. Buder Park, Hobby Field, and Scobee Field are all on public land, and maintained in part by tax dollars. I am hopeful someday there will be enough organized CL activity here in Austin that we can get a field from some governmental organization.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

I agree that ARFs can be a useful tool in teaching the beginner to trim and to learn the pattern with low emotional investment.Unfortunately thats not the way they are seen by many.They are too often considered as the answer to the problem of increasing participation in PA.

Over and over we hear the cry of "look at what they've done for RC,they'll do the same for us!"As Colonel Potter used to say on MASH,"HORSE HOCKEY!".I fly both RC and CL and have been an officer in a large(100+ member)RC club,in one capacity or another,ranging from president to safety officer,for ten years.During that time our membership went from <40 to over 100.The ONLY change that made any difference was aquisition of a flying field.In the year (1995) we finished our runway,we went from 43 members to 130.Since that time we've remained stable within a few members.About 50% of the members are new every year.ALmost all the ones who quit are ARF fliers,most of the new ones are ARF fliers.The ones who stay(and the ones who do all the club work)are,almost exclusively,BUILDERS.The only conclusion to be reached is that:

(1)A lot of ARFs are sold.

(2)Most are to "newbies"

(3)No matter how much encouragement you give*,if there's not a modeler inside there somewhere,they probably won't stay.

*We have free instruction and free mentoring programs,and have active programs to teach modeling to anyone,member or not.

(4)ARFs are very good for the hobby industry.

(5)If you want to increase participation,build a flying facility(ies).

And finally:(6)ARFs do absolutely NOTHING to advance model flying of any kind.

Ron B.

P.S.:I have an ARF NOBLER for the exact reasons given by "Da Dirt",and it's A useful tool for that purpose.I might,in a pinch,even use it in a contest.I certainly would do so fully expecting to lose ANY credit for building it.

The only
>conclusion to be reached is that:

That's a pretty bold statement.

>
>(1)A lot of ARFs are sold.

True.

>
>(2)Most are to "newbies"

In RC yes in CL no. Most of the first round of ARFs from TF went to retreads and people who wanted to see what it was all about and they were almost all present CL pilots.

>
>(3)No matter how much encouragement you give*,if there's not
>a modeler inside there somewhere,they probably won't stay.

VERY TRUE. ARFs are good for modeling businesses but wont make modelers out of people who arent modelers. It just wont happen.

>
>*We have free instruction and free mentoring programs,and
>have active programs to teach modeling to anyone,member or
>not.
>
>(4)ARFs are very good for the hobby industry.

Yep.

>
>(5)If you want to increase participation,build a flying
>facility(ies).

Yes again.

>
>And finally:(6)ARFs do absolutely NOTHING to advance model
>flying of any kind.

I just cant agree with that one. ARFs in RC at the highest levels TOC have really helped advance flying. Real pilots are stealing maneuvers made by the 3-d pilots in IMAC flying ARFs. So to say it doesnt advance flying is a little off. To say it doesnt advance modeling is right on the money.

>
>Ron B.
>
>P.S.:I have an ARF NOBLER for the exact reasons given by "Da
>Dirt",and it's A useful tool for that purpose.I might,in a
>pinch,even use it in a contest.I certainly would do so fully
>expecting to lose ANY credit for building it.
>
>Ron B.

I think a CLPA TOC would be so cool. A big invite where you have to qualify by gaining points over a two year period at various regional contests and the NATS. Then pick a handfull to fly in it and somehow get a cash prize. It would be rad couple it with something to make there be a good reason for people to come watch.

Doug, no one is going to come watch a toy airplane fly in circles, loops or not. I have been flying control line in one form or another since 1951 and the only cl I might stop to watch is combat. Stunt is just boring to me unless I'm flying it. I will watch my fellow competitors, but to go just to watch a name flyer try to win the big bucks, get serious. And it would put them in a "professional" bracket and they cound never again fly in local contests. (just kidding there about the "professional).

Ty.....to the contrary.....I believe that, if properly promoted, folks will come to watch just about anything.....(shovel racing?).

To the uninformed, the third flight in a pattern contest, or in World or National level aerobatics with real airplanes, starts to resemble paint drying.

When Kermit Weeks opened his Fantasy of Flight in Lakeland, Florida, I spoke with him at length about hosting a PA contest on his site......the air is clear and even in the winter that weather isn't awful. He was very excited and asked for more details.

I know that a T.O.C. would work, and I would wager that there could be significantly more money than what Doug proposes available, if done right.

I had thought of running a "T.O.C." type event cuncurrently with the World Championships, using AMA rules.....my bet is that it would be a real eyeopener as to who supported (came to) such an event.

See Ya

>Doug, no one is going to come watch a toy airplane fly in
>circles, loops or not.........

When I fly at the local park, lots of people stop to watch for one flight. They have little interest in waiting for me to prep the plane and engine for another flight. Some and take pictures with their children and the plane. The majority walk past and barely notice me.

When I was flying on the beach one time, I met a fellow that came fom NYC and said that in the late 30's and 40's he flew CL in Central Park ! You have to be in the public eye for people to watch.

If public parks are more available, there would be more interest. However, the concern about safety and noise may have put the dampers on for a lot of public parks. We would have to educate the decision makers which is a lot of effort on our part; not something an ARF flyer would be likley to do.

Rex

LAST EDITED ON Jun-07-04 AT 10:33 AM (CDT)
 
Ron, I tend to agree with your assemsment. But it has helped me do some trimming experiments and I have discovered that the ARF Nobler can be assembled wrong. I installed my stab and it came out with negative incidence that is still giving me fits, but I have learned something that I had never experienced before or simply did not recognize. I feel absolutely no joy or pride or satisfaction in flying my ARF or any plane I have ever pruchased. For practice they can be nice or a real headache. I love to build and always will. If it wrecks, big deal, I repair it and fly it some more while my "real" planes are drying or still in the jigs. Have to laugh, I made some mods to my ARF Nobler and two judges tried to give me appearance points. I had to stop them and even pointed out the "57 ARF" dry transfeer decals on the rudder. I did make a new cowl ala the 57 Green Label version and stripped and recovered it in silkspan and painted it like an F6F in WW2. Even had a young boy about 10 come up and asked if it was a Hellcat. I was amazed he even knew what one was. They, the ARFS, have always been with us, but die out. The kits stay around and the plans are still selling, so the builders are out there and are having the joy of creation or workmanship that is a great part of this event.