Who "builds" ARTF models ?

[kevin b]

I, like many other model aeroplane (not airplane) builders spend many happy hours producing models from plans or boxes containing large quantities of wood known as "kits".

However I do take issue with those who profess to "build" ARTF kits, which after all only leave the final completion of fitting the already manufactured sub assemblies to the purchaser.

I have seen yet another forum member recently announcing their next "build" which was actually "built" in the Far East, requiring bolting together and maybe a few drops of superglue here and there.

Yes I do know that some of these are quite complex and that you (sometimes) have to read the instructions (sorry, try to decipher the pictures) and also in the worst cases maybe reshrink some of the covering.

You wouldn't call decorating, fitting the carpets and carrying in the electrical appliances building your own house would you ? 

I would consider the word "finishing" a better choice as that is what the modeller is actually doing.

The phrase "Almost Ready to Fly" is telling you that you don't need to "build" it, so why say otherwise ?

Anybody got any ideas as to how we could describe these model fliers ?

 

Kevin b.      Tongue firmly in cheek dept.

[Philip Lewis 3]

Technically I agree with you, and I often say that I have assembled and fitted out a new (ARTF) model rather than built it. However, there are various degrees of what is an RTF model from simply bolt it all together to competition models which are often really just a bare basic shell of an airframe with which you most likely won't even have any kind of instructions either. So at what point does it all change? After all some kits also involve more building than others.

 

Isn't the only true build when all you have is a plan and you have to everything else?

 

I don't really see it as a big deal really, I certainly wouldn't be correcting someone who said they had "built" an ARTF, especially if they were new and enthusiastic (exactly what we need) to this hobby.  

Edited April 22, 2023 by Philip Lewis 3
Spelling

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Pretty relaxed on the definition myself, took a box of bits that left alone are nothing, built it into something that flys. Some "builds" are more involved than others, but they pretty much all involve a bit you didn't do.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I don’t see much wrong with the terminology although I tend to refer to assembling an ARTF myself. 
 

I’m quite happy to say that I’ve built a car or motorcycle engine without having crafted a single component - but there’s certainly a massive difference between assembling an ARTF and building from sheet materials.  
 

In between these extremes are such things as traditional kits, CNC part kits, ready to cover etc. - at what point do we transition from assembly to building?

 

I’m of the view that those who only have experience of ARTFs quite reasonably see the exercise as a build whereas those of us who build from scratch or kits have a different perception. 

[Geoff S]

1 hour ago, kevin b said:

I, like many other model aeroplane (not airplane) builders spend many happy hours producing models from plans or boxes containing large quantities of wood known as "kits".

However I do take issue with those who profess to "build" ARTF kits, which after all only leave the final completion of fitting the already manufactured sub assemblies to the purchaser.

I have seen yet another forum member recently announcing their next "build" which was actually "built" in the Far East, requiring bolting together and maybe a few drops of superglue here and there.

Yes I do know that some of these are quite complex and that you (sometimes) have to read the instructions (sorry, try to decipher the pictures) and also in the worst cases maybe reshrink some of the covering.

You wouldn't call decorating, fitting the carpets and carrying in the electrical appliances building your own house would you ? 

I would consider the word "finishing" a better choice as that is what the modeller is actually doing.

The phrase "Almost Ready to Fly" is telling you that you don't need to "build" it, so why say otherwise ?

Anybody got any ideas as to how we could describe these model fliers ?

 

Kevin b.      Tongue firmly in cheek dept.

 

Some years ago, I remember bringing home the Riot I'd bought at a show.  That evening, unable to resist, I sat at my bench, opened the box and trial fitted a few components and suddenly realised that I'd 'built' it!  It took me longer to install a 4 channel receiver and set it up on my transmitter. OTOH, I've spent a sizeable proportion of the day trying to make a decent job of fitting trailing edge balsa to the wing on the Peter Miller Fokker D.VIII I'm actually building.

 

There is a difference - sometimes a big difference - but who cares?

[Andy Stephenson]

To make the distinction kits are now known as, get this, "Builder's Kits"

[GrumpyGnome]

7 hours ago, Geoff S said:

There is a difference - sometimes a big difference - but who cares?

 

Indeed. As long as it helps keep the hobby going, people can call it whatever they want as far as I'm concerned......

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Maybe 'rebuild' would suite it better, looking at the bad quality of these 1/2 finished planes just waiting to lose the undercarriage on take off, the firewall coming apart from the fuselage, or just splitting apart from an over enthusiastic 4 stroke,,

 

Yes, I have been there more than often, 3 fuselages splitting apart from Petrol and methanol 4 strokes.

[Ron Gray]

I build from plans, I also build from ARTF kits, I don’t differentiate as it makes no difference to me and that’s all that matters!

[Graff]

Sometimes I make a kit out of an ARF....

😉 

Let me explain, some ARFs doesn't really have the correct look, so to say.

The Fokker d7 I'm currently building is originally an ARF, but the covering and details were not to my liking.

So, I removed all the covering, rebuilt where necessary, covered in Koverall and dope and added a lot of scale details.

Looking at it, the only time advantage compared to building the body and wings from a good kit is a mere day or two....

 

So, is it building or assembling? 

Heck if I know, it's fun as hell to do.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

I hope that you have changed the strut fixations in the wings,,,,

[Trevor]

10 hours ago, kevin b said:

I do take issue with those who profess to "build" ARTF kits, which after all only leave the final completion of fitting the already manufactured sub assemblies to the purchaser.

 

I used to have the same issue with 'programming' a transmitter where again all of the difficult programming has been done for you by many man-hours of software development and all you are really doing is configuring it to your specific needs. However, I'm long over that now and likewise only wince slightly (or smile, depending on mood) when I see ARTF assembly referred to as 'building'.

 

All this of course is nothing compared to being asked to accept that 'sick' means 'excellent'!!

 

Trevor

[GrumpyGnome]

I used to get outraged with these terms but now only get mildly irritated: gas, nitro, airplane, drone

[Ron Gray]

As we get older life gets shorter so it's not worth worrying about. Gosh that was rather morbid wasn't it?

[leccyflyer]

1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:

I build from plans, I also build from ARTF kits, I don’t differentiate as it makes no difference to me and that’s all that matters!

Yep, I build from kits, from ARTFs,  less commonly from plans, lots of fettling of pre-owned aeroplanes which have been created in all sorts of different materials, balsa, foam, Depron, composites and in a huge range of different sizes. Personally I enjoy all those different aspects of the hobby and they are all building model aeroplanes, which is all that matters. IMO attempting to draw rigid lines in the sand, looking like having the ultimate aim of disparaging the efforts of others who take part in the hobby in a different way, is a very poor attitude to adopt and has been an unfortunate aspect to the hobby.

 

Nothing new though - the same sort of attempts to construct a modelling caste structure dates back to the days of looking down one's nose at those who used that new fangled balsa wood, instead of good old traditional bamboo and oiled silk.

[John Lee]

ARTF's were being 'built' in 1970 so it's rather a long time to hold an 'issue' on the subject. But no doubt some will want to debate it  for another half century 😀. 

[Caveman]

When I started model flying in my late 50s I bought a Ripmax Nova ARTF, Irvine 46 and Futaba package of T6EX transmitter, R617 receiver and 4 3003 servos. I knew next to nothing about RC modelling.

 

 

By the time I'd 'built' it I knew about the adhesives used, I'd been introduced to pushrods, clevises/locknuts/fuel tubing, wheel collets, saddle clamps, engine mounts, spinners, propellers etc.etc., not to mention being able to start and operate the engine.

 

So I consider a humble ARTF an excellent way to start.

 

I also had to learn to fly it, and, inevitably, not always successfully. Following an unfortunate argument with a field of very mature maize plants I also learnt how to repair broken wings and fuselages! I also learnt how to use covering film and repair engines.

 

The Nova ended up looking very different, but it lived to fly again and continues to fly now.

 

 

I have since 'built' models from scratch, from plans and from kits. I've learnt an awful lot from each build. I certainly don't think any type is better than any other, there's a place for all .

 

GDB

[steve too]

11 hours ago, kevin b said:

... boxes containing large quantities of wood ...

 

Boxes of wood? Wood comes from trees. Proper aeromodellers don't use preseasoned and sliced tree. They grow and cut their own. And I hope that you are not using those new fangled ready to use transmitters and receivers.

[Peter Jenkins]

12 hours ago, kevin b said:

I, like many other model aeroplane (not airplane) builders spend many happy hours producing models from plans or boxes containing large quantities of wood known as "kits".

However I do take issue with those who profess to "build" ARTF kits, which after all only leave the final completion of fitting the already manufactured sub assemblies to the purchaser.

I have seen yet another forum member recently announcing their next "build" which was actually "built" in the Far East, requiring bolting together and maybe a few drops of superglue here and there.

Yes I do know that some of these are quite complex and that you (sometimes) have to read the instructions (sorry, try to decipher the pictures) and also in the worst cases maybe reshrink some of the covering.

You wouldn't call decorating, fitting the carpets and carrying in the electrical appliances building your own house would you ? 

I would consider the word "finishing" a better choice as that is what the modeller is actually doing.

The phrase "Almost Ready to Fly" is telling you that you don't need to "build" it, so why say otherwise ?

Anybody got any ideas as to how we could describe these model fliers ?

 

Kevin b.      Tongue firmly in cheek dept.

Hmm - get out of bed on the wrong side?  By the way, once the aircraft is ready to fly (however that was achieved) we all need to fly the aircraft.  For some, building from plans is what motivates them whereas for others flying is what motivates them.  I put myself more on the flying side although I grew up building from kits (Keil Kraft), plans and cutting my own parts out, and in later years ARTFs.  Mostly, though, I prefer to spend my time flying and improving my flying skills.  This may need me to use the facilities on my Tx to add mixes, logical switches and so on.  Many don't touch even things like rates and expo considering it is not true flying.

 

I think one look at how a flight is conducted will tell you if the pilot a) knows how to set up the aircraft and b) whether they have any interest in improving their flying skills or are happy to go from crash to crash learning little.

 

Each to their own I say.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

1 hour ago, steve too said:

 

Boxes of wood? Wood comes from trees. Proper aeromodellers don't use preseasoned and sliced tree. They grow and cut their own. And I hope that you are not using those new fangled ready to use transmitters and receivers.

And fly by wire,,, as in control line,,,

[GrumpyGnome]

Hope you extrude your own wire........

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

3 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Hope you extrude your own wire........

Actually, my planes are fly-by-wire without the wire,

[John Stainforth]

I think assembling ARTF's is an excellent way to getting into building models. This assembling actually requires as much care as the final stages of building a model from scratch. I found that it would typically take me about 30 hours to put together an ARTF. Assembling ARTF's actually got me back into building from scratch. The more effort one puts into the hobby the more one gets back. This is why buying off-the-shelf RTF foamies gives me very little satisfaction; those in my collection are the models that I have the least respect for.

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

From the OED:

 

Build. Verb. To construct (something) by putting parts or material together. 

 

So one does build an ARTF. If you want to get technical about it, you could say you are finishing a build by building using the bits already built by someone else. 

[Jake Bullit]

It's rather be flying than building.