Is traditional building a disappearing art?

[Peter Miller]

One thing that as not been said.

People have always liked to make things. It may not be model aircraft but people have built model cars (static), boats, (both static and working.|) Train layouts and rolling stock. Steam engines, Consider the works of art created by Napoleonic prisoners of war. Models of fully rigged ships made with no tools to speak of but incredible works of art.

There are people who spend years building amazing models out of match sticks. (Aeromodellers are much more sensible, we build models and convert them into match sticks in a split second!!)

So it doesn't matter what happens, there will always be people who will build flying models just because they like building models and they will be the people who teach the others how to repair models and teach those who want to learn how to build models.

We may become few and far between but we will be there.

[Nightflyer]

I was amused at this thread as at my club's meeting last night we had a discussion about our annual model's night, the outcome of which do we still hold it one meeting or spread it across the year and decide the winner at the AGM. It is clear that there has been more of a swing to ARTF's than kit or plan builds which is a shame. Don't get me wrong I think there is room for all, but it does show that ARTF's have made a marked impact over the last 10 years. Maybe it is because we have less free time or workshop facilities etc.

Having said that there is nothing quite like the sense of achievement or knowledge from building it yourself - and hopefully having done it right not end up re-kitting it on the first flight. It is that aspect that possibly also influences newcomers to the hobby to go down the ARTF route.

What is clear though is there are fewer local model shops these days which stock all those essential materials and fittings you need when building from a plan or even kit.

I still get as much enjoyment out of building as flying now as I did as a teenager. Maybe we should be doing more to encourage it in our clubs and encourage newcomers to the hobby to have the confidence to build it themselves too.

[MattyB]

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 13/04/2017 10:52:19:

"Basically we are at an inflection point - what we have known as "the hobby" is going to change massively in the next 10-15 years in terms of the participants, the types of craft they fly and for what purpose. Fighting or lamenting this is IMO pointless - it will happen over time whether you like it or not, so it's probably best to just immerse yourself in the bit of the hobby you enjoy and dabble in something new occasionally too; you never know, you might like it..."

Seems to me we've been at 'an inflection point' for as long as I can remember and the hobby has been changing constantly for at least the last 50 years. Carrier wave, super-het., reeds, proportional, silencers - 40 years ago companies such as Jim Davies were flogging pre-built models, early ARTFs!

Agreed, but I would argue the combination of huge technological change, potentially significant regulatory change and a major demographic change on the horizon amongst the traditional modelling community is an unprecedented combination.

[Lone_Wolf]

Most of my models are ARTF though I have built 2 true kit models (SIG somethin' Extra and Seagull Challenger) as well in the time I have been model flying. Going forward I'll be building more kit models I think as I've had mixed experiences with ARTF planes.

I feel the need to spend a lot of time getting things right for an ARTF and am not always able to get it how I would like because of my radio & engine choices have provided assembly issues. Proper fuel proofing can be difficult because the structure is ready built with poor access. Every ARTF I've had with a few exceptions need re-ironing of the covering. Many of the additional components are poor quality so need to be changed. Some just don't fit at all.

The solution for me then is to move away from ARTFs and build more traditional kits or one day even from plan.

I'm assembling a Ripmax Bullet right now and it's driving me crazy. It's the worst ARTF I've ever worked on.

• Horrible covering
• None of the clevises fit the rods provided
• The push rods themselves are 1.7mm not 2mm with the threads not properly formed
• Slot for the wing too small so the wing would not meet the fuzz properly
• Dubious fixing method for wing fairing are the highlights

OK so I change all the rods & clevises. I iron as best I can the covering. I enlarge the slot so the wing fits. I devise a better method to attach the wing fairing. I add an extra hinge to the rudder because it only had 2 to start with. I fiddle for hours to get the rudder & steerable nose wheel to co-operate with the one servo. Finally I wish I'd bought the PB Bullet instead which by now could have been built in the same time it's taken me with the ARTF Ripmax one and no doubt made a better model.

Most other ARTF builds have been better with Kyosho so far the best IMO. For me building from a kit gives me total control over the process.

Last year I destroyed my ARTF Acrowot while flying on a gusty day. On the walk back from the crash site with some club mates carrying all the remains one of them said "at least it was only an ARTF".

So traditional building may appear to be a disappearing art, but I think that is just a blip. I came into the hobby on the ARTF train and I'm now changing to traditional building. Have a Chris Foss WOT 4 MK3 kit sitting on my bench which I'm looking forward to building soon.

[Bill_B]

"Is traditional building a disappearing art?"

No, the manufacturers of ARTF kits are busy building hundreds a day.

[Stuphedd]

Chris B knows who I am talking about , We have a scratch builder in our club , yes he is of the older generation , but I rate him as one of the best ,museum quality detail !

He takes his time , about 3 years to finish a model , But the problem is that when covered you cannot see the workmanship. He like some others mentioned here get someone else to test fly his creations , a very nerve wracking time then he flies them once or twice and then actually gives them away !

So he belongs to the builders side but he does fly , but mainly the older Cocklebarrow type aircraft which need a true "oldie" to be able to trim them .!

I have put some of his models on the forum from time to time , so far without comment , so I presume 90% of the membership are flyers rather that builders !

personally I like getting a broken up ARTF and rebuilding /repairing it , its quicker than finishing my Stampe , Tiger Moth , Snipe , and the couple of conliners for my son !!

cheers

[Nigel R]

The spare time thing is my biggest issue. Putting aside the quality issues, a foamie can go together in a handful of hours. That I can fit in quite easily. 50 or 100 hours of balsa bashing for a sport model, not so simple, I doubt I'll get my current airframe in the air within six months of building time. I wouldn't even dream of tackling a bipe - it'd be years before I finished it.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Paul C.]

Posted by Lone_Wolf on 13/04/2017 14:14:03:

Most of my models are ARTF though I have built 2 true kit models (SIG somethin' Extra and Seagull Challenger) as well in the time I have been model flying. Going forward I'll be building more kit models I think as I've had mixed experiences with ARTF planes.

I feel the need to spend a lot of time getting things right for an ARTF and am not always able to get it how I would like because of my radio & engine choices have provided assembly issues. Proper fuel proofing can be difficult because the structure is ready built with poor access. Every ARTF I've had with a few exceptions need re-ironing of the covering. Many of the additional components are poor quality so need to be changed. Some just don't fit at all.

The solution for me then is to move away from ARTFs and build more traditional kits or one day even from plan.

I'm assembling a Ripmax Bullet right now and it's driving me crazy. It's the worst ARTF I've ever worked on.

• Horrible covering
• None of the clevises fit the rods provided
• The push rods themselves are 1.7mm not 2mm with the threads not properly formed
• Slot for the wing too small so the wing would not meet the fuzz properly
• Dubious fixing method for wing fairing are the highlights

OK so I change all the rods & clevises. I iron as best I can the covering. I enlarge the slot so the wing fits. I devise a better method to attach the wing fairing. I add an extra hinge to the rudder because it only had 2 to start with. I fiddle for hours to get the rudder & steerable nose wheel to co-operate with the one servo. Finally I wish I'd bought the PB Bullet instead which by now could have been built in the same time it's taken me with the ARTF Ripmax one and no doubt made a better model.

Most other ARTF builds have been better with Kyosho so far the best IMO. For me building from a kit gives me total control over the process.

Last year I destroyed my ARTF Acrowot while flying on a gusty day. On the walk back from the crash site with some club mates carrying all the remains one of them said "at least it was only an ARTF".

So traditional building may appear to be a disappearing art, but I think that is just a blip. I came into the hobby on the ARTF train and I'm now changing to traditional building. Have a Chris Foss WOT 4 MK3 kit sitting on my bench which I'm looking forward to building soon.

Hi Lone Wolf, you are correct the rods and crevices are a nightmare different thread sizes and quality of the clevices is dire. Binned all the clevices and replaced with ones that fit all the differing sizes of threaded rod.

Under wing fairing needed surgery to make it fit correctly so I epoxied quarter balsa doublers in strategic places.

The trim is great until it drops off! 😂 hot iron worked for a while but have now moved on to fuel proofer.

BUT it really does fly well 👍 goes where you point it and is quite neutral when inverted, running a SC46. Not a 3D machine but will do nice big maneuvers.

Not as strong as the PB Bullet but arfs are not built that way, nearly forgot the steerable front wheel is a pain but then I never have any luck with them.

Hope you enjoy yours, Paul

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Delta Foxtrot]

There will always be people who will want to design and build their own flying machines. That side of the hobby will never die, but it is probably already a minority interest.

[Jonathan M]

The bottom line is that industry has now long been heavily geared-up to feed us highly seductive and addictive but ultimately completely unsatisfying 'fast-food' ARTF's, usually foam. Our shops and online retailers are full of them, as are the magazines, so its hardly surprising that they predominate, but it doesn't surprise me that many peeps have garages full of these dead things.

I appreciate that to survive the mags and retailers have to stock the crap, but all credit to magazines like RCM&E and forum websites like this for holding the fort and promoting building from plans and the suchlike.

Personally I'm a builder by nature, just as I was as a twelve-year old when I messed with scale and sport free flight rubber, CO2 and diesel and some control-line action, and now as a free-flight scale builder again, and RC too.

I don't buy the excuse that people don't have the time. Just keep the TV off, ditch that second or third unnecessary holiday away each year and get building.

My other observation, following on from Jon Harper's comment above, is this: I now reckon that starting out with a lightweight foam electric trainer (a RIOT) both retarded my learning and left me with some bad habits, and ultimately left me bored (although, to be fair, it did permit me, pre-test, to gain fuss-free stick time by flying on my own in random fields).

 

 

 

Edited By Jonathan M on 13/04/2017 23:10:45

[Simon Chaddock]

It perfectly possible to 'build' a plane (and scale if you like) out of flat sheet foam, just like you do with balsa.

Traditional construction techniques in foam - foam bashing?

[bouncebounce crunch]

I reckon club environment and available spending is hindering traditional builds. The club can be restrictive and confrontational at times, far from when a couple of mates built a model each and met at the field/schoolyard/golf course to test them. Teenagers and their models and really enjoying the moment .Now it seems to be grumpy old men wanting bigger and better than their nemesis or finding anything to gripe about. we are killing ourselves and the hobby.

a flat surface a few cheap cutting sanding and measuring tools is all you need to produce a nice flyable model. Powered Bandsaws, scroll saws, sanders and the like can make it easier but not better. Tim the toolman in my club could not build a flyable example even with all his money. back to basics is how we can pass on our great hobby.

[David Davis]

Posted by Tom Sharp 2 on 13/04/2017 20:16:15:

Buy a foamy on Saturday morning (Scale or Stunt), assemble it over lunchtime coffee, fly it down at the club in the afternoon.

Fun, fun, fun, where's the problem?

 

The satisfaction gained in assembling and flying a foamy is far less than that gained by building your own model from scratch, and before you ask, I've done both.

You don't know what you're missing Tom.

One of these might be a good first step if you're already a competent flyer, particularly if you can get a clubmate to help you, mind you, I'd add an elevator myself. They're certainly cheap enough. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/APS-Sharkface-Laser-Cut-Part-Kit-/292076726204?hash=item44012127bc:g:xgwAAOSwcUBYLJ6n

PS. I've just won a Classic WOT 4 kit on eBay for less than £60. I was the only bidder. Says it all really.

Edited By David Davis on 14/04/2017 07:17:16

[Devcon1]

Traditional building is, I think, a disappearing art but will remain as a small niche market for those who don't just see building as a means to an end, where easier alternatives present themselves we modellers tend to embrace them as I think for a good proportion of us flying is the prime mover.

In the very early days people had to build , including the radio, as no affordable alternatives existed but every new product that presented easier and quicker routes to the skies were embraced by most including foam/obechi wings (oh the irony of foam) and decking, iron on films, epoxy/Cyano glues, glass fuselages, electric starters, pretty painted pilots, laser cut parts and not forgetting the great ARTFs, foam composite models and true ready to fly models straight from box to sky.

The future, well I don't see the basic premise changing much although traditional building will probably have a bit of a renaissance at some stage.

Here's what I think we'll see........

Force feedback to our sticks via telemetry and sensors in the model.

Telemetry stall warnings.

Voice activated radios.

All the clever tech that drones use will become available as standard in fixed wing as opposed to high cost add on systems.

As well as the incremental gains in batteries, motors and further improved composite foam airframes.

✈

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John Dennier]

Here on the wet and windy Vancouver Island there remains a glimmer of interest in Trad building although the sentiments expressed generally in this thread are undeniable. Foamies are by far more popular than home builds but in their defence I for one would not be an aeromodeller if it were not for ARTF's . It is the wetness that inspires me as the rains commence in October and persist well into the new year providing the perfect conditions for extensive model building activities. In my case I have completed a Traplet plans Fairey Firefly which I would have hoped to fly by now in it's birthday suit but have been thwarted by the incessant rain. consequently I have finished the aircraft and it remains in my hangar awaiting the arrival of a dry spell. As winter refuses to relent I have had to turn my hand to further building this time utilising the salvaged corpses of pranged ARTF's, in an ironic twist, and have produced from a sheet of insulating foam an Avro Arrow mounting twin 70mm motors powered by twin 4s batteries. For the benefit of the sceptics out there a comparison between prices might be in order: My Arrow has cost no more than $50 as the parts were already available, in stock as it were, but my hangar contains an SU35 from Motion RC which, by the time dollar exchange rates, shipping and customs duties are paid, costs in the region of $800! This makes a compelling case for home building in cheaper materials.

A fellow club member builds and modifies designs created by RC Powers. These again are easy builds in foam board mostly of park flier style propjets . These aircraft have impressive performance and can be seen on You tube postings in the name of E3Scott. I would be surprised if any of Scott's planes cost more than $40.

This suggests that the case for home builds might be evolving but is not yet a reason for despair. Especially given the interest generated by the mass builds and the gliding fraternity so heartily encouraged by the RCME

Cheers JD

[Jonathan M]

Scratch-built trad aeromodelling at its best: **LINK**

Indoor Free Flight Scale Nats next weekend. I hear Kit Scale entries now up to 40 - double that of two years' ago!

[Peter Miller]

Question

If we get to the stage where everyone flies ARTFs....Who will design the ARTFs of the future?

[Barrie Dav 2]

Chinese, Peter?

A lot of words in this post about kits to build from. Very many of we aeromodellers have always built from plans (Cliff Charlesworth our Peter Miller et al). There's nothing like a new plan to gloat over and savour the forthcoming project

[Ernie]

Instant gratification, How sad........Buy the plastic jobbie in the morning, crash it in the afternoon, move on to something else;

ernie

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Flyer]

Many, many valid points have been made above. I have been taking part in the PSS mass build of the A4 Skyhawk, although I failed to finish in time to be part of the mass launch. I had previously only built from kits, over 20 years ago, until having the family took over. As , I suppose, a 'returner' it was so useful to ask forum members on here 'how to do ' various elements. This I feel is where traditional building will continue.

I suppose we also need to define 'traditional'; in my view this is the production of a flying model from an idea, be it scale or sport. ARTF certainly has it's place; without it I would not be able to fly regularly. But, ultimately, my aim is to design, build and fly aircraft. There will always be different elements of our hobby; those that like to build, and those that like to fly. And, as such, I believe that ARTF's will always encourage a few to improve their models and to move onto plan builds and then own design. Numbers may be small, but from attending (albeit briefly) the PSS at the Great Orme last weekend there are so many enthusiastic members out there who are freely giving their advice and experiences to enable others to build and fly too.

Due to the demise of the LMS, it may take a little bit of planning to make sure you have all your materials to hand, but once you have a few models, you can always find something to do whilst waiting for the postman.....

Ade

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]