|
|
|
#3463338 - 11/27/11 08:42 PM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Mach 2 Infrared Orangutan
Senior Member
Registered: 10/09/00
Posts: 4214
Loc: New Berlin, WI United States
|
the problem with the total RTR/RTF stuff is that the included radio and running gear is junk. if you have a desire to use a real radio, there are plenty of kits and ARF aircraft to choose from; provided you don't mind shopping for servos, engines/motors, batteries, etc...
that is not to say RTF planes aren't worth it, but if you intend to stick with the hobby, the toy radios just aren't going to cut it.
_________________________
To demand 'sense' is the hallmark of nonsense. Nature does not make sense. Nothing makes sense.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#3466303 - 12/02/11 12:25 AM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: Clydewinder]
|
Member
Registered: 12/15/09
Posts: 2090
Loc: Jerz
|
the problem with the total RTR/RTF stuff is that the included radio and running gear is junk. if you have a desire to use a real radio, there are plenty of kits and ARF aircraft to choose from; provided you don't mind shopping for servos, engines/motors, batteries, etc...
that is not to say RTF planes aren't worth it, but if you intend to stick with the hobby, the toy radios just aren't going to cut it. Plug and Play kits are now very popular, which include servos and motors, but not radios. Some are decent, other's aren't.
Edited by AggressorBLUE (12/02/11 12:26 AM)
_________________________
My Rig:AMD Phenom X4 955 Black Edition OCed@4.0 GHz/GIGABYTE GA-890FXA-UD5 AM3 AMD 890FX Mobo\ MSi AMD 6950 2GB \ 8 Gigs of G.skills Ram\Storage: OCZ SSD 240GB/ Bunch of HDDs\All held together by: Coolermaster HAF 932 case Other Assets Deployed: HOTAS: Logitech G940  CH FighterStick/Pro-Throttle/Throttle Quad/Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals TrackIR Simpit: ETA Q2 2013 Wheel: ETA Q4 2013
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#3469981 - 12/07/11 09:29 PM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Veteran
Registered: 01/15/01
Posts: 12094
Loc: Canada
|
The kit planes seem to hold up a little better, probably because they are built a little tougher. Based on my experience in the industry, its more that kit builders like to overbuild their models. They modify the plans based on their fears. They also tend to over-engine every plane. If its a .91 fs called for they want to put in a 1.60. That's fine, their choice, but they tend to have throttle control issues as a result. ARF (at least the ones I have) don't come with plans, so repairs are a bit more seat of the pants. This is generally true, but it really depends on the manufacturer. Sure, if you buy from nitroplanes and you have a problem, you're on your own. If you buy, however, from KMP or SIG or some others, you can certainly call the manufacturer and ask for help. I worked for KMP, I often did it all day long.
_________________________
The word "Martyr" is just a fancy name for "crappy fighter".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#3469986 - 12/07/11 09:34 PM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Veteran
Registered: 01/15/01
Posts: 12094
Loc: Canada
|
Sorry but a blanket statement like this can turn what would be a nice flying model into an overweight pos! It all comes down to the particular model! Solartex is only moderately heavier when painted. Anything bigger than a .60 sized plane should be able to handle it without a problem. The difference in finish is really obvious. A nicely sprayed paint job on solartex will look outstanding, whereas a painted finish of any sort on monokote, ultracote or any of the million 'chinacoat' coverings will chip off within a few uses. The material is not designed to have paint adhere to it.
_________________________
The word "Martyr" is just a fancy name for "crappy fighter".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#3469995 - 12/07/11 09:53 PM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: Paul Morrison]
|
Frugalite
Member
Registered: 04/07/06
Posts: 207
|
The kit planes seem to hold up a little better, probably because they are built a little tougher. Based on my experience in the industry, its more that kit builders like to overbuild their models. They modify the plans based on their fears. They also tend to over-engine every plane. If its a .91 fs called for they want to put in a 1.60. That's fine, their choice, but they tend to have throttle control issues as a result. Sounds about right. I know I tend to overbuild, but I see it as a plus. Personally I try to stick to the engine class the plane was built for. If I build a 40, I'll put in a 46 or 51 at most, mainly to compensate for the overbuilding I know I do. ARF (at least the ones I have) don't come with plans, so repairs are a bit more seat of the pants. This is generally true, but it really depends on the manufacturer. Sure, if you buy from nitroplanes and you have a problem, you're on your own. If you buy, however, from KMP or SIG or some others, you can certainly call the manufacturer and ask for help. I worked for KMP, I often did it all day long. Thanks for the tip, I never thought of calling the manufacturer for plan availability! So obvious now! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#3470095 - 12/08/11 05:18 AM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: Paul Morrison]
|
Member
Registered: 05/18/04
Posts: 829
Loc: Perth australia
|
Sorry but a blanket statement like this can turn what would be a nice flying model into an overweight pos! It all comes down to the particular model! Solartex is only moderately heavier when painted. Anything bigger than a .60 sized plane should be able to handle it without a problem. The difference in finish is really obvious. A nicely sprayed paint job on solartex will look outstanding, whereas a painted finish of any sort on monokote, ultracote or any of the million 'chinacoat' coverings will chip off within a few uses. The material is not designed to have paint adhere to it. There are some fantastic light weight coverings out there that take paint very well, I mainly use litespan and polyspan ( both basically synthetic tissue ) on my stuff (WWI types with wingspans between 40-70") as they both paint very well, have a good texture for WWI and old canvas covered birds, and are exceptionally light in weight. Doculam comes in a variety weights and is another great option if used in the appropriate situation. It is definitely a horses for courses subject, but there are so many options on the Market we are spoilt for choice and it is well worth studying up on what is available to suit your needs! Even some of the 'chinacoat' coverings will hold paint pretty well if the surface is cleaned and keyed before application. Cheers Craig
_________________________
The problem with the World is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#3470251 - 12/08/11 12:20 PM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Veteran
Registered: 01/15/01
Posts: 12094
Loc: Canada
|
Thanks for the tip, I never thought of calling the manufacturer for plan availability! So obvious now! I know that if you call KMP with a repair issue, and we don't know off the top of our head we'd go out to the warehouse, find one, and try and figure it out. We also sold replacement parts.
_________________________
The word "Martyr" is just a fancy name for "crappy fighter".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#3475693 - 12/17/11 12:38 AM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Professional Cynic
Senior Member
Registered: 12/29/00
Posts: 4416
Loc: Alabama
|
Anybody had any experience with either profile or semi-profile park flyers? I've been looking at an F-105 model that seems fairly straightforward but I have no idea how well the profile models fly. I'd appreciate any opinions since I've been out of R/C airplanes of any kind for a long time.
_________________________
WOLF "Freedom isn't Free. I helped pay for it."
I'm everything the liberals and Democrats hate and dispise... A straight, non-atheist, veteran, gun owning, middle aged white man that works for a living.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#3475845 - 12/17/11 10:48 AM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: - Ice]
|
It's KRT not Kurt
Senior Member
Registered: 11/05/07
Posts: 2505
Loc: Gulf Coast of Florida
|
Wolf, a Profile model is basically like those balsa gliders you get and stick the wing through a slot and the tail-feathers on and it's an airplane. The entire fuselage is vertical surface area and it's a profile of whatever plane it's intended to look like with the wing having the only three dimensional cross section that it requires for airfoil, but not always. You can usually find videos on You-tube of guys flying these things 3-D hanging on the prop around the garage. There are lots of electric stuff out there and no end to the possibilities with small electric ducted fan (EDF) and lightweight Styrofoam, I haven't yet seen a Thud but it's not impossible.
_________________________
Windows 7 32 SP1 Gigabyte GA770 probably obsolete already AMD Phenom II X4 3.1Ghz really an X3 unlocked and overclocked ATI HD 5830 1Gb 256 bit it was cheap 4 x 1Gb GSkill 1333Mhz looks pretty on the MB X-Fi Xtreme Creative Soundcard - cheap pair of headphones
"She put carbolic in my coffee, turpentine in my tea, Strychnine in my biscuits, Lord but she didn't hurt me." Furry Lewis / Big Chief Blues
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#3476092 - 12/17/11 07:02 PM
Re: "Proper" kit R/Cs vs. mass-produced ready-to-run R/Cs?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Professional Cynic
Senior Member
Registered: 12/29/00
Posts: 4416
Loc: Alabama
|
Thanks, I think I'll look into it farther, seems like a fairly cheap way to get back into the hobby. I've downloaded several set of plans and so far it looks fairly easy compared to some of the scratch build planes I've done in the past. I have an open field approximately 300 x 600 about a block from the house and most of the planes I'm looking at are fairly slow so this field should be just about ideal from a room and safety standpoint.
WOLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |