Trainer reviews - who should do them?

[Red]

Our modelling magazines are populated with very good articles but I have a question for anyone who may care to answer (including editors and contributors). Models are, by and large, catagorised as being for beginners, intermediate level or experts. This can refer to flying skills and or building skills. My question then is who should review a model aimed at beginners? The same question applies to the other two groups. I think that if a modelling proficianado reviews a model aimed at beginners then the review is intrinsically flawed and inaccurate since we cannot say with any certainty whether a beginner will find something easy or difficult. I have, from time to time, read reviews from beginners and it is these testimonies (few and far inbetween I have to say) that lend real insight and argument as to whether a model is for a particular group or not. Experts should provide expertise in matters of a technical nature and not reviews of models aimed at beginners. Here is an idea: Editors could run a competition aimed at model clubs up and down the country and let the winning club choose a beginner to review a model. This could be run on a monthly basis with hopefully different winners each month. There could be a short summary of the activities carried out by the winning club and a review. Hopefully I have given a few editors some fresh ideas.........what do you think?

Ronny D

Intermediate builder/pilot!

[Down Under]

I for one think this is a great idea. Especially giving a beginners kit to a beginner to build and report on. I guess the challenge / risk is finding some one who will document sufficiently their progress such that a decent article can be written for the magazine.

[colin nolan]

We do quite a few reviews for RCME down at Tyldesley MFC,and the experience of the reviewers can vary between expert flyers and guys who have only just passed their "A" cert.The question of who does a particular model review seems to be "does that model tie in with the ability of the flyer" I've done a couple of reviews,along with Brian Nicholl and Brian Rottier,and none of us might be what you would call expert flyers,just average clubmen.And then we've got members such as Andy Ellison,Rob Stenhouse,Richard Fry and Liam Swarbrick,to name just a few,who can all get the most out of a model.Their ability to analyse what a model is doing in a particular manouvre far surpasses mine for instance,but I think Ronnie has got quite a valid point.What they might consider as easy and not worth commenting on,a beginner might find beyond his ability,both in the build and subsequent test flights.

[Greybeard]

Your idea has a great deal of merit.

[Barrie Dav 2]

Seems like a good idea but for the sake of the security of the model perhaps the beginner could fly the aircraft to be evaluated via a buddy box. After all, we are talking about models for the beginner here and he/she is not likely to have complete and sure control all the of time and it would be a shame if the plane was 're-kitted' on one of its early flights. The novice pilot will still be able to comment upon the ease or otherwise of flying the thing.

[Allan Bennett]

I can see some advantages of having "expert" reviewers, rather than beginners: First, they are able to compare models because of their experience; a beginner might think that such-and-such a model is the "bees knees" because he was able to build and fly it, but the seasoned builder might recognise that a-n-other model was even better in some respect.

Second, if they see a shortcoming in a kit that's otherwise good, they can highlight it so that beginners can get around the problem and, maybe, the manufacurer can modify the kit to eliminate the problem.

Maybe magazines should always have two review models, one built by an "expert" and another by a beginner

[Plummet]

Well if the Lords Ashby etc. approve, there is a simple way to achieve this.

If folk fancy doing reviews for the mag why don't they document and review the building and flying of a model they have for themselves. They might submit the results to Their Editorial Greatnesses, and if They like the results then They might consider sending review models and kits to the authors.

Plummet

[Bearair]

The skill level of beginners also varies greatly. For example a engineer will have a totally different idea of building a model to someone who has never picked up a screw driver in their life. To me what matters is that the reviewer is completely honest about the model and there is some kind of reference to what the reviewers broader experience is. This would also be useful when people make recommendations on forums. For example, "this is the first moulded glider I have flown .......", or " I have had hundreds of moulded gliders and ..........". Everyones experience with a model is equally valid and putting that experience of the model in context would help the prospective purchaser.

Roger

[Lee Smalley]

A few problems with what you suggest, the photos these guys produce would generally be very poor and certainly not good enough for publication, secondly the reviews can be terrible, some time ago a review came up that was aimed for a beginner, it was passed on to a work colleague who was learning to fly, he had to come to our patch for the pictures as his were poor and his review was lacking to say the least, i had to rewrite most of it anyway, if you think for one minute i would not have picked up on the things he did you're mistaken, i have taught many pupils and i tend to know whats better for them than they do, to be honest it was a waste of time giving it him for review

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 17/06/2013 08:04:29

[Andy48]

So whats to stop 2 beginners models being reviewed, one by a beginner, and one by the experts at RCME. They could do all the photos, and then pass an expert eye over the beginner's review, both from a flying/building characteristic, and also from an editorial viewpoint. Clearly not everyone can write a review, so some selection is needed here.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Hi Ronnie and welcome, thanks for the idea.

It all sounds horribly complicated to be honest with no guarantee that we'd end up with reviews by people who can bring informed comment to the table, by people who can write or by people who can take half-decent photos.

Through no fault of the model, one beginner may find it poor while another may find it very good. What would that be telling you? Very little, other than learning curves differ. I remember going through a spell when I was learning to fly where I couldn't get it together for a few weeks and started to wonder if something was wrong with the model. Of course there wasn't, it was me.

In truth we see few new trainer models on the market these days, indeed, with sales under pressure, some makers and distributors have been removing models on the reasonable basis that you don't need 3-4 different trainers in your product line up.

Are you a beginner though Ronnie? If so, is there any aspect to trainer reviews or information required by beginners that you think magazines can do better to provide?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I'm not so sure that the beginner as reviewer is sound. One major problem is that some beginners encounter problems that are very much of their own making! Its really Bearair's point - the guy who is used to practical things, making stuff - maybe not model aeroplanes, but he's generally skillful and "good with his hands" - will often sail through a trainer build in a couple of days. However, the opposite sort of beginner may well voice negatives about the kit simply because they have gone about it the wrong way.

Also at the heart of reviewing is the skill of comparison. "Is this better, stronger, simplier" etc. On what basis does a beginner make such comparisons? There could be something really "weird" about a kit - they wouldn't know. Alternatively they might decide that having to set up a throttle accurately via a pushrod is a right palava - when in truth its absolutely standard.

Finally, remember that most reviewers, who are experienced flyers, are probably also club instructors/examiners. They have flown a great many trainers and are probably in the best position to tell you if this particular one is "par for the course", "exceptional" in some way, or an absolute "dog's dinner"!

One thing that is important is that the experienced flyer looks at a trainer kit "through the eyes of a beginner". For example if it possible to fix a fault on a kit, but to do so requires a degree of skill, knowledge and experience that a pure beginner is unlikely to have, then that fact should be made very clear in the review. Every reviewer I've ever spoken to is keenly aware of this. In fact one I know, who is doing a review at present (no names!) ,is agonising over exactly such an issue right now.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 17/06/2013 11:20:42

[john melia 1]

Well i can do a review of the black horse Sedona trainer if you like , i've flew 6 or 7 times now .

[Olly P]

Hmm... a 'side-by-side' review would be interesting, but difficult to organise. For example the beginner creates some notes, and an experianced 'mentor' does the same, on all aspects. The comparrison of the 2 would be I think potentially quite informative.

To be honest, the reviews as they are in the Mag are excellant anyway.

[Plummet]

OK,

The beginner will have their own problems. Differeent beginners will have different experience and so will see things differently. Amateurs are unlikely to take print-worthy photographs. Add to that, writing well is not a gift awarded to everyone.

The instructions in kits vary from nowt, up to great step by step instructions, so complete that the experienced builder takes pride in ignoring them.

SO.

How about a WIKI approach. (Think wikipedia for aeromodelers.)

Pages may be devoted to individual kits. They could become- in effect - build instructions for models.

Yes I know that the RCM&E forum has build logs - and help can be sought and given through them. However, these can be patchy, go off topic, and reflect only one person's build. The tree structure of (well edited) wiki pages mean that it is easy to navigate them - much easier than finding one detail in a long forum build log.

A WIKI would allow several people to add their own comments, and since it could be edited, could be more firmly on-topic. Since photos are only for the computer screen, they can be lower resolution,

Kit manufacturers, who sometimes produce very poor instructions, might even be inspired to contribute, and perhaps be inspired to improve their stuff.

I am sure that the RCM&E staff would just love to take on this extra little task. I suggest that it should be restricted to subscribers only - to avoid defacement by the casual browser.

Thoughts?

Plummet

[Lee Smalley]

Its not like they are very busy is it??? Beb is correct most of reviewers are instructors and every pupil is different, a prime example of a trainer review is the thunder tigre (arc ready) one pupil might find it brilliant, another will find it far too heavy and fast, so one review by a newbie could be very misleading and costly for another, dependant on aptitude obviously, that's why an experienced flyer is generally a better option. Nice idea but unworkable i think

[Red]

Thank you everyone who posted a view to my question of who would be best to write a review aimed at beginners. I originally looked for a couple of weeks to see if anyone had replied to my question and as there were no replys I decided that it was of no interest to anyone. Imagine my surprise and delight when looking at the forum today and finding all of your replies.

I don't wish to flog a dead horse but I agree with some of the comments and disagree with others. For instance, why should a beginner necessarily be a poor photographer or be unable to articulate their views clearly?

According to a recent poll the average age of modellers is somewhat advanced (many of these will be new to model flying as well as returning modellers) and there will be some very articulate folk who also know their way around a camera.

Given the comment that a particular model is for a beginner, is there a caveat that the builder needs to have reasonable tactile skills? If this is the case then is the model really for a beginner? If you are an engineer then is it not feasible that you could actually build an intermediate or advanced model?

Those who commented on the possible demise of the review model, remember, we are talking about a club member providing the review who, no doubt, would be supported by an instructor. If the model is checked over carefully by the instructor before any flights then events could proceed to the reviewer commenting on how they found the model to fly.

I am a teacher by profession and in my experience it is sometimes better for the pupil ( the beginner) to provide comments on their understanding of something (in laymans terms) to other pupils ( this is called peer to peer mentoring) than it is for me (the expert) to provide further explanations for something I have already covered.

I buy and read at least four modelling publications each month ( some better than others, but all are well written with beautiful colour photos ). There is some cross pollination (I totally understand why ) of reviews across all of the publications but there is a tone of, dare I say it, elitism particularily with regard to reviews where only the word of a renown expert will do. If you compare some of these reviews to the articles written by Alex Whittaker (a very down to earth author ) you can see what I mean. Most reviews lack humility, Alex invented the word.

Anyway, I will continue to be an avid reader of modelling publications and I hope no-one takes exception to my comments. Just to add, for David, I have been a modeller for about 40 years but have only recently returned to modelling after some 20 years out of it. I don't really know whether that makes me a beginner in the true sense or not. I am a member of the Brighton model flying club. I guess my comments are aimed at getting something different within the content of a review rather than an "ipso facto" record of a build and test flight.

Many regards to you all

Ronnie D

Edited By Ronnie Dawson on 08/08/2013 23:48:55

[FilmBuff]

The Mag did a side by side review of three simlar models a while back - but it sort of missed the point.

Each reviewer wrote about their model - but they did not fly each others, so comparisons didn't really take place.

Agree with Ronnie's comments that just because you are a novice rc flyer it doesn't mean you are an imbecile who can't take pictures or write in joined up sentences!

Edited By FilmBuff on 09/08/2013 12:55:46

[Concorde Speedbird]

A bit off topic, but I want to see the mag do more builder's kit reviews and more reviews of models from less well known companies. We get lots from Seagull, Hangar 9, E-flite, Multiplex but what about the Pegasus models kits, like the Jester biplane, which I think are as good if not better than aeroplanes from the main brands. And the Cambran models kits, I'm building a Sport Scale Spitfire which is a lovely build.

CS

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by FilmBuff on 09/08/2013 12:55:13:

Agree with Ronnie's comments that just because you are a novice rc flyer it doesn't mean you are an imbecile who can't take pictures or write in joined up sentences!

Edited By FilmBuff on 09/08/2013 12:55:46

I don't think the poster was suggesting that was the case FB - he merely observed that the opposite is true - ie not everyone has the interest/talent/gift to take good photographs or write to the standard required. In fact these factors are relatively rare - a lot of people I suspect simply would not want to make the committement or undertake the responsibility of doing a review - to a deadline. I think his point was that if trainer reviewers were required to meet a specified level of (in)experience then you would limit the potential pool of reviewers even further - possibly to the point where it is not viable.

BEB

[FilmBuff]

On a wider note - in the digital age - what value does the traditional kit review in a print magazine really have?

By the time a model review appears in print, the web forums have disected it, evaluated it, found the bugs and fixed them and posted a shed load of photographs and videos.

As ever on the web you have to be your own editor and filter - but the info is out there months and sometimes years before the mags get hold of them.

Maybe the mags should take a slightly different approach? Ownership reports after 6-12 months? Trying them in competition? Proper comparison reports?