January 2013 Issue feedback

[Chris 'Chops' Dore]

Sorry to be a H&S nutter but what on earth made RCM&E print that picture on P113???

For those who haven't spotted it, it must be an example of 'how not to tune an engine' but unfortunately RCM&E have'nt titled it so.

Now I know Martin Gearing (we are in same model engineering club) and he is one of the most safety conscious people I know when it comes to machine tools. So I cannot understand why he has no eye protection and is standing directly in the propellor arc. Maybe some kind aeromodelling 'expert' should have been on hand to demonstrate the correct place to stand??

I really am gobsmacked that the RCM&E editor(s) did not spot this and either not print it or at least make some really obvious comment about the dangers of flying propellors. Come on surely you can do better than this??

On another moan, why is it that rewiew writers (or editors) seem to think that the only pictures worth printing are of the completed model on the ground or flying? I for one would like to see pictures from 'out of the box' and during the build phase, with maybe one or two of the completed model. So many times I have read in a review of a particulary good or bad component or point about the model then not seen any photo to illustrate it, this would be much more useful than a bunch of flying shots which can easily be downloaded from the manufacturers site anyway.

On the flip side Alex Whittaker did a great job of the build photos for his Slinky, well done, this is more like it.

Keep up the good work RCM&E, believe it or not I do really enjoy reading it or I wouldn't subscribe would I.

Chris D.

[Lee Smalley]

Chris, thanks for your feedback, but as we have mentioned previously on another thread in build photos are quite hard to achieve often the photographer is not present at the build (often lives some distance away from the reviewer, the lighting available in most sheds is not sufficient for decent pictures and most cameras are again not suitable for rcm+e other mags maybe.. but then thats why i dont buy them!! the build of an ARTF can be so quick that we would have to delay the build to obtain decent in build pictures... what i am trying to say is that these pictures you would like to see are not as easy as you think they are to obtain and even if we do get a few pics they are not always used!

have a look at my recent review of the graupner sea fury we did take a few pics of the offending bad part (retract) and it was published, so we are listening and trying !

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Thanks Chris,

Well, as regards the pic you mention, some pictures will sometimes appear to reveal a, how shall I put it...... 'a less than ideal'.....safety situation but I think the word 'appear' is relevant here. I recall a letter we received a while back from a chap saying that a model wasn't restrained when in fact it was - the tail was out of shot and being on tarmac he'd drawn his own conclusions and fired them off. I think readers would quickly feel belittled if we were to attach safety caveats to every picture where there appeared to be some real or imagined danger.

As a professional writer and photographer Alex is well equipped to illustrate his columns and plan designs (although he rarely reviews models) and, working with our other contributors, we have been increasing the number of build shots - quite a bit actually. We now have Tim Hooper taking his own studio build shots and Pete Lowe illustrates his trad build columns and workshop features in this way too, not forgetting scale columnist Danny Fenton - they're all ensuring that the mag retains the high photography standards that help set it apart.

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

Posted by Lee Smalley on 30/12/2012 15:30:32:

build photos are quite hard to achieve often the photographer is not present at the build (often lives some distance away from the reviewer, the lighting available in most sheds is not sufficient for decent pictures and most cameras are again not suitable for rcm+e other mags maybe.

Nitpicking: How is a camera not suitable for a magazine? Surely it is how the camera is employed that counts?

Good points, I don't think anybody wants to go back to the days of badly lit, poorly framed images of work in progress, but surely the builders can be instructed how to hang up a white background (sheet of foamboard/ curtain etc), place two or three lamps to minimise shadows, why the camera should be white balanced and the importance of a tripod.

Also, Alex Whittaker, Esher is not in South London, but it is south OF London. Tsk, go back to the valley whence you came, Welshy.

[Erfolg]

Those of us who are not into photography, cannot really tell a bd picture from a good picture. I have no issue with workshop pictures, as long most of the detritus we have on our benches removed. For me it adds atmosphere.

On the other hand, the white background, feels a little technical, almost sterile. Although i do not doubt the sharpness and clarity that is achieved. I do not feel strongly about this approach, other than if over used, is to my mind, predictable, bordering on the boring.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

LHF - you obviously haven't had dealings with the Ashby brothers on the subject of photographic images!

If you see the lengths these guys go to in order to ensure the quality of the photographs in the mag you really wouldn't believe it! Simply not being "dark" or "out of focus" isn't even the beginning of it! The standards they apply are very high indeed. And that of course is what leads to the magazine having the fantastic visual impact it does.

If you want to see what I mean take a look at the November issue of RCM&E alongside the same edition of its nearest competitor. Both issues contain reports from the 2012 Nats. Just compare the photography. You don't have to be a photographic expert (I'm most certianly not!) to see the difference. Both mags chose a photo of the same model on the same flight for the front cover - but other than that there is no comparison between Alex's shot and its competitor! Alex's photo on RCM&E is in a different league.

I mention all this to demonstrate just how high the hurdle is for photography at RCM&E - given these standards you most certainly can "not have the right camera" and there's rather more to it than just "putting up a white background"!

BEB

[Danny Fenton]

I couldn't agree more with BEB, Graham is a real stickler for quality pics, and we do give him grief over it, but he is absolutely right to insist on keeping the quality. the gear I use cost me well over £2k it is a seperate hobby of mine so not specific for my contributions. I couldn't justify it otherwise.

[Erfolg]

Oh, I do not doubt there high standards. Nor do I doubt that the composition,and all the other technical aspects are exceptional.

It is I just do not appreciate it, I am far more affected by the emotion, of an image.

Were are moving back to front covers again. I personally would much prefer see a model flying past a modeller, a slope soarer being thrown of a hill, a model in conjunction with some other feature, or even a young woman, holding a model. Rather than a pin point sharp model, against a plain background

Just an alternative view though.

[Chris 'Chops' Dore]

Lee and David, thanks for your comments, regarding the issue of pictures my frustration is being told of a problem with something (usually poorly engineered part, ill fitting or unsuitable component) and then left guessing what all the fuss is about. With the inclusion of a picture the problem can easily be highlighted to other unsuspecting buyers and maybe even the manufacturer / importer will take a little notice! I realise there are very high standards of photography at RCM&E but on occasion the inclusion of a less than perfect picture should be acceptable if it has its place.

I'm not sure David how the photo of Martin Gearing tuning an engine can be misinterpreted. There is no 'appearance' of a 'less than ideal' situation. It is blatently obvious from the angle of view and Martins hand position that he is standing in line with the propellor arc. Of all the safety matters I have come across this has the greatest potential for serious damage and should not be belittled by phrases like "less than ideal".

Surely someone at the MEX2012 was responsible for safety? Its not as if this was some spur of the moment demonstration at the local flying site. I've been to many exhibitions in the past (MEX, Sandown, etc) and every other time safety has been paramount with engine running displays being very well guarded from the public and best practises being demonstrated. What has happened here? I mean Martin is not even wearing safety goggles!

Yes I agree that we dont want to see every photograph captioned with a safety warning but on occasion it must be done or questions should be asked if it is an appropriate photograph to use.

I really am only making constructive comments and not just ranting (honest)

Chris D

[Erfolg]

Christopher

I can see that your are passionate with respect to safety, to the extent that you notice things that pass most by.

I think it is enough to recommend that it is inadvisable to stand not just in the plane of the propeller, but also at some angle behind the prop. More importantly is embedding the good practice at club or operational level, as part of a general procedure.

As for me, I really would not notice, particularly when I consider IC motors to be fraught with dangers, where close proximity to a hazard is required to operate the device. You really have to be eagled eyed to spot in a picture, what is not good practice.. In reality i am less concern about shedding a blade, where it probably, needs to part within a segment of about 30 degrees, to come near to me. I have greater fear adjusting the fuel mixture or taking of a glow connector with a flexible lead. Non the less I would not stand in plane or just to one side behind the prop, when running, close in. I am curious, can you see that the propeller is revolving?

If the picture had been an electric, the real dangers and poor practice, probably would not be seen from a photograph.

[Danny Fenton]

I am sure this has already been suggested, but I will suggest it again. How about the author post his “unacceptable” pictures here on the forum to accompany their review/article etc?

I am more than happy to post pictures showing the clutter and inner workings of a model on the forum, that wouldn’t normally make the magazine if it would help?

As an aside, I was dissapointed my Wessex shot didn't cut the mustard.

Cheers

Danny

[Lindsay Todd]

Danny, as I know you are aware, we take 300 to get 30, I think we would swamp the site if we posted all the not so good images, even if we posted all the 'looked ok to me' images. The goal is set very high with good reason by Graham and David. Like you I have invested in kit for propper shoots but use a point and click for general build blog shots rather than staged images unless I need to take particular images for potential publication. That said I think workshop images can have more general atmoshpere and I'm not adverse to the messy reality of the workshop.

Linds

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Danny Fenton on 30/12/2012 23:25:18:

I am sure this has already been suggested, but I will suggest it again. How about the author post his “unacceptable” pictures here on the forum to accompany their review/article etc?

I am more than happy to post pictures showing the clutter and inner workings of a model on the forum, that wouldn’t normally make the magazine if it would help?

As an aside, I was dissapointed my Wessex shot didn't cut the mustard.

Cheers

Danny

Beautifully in focus, sharp, good colour, smashing sky,....but where's the back end of the aeroplane Danny? See, everyone's a critic!

Me? I can't even get an autofocus point 'n' shoot to take a photograph of anything you would recognise, as anyone who has seen my efforts on build blogs etc can testify!

BEB

[Lee Smalley]

sorry LHF but your comment only serves to show how much you know about photography!!

not sure how you think my 150 quid kodak is on a par with a 2K unit, you might not be able to tell but the editor can !!

also remember that a substandard part is often not known to be a sub standard part until it fails, this is generally after the aircraft has been built!!

personally i want no sub standard pics in my mag, if this happens i would not renew my subscription

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by Christopher Dore 1 on 30/12/2012 21:18:26:

 

I'm not sure David how the photo of Martin Gearing tuning an engine can be misinterpreted. There is no 'appearance' of a 'less than ideal' situation. It is blatently obvious from the angle of view and Martins hand position that he is standing in line with the propellor arc. Of all the safety matters I have come across this has the greatest potential for serious damage and should not be belittled by phrases like "less than ideal".

 

 

Calm down Chris, I'm not belittling anything and you're not wrong but that doesn't mean we should pick people up on safety every time we think or percieve there's some sort of danger. A little tact and discretion is often called for and highlighting safety concerns with every photo would set the wrong tone for the mag' and fill our post bag with letters from those who feel wronged.

It's an editorial judgement call at the end of the day, you'll just have to accept that - if the magazine was full of photos showing dangerous practices then I'd feel you have a case, but I don't think it is.

Nothing wrong with a good rant though

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 31/12/2012 07:07:54

[Max50]

Hi Martin. Can't wait for the second article on learning with the electric trainer. I fly an I/C trainer, so am interested how you get on . Wether you selected your own motor/esc combi; what size lipo compared with flight times, what type of servos you put in the rudder and elevator that are out in all the weather; and electric safety while taking the test. Also if you made two flights with one battery or had to change while taking the test.

The trouble is I want the February issue NOW! . I can't wait another few weeks for the next episode.

GIMME MORE. OHH ..... this David's crafty. He's going to make me buy another 6 issues to find out what happens. OH NOoooooo!

[Andy48]

Hi Max.

Thanks for the comments.

Do I have to confess now???

As I think I have already said, I have had an on/off series of attempt to learn to fly, not helped by several job changes that meant moving from one end of the country to another. When I retired, I made a serious attempt to learn but found some down at the club so unhelpful. One day a few years later I decided I was either going to do it this time and get my A certificate or find another hobby. Out came my very old Apache trainer with an Irvine 46 in it, all faded down one side where the oil had had its way. After not a lot of fiddling the engine started ( it was a super engine), and with a quick once over, down to the club I went. The atmosphere had changed and it was much more welcoming.

After a few flights, I decided I wanted another plane as a backup. After much research and thought I bought the Seagull Innovator, and thoroughly enjoyed learning on this, so much so, the old Apache was usually left at home. However, at times it proves a little light. The day of my test came and another flyer and I were down to take our test. He took his test, I managed to do something silly through nerves and blew up the ESC. In the end I took my test on the Apache instead. I do remember being asked questions on safety for both IC and electric.

After that I bought the larger E-Pioneer to go with the Innovator and it literally flew out of the box, and during this time I realised how much work I had had to do to specify all the things you have mentioned. There is so much confusion even on the web that it was quite difficult. Motors seem to have amazing differences in specification for the same motor depending on where you read it, hence the idea for the articles.

In the end, I did the homework - lots of it, beefed everything up a bit to provide a decent safety margin. I measured current and wattage for different propellers, and checked the performance using a static thrust test with the model hooked up to a sensitive balance on a smooth surface. Thankfully I have that sort of a background so I quite enjoyed the challenge.

The servos seem to be no problem in damp or wet weather, other things are though as we shall see later. Easily overcome once you are aware.

With the motor/esc/lipo combination specified the plane is just under the recommended weight of 2.2kg and will fly vertically - the static thrust exactly matches the all up weight. However it is still easy to fly, and makes taking off far less hit and miss, or should I say, bounce, flip and crunch. In all but the windiest conditions this combo will have enough power to do both parts of the test no problem, though swapping a battery only takes a minute or two.On normal flying a 10 minute flight will half discharge the battery.

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

Posted by Lee Smalley on 30/12/2012 23:56:09:

sorry LHF but your comment only serves to show how much you know about photography!!

not sure how you think my 150 quid kodak is on a par with a 2K unit, you might not be able to tell but the editor can !!

also remember that a substandard part is often not known to be a sub standard part until it fails, this is generally after the aircraft has been built!!

personally i want no sub standard pics in my mag, if this happens i would not renew my subscription

Actually, I know quite a lot about photography (given I'm in TV and everything is about the shot) and I resent the assumption that I don't on the basis of making a couple of off-the-cuff suggestions that could easily be followed by the average builder in their shed. It's not like I'm insisting on a particular colour temperature from the lights in order to bring out the colour variations in a model's covering, or bouncing light off a poly board mounted on a c-stand.

I don't recall writing anything about camera price comparisons, and I don't think they are relevant. You have totally ignored the main focus of my post, which is that the skill in photgraphy is in how the equipment is used, not the snazzy features or number of pixels. I'm saying that there are a few basic rules that can be followed which will hugely impove the taken image. A good photographer will get decent results from a basic camera as well as an expensive one.

Edited By Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 31/12/2012 15:51:32

Edited By Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 31/12/2012 15:51:58

Edited By Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 31/12/2012 15:52:28

[Peter Beeney]

As always, these threads and posts make an interesting read, it would appear that virtually everyone has a different point of view…… which often seem to be quite contradictory to others…

Usually it’s the electrical procedures that get bandied about a bit, variously different ideas about how things work etc., but now the H&S aspect looms up from time to time, and I think this will probably only get more frequent.

One of the nice slants to aeromodelling for me has always been the fact that it’s unregulated. Therefore there are no official rules and regulations. There is always the ‘catch-all’ ANO’s and CAP 658, but how they are construed in any one particular incident would, I suspect, have to be decided in a court of law; and on past form, not very prominently, if at all, then so from the point of view of starting a model engine, say, I think I can safely ignore these.
So I’m perfectly free to do as as I please. To take as many, or as few, precautions as I want to. It’s entirely up to me. However, within the club environment there is other member’s safety to also contemplate, so that would be a very necessary consideration, and when teaching newcomers this becomes even more paramount, but it’s still my own techniques that I can employ, I don’t have use anyone else's rules at all. I can stand in front of a running engine if I wish, and for as long as I wish, it’s maybe that a mate gets very uptight about this, but I can ignore this with impunity. Unlike some of the industrial H&S rulings, as I remember, in the ‘Electricity at Work regulations, 1989,’ this implied if you did something as simple as connecting a 1.5V battery, but by doing so just happened to blow yourself up by causing a spark in a gas loaded atmosphere, you could be held responsible, and fined, for causing injury to yourself.

I have to admit I’ve not seen this particular magazine, and it’s most unlikely that I’d want to comment anyway, but I’ve seen other such pictures, and I think that I would just feel that I wouldn’t be doing that procedure in that manner. But I’d also have to consider that, as I’m the person responsible for my safety, am I in fact doing it in the most safety conscious manner? Perhaps I need to look closer at my operations before I comment on any other person’s activities. I would be the first to admit that I can easily make a mistake, and this could be extremely painful, to say the least, so I’m always reminding myself of that fact. With the vague hope that I’m always aware of what I’m doing.

Personally, I think I shall be more than satisfied if Health and Safety don’t get involved with aeromodelling, at least for just a few more years…

PB

Edited By Peter Beeney on 31/12/2012 16:19:03

[Bob Cotsford]

I couldn't agree more Peter. I have seen the mag and I didn't think the photo is particularly bad - at least he wasn't standing in the high risk conical area in front of the engine, and wasn't reaching over the prop to adjust the throttle. Lets not get silly over safety, after all it wasn't an instructional article, just a report.

[WolstonFlyer]

It was probably a posed photo just to get the engine and Martin both in the shot facing front and framed nicely.

No big deal.

[Flanker .]

I am with Concord on the Trainer issue. It really got my dander up. I thought we had grown up enough to stop this silly ic vs electric nonsense - and here we have an article for beginners giving ic a good bashing.

Could we not have some balance ? Operating a model engine in a model plane is huge fun. Don't fancy it ? Buy electric. Simple. There are advantages to both power systems and they should have been illustrated. As the article stands a newbie might well feel that they have no choice but to go electric as the other option is dirty, unreliable, slow, old fashioned and dangerous !

As a model flyer I like to use model engines -I find them so simple and reliable - fuel up, flick and go. Getting to that skill was fun and easy, and a wonderful part of learning to fly. As I said above if that doesn't float your boat - fine, electric power will fly your planes wonderfully, but don't let's deny learners the information to make an informed choice huh ?

Humph F

[Simon B]

It's not like there's any shortage of people putting ridiculous stars in Electric to balance it out though.

[Ian Jones]

Posted by Flanker . on 31/12/2012 19:08:18:

I am with Concord on the Trainer issue. It really got my dander up. I thought we had grown up enough to stop this silly ic vs electric nonsense - and here we have an article for beginners giving ic a good bashing.

Could we not have some balance ? Operating a model engine in a model plane is huge fun. Don't fancy it ? Buy electric. Simple. There are advantages to both power systems and they should have been illustrated. As the article stands a newbie might well feel that they have no choice but to go electric as the other option is dirty, unreliable, slow, old fashioned and dangerous !

As a model flyer I like to use model engines -I find them so simple and reliable - fuel up, flick and go. Getting to that skill was fun and easy, and a wonderful part of learning to fly. As I said above if that doesn't float your boat - fine, electric power will fly your planes wonderfully, but don't let's deny learners the information to make an informed choice huh ?

Humph F

I don't know about a good bashing but I certainly felt the bias you point out and on the whoile this is pretty much the way I see it too.

[Lee Smalley]

martin, a quck question have you ever taught anyone to fly either ic or electric??