RE: New Giant GP Super Sportster!!!!!
I tried Chrome and IE and they were equally slow. This is Firefox and a little faster... Is this an RCU thing? All other sites I visit are crazy fast with any browser. Bill
Posted on: 9/11/2012 9:26 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11225050

RE: New Giant GP Super Sportster!!!!!
Hey... Before this thread dies... Does this page load incredibly slowly for anyone else? My internet it lightning fast but this thread is sloooow to load. Bill
Posted on: 9/11/2012 8:20 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11225007

RE: New Giant GP Super Sportster!!!!!
[quote]This bigger plane (the one in the topic of this forum?), when running engines in them of the sizes we are, I can't see that built up nose being very practical? The rear carb config of most of the engines would be really out there, and access to the carb, fuel lines, choke and throttle would be a genuine PIA.... [/quote] Well... I don't know about this. If you look carefully you'll notice the Laser in this smaller SS is a [i]very [/i]long engine, particularly behind the cylinder, with both the carburetor and muffler behind the engine. Look very carefully and you'll see I've moved the firewall back a bit as the SS was never designed to accommodation a 4C engine. I don't think it would have been difficult at all to mount a gasser on the the Giant Super Sportster. It seems to me that the front end of most ARFs end in a flat firewall and a cowl slips over the engine and the fuselage. To my mind this gives a very unfinished look but I understand the appeal to the builder of ARFs. In the case of an ARF, as opposed to a kit built plane, the finished model could have just about any engine installed and the marketer of the kit wants to put out a kit that suit the greatest number of configurations possible. Truncating the front of the fuselage in a flat plate (firewall) and telling modelers to "bolt engine here" is understandable. "Cut cowling and slip over engine" naturally follows. Personally I think a nice compromise is when an ARF has a slip on cowl but the cowl has been "fitted" to the fuselage. The new Dirty Birdy is a good example. Notice the fuselage has a small shoulder the cowl slips over. http://pics.towerhobbies.com/imagel/g/lgpma1975.jpg Again, not as nice and the original fuselage but a nice compromise for an ARF. http://www.bridiairplanes.com/hangar/dirtybirdy60.html Bill
Posted on: 9/10/2012 9:48 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11223795

RE: New Giant GP Super Sportster!!!!!
[quote]What year is your Super Sport from? [/quote] Err... Well I don't remember. I first flew it Oct 8.2006 but the kit was under construction for years before that - maybe 7 or 8 years? I would guess the kit is circa 2000.?.? Maybe earlier? 1997? I think it's this kit -> http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXJ576&P=7 [quote]LOVE the colors and scheme!! What did you use to cover it with!? [/quote] Hey thanks! I do a lot of kits in a similar fashion. I like the sun shinning through the wings going overhead. Maybe I've been at this too long but I love the look of balsa. I like the look of the structure. I like to SEE a wing. Every part... I'm a MonoKote man. Nothing I've used stays tighter, is clearer or shines better. Yes it shatters easier and it's harder to apply but I'm OK with that. [quote]Throw it at the ground? Sounds like you may have had some exposure to Douglas Adams.[/quote] That's really funny. I love Douglas Adams but have never made the connection with his "learning to fly" and my "Throw it at the ground..." I've read the "Guide" several times along with everything he wrote in his too short life so I guess it shouldn't be surprising I arrive at similar thoughts. As hilarious as Douglas is with his suggestion of learning to fly, there is some element of truth to it as it apples to my flying. "Give 'er some welly and hope you're not too focused on flying to miss the ground". Bill
Posted on: 9/10/2012 1:49 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11223239

RE: New Giant GP Super Sportster!!!!!
All this Super Sportster talk made me load mine up today and throw it at the ground a little... Fortunately I missed.
Posted on: 9/9/2012 5:37 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11223142

RE: New Giant GP Super Sportster!!!!!
[quote]That's an Ultra Sport, or it might as well be one these days. They had the pointy noses. Pretty planes too. Discontinued, last time I looked, though that could always change in five minutes. [/quote] Err... Wait. It's a Super Sportster .60. Was that directed at my post? The Ultra Sport had a much shorter nose. The picture is a Super Sportster. This is an Ultra Sport... http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXJ584&P=7 [quote]I don't really like the engine sticking straight up from the nose. I had a Pulse 60XT, which has a sleek nose, but when it was put together, the engine was laid in its side, and the lines of the plane were preserved. [/quote] I completely understand this... but I built this plane to showcase the somewhat rare and really pretty (opinion) Laser .80 4C engine. I'm something of an engine nut and I get a kick out of seeing this little Laser puurrring along at the end of this sleek nose. But you're right, it comes at the cost of interrupting the nose lines a little. Bill
Posted on: 9/8/2012 5:46 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11221902

RE: New Giant GP Super Sportster!!!!!
Maybe I've spent too many years looking at (and sanding on) the nose of the original Super Sportster, but I don't think I could live with the square, glued on look of the ARF. The reason I built a SS in the first place was for the beautiful, long, pointed nose ending in a large fitted spinner.
Posted on: 9/8/2012 5:38 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11221682

RE: Getting Sick of this!
[quote]You guys are going about this all wrong, still debating the same thing again. What the OP has a problem with is Internet sales and marketing. He has to understand how the Internet works, it works with "key words" the more you have that are in the "general" catagory of your item the more People that will have exposure to you item and the more likely you will sell the item. So to the OP's rant you will have to get better at searching or get used to weed through all the crap that you don't want.[/quote] Err... I thought this was understood from the beginning. I think we all understand the use of key words and the advantage of getting them right for the marketing of an item. It's why many used Evolution engines I see on E-Bay are listed as "Used Evolution... Not OS, Not new. Not NIB Engine" A search for "NIB OS Engine", pulls up a free look at a used Evolution. After all, why would the seller be listing what it is NOT? I think what you've misunderstood is that using words that don't apply is really irritating. Hence the thread starter's rant. You are correct in that this thread did get a little hijacked when some seemed to suggest that is was difficult to distinguish between an ARF and Kit and thereby making it OK to list a Tower Trainer .60 ARF as a "kit". That's were I came in.
Posted on: 8/10/2012 7:29 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11187229

RE: Getting Sick of this!
It's funny... After a decade of "pre-built"/"ARF" airplanes, we've forgotten what a kit is. Sig sells its LT-40 in an "ARF" and "Kit" version. Define the differences in these two products and you will define what a "kit" is and what an "AFR" is. Here is my take on it: If you don't "glue" anything more on the airplane than the tail and join the wing halves, you're probably holding an AFR. If you don't "sand" anything beyond the light fitting of the light-ply tank floor, it's probably an ARF. If you find yourself buying rolls of MonoKote or Ultracote, you've either crashed an AFR or are building a Kit. If you can fly it in a few days with little or no experience after having been in the hobby for less than six months, it's likely an ARF. If you have to coat bare wood in the engine compartment to fuel proof it, it's a kit (or bad AFR). If at any point in construction you're holding a lone, unattached wing rib or fus former, you're probably building a Kit. If you've been in the hobby 40 years and it still takes two weeks of skilled, dedicated, labor to get it airborne, it's likely a Kit. If there are 500 of 'em in the world the same exact color, it's likely an ARF. If there are 2 in your club exactly the same, it's probably an AFR. If you don't feel sightly like crying when it crashes, it's probably an ARF. If it came in a box 6"x6"x36", it's probably a Kit. If it came with full size plans, it's probably a Kit. If the first step in the instructions is to mount the motor mount to the firewall, it's probably not a Kit. If the fuselage is straight and the wing is not warped, and you don't know how it got that way, it's probably an AFR. If the fuselage is like a banana and the wing is a DNA double helix, it's not only a kit, it's a kit I likely built. If the plane is less than 50% light ply, it's likely a Kit. If when you open the box for the first time, an uniformed bystander can't tell if it's a boat or airplane, it's probably a Kit. If you when you close the tailgate of the family van on the wing and crush the last three rib bays, your first response is buy another plane, you're probably flying an ARF. If you cartwheel the plane on landing thereby breaking the fuselage in half and decide it'd be less time consuming to fix it than buy another, it's probably not an ARF. If the inside of the box smells like plastic covering, it's an ARF. If it smells like fresh cut wood, it's probably a Kit. If there was less than five things in your cart when you bought it, it's likely you bought an ARF. Feel free to add. Adjust opinion to taste. Bill
Posted on: 8/9/2012 12:56 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11185592

RE: AMSOIL SABER 100:1 PRE MIX SYNTHETIC 2-CYCLE OIL AND AMSOIL QUICK SHOT FUEL ADDITIVE
I'm out friends. While I personally like Amsoil, I can't take this any more. Cheers, Bill
Posted on: 7/16/2012 5:04 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11157860

RE: Why don't we have more 4 stroke gassers?
4 strokes engines are less powerful, more complex and heavier. Gas engines are less powerful and heavier. Combine the two and I'd have to ask not, "Why don't we have more 4 stroke gassers", but instead ask, "Why do we have any 4 stroke gassers".
Posted on: 7/14/2012 8:19 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11154862

RE: AMSOIL SABER 100:1 PRE MIX SYNTHETIC 2-CYCLE OIL AND AMSOIL QUICK SHOT FUEL ADDITIVE
[quote]just want good results for you !!!!!!!!!! [/quote] Thanks. What is dealer cost on Quick Shot?
Posted on: 7/13/2012 12:14 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11153486

RE: AMSOIL SABER 100:1 PRE MIX SYNTHETIC 2-CYCLE OIL AND AMSOIL QUICK SHOT FUEL ADDITIVE
[quote]Next question, is there any benefit using 93 vs 87 in an r/c aircraft motor ? I had heard that the 93 burns slower and would not be worth the extra cost running it in an r/c motor. [/quote] Same question answered again.... Some engine specify higher octane. CRRC Pro is one that typically does. See below PDF page 3. There is more opportunity for damage running low octane fuel in an engine that specifies high octane than the other way around. Engines tuned to run on low octane fuel don't run better on high octane fuel but they are not damaged by doing so either. Page 3 -> http://ak-models.com/ARF%20Manuals/GF50IManual.pdf Page 14 -> http://m.stihlusa.com/WebContent/CMSFileLibrary/instructionmanuals/BG_56_66_86_SH_56_86_Manual.pdf Bill
Posted on: 7/13/2012 12:13 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11153485

RE: AMSOIL SABER 100:1 PRE MIX SYNTHETIC 2-CYCLE OIL AND AMSOIL QUICK SHOT FUEL ADDITIVE
[quote] PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! USE THIS IT WILL MAKE YOUR MOTOR RUN BETTER COOLER CLEANER AND KEEP THE PARTS IN PEAK OPERATING CONDITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/quote] http://ww2.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/fuel-additives/gasoline/quickshot/?GroupID=952 ABOUT $143.00 A GALLON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I CAN SEE WHY ALL THE SHOUTING AND EXCIMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on: 7/12/2012 4:33 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11153124

RE: AMSOIL SABER 100:1 PRE MIX SYNTHETIC 2-CYCLE OIL AND AMSOIL QUICK SHOT FUEL ADDITIVE
In order: [quote]How can I find a station that has alcohol free gas or should I say what company offers it?[/quote] Google: "gas stations in meridian ms without alcohol" End up here: http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=MS I use the station on hwy 39. It's a Shell station but the decision to include ethyl alcohol is up to each station... or so I'm told. Most stations that don't have alcohol usually have a sign out on the street. [quote]Next question, is there any benefit using 93 vs 87 in an r/c aircraft motor ? I had heard that the 93 burns slower and would not be worth the extra cost running it in an r/c motor.[/quote] Good question. The answer is that it often is not beneficial. In fact it [i][u]might [/u][/i]lead to slower burning and [u][i]could [/i][/u]lead to less power and more carbon. Only higher compression engine [i][u]need [/u][/i]higher octane. My decision to run 93 octane comes from the simple fact that I run my premix in many different engines some of which do have higher compression and do specify premium fuel. I justify the higher cost of 93, even in engines that could run 87 fuel, with the thought that I don't really run that much in my 2C engines and by using a single fuel, I turn over that fuel quicker. If I had a jug of 87 and a jug of 93 premix, each would get used 1/2 as fast. Bill
Posted on: 7/12/2012 4:20 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11153111

RE: AMSOIL SABER 100:1 PRE MIX SYNTHETIC 2-CYCLE OIL AND AMSOIL QUICK SHOT FUEL ADDITIVE
[quote] Hi Bill here is how you make that engine run even better and get rid of even more of that carbon and gumming on those rings AMSOIL QUICK SHOT : it is a Fuel additive that help get rid of the gum varnish and carbon as well as water build up that is caused by the alcohol in gas today as well as the sludge in the gas when you get it from the pumps !!!!!!!!! This will make that piston a lot cleaner and get rid of the carbon as well the gold color is from gumming sludge and water as well as the carbon gum build up on the rings [/quote] Thank you for the tip. I will see if I can find a source. I should mention that the "gum varnish and carbon" you see in the included pictures I consider the cost of doing business in a premix 2 cycle engine. Every 2C engine I've seen torn down has it. From large marine outboards to small model engines, you'll always see some build up. My experience is that it builds to a point fairly quickly but then never gets any worse. In the instance of the engine pictured, the ring is very free and moves freely in it's grove. I will look at it again in another 10 -20 hours to check but I'm pretty sure I know what I'll find. Contrary to what other have found, the deposits in my Amsoil engines are very soft and come off quite easily... if you think they need to be removed. Attached is another picture of the same engine. I consider this to be an excessive amount of "goo" on a piston but I also consider it "healthy" goo. This engine has been slow to break in and never had good compression cold. It is not a good "hand starter" but performs flawlessly with the help of the "persuader" (Dynatron). I interpret all this to say the ring is not well seated and the look of the piston seem to confirm this. Even so, even with some blow-by, this engine runs well and shows no signs of premature failure. It just need more (hard) running. This is not a criticism of Amsoil. Quite the opposite. It suggest that even with a less than perfect fit of piston, sleeve, and ring, all is well. Also, look in the case. It's clean, bright, and shinny. Lastly, I only run gas with no alcohol. What you see in the pictures is the results of running alcohol free, clean, 93 octane pump gas. Because I run the same premix in many different engines, my fuel turns over fairly quickly and doesn't sit in my shop for more than a few months. Even so, I also add fuel stabilizer in the odd chance the fuel gets left in one of my toys for a longer period of time.
Posted on: 7/12/2012 3:11 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11153045

RE: AMSOIL SABER 100:1 PRE MIX SYNTHETIC 2-CYCLE OIL AND AMSOIL QUICK SHOT FUEL ADDITIVE
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15fOvQJs7-4&feature=plcp[/youtube] I'm not selling anything... just another input to the endless oil wars. This is my CRRC Pro 26. Contrary to what others have said, I love my Amsoil AND my CRRC Pro. The pictures are of my engine after about 10 hours run time and the video is how I fly it. It may fail on the next takeoff but I see nothing to suggest it should. It first flew in Oct 2007. This thread got me to wondering if my Pro 26 looked as good on the inside as it seemed to run on the outside. I took my allen wrench and a camera into the other room and took the attached pictures. This engine has never been run on anything other than Amsoil. It has never been appart before these pictures. It was broken in on Amsoil 100:1. The more it runs, the stronger it gets. Since I don't really measure my premix that accurately, I tend to error on the side of caution. If pressed, I would have to admit I probably mix at something closer to 85:1. I run the same fuel in several leaf blowers, chain saws, trimmers etc. I'm posting this so that you can be the judge. Again, I'm not selling anything... just another opinion. Bill
Posted on: 7/12/2012 12:56 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11152803

RE: Word of Warning about Hard Drives
At some point in the past I bought a LARGE USB hard drive. Later I replaced it with a faster drive and didn't know what to do with it. I knew I didn't want to just give it away or sell it but destroying it seemed wasteful too. In the end I put it in the attic. Time has passed and I ran into that drive the other day. I had to laugh. It's a 40GB drive. Utterly worthless by today's standards. I've got jump drives larger! If you can't bring yourself to either sell your old hard drive or hit it with a sledge, just wait. It will get easier to do the latter. I'm very glad my 40GBs of data is not somewhere out there in the WWW ether.
Posted on: 7/3/2012 8:34 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Off Topic Forum - Cars, Trucks, Buggies and more"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11141247

RE: Lipo Fire in Garage
By the way... LiPo exhaust gases are EXTREEMLY corrosive. I mean the kind of corrosive that could be concocted by rubbing a mix of salt and acid on pig iron. Really nasty. Standby for everything in you shop to corrode. Sorry.
Posted on: 6/24/2012 5:55 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11130312

RE: Futaba 18MZ Screen Protector Just Added...
[quote] ....any idea how long it takes to get to aus. ? [/quote] Hey... Thanks for your order. Based on what you ordered, I can guess which order was yours and can tell you it's in the mail now. Orders to Australia usually take 10 days to 2 weeks but occasionally take longer. Let me know if you don't receive them in about that time frame. Cheers, Bill
Posted on: 2/11/2012 1:40 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10953763

RE: Futaba 18MZ Screen Protector Just Added...
Thanks Bill, Order received and it'll go out tomorrow. Howard, Thanks for your comment. I, of course think our product is perfect(!) ( [;)] ) but when others like our product it makes it all worthwhile! Cheers, Bill
Posted on: 2/8/2012 6:25 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10950548

RE: Futaba 18MZ Screen Protector Just Added...
[quote]Question. Do the screen protectors affect the operation of the screen? I have one on my 14MZ and like it, but I do not want to compromise the soft touch feel the 18MZ has by adding a protector if it changes the feel of it. [/quote] Hey... Thanks for asking and thanks for using our Screen Protectors. Your question is one of the most common inquiries we get. You will not notice ANY difference in the touch or feel of your 18's screen. In addition to the fit of the Protector, it's the first thing we check. The film was designed for the purpose of protecting touch screens so I don't suppose any of this should be surprising. Cheers, Bill
Posted on: 2/8/2012 7:18 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10949576

Futaba 18MZ Screen Protector Just Added...
Hello All, Just a short note to say hello and let everyone know that we've just added the Futaba 18MZ Screen Protector to our catalog. In fact its been so long since I've posted, we've added a lot of Screen Protectors. We received quite of few request for the [size=4]18MZ Screen Protector[/size] and it's taken a little bit longer to add to our catalog than I would have liked. At the time of this writing, there are very few of these transmitters in modelers hands (and fewer in dealers hands) and that has made it difficult to get the drawing done. Thank you to all the modelers that contributed dimensions and input! Without your support we wouldn't have been able bring these to market before the radio is widely available. Please feel free to ask questions and add comments. http://rcscreenprotectors.com/ Cheers, Bill
Posted on: 2/7/2012 7:08 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10948977

RE: Oil holes in conrods?
Just a short note about something that needs to be considered... The acceleration on a piston with a stroke of about .53" and turning around 25,000rpm is in the ballpark of 200,000 ft/sec sqd or about 6,000 g's. These g loadings are also affecting the fluids lubricating the large and small rod ends. Any holes in the rod would be force feed lubrication with these g loads. Bill
Posted on: 1/16/2012 6:51 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10912521

RE: ARF's ruined my hobby
[quote]Yes, I miss Heathkit! [/quote] I think the point of this thread, for me at least, is that while I don't miss the Heathkit itself, I do miss that there was at one time people in this hobby that had the attention span, inquisitiveness and intelligence to build one. I never built a Heathkit myself and the few that I saw built, were barely reliable enough to fly a plane. I don't miss the radio but I miss the people that built them. I've got too many ARFs to DARE say I don't like them. Further, of course there are still many modelers in this hobby that have the attention span, inquisitiveness and intelligence to do whatever their imagination chooses... but there are now also many that think "assembling" an ARF is building an airplane. Not too long ago someone said to me that they thought someone could make a little money in this hobby by building planes for people that didn't have the time themselves... The punchline was he was talking about "assembling" AFRs. I didn't know what to say to him. We've now gotten to the point that assembling an almost-ready-to-fly airplane is something that could be contracted out?!?! I will confess that for a fleeting moment it occurred to me that ARF have ruined the hobby for me. That moment passed and I realized that the hobby I love is still here plus something new... If you have 2 pair of old, friendly, comfortable jeans you love, and your wife brings home 3 pair of embroidered, sequined slacks for you, has she ruined your pants selection???? [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15fOvQJs7-4[/youtube] Bill
Posted on: 12/8/2011 4:19 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10848892

RE: ARF's ruined my hobby
[quote]Very creative the covering job. About a week ago somebody mentioned that he was going to cover a sing 1/4 scale cub wit transparent yellow so his friends could see the woodwork underneath. I thought that it was decidedly not scale, but a lot of fun to see. [/quote] Thanks! I love seeing my toys overhead with the sky coming through. You've seen a 100 ARF LT-40 but this one is hand/kit built and one of a kind [:)] . Bill
Posted on: 12/7/2011 6:27 PM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10828306

RE: ARF's ruined my hobby
[quote]ARF's have brought other flyers out to the field that wouldn't be there if they had to build their own.[/quote] I've noticed that with out the barrier to entry that building used to present, many folks are in the hobby that wouldn't have been in the past. Unfortunately, without some greater investment in time and commitment that building used to represent, many of our new "hobbyist" crash 5 to 10 ARF's, deem this a stupid hobby, and stop coming out. In the past, the 3 or 4 month building process was something of a test of will (as well as skill) and filtered most of the "wannabees" out before they got to the field. For the above reasons, I don't buddy box ARF's any more. I've spent too many 100 deg Mississippi days in the sun with a dude that got a tax refund check and bought an ARF Alpha trainer. We seem 'em for about a year and 5 ARF's and they're gone leaving me feeling very used and sunburned by someone that probably shouldn't have been at the field and in the hobby in the first place. I would NEVER say ARF's have [u]ruined [/u][i][/i]the hobby for me but I will admit that it has changed the [u]way [/u][i][/i]I hobby. Finally, I know I'm speaking in broad generalities. There are still many wonderful people joining this hobby every day that will be life long skilled modelers. I will help them to the limits of my abilities. Cheers, Bill
Posted on: 11/25/2011 9:25 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10828240

RE: ARF's ruined my hobby
[quote]To the OP. Just a victim of your own shortcomings and don't like it. Trolling for others just like you to join in your pity party to make you feel better. Now you know how others see you too. Put your big boy pants on and quit sniveling. [/quote] Dam! That was harsh! Really? Do you speak to all your acquaintances that way? Or has the ARF/cyber-world brought a "new breed" of modeler to the table?
Posted on: 11/25/2011 8:20 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10828303

RE: ARF's ruined my hobby
[quote]As one who is a builder and a hobbystore owner let me share one thing with you.....when the youngsters crash their ARF's they look for the reset button....they neither have the patience or the skill to repair....not true of all of course but most. [/quote] Brilliantly said but I wouldn't limit it to youngsters. While adults might not look for the reset button, adults often do the equivalent and look for another ARF they don't care about. [quote] Are Builders deserving of more or less respect than ARFers? If both fly with equal grace, finesse, and precision, they are due equal respect as fliers..... [/quote] Hmmm... Maybe. But - Would you further say that the[u] [i]simulator [/i][/u] pilot demonstrating "equal grace, finesse, and precision" is due equal respect as the ARF pilot? My experience (and opinion) would be NO. Without the time, monetary and emotional investment of a "real" airplane, everyone is a god on the simulator. Bill
Posted on: 11/25/2011 8:09 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10828290

RE: The End is Near!
You know, I get electrics - clean, quite, powerful. What's not to get? I've been flying since 1969 and have seen the rise of electric. In the beginning electric planes BARLEY got airborne, spent 3 1/2 min trying to get to 15ft off the ground and then ran out of batteries. We've come a long way to where we are today. They truly are [i]another option[/i]. I get it. (Here comes the opinion part.) Over the same period of time, we've seen the downfall of [i]hobbyist[/i]. Yes there are many more [i]modelers [/i]and there are still a few [i]hobbyist [/i]but now our field is filled with folks that don't want to build, tinker, learn, experiment discover... They just want to FLY!! They are the same folks that are inclined to say their e-plane won't knife edge or torque roll when the reality is, [i]they [/i]haven't figured out how to. They haven't tinkered enough with their radio to set up a mix or condition much in the same way they never learned to tune an engine. They just want to be handed the transmitter and FLY! For them, that is great. For me, I'm a hobbyist and if you have a plane you didn't build and just bolted the recommended e-package on it, that's not so interesting. I'd just as soon watch you fly the simulator. Don't get me wrong... I have many friends that are new to the hobby and all of them have started with ARFs and electrics and I'm extremely happy to see 'em at the field. In time they may grow to be hobbyist. They are very interested and interesting people with many skills and I enjoy modeling with them. Yes there are a lot of generalities in the above and there are always exceptions. I own my share of ARF's and electrics. When my son started flying, we bought a ARF. We go to the park fairly often with a car full of electric ARFs. I get it. But for me, the advent of ARF's and electrics has ushered in the death of [i]hobbyist[/i]. I might be important to note at this moment, I own over 300 glow engines and they are NOT for sale! [:D][;)] Bill
Posted on: 6/17/2011 12:15 AM by Author "wjvail" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10515798