I've always considered kit R/Cs to be **THE** true R/C, but with the proliferation of mass-produced, styrofoam-encased ready-to-run R/Cs, I am finding it very hard to justify the price difference between the two. Especially since I do not generally race my R/Cs (so not a hardcore, "I-need-to-swap-motors-and-try-this-new-one").

Any thoughts?

If you are talking about cars, I'm not sure about how that market has changed. The airplane (and even mini helo) market is very heavy with RTR and BNF products. Foam abounds.

I always did want to build an R/C car from a kit, dating back to the first time I saw the Team Associated RC-10 in the mid 1980s. Never did, though. By the time I bought a "real" R/C car, it was a Parma on road 1:12th that someone else had already built. Tamiya has reintroduced a few of their late 80s and early 90s kits over the past couple years, but I just don't have the time or space. And even then, the cost is looking at over $300 for just a backyard clod-hopper.

If I do anything R/C in the future, I'd like to build up an airplane the old way. Stick and tissue. I've built a static display model years ago that way and enjoyed it.

EDIT: Parma? Maybe the body. I think it may have been a BoLink chassis. It's been a darn long time.

For aircraft there is a wide amount of difference between kit, ARF and RTF packages.

The Kits tend towards being high end, and since you assemble it yourself, you know there won't be any screw ups. You can be confident in the quality of glue, the manner of application, the structural integrity of each piece etc... With ARF and RTF packages the ARFs tend to be a little better, but you have no way of ensuring the plane was built right. I used to work for an ARF company (Kondor Model Products: www.kmp.ca) and while we specialized in high end ARF's we still sometimes had people in the factory doing stupid things. Now... KMP stands behind its products and will replace damaged or poorly put together parts. We've even had entire shipments of ARFs where we've notified the customer of a defect brought to our attention and had the factory replace the parts quickly and ship them to the customer. But you get the occaisonal cock-up that you wouldn't believe. For example, the wing rib that had been broken in the factory and glued back together (some factory worker didn't want to get a new 2 cent piece of balsa for fear of being fired or something) and mounted in a wing. KMP works closely with its factories to prevent that, but these things do happen. If you have a box of wood, however, its up to you to put it together (that said, if you break it, you're screwed).

P.S. if you're building from a kit, use Solartex as a covering. It looks great and paint adheres amazingly.

Yep, talking about cars, but would apply to boats/airplanes/helos as well.

I used to have an old Tamiya Grasshopper that my dad built, when I was 18, I saved up and bought a Tamiya Dirt Thrasher. Loads of fun just building it, and fun running it, and even more fun taking it apart to "tweak" it.

There's a noticeable difference between car kits and plane kits.

Plane kits require crafting; sanding, gluing, and careful measurement. They also require a lot of time, work space, and practice. You're using exacto knives, sanding bars, various glues, heat irons, and hand drills.

Car kits are assembled and screwed together. It's a more straight forward process. You're using a screwdriver and/or hex wrench set. FWIW, helicopters tend to follow a similar method of assembly, it's just that the tuning and tweaking is far more critical.

Another way to compare Helis and fixed wing:
Fixed wing: requires skill in building, less so in flying*
Heli: Requires skill and practice in flying, less so in assembling.


*That's not to say there isn't any skill required in flying RC planes, it's just an easier process to learn than Helis.

Yet another way to describe the difference between heli and fixed wing - if you crash a fixed wing you talk about how many hours it will take to repair, if you crash a helo it's how much $$ to repair!

I've got ARF's, RTF, and kit planes. The kit planes seem to hold up a little better, probably because they are built a little tougher. I also have full plans for them, and if I need to repair anything I've got the plans to do so. ARF (at least the ones I have) don't come with plans, so repairs are a bit more seat of the pants. Kits are also more customizable - not just looks, but some guys will bash the kits up a bit to make them a bit more interesting to build. Of course you can strip and recover an ARF, but you are essentially buying twice as much covering as you really need.

I've got one RTF foamie (Parkzone Corsair). It flies great, it's a nice little park job, but if there's any appreciable wind it stays grounded - it's too light and jittery in anything above 8-10 mph.

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!

With regard to aircraft, building from kits does not have to be a high end costly option. Depending on what type of aircraft you are interested in
Companys like manzano laser works, and aerodromerc have short and full kits for very reasonable prices, that when build with running gear from the likes of
HobbyKing can be built and flown for less than the usual generic piece of foam crap from the likes of parkzone!

Cheers
Craig

While I agree there is nothing more satisfying than building a kit and taking it to the field to fly (ok, it's also a bit nervewracking!), foam planes are a viable and practical solution for some. Small flying field, looking for a plane suitable for indoor flying, no time/skills/desire for kit building, no wish to fuss and bother with fuel mess? A foamie fits the bill. I'm happy with my Parkzone, and the customer service has been outstanding as well.

Sorry, didn't mean to come across as an anti foam snob, I was just trying to make the point that kits should not be seen as highend, or out of reach, choose the appropriate kit to start out with and they go together a lot easier than some may think, and you learn more I building 1 traditional kit that you may gain from assembling a dozen rtf types, all depends on what you want out of the hobby I suppose. Btw I am eyeing off FMS's new 109f that is due some time soon, nothing wring with foam at all

Craig

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.



Thanks for the tip, I never thought of calling the manufacturer for plan availability! So obvious now!

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

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.

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, 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.

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