ARTF costs more in the long run

[Ian Holme]

there is some truth in that. To ME the hobby is ALL about the flying, not the building. That is not the case others.

Certainly the loss of an artf would mean alot less to me than the loss of something i put many months of my time into building. But then if you build model aircraft and wish to fly them then you must also accept the likelhood of their loss at some point. If not, you may be better off building model railways....

This point seems to be lost on some I know,who, on the loss of their pride and joy recently, firstly threw what can only be desribed as a tantrum, and then virtually reduced to tears......wrong hobby mate!)

[Derek Nairns]

hi there

its true th artf is a quick way to get into flying .

but without building/repair  skills most models if damaged will be burnt and binned.

shame as most i see could be repaired in some way or other .

it breaks my heart at my club to see this occur.

ive been flying 10 years and have a number of artf models all a number of seasons old .

these have been repaired at some stage ,and despite  the weight increases (mainly ply and araldite).

all give me graet pleasure in flying.

all the best dell

p.s. keep the faith..

[Andy Butler]

This hobby of ours could never be all things to all men. While it's true that the ARTF has made the hobby / sport more accessable to newcomers, kit building is also very rewarding. This thread has all the hallmarks of the IC vs Electric or 2.4 vs 35Mhz debates that still abound. I too started building the old Flying Scale kits as a kid, then moved up to control line and finally R/C. Family life took precedence for a while and the ARTF meant that I could balance life at home and time at the field fairly successfully. Now the offspring have gone their seperate ways, I have the time to spend crafting a creation from kits or plans again (See my Puppeteer thread). Anything that adds to the diversity of the hobby can surely only be a good thing.

Andy.

[andy watson]

This is a debate raging inside me at the moment.

I have spent £130 on a Flair DVII............see my build thread, 6000 views can't be wrong!!  Add into that a seemingly endless collection of widgets and bits- £10 for wing servo mounts, £15 for 2 machine guns, £50+ for covering, I know I will need paint and posibly decals of some form, then the airframe price is pushing £250 quid.  I must have spent £20 on glue!

I know I can buy a Hanger 9 ARTF of the same plane at the same size for £179.  Obviously the engine/radio gear will be the same.

I am enjoying the build- but as a novice there is a big part of me thinking that the finish I will achieve will be less impressive than the perfectly covered ARTF.  Is it worth it?  Well yes, to me it probably is.  But not to the extent of writing off the possibility of ever buying ARTF.  I do know irrespective of repair possibility I would rather watch an ARTF plane bury itself than a kit built one.  At the end of the day it comes down to personal preference- it's model flying.  If the word model is important to you then maybe kits/plans give you the better value, if you are a flyer and modelling is a chore, then ARTF is an obvious choice.  Most people probably fall inbetween somewhere, with the extremists on both sides being wrong!

[Stephen Jones]

Hi again,

Well i think the point has been made , ARTF`s are good value for money if they give you enjooyment , whether it be for the flying or the looks . As is true of kit builds if you have the time and enjoy the building of them no matter how long it takes cost doesn`t always add into the enjoyment factor of things . Its maybe true that some new modelers/flyers may not of ever built a plane in there life so would not have a clue how to fix them , but then without ARTF`s they would not be in this hobby to start with and that would be a sad loss as many of these flyers are quite good flyers . And as i belive this is a dying hobby we need all the new comers we can get big up the foames and the ARTF for bringing then into this fine hobby .

[John Silvester]

Without doubt there are many fliers who would never have started, had it not been for ARTFs , or a friend who built the kit for you! The biggest failing that happens at our strip are the "collapsible undercarts "found on many artfs.We think that the test models were flown off tarmac, rather than grass, which means that for many of the landings here, the U/c is far too weak. Even short grass strips play havoc with some models where the u/c folds back -- with the snazzy spats pushed  backward, up through the wings! The laser-cut wood is great, with plenty of weight saving holes, but the uc legs are often of ally and not dural ,hung on a skimpy bit of ply stuck by the skin of it's teeth to the firewall! It's worth a few grams of epoxy & glass cloth on the inside of the  U/c attachment point, before you install the fuel tank.( or battery!) 

 Quick note for Andy and his D7: I use an old Laser 90 in mine, so extra noseweight is not needed!  Flies a treat mate, but I found a need for locknuts on the 6ba bolts on the cabane and outer struts for safety. You will love it!       You can see a pic of my D7, on the HAMFC site.

[Pete Rieden]

John Silvester wrote (see)

The laser-cut wood is great, with plenty of weight saving holes,

This will probably get me moderated again for being too technical, but those "weight saving holes" always cause me to gnash my teeth! These kinds of holes are great in metalic structures with flanged frames, but in a flat sheet of fibrous material like wood they are utterly pointless because they remove meaterial from the precise place where the load-paths should run. The force the stresses to adopt tortuous routes around the holes and these convoluted load-paths are always dubious.

If the material was too strong then use a thinner piece, possibly stabilised with cap-strips or stringer stiffners, for the same strength at a much lower weight. These structures with their pretty rows of neatly cut holes are just copying features of full-sized metal structures on a "monkey see, monkey do" basis without understanding the why or the how.

PDR

[Bruce Richards]

stephen jones wrote (see)

Its maybe true that some new modelers/flyers may not of ever built a plane in there life so would not have a clue how to fix them

I do not agree with this statement I spent lots of time rebuilding and repairing my ARTF models before going anywhere near a build project. It was good training with no risk, either the model was still scrap after I had "fixed" it or I had a model for "free". I think ARTFs play a very important role in getting new fliers into the air quickly and bringing and keeping new people into our hobby. There is a small amount of construction in putting together most ARTFs and if someone finds this interesting and enjoyable they may, like me, start looking around for something a bit more challenging to make (Wot 4 in my case). So don't knock the ARTF I think it is the main way new people join the hobby today.

[John Silvester]

When I wrote "weight saving holes" I had in mind the plywood stuff that a lot of ready - made planes are built from.It seems to be quite different to the wood that us old geezers use to make our models. But I do see Peter's  reasoning re.  the difference between wood and metal structures. Perhaps we could have some columns in the Mag about this vital subject (asked for elswhere I think?) On examination of one ARTF I found some really interesting extra holes in a lump of "hard wood" (made by a beetle?) -- some 4mm dia! This was the part that the wing- peg was glued into!    --- These were Bad holes!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]