Jump to content

ARTF vs Kit built


David Perry
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advert


Here goes to try to respond to several other posts...
 
There's no room in my shed for such things as toasters, fridges etc, but I do have a portable radio permanently tuned in to Radio 4 to prove that I really am an old fart...
 
How do those, who only manage red spots on their creations keep it down to that level? When I spill the red stuff it makes much more mess than that! 
 
As for glue, I mainly use PVA with some epoxy and some contact types. Balsa cement was the only thing to use when I started building and is still, IMO, the best  glue to use when planking a fuselage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, well Pete Lowe has his column where he's built a few trad kits over the last few months and Janet did the Magnatilla a few months ago too.
Gerard Feeney build the Sig Four Star 60 in last Autumn's 'Special' but trouble is that these are all existing time-honoured traditional kits that have been around a few years now. Brand new trad kits are virtually non-existant as far as I can tell unless someone knows different?
 
New materials can blur the situation a bit. Do you call a Depron or foamy model traditional. The material might be new but the model still needs some skill to construct?  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a difficult problem.  I know I just missed the Magnatilla article(s) when I started my subscription.
 
There is definately some scope for repetition- after all these long time kits are all new to people like me that are starting out in the hobby.  Maybe they could be used as a basis for looking at different modelling techniques, rather than straight forward reviews?  Or perhaps shorter reviews of a range, rather than in depth reviews of a single one.
 
As the original post shows, the financial commitment of a kit is similar to that of an ARTF- just to buy it, more to complete it, and it can be hard to find out either what is available, or opinons of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to be of a certain age to be a 'traditional' modeller Myron.
Trouble is nothing stands still and in a few years time will we be saying how the generation of the year 2020 can't build like us traditional Depron builders did in the good old days?
 
Andy - yes I agree, it shouldn't stop us re-visiting some of the classic kits along the way.   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
David, there are still some fabulous kits out there, that have not been reviewed for more years than i care to mention, Great planes Ultra sport 40/60 anyone Sig Kouger ?? Galaxy Mystic?? and i understand that you are in the magazine industry and you have to publish stuff that will sell mags, but honestly there are enough of us idiots (trad builders) that would love to see a few more of these kits reviewed, although finding a reviewer able to build and with a linguistic flair may also be rather difficult !! I am a member of TMFC and hardly anyone builds or even knows how to build anymore, im sure that if they saw a kit reviewed that they fell in love with (steady on) they may even be tempted to find a swann morton and a 10a blade as for calling foam models  a trad kit go and stand in a corner with your finger on your lips i have just finished a blizzard and that is far more involved than most other foamys but even so its just a big airfix kit, and it can hardly be called a build !!
 
keep the dust flying chaps 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...