CARF-Models worth the extra money?
06-27-2013, 12:33 PM
#26
Senior Member
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
ORIGINAL: wallace.tharp
* 99% of flutter is caused by insufficient control linkage set-ups (i.e. The Builder)[/size]
* 99% of flutter is caused by insufficient control linkage set-ups (i.e. The Builder)[/size]
[/quote]
Wallace,
I don't get what you are disagreeing with. The guy made a statement re: 99% of flutter (in models) is caused by insufficient linkage. That is quite true. It is likely true in full scale also as you pointed out the various ways full scale designers alleviate the flutter problem. Balancing the control surface will help alleviate flutter in the model also, but it is sometimes not practical to do such a fix (model surfaces may not allow a simple add-on balancing weight)
In models that are engine powered, oftentimes vibration is high enough to tear apart a counterweight hanging off a surface. Models that are scratch built allow their builders access and time to think the potential problem through and act accordingly. Since models such as CARF are already constructed with no forethought by the factory regarding such counterweighing matters for control surfaces, the potential for damage is real and having stout linkages will help reduce (but not eliminate the possibility for) flutter. Tight, strong servos and stout, slop-freelinkages are musts
06-27-2013, 01:02 PM
#27
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
A lot of this discussion is about giant scale Aerobats and perhaps CARF is the way to go. But the big scale warbirds I would have to say no!
For example if you go all out with a custom package built around a Corsair F4U and you want a competition bird you will want to paint it. Install the Moki that fits and custom retracts, struts wheels, folding wing mechanism, servos shipping to the US everything you are going to need,you willscratch out a check for minimum around $12,000 maybe as high as $17,000 to finish it up.
Same bird, “useable hardware?” This a 100” heavy warbird, with aninternal elevator pushrod thatis a threaded 3mm rod? Useable yes; advisable? I would not be comfortable. For of the top oftheline price: one should get“top” of the line hardware. Carbon fiber shafts Titanium studs that would warrant the price.
If you want a “spectacular” model and you really can’t build, then by all means, however get an experienced builder to help. For my money $$$ go with plans or high end kits and build. For a full on heavy metal scale warbird, how can you justify the price?; and they are no lighter. I can pretty much afford whatever, but for what interests me I can’t buy it
06-27-2013, 04:47 PM
#28
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
LOTS of good input… which is exactly what I hoped this would generate.
IF I may pipe back in on several of the points raised:
1) I stand by my statement that flutter is caused 99% of the time by THE BUILDER; loose linkage; insufficient leverage; insufficient servo; too much control surface gap; excessive speed due to over-powering or over-propping the model and then not flying it in a sensible manner. Balancing surfaces reduces the potential for flutter, but the primary purpose is to reduce the force necessary to displace the control surface.
2) Razor thin trailing edges – YES, I agree this is NOT optimal for a pattern or IMAC plane. The CARF-Models ‘Valiant’ F3A aircraft has all center-hinged surfaces and blunt and beveled trailing edges to improve precision. However, for most of us mere flying mortals, sharp trailing edges are the least of our worries! For SCALE applications, super thin, straight and strong trailing edges are a MUST, and very difficult to reproduce using conventional building techniques.
3) Quality control – AGREED. When it comes down to it, CARF-Models are built by humans who are fallible. Some of the CARF molds are getting a bit long in the tooth and the finished products may be showing some of this. TELL YOUR SALES REP if you find your CARF unsatisfactory! I have found that they stand behind their products.
4) Finish – Painting in the molds vs. outside the molds: CARF-Models are NOT painted. The finish is applied IN THE MOLD and is more of a GelCoat (two-part) epoxy coating; it is NOT paint. This is precisely why the finish is so durable and lighter than a comparable paint job. This is also why the mold seams do show in the finished product.
5) Building vs. CARF: There is absolutely no doubt that some modelers have all the necessary skills, time, money, and shop space to build a better model than any ARF company can produce. WE see some of them every year competing at TOP GUN.
6) Price – I have one very good modeling buddy who has no fewer than 50 excellent glow engines in all sizes, and at least a dozen very nice kits on his shelves…yet he is the first one to tell me that he will “never spend as much on an RC model as he would on a nice used car!” The investment on his shelves would easily cover the cost of a nice CARF. And after all, we can only fly one airplane at a time.
My P-47 cost over $12K to put in the air. Over $5000 of that was the engine, propeller and hub. Could I have built a 110” Thunderbolt with the same level of detail, just as sturdy, 50 pounds, for less money? I think so… but I did not happen to have a spare 500+ hours to find out!
IF I may pipe back in on several of the points raised:
1) I stand by my statement that flutter is caused 99% of the time by THE BUILDER; loose linkage; insufficient leverage; insufficient servo; too much control surface gap; excessive speed due to over-powering or over-propping the model and then not flying it in a sensible manner. Balancing surfaces reduces the potential for flutter, but the primary purpose is to reduce the force necessary to displace the control surface.
2) Razor thin trailing edges – YES, I agree this is NOT optimal for a pattern or IMAC plane. The CARF-Models ‘Valiant’ F3A aircraft has all center-hinged surfaces and blunt and beveled trailing edges to improve precision. However, for most of us mere flying mortals, sharp trailing edges are the least of our worries! For SCALE applications, super thin, straight and strong trailing edges are a MUST, and very difficult to reproduce using conventional building techniques.
3) Quality control – AGREED. When it comes down to it, CARF-Models are built by humans who are fallible. Some of the CARF molds are getting a bit long in the tooth and the finished products may be showing some of this. TELL YOUR SALES REP if you find your CARF unsatisfactory! I have found that they stand behind their products.
4) Finish – Painting in the molds vs. outside the molds: CARF-Models are NOT painted. The finish is applied IN THE MOLD and is more of a GelCoat (two-part) epoxy coating; it is NOT paint. This is precisely why the finish is so durable and lighter than a comparable paint job. This is also why the mold seams do show in the finished product.
5) Building vs. CARF: There is absolutely no doubt that some modelers have all the necessary skills, time, money, and shop space to build a better model than any ARF company can produce. WE see some of them every year competing at TOP GUN.
6) Price – I have one very good modeling buddy who has no fewer than 50 excellent glow engines in all sizes, and at least a dozen very nice kits on his shelves…yet he is the first one to tell me that he will “never spend as much on an RC model as he would on a nice used car!” The investment on his shelves would easily cover the cost of a nice CARF. And after all, we can only fly one airplane at a time.
My P-47 cost over $12K to put in the air. Over $5000 of that was the engine, propeller and hub. Could I have built a 110” Thunderbolt with the same level of detail, just as sturdy, 50 pounds, for less money? I think so… but I did not happen to have a spare 500+ hours to find out!
06-27-2013, 06:22 PM
#29
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
ORIGINAL: RichardGee
LOTS of good input… which is exactly what I hoped this would generate.
IF I may pipe back in on several of the points raised:
1) I stand by my statement that flutter is caused 99% of the time by THE BUILDER; loose linkage; insufficient leverage; insufficient servo; too much control surface gap; excessive speed due to over-powering or over-propping the model and then not flying it in a sensible manner. Balancing surfaces reduces the potential for flutter, but the primary purpose is to reduce the force necessary to displace the control surface.
2) Razor thin trailing edges – YES, I agree this is NOT optimal for a pattern or IMAC plane. The CARF-Models ‘Valiant’ F3A aircraft has all center-hinged surfaces and blunt and beveled trailing edges to improve precision. However, for most of us mere flying mortals, sharp trailing edges are the least of our worries! For SCALE applications, super thin, straight and strong trailing edges are a MUST, and very difficult to reproduce using conventional building techniques.
3) Quality control – AGREED. When it comes down to it, CARF-Models are built by humans who are fallible. Some of the CARF molds are getting a bit long in the tooth and the finished products may be showing some of this. TELL YOUR SALES REP if you find your CARF unsatisfactory! I have found that they stand behind their products.
4) Finish – Painting in the molds vs. outside the molds: CARF-Models are NOT painted. The finish is applied IN THE MOLD and is more of a GelCoat (two-part) epoxy coating; it is NOT paint. This is precisely why the finish is so durable and lighter than a comparable paint job. This is also why the mold seams do show in the finished product.
5) Building vs. CARF: There is absolutely no doubt that some modelers have all the necessary skills, time, money, and shop space to build a better model than any ARF company can produce. WE see some of them every year competing at TOP GUN.
6) Price – I have one very good modeling buddy who has no fewer than 50 excellent glow engines in all sizes, and at least a dozen very nice kits on his shelves…yet he is the first one to tell me that he will “never spend as much on an RC model as he would on a nice used car!” The investment on his shelves would easily cover the cost of a nice CARF. And after all, we can only fly one airplane at a time.
My P-47 cost over $12K to put in the air. Over $5000 of that was the engine, propeller and hub. Could I have built a 110” Thunderbolt with the same level of detail, just as sturdy, 50 pounds, for less money? I think so… but I did not happen to have a spare 500+ hours to find out!
LOTS of good input… which is exactly what I hoped this would generate.
IF I may pipe back in on several of the points raised:
1) I stand by my statement that flutter is caused 99% of the time by THE BUILDER; loose linkage; insufficient leverage; insufficient servo; too much control surface gap; excessive speed due to over-powering or over-propping the model and then not flying it in a sensible manner. Balancing surfaces reduces the potential for flutter, but the primary purpose is to reduce the force necessary to displace the control surface.
2) Razor thin trailing edges – YES, I agree this is NOT optimal for a pattern or IMAC plane. The CARF-Models ‘Valiant’ F3A aircraft has all center-hinged surfaces and blunt and beveled trailing edges to improve precision. However, for most of us mere flying mortals, sharp trailing edges are the least of our worries! For SCALE applications, super thin, straight and strong trailing edges are a MUST, and very difficult to reproduce using conventional building techniques.
3) Quality control – AGREED. When it comes down to it, CARF-Models are built by humans who are fallible. Some of the CARF molds are getting a bit long in the tooth and the finished products may be showing some of this. TELL YOUR SALES REP if you find your CARF unsatisfactory! I have found that they stand behind their products.
4) Finish – Painting in the molds vs. outside the molds: CARF-Models are NOT painted. The finish is applied IN THE MOLD and is more of a GelCoat (two-part) epoxy coating; it is NOT paint. This is precisely why the finish is so durable and lighter than a comparable paint job. This is also why the mold seams do show in the finished product.
5) Building vs. CARF: There is absolutely no doubt that some modelers have all the necessary skills, time, money, and shop space to build a better model than any ARF company can produce. WE see some of them every year competing at TOP GUN.
6) Price – I have one very good modeling buddy who has no fewer than 50 excellent glow engines in all sizes, and at least a dozen very nice kits on his shelves…yet he is the first one to tell me that he will “never spend as much on an RC model as he would on a nice used car!” The investment on his shelves would easily cover the cost of a nice CARF. And after all, we can only fly one airplane at a time.
My P-47 cost over $12K to put in the air. Over $5000 of that was the engine, propeller and hub. Could I have built a 110” Thunderbolt with the same level of detail, just as sturdy, 50 pounds, for less money? I think so… but I did not happen to have a spare 500+ hours to find out!
Bob
06-27-2013, 07:56 PM
#32
Moderator
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
In any hobby there is the high end products that the run of the mill users debate the value of. I used to shoot IDPA and USPSA pistol competitions. Sometimes guys would show up with a $2000 Wilson 1911 pistol and shoot the same scores as the guy with the $500 Glock 17. Glock guys love to point out when that happens, much the same as the guys flying beat up second hand IMAC planes love to point out when they beat a guy with a $5000 beauty queen. Fishermen have the $30,000 bass boats, hunters and birders have Swarovski optics, car enthusiasts have Mercedes, Bentley, and many others to spend their money on. To me though, the Comp ARF, like the Wilson pistol, is built for durability and is a good value for the user who plans to actually use it enough to wear it out. The balsa ARF is going to go through several recovering jobs, numerous small repairs caused by hangar rash, will need wood replaced sometimes due to being oil soaked, and will never look as good as the composite plane during the same time span. For a guy who flies 3-4 times a week and wants to do serious work on his skills instead of spending time in his shop, the Comp ARF makes a lot of sense. For the guy who is a casual flyer or tends to auger planes into the ground long before wearing them out, it would be a foolish way to spend one's money.
06-27-2013, 08:34 PM
#33
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
I think part of the conversation is about paying the extra but not seeing it in exchange. If you remove the emotional component and just look at materials and quality against similar models you could argue there is litle to no difference between certain models.
In my case with the Euro Id argue its worse than a Chinese ARF like an SM Rafale.
Another example is their newer Skygate large Hawk. Now I dont know who or where its made but it is now a CARF product so with any dog his fleas are your fleas. Ive had the opportunity to inspect this ARF up close and for the huge price tag Im sorry but I wouldnt touch that model.
The wood parts are cut by router which ordinarily would be fine but they look like they're cut by a child. The fiberglass work is ok but the seams are dodgy in spots as well as with the fit like with the wing to fuse, they dont match. I expect this from my Top Flight GS Corsair for $750 not the Hawk for $5K+!
The epoxy filler used in the bulkhead assembly looks like home made cake or cup cake icing - lumpy and messy. Usually you want to see nice smooth fillets not cottage cheese spakle.
I would love to have an A-4 like the one they sell it looks awesome but honestly Im not very interested now.
All of this is not to say the Hawk would perfrom better with nicer seams or cleaner fillets but it doesnt inspire confidence either.
What I expect for my money especially at this higher level of models is clean assembly with proper epoxy fillets, quality laser cut wood, and matching parts/panels. Is that asking too much?
In my case with the Euro Id argue its worse than a Chinese ARF like an SM Rafale.
Another example is their newer Skygate large Hawk. Now I dont know who or where its made but it is now a CARF product so with any dog his fleas are your fleas. Ive had the opportunity to inspect this ARF up close and for the huge price tag Im sorry but I wouldnt touch that model.
The wood parts are cut by router which ordinarily would be fine but they look like they're cut by a child. The fiberglass work is ok but the seams are dodgy in spots as well as with the fit like with the wing to fuse, they dont match. I expect this from my Top Flight GS Corsair for $750 not the Hawk for $5K+!
The epoxy filler used in the bulkhead assembly looks like home made cake or cup cake icing - lumpy and messy. Usually you want to see nice smooth fillets not cottage cheese spakle.
I would love to have an A-4 like the one they sell it looks awesome but honestly Im not very interested now.
All of this is not to say the Hawk would perfrom better with nicer seams or cleaner fillets but it doesnt inspire confidence either.
What I expect for my money especially at this higher level of models is clean assembly with proper epoxy fillets, quality laser cut wood, and matching parts/panels. Is that asking too much?
06-27-2013, 09:53 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Spring Hill,
FL
Posts: 4,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
I've never owned a composite model so I have no opinion of them. I am a die-hard builder and really enjoy it - much more than I enjoy flying.
The only thing I want to address is for those who say that wood models need constant attention to the finish through the life of the model.
Most of the models that I've covered with plastic have gotten ratty looking within a couple seasons. But not all of them. Some of my models never had problems with fuel getting under the seams. Don't know what I did differently, but I do agree that if you cover your models with plastic then you most likely will be recovering the model within a decade if you like the model that much.
BUT!!!!! There is no law stating you must cover your model with plastic. If you want a very low maintenance finish then take the time to paint it. If the structure is solid wood then you can glass and paint. Otherwise you'll need to use some type of shrink covering (silk, Koverall, Stits, etc.)
Yes, it's time and money but if you end up loving the model then it will have been worth it. Painted models are only heavy when the builder doesn't know how to apply it properly. Paint can be just as light as any of the heavier plastic coverings (Monokote, Ultracote, etc.) It all depends on the builder's skill, knowledge and motivation to do the work.
The only thing I want to address is for those who say that wood models need constant attention to the finish through the life of the model.
Most of the models that I've covered with plastic have gotten ratty looking within a couple seasons. But not all of them. Some of my models never had problems with fuel getting under the seams. Don't know what I did differently, but I do agree that if you cover your models with plastic then you most likely will be recovering the model within a decade if you like the model that much.
BUT!!!!! There is no law stating you must cover your model with plastic. If you want a very low maintenance finish then take the time to paint it. If the structure is solid wood then you can glass and paint. Otherwise you'll need to use some type of shrink covering (silk, Koverall, Stits, etc.)
Yes, it's time and money but if you end up loving the model then it will have been worth it. Painted models are only heavy when the builder doesn't know how to apply it properly. Paint can be just as light as any of the heavier plastic coverings (Monokote, Ultracote, etc.) It all depends on the builder's skill, knowledge and motivation to do the work.
06-27-2013, 11:15 PM
#35
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
I have been flying Composite-Arf aircraft since 2002, wow its been that long.
Still flying All composite planes, UAV's and recently bought another Ultra Lightning, now that Im flying in Africa for the next few years, must get back to my roots.
Most of all I have flown, built, repaired, destroyed and abused every kind of Kit under the sun, they all have their positives and negatives, its just the way it is. As modelers most if not all are looking for that Perfect Aircraft, Most Never find it because its a Hobby/Fun and we are all addicted to the Next Best plane...
However CARF or Andreas Gietz is one helluva talent in the model making business and consistently produces a fine product, Marketing is intended to give you a personal experience same as buying a car, bike ext. Its just a different way of doing business is all. Some like it, some dont.
Comp-arfs fly pretty clean, hold up to most abuse just fine, but as said by Bob, if you damage it, better use the proper technique when repairing it, spare parts although are obtainable, are not cheap, take time to get, and usually take some fitment to me 100% correct.
I have flown the Daltons and Cardens back in the day, and I swear they were just as good, if not better flying than my Carfs, my problem is I just never liked the maintenance involved with wood and foam, to me they were always heading down hill and on the way to become raggy planes...never my comparf, just kept wax on the parts and used extreme caution when storing them.
Still flying All composite planes, UAV's and recently bought another Ultra Lightning, now that Im flying in Africa for the next few years, must get back to my roots.
Most of all I have flown, built, repaired, destroyed and abused every kind of Kit under the sun, they all have their positives and negatives, its just the way it is. As modelers most if not all are looking for that Perfect Aircraft, Most Never find it because its a Hobby/Fun and we are all addicted to the Next Best plane...
However CARF or Andreas Gietz is one helluva talent in the model making business and consistently produces a fine product, Marketing is intended to give you a personal experience same as buying a car, bike ext. Its just a different way of doing business is all. Some like it, some dont.
Comp-arfs fly pretty clean, hold up to most abuse just fine, but as said by Bob, if you damage it, better use the proper technique when repairing it, spare parts although are obtainable, are not cheap, take time to get, and usually take some fitment to me 100% correct.
I have flown the Daltons and Cardens back in the day, and I swear they were just as good, if not better flying than my Carfs, my problem is I just never liked the maintenance involved with wood and foam, to me they were always heading down hill and on the way to become raggy planes...never my comparf, just kept wax on the parts and used extreme caution when storing them.
06-28-2013, 04:48 AM
#36
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
ORIGINAL: RichardGee
NICE FLYING of your Yak! Looks like you got the version that is filled with Helium
NICE FLYING of your Yak! Looks like you got the version that is filled with Helium
Bob
06-28-2013, 06:38 AM
#37
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
Super K!
I had the previlege of flying with Andy Kane this past winter. He was there when I maiden my Viper. I told him that I was upset with the seams too. He told me that you can order one and have it custom made to your liking, including the seams, your paint job, and it really won't cost more then a couple hundred to do this for you. But! You would have to wait about 6 months to get your plane. We are buying the ones already here in N. America, and they just come out basic. Not trying to defend them, but it was what I was told by Andy this winter. I had to sand, fill and paint all of my seams on the Viper. There is a forum on here about it and one on RC Jet Addiction for the continuation of the assembly.
I had the previlege of flying with Andy Kane this past winter. He was there when I maiden my Viper. I told him that I was upset with the seams too. He told me that you can order one and have it custom made to your liking, including the seams, your paint job, and it really won't cost more then a couple hundred to do this for you. But! You would have to wait about 6 months to get your plane. We are buying the ones already here in N. America, and they just come out basic. Not trying to defend them, but it was what I was told by Andy this winter. I had to sand, fill and paint all of my seams on the Viper. There is a forum on here about it and one on RC Jet Addiction for the continuation of the assembly.
06-28-2013, 07:30 AM
#38
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
For the record, Andy Kane is a real stand up guy, in the very beginning of Comp Arf sales in the US I purchased my first 3.3M Yak just a couple of week after they were available and Andy was the only rep at that time if memory serves me. I think the 3.3 airframes at that time were close to $4000.00 delivered and I must of felt they were worth the extra money because as I stated earlier, I bought 4 of them. [&:]
Bob
Bob
06-28-2013, 07:39 AM
#39
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
Yes! Andy is a super guy! He even helped on the trimming of my F-18, which is not CARF. I have bought 44% Giles, Flash and Viper from him. And, have been fortunate enough to own 6 airframes total. What is nice about CARF, it is hard to wear them out! I do more hanger rash to them, then flying them. Instead of wearing them out, I usually sell them a couple years later and hundreds of flights later, inorder to move on to the next one. I put a coat of wax on it, looks goods as new, or almost, where a Monokote plane after a couple years and even just a hundred flights, can look like junk. I only have one Monokote plane in my inventory, and that is a Quickie for fun fly's. Otherwise, like glow fuel, I am done with them.
Also, most of the guys' who buy and fly CARF, don't ususally wreck them. In otherwords, competent pilots. So, CARF doesn't sell as many, due to the limited of guys that are serious about the hobby. So, they have to charge a little more, but you get it back on resale.
Also, most of the guys' who buy and fly CARF, don't ususally wreck them. In otherwords, competent pilots. So, CARF doesn't sell as many, due to the limited of guys that are serious about the hobby. So, they have to charge a little more, but you get it back on resale.
06-28-2013, 08:39 AM
#40
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Richmond, BC, CANADA
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
ORIGINAL: RichardGee
LOTS of good input… which is exactly what I hoped this would generate.
IF I may pipe back in on several of the points raised:
1) I stand by my statement that flutter is caused 99% of the time by THE BUILDER; loose linkage; insufficient leverage; insufficient servo; too much control surface gap; excessive speed due to over-powering or over-propping the model and then not flying it in a sensible manner. Balancing surfaces reduces the potential for flutter, but the primary purpose is to reduce the force necessary to displace the control surface.
2) Razor thin trailing edges – YES, I agree this is NOT optimal for a pattern or IMAC plane. The CARF-Models ‘Valiant’ F3A aircraft has all center-hinged surfaces and blunt and beveled trailing edges to improve precision. However, for most of us mere flying mortals, sharp trailing edges are the least of our worries! For SCALE applications, super thin, straight and strong trailing edges are a MUST, and very difficult to reproduce using conventional building techniques.
3) Quality control – AGREED. When it comes down to it, CARF-Models are built by humans who are fallible. Some of the CARF molds are getting a bit long in the tooth and the finished products may be showing some of this. TELL YOUR SALES REP if you find your CARF unsatisfactory! I have found that they stand behind their products.
4) Finish – Painting in the molds vs. outside the molds: CARF-Models are NOT painted. The finish is applied IN THE MOLD and is more of a GelCoat (two-part) epoxy coating; it is NOT paint. This is precisely why the finish is so durable and lighter than a comparable paint job. This is also why the mold seams do show in the finished product.
5) Building vs. CARF: There is absolutely no doubt that some modelers have all the necessary skills, time, money, and shop space to build a better model than any ARF company can produce. WE see some of them every year competing at TOP GUN.
6) Price – I have one very good modeling buddy who has no fewer than 50 excellent glow engines in all sizes, and at least a dozen very nice kits on his shelves…yet he is the first one to tell me that he will “never spend as much on an RC model as he would on a nice used car!” The investment on his shelves would easily cover the cost of a nice CARF. And after all, we can only fly one airplane at a time.
My P-47 cost over $12K to put in the air. Over $5000 of that was the engine, propeller and hub. Could I have built a 110” Thunderbolt with the same level of detail, just as sturdy, 50 pounds, for less money? I think so… but I did not happen to have a spare 500+ hours to find out!
LOTS of good input… which is exactly what I hoped this would generate.
IF I may pipe back in on several of the points raised:
1) I stand by my statement that flutter is caused 99% of the time by THE BUILDER; loose linkage; insufficient leverage; insufficient servo; too much control surface gap; excessive speed due to over-powering or over-propping the model and then not flying it in a sensible manner. Balancing surfaces reduces the potential for flutter, but the primary purpose is to reduce the force necessary to displace the control surface.
2) Razor thin trailing edges – YES, I agree this is NOT optimal for a pattern or IMAC plane. The CARF-Models ‘Valiant’ F3A aircraft has all center-hinged surfaces and blunt and beveled trailing edges to improve precision. However, for most of us mere flying mortals, sharp trailing edges are the least of our worries! For SCALE applications, super thin, straight and strong trailing edges are a MUST, and very difficult to reproduce using conventional building techniques.
3) Quality control – AGREED. When it comes down to it, CARF-Models are built by humans who are fallible. Some of the CARF molds are getting a bit long in the tooth and the finished products may be showing some of this. TELL YOUR SALES REP if you find your CARF unsatisfactory! I have found that they stand behind their products.
4) Finish – Painting in the molds vs. outside the molds: CARF-Models are NOT painted. The finish is applied IN THE MOLD and is more of a GelCoat (two-part) epoxy coating; it is NOT paint. This is precisely why the finish is so durable and lighter than a comparable paint job. This is also why the mold seams do show in the finished product.
5) Building vs. CARF: There is absolutely no doubt that some modelers have all the necessary skills, time, money, and shop space to build a better model than any ARF company can produce. WE see some of them every year competing at TOP GUN.
6) Price – I have one very good modeling buddy who has no fewer than 50 excellent glow engines in all sizes, and at least a dozen very nice kits on his shelves…yet he is the first one to tell me that he will “never spend as much on an RC model as he would on a nice used car!” The investment on his shelves would easily cover the cost of a nice CARF. And after all, we can only fly one airplane at a time.
My P-47 cost over $12K to put in the air. Over $5000 of that was the engine, propeller and hub. Could I have built a 110” Thunderbolt with the same level of detail, just as sturdy, 50 pounds, for less money? I think so… but I did not happen to have a spare 500+ hours to find out!
comments in regards to:
3. We are all fallible, thats what makes us human but its not an excuse...........all you need is a better quality control (Those quality "PASS" decals that you put on all major parts are going to loose there relevance/effectivness if you keep sending items that dont meet quality standards).
4. I agreethat the finish applied in the mold is very durableand light but should be applied withtop quality, we should not get paint bleeding through paint lines or unwanted over spray (pay more attentionto detail), Personally I hate the seamsfrom the mold.
06-28-2013, 08:50 AM
#41
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Richmond, BC, CANADA
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
ORIGINAL: RCFlyerDan
Super K!
I had the previlege of flying with Andy Kane this past winter. He was there when I maiden my Viper. I told him that I was upset with the seams too. He told me that you can order one and have it custom made to your liking, including the seams, your paint job, and it really won't cost more then a couple hundred to do this for you. But! You would have to wait about 6 months to get your plane. We are buying the ones already here in N. America, and they just come out basic. Not trying to defend them, but it was what I was told by Andy this winter. I had to sand, fill and paint all of my seams on the Viper. There is a forum on here about it and one on RC Jet Addiction for the continuation of the assembly.
Super K!
I had the previlege of flying with Andy Kane this past winter. He was there when I maiden my Viper. I told him that I was upset with the seams too. He told me that you can order one and have it custom made to your liking, including the seams, your paint job, and it really won't cost more then a couple hundred to do this for you. But! You would have to wait about 6 months to get your plane. We are buying the ones already here in N. America, and they just come out basic. Not trying to defend them, but it was what I was told by Andy this winter. I had to sand, fill and paint all of my seams on the Viper. There is a forum on here about it and one on RC Jet Addiction for the continuation of the assembly.
I do that already (fill sand and paint myself) as its the only way I'm happy with not having seams.
BTW, Andy is a great guy and helped me a number of times.
06-28-2013, 08:55 AM
#42
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
Here is what I did to my Viper this year! Since the pattern didn't match going up the vertical stab, I solved my painting issue by covering it with metalic silver both fine and course, then cleared the whole jet with a metalic clear. Around the where the wings match to the fuse, I add more red and orange over spray to blend it better into the fuse. The metalic clear, of course went over the whole jet after I was finished with the base coats.
06-28-2013, 12:14 PM
#43
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Jupiter,
FL
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
From what I have been reading on another forum the new H9 QQ Yak is most definitely a CARF manufactured product. They were comparing the similarities for several pages before deciding it had to be a CARF. At $1800.00 it's definitely not cheap but definitely less then the $2500 other posts have mentioned or more from what I have seen on their site. The plane is clearly a performer as Seth Arnold took it to the top of step at XFC and the reviews seem to be very good. I'm not a fan of the graphics but it's growing on me
06-28-2013, 01:15 PM
#44
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
ORIGINAL: jester_s1
In any hobby there is the high end products that the run of the mill users debate the value of. I used to shoot IDPA and USPSA pistol competitions. Sometimes guys would show up with a $2000 Wilson 1911 pistol and shoot the same scores as the guy with the $500 Glock 17. Glock guys love to point out when that happens, much the same as the guys flying beat up second hand IMAC planes love to point out when they beat a guy with a $5000 beauty queen. Fishermen have the $30,000 bass boats, hunters and birders have Swarovski optics, car enthusiasts have Mercedes, Bentley, and many others to spend their money on. To me though, the Comp ARF, like the Wilson pistol, is built for durability and is a good value for the user who plans to actually use it enough to wear it out. The balsa ARF is going to go through several recovering jobs, numerous small repairs caused by hangar rash, will need wood replaced sometimes due to being oil soaked, and will never look as good as the composite plane during the same time span. For a guy who flies 3-4 times a week and wants to do serious work on his skills instead of spending time in his shop, the Comp ARF makes a lot of sense. For the guy who is a casual flyer or tends to auger planes into the ground long before wearing them out, it would be a foolish way to spend one's money.
In any hobby there is the high end products that the run of the mill users debate the value of. I used to shoot IDPA and USPSA pistol competitions. Sometimes guys would show up with a $2000 Wilson 1911 pistol and shoot the same scores as the guy with the $500 Glock 17. Glock guys love to point out when that happens, much the same as the guys flying beat up second hand IMAC planes love to point out when they beat a guy with a $5000 beauty queen. Fishermen have the $30,000 bass boats, hunters and birders have Swarovski optics, car enthusiasts have Mercedes, Bentley, and many others to spend their money on. To me though, the Comp ARF, like the Wilson pistol, is built for durability and is a good value for the user who plans to actually use it enough to wear it out. The balsa ARF is going to go through several recovering jobs, numerous small repairs caused by hangar rash, will need wood replaced sometimes due to being oil soaked, and will never look as good as the composite plane during the same time span. For a guy who flies 3-4 times a week and wants to do serious work on his skills instead of spending time in his shop, the Comp ARF makes a lot of sense. For the guy who is a casual flyer or tends to auger planes into the ground long before wearing them out, it would be a foolish way to spend one's money.
06-28-2013, 02:19 PM
#45
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
ORIGINAL: Super Kupfer
comments in regards to:
3. We are all fallible, thats what makes us human but its not an excuse...........all you need is a better quality control (Those quality ''PASS'' decals that you put on all major parts are going to loose there relevance/effectivness if you keep sending items that dont meet quality standards).
4. I agree that the finish applied in the mold is very durable and light but should be applied with top quality, we should not get paint bleeding through paint lines or unwanted over spray (pay more attention to detail), Personally I hate the seams from the mold.
ORIGINAL: RichardGee
LOTS of good input… which is exactly what I hoped this would generate.
IF I may pipe back in on several of the points raised:
1) I stand by my statement that flutter is caused 99% of the time by THE BUILDER; loose linkage; insufficient leverage; insufficient servo; too much control surface gap; excessive speed due to over-powering or over-propping the model and then not flying it in a sensible manner. Balancing surfaces reduces the potential for flutter, but the primary purpose is to reduce the force necessary to displace the control surface.
2) Razor thin trailing edges – YES, I agree this is NOT optimal for a pattern or IMAC plane. The CARF-Models ‘Valiant’ F3A aircraft has all center-hinged surfaces and blunt and beveled trailing edges to improve precision. However, for most of us mere flying mortals, sharp trailing edges are the least of our worries! For SCALE applications, super thin, straight and strong trailing edges are a MUST, and very difficult to reproduce using conventional building techniques.
3) Quality control – AGREED. When it comes down to it, CARF-Models are built by humans who are fallible. Some of the CARF molds are getting a bit long in the tooth and the finished products may be showing some of this. TELL YOUR SALES REP if you find your CARF unsatisfactory! I have found that they stand behind their products.
4) Finish – Painting in the molds vs. outside the molds: CARF-Models are NOT painted. The finish is applied IN THE MOLD and is more of a GelCoat (two-part) epoxy coating; it is NOT paint. This is precisely why the finish is so durable and lighter than a comparable paint job. This is also why the mold seams do show in the finished product.
5) Building vs. CARF: There is absolutely no doubt that some modelers have all the necessary skills, time, money, and shop space to build a better model than any ARF company can produce. WE see some of them every year competing at TOP GUN.
6) Price – I have one very good modeling buddy who has no fewer than 50 excellent glow engines in all sizes, and at least a dozen very nice kits on his shelves…yet he is the first one to tell me that he will “never spend as much on an RC model as he would on a nice used car!” The investment on his shelves would easily cover the cost of a nice CARF. And after all, we can only fly one airplane at a time.
My P-47 cost over $12K to put in the air. Over $5000 of that was the engine, propeller and hub. Could I have built a 110” Thunderbolt with the same level of detail, just as sturdy, 50 pounds, for less money? I think so… but I did not happen to have a spare 500+ hours to find out!
LOTS of good input… which is exactly what I hoped this would generate.
IF I may pipe back in on several of the points raised:
1) I stand by my statement that flutter is caused 99% of the time by THE BUILDER; loose linkage; insufficient leverage; insufficient servo; too much control surface gap; excessive speed due to over-powering or over-propping the model and then not flying it in a sensible manner. Balancing surfaces reduces the potential for flutter, but the primary purpose is to reduce the force necessary to displace the control surface.
2) Razor thin trailing edges – YES, I agree this is NOT optimal for a pattern or IMAC plane. The CARF-Models ‘Valiant’ F3A aircraft has all center-hinged surfaces and blunt and beveled trailing edges to improve precision. However, for most of us mere flying mortals, sharp trailing edges are the least of our worries! For SCALE applications, super thin, straight and strong trailing edges are a MUST, and very difficult to reproduce using conventional building techniques.
3) Quality control – AGREED. When it comes down to it, CARF-Models are built by humans who are fallible. Some of the CARF molds are getting a bit long in the tooth and the finished products may be showing some of this. TELL YOUR SALES REP if you find your CARF unsatisfactory! I have found that they stand behind their products.
4) Finish – Painting in the molds vs. outside the molds: CARF-Models are NOT painted. The finish is applied IN THE MOLD and is more of a GelCoat (two-part) epoxy coating; it is NOT paint. This is precisely why the finish is so durable and lighter than a comparable paint job. This is also why the mold seams do show in the finished product.
5) Building vs. CARF: There is absolutely no doubt that some modelers have all the necessary skills, time, money, and shop space to build a better model than any ARF company can produce. WE see some of them every year competing at TOP GUN.
6) Price – I have one very good modeling buddy who has no fewer than 50 excellent glow engines in all sizes, and at least a dozen very nice kits on his shelves…yet he is the first one to tell me that he will “never spend as much on an RC model as he would on a nice used car!” The investment on his shelves would easily cover the cost of a nice CARF. And after all, we can only fly one airplane at a time.
My P-47 cost over $12K to put in the air. Over $5000 of that was the engine, propeller and hub. Could I have built a 110” Thunderbolt with the same level of detail, just as sturdy, 50 pounds, for less money? I think so… but I did not happen to have a spare 500+ hours to find out!
comments in regards to:
3. We are all fallible, thats what makes us human but its not an excuse...........all you need is a better quality control (Those quality ''PASS'' decals that you put on all major parts are going to loose there relevance/effectivness if you keep sending items that dont meet quality standards).
4. I agree that the finish applied in the mold is very durable and light but should be applied with top quality, we should not get paint bleeding through paint lines or unwanted over spray (pay more attention to detail), Personally I hate the seams from the mold.
Man #4 is really opening a can of worms. Since these models are painted in the mold, what you see on the top of the finished product is actually the very first color spraying they must put on. They are painted in Reverse of what you see! b/c of this, there is no way to remove any paint bleeds or small portions of paint overspray. If they made every model painted in the molds 100% perfect in regards to color scheme's and paint, the pricing would be so stupidly high they would never sell any models. After-all, they don't know where the problems are until AFTER the completed parts are removed from the molds. So if you have a wing panel that has $400-600 in materials and labor that isn't 100% perfect b/c of a few small specs of paint over-spray or a small section of bleed through, how long do you think it would take to fill up a dumpster full of blemished parts and how much more the price of their products would have to increase to make up for that.
It just isn't Realistic to expect a 100% perfect paint job of one of their "common" color schemes. if you want it perfect, then your going to either A. have to pay them to do a custom scheme (painted outside of the molds) or B. do it yourself
Like they say:
Choose any 2:
Quality
Cheap
Fast
06-28-2013, 02:36 PM
#46
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
Man #4 is really opening a can of worms. Since these models are painted in the mold, what you see on the top of the finished product is actually the very first color spraying they must put on. They are painted in Reverse of what you see! b/c of this, there is no way to remove any paint bleeds or small portions of paint overspray. If they made every model painted in the molds 100% perfect in regards to color scheme's and paint, the pricing would be so stupidly high they would never sell any models. After-all, they don't know where the problems are until AFTER the completed parts are removed from the molds. So if you have a wing panel that has $400-600 in materials and labor that isn't 100% perfect b/c of a few small specs of paint over-spray or a small section of bleed through, how long do you think it would take to fill up a dumpster full of blemished parts and how much more the price of their products would have to increase to make up for that.
It just isn't Realistic to expect a 100% perfect paint job of one of their ''common'' color schemes. if you want it perfect, then your going to either A. have to pay them to do a custom scheme (painted outside of the molds) or B. do it yourself
Like they say:
Choose any 2:
Quality
Cheap
Fast
It just isn't Realistic to expect a 100% perfect paint job of one of their ''common'' color schemes. if you want it perfect, then your going to either A. have to pay them to do a custom scheme (painted outside of the molds) or B. do it yourself
Like they say:
Choose any 2:
Quality
Cheap
Fast
06-28-2013, 05:22 PM
#47
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
if you think about it the composite airplanes are a perfect starting point for a custom paint job. Just look what Oversprayer is doing for Chief A/C with some of the Krill models. When I got this 202 it was a basket case. It had been in a mid air that resulted in the loss of about 1/3 of the prop. It had vibrated so badly it sounding like someone was beating a plastic 55 gallon drum with a bat. It took several months to get the repairs done which included replacing the fuse core material from the back of the canopy forward and repairing the delam of the trailing edge spar on both wings. You may notice the ailerons are no longer skin hinged. I dare to say that if it were a wood airplane it would have exploded in flight. After the repair it gave me 3 great years of IMAC flying that took me from sportsman class to advanced.
06-28-2013, 06:10 PM
#48
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: , TX
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
I feel like I just turned the TV on late at night and I'm watching an info-mercial... Or the guy from the movie "Clerks" trying to sell Chuley's gum
06-28-2013, 06:49 PM
#49
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
ORIGINAL: LOturbine
I feel like I just turned the TV on late at night and I'm watching an info-mercial... Or the guy from the movie "Clerks" trying to sell Chuley's gum
I feel like I just turned the TV on late at night and I'm watching an info-mercial... Or the guy from the movie "Clerks" trying to sell Chuley's gum
BUTWAIT, THERE'S MORE.........................order now and we will include at no charge these bright white wing attchment nuts!!!!! LOL
06-29-2013, 12:06 AM
#50
RE: CARF-Models worth the extra money?
ORIGINAL: speedracerntrixie
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.........................order now and we will include at no charge these bright white wing attchment nuts!!!!! LOL
ORIGINAL: LOturbine
I feel like I just turned the TV on late at night and I'm watching an info-mercial... Or the guy from the movie ''Clerks'' trying to sell Chuley's gum
I feel like I just turned the TV on late at night and I'm watching an info-mercial... Or the guy from the movie ''Clerks'' trying to sell Chuley's gum
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.........................order now and we will include at no charge these bright white wing attchment nuts!!!!! LOL
AND IF you ACT NOW, we will double this offer for the same price! So you get TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!
