April issue feedback

[Tony Jones]

nasa_steve. I wouldn't expect someone who can't be bothered to use any punctuation - not even capital letters for personal pronouns or at the beginning of sentences to be bothered about this subject at all. But tell me: is it idleness or ignorance that prevents you from taking that little bit more trouble? After all, you have to type the stuff anyway - is getting it right that much hassle?

[Tony Jones]

nasa_steve
I earn my living as a professional technical writer and journalist, and prefer to keep modelling as a relaxation from work. Nor do I need to do it just to see my name in print and get some free gear. But I don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking that the content of the modelling magazines I buy are at least written and edited to a reasonable standard.

[Slopetrashuk]

It's personality mate...
Wouldn't the reviews be boring if they did not communicate at least a little of the reviewers personality...

Wait till they're done in 'text speak' M8ty..

[Slopetrashuk]

In addition...

.....the most severe test of airborne radio gear is provided by powerful electric models.....

you've obviously never had a glider 1/2 mile downwind 20 feet from the ridge line at 90 degrees to your transmitter with the aerial tucked inside a carbon fuselage...

Andy Ellison
(Who has...And flies high powered electric too.)

[nasa_steve]

Andy
I'm in total agreement the article's etc. are supposed to be easy to read and light hearted with an emphasis on the personality writing them. Incidentally the idea of free gear is far from the truth as i'm sure you'd agree.
i've never seen such a bunch of highly opinionated people all in one place it just seems to reitorate what a miserable country we live in maybe its the weather!!
regards
steve

[Slopetrashuk]

I just spent 300 quid on gear to put a 100 quid glider I didn;t ask for in the air!
Yep it's free alright...(all right/alreet/aawight)

[nasa_steve]

tony
with all due respect if i wanted a lesson in english grammar i'd head off to college. i thought on here it was a general discussion open to one and all. in short if you don't like it don't buy the mag. i'm sure the rest of the guy's here are in agreement.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Tony, have another read.

The article was written by the asst' editor (not the editor) but you've taken the comments literally.
I was simply trying to place tongue in cheek and compare the weather in the promotional DVD with an overcast U.K. field in February, that's all; I wasn't relating the weather to the performance of the DX7.
Nobody else has made this assumption either on the forums or through our emails and letters.

I do agree with your remarks regarding high power electric models - I didn't have one to hand which is why I asked Dave Wilshere to give us his thoughts. Perhaps we should have explained that the SebArt Katana is a (reasonably) high powered electric model.

If you feel that RCM&E isn't edited to a high standard then I really do respect your views and am happy to receive professional feedback but, if you have the time, would you mind sending me a private email to elaborate on your thoughts.

[email protected]

We think the mag is the best in the UK. We're lucky enough to have a number of talented contributors who can not only write but also know how to use a camera. A very small team puts a lot of effort into each issue but no creation of man is perfect and we're always trying to make RCM&E better.
I'd probably worry if someone said RCM&E was perfect!

David

[loe blogs]

Its amazing, there was me thinking that the model industry was one of the only industries not affected by over-opinionated arseholes how wrong i was! What a shame it has come to this where someone feels he has nothing better to do than to correct people on grammer and punctuation in what is in effect a conversation between like minded fellow's. These types of people need to be removed or exposed for the busy bodies they are and they must not be allowed to sway public opinion by their empty hot aired opinions. What a sad and sorry state of affair's this has become now where's the moderator gone??

[Tony Jones]

David

Well, that's a more reasonable and polite reply than I deserve.

I don't consider myself to be a trainer, but may I suggest comparing RCME with the car magazines? The modelling press carries sheds' loads of advertising and it seems to me that the publishers must be pocketing most of it and not reinvesting any of it in editorial or production.

I may drop you a private line, but here are three areas that really get my goat and where I feel things could be improved immediately.

1. Every kit/model review is conducted in total isolation. Practically all other consumer magazines that test stuff will at least mention 2 or 3 similar products that a potential buyer might like to consider. Helps put things in context and makes the buying decision easier. When comparisons are a regular element, no advertiser can complain of victimisation.

2. Waffle. I simply do not want to know that the reviewer was having a cup of coffee when 'the huge box' arrived and his wife was disappointed 'cos it wasn't flowers. We all know that the British weather often doesn't allow test flying immediately a model is completed. We don't need to be told how many weeks the reviewer waited - or that when the weather finally broke he was visiting his inlaws and had to wait another two weeks.
Some reviewers even refer to themselves 'waffling on' and frequently sign off by saying 'I seems to have run out of space'. I.e they didn't plan the ahead in the first place.

3. Products reviewed mentioned in features as being useful but incomplete data and contact details.

Couldn't just a bit of that advertising money be spent on training? Or would your contributors take offence at that? I've been writing professionally for 20 years and whatever skills I might have acquired are largely down to training and advice from experts.

That's it from me on this subject!

[Tony Jones]

Andy

Hmm. I having the aerial inside a carbon tube would certainly be a test of receiver sensitivity. Almost as severe a test as not noticing that the aerial was missing altogether. Don't ask.

Ah, text speak. Thts my wrst n8mare.

[Tony Jones]

Ioe and Steve

Firstly, my apologies to nasa_steve for the unnecessary sarky remark. End of a long day and all that...

But don't forums exist precisely to provide a place for opinionated people to voice their opinions? But wait, unlike Ioe, (is that a misprint of Joe?)I'm an OVER-opinionated person - i.e an opinionated person who doesn't agree with you. ;)

I simply consider using at least some punctuation to be a question of manners. You may not be arsed to do it but that means I have to put it in mentally as I go along to make sense of what you've written. Not an enormous effort but I wouldn't expect you to have to do that to understand what I've written. Call me Meldrew, by all means. I'd consider it a compliment.

[Slopetrashuk]

...Call me Meldrew, by all means. I'd consider it a compliment....

I don't believe it..

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Tony

I remember when I first started writing in mag's nearly 20 years ago; it was because I told the editor (not RCM&E) I didn't like his reviews.

'would you like to write one for me then' he said.
I channelled my anger into what I thought was a masterpiece (which, looking back, it wasn't) and to my amazement he published it.

Drop me a line, Let's have a chat, we're always looking for new talent, people who can bring a new slant to hobby writing.

The best reviewer in the industry, the guy who re-invents the genre, could (seriously) be you....but you've got to do something about it first.


David

[Alistair Taylor]

Graham

Something that's missing from kit reviews (but is commendably done for IC and electric motor reviews and for battery tests) is some data on which to base a comparison of the different planes being tested.

The reviewers do seem to work very hard to say sensible things about the kits reviewed, given their purported use (e.g. if it's a scale kit, does it fly in a scale manner, if it's a sport kit, will it do reasonable aerobatics, if it's a trainer can a novice fly it), but in the absence of any figures, it can be quite difficult to differentiate between two planes that are described as flying "really well".

The use of benchmarks (e.g. "this is faster than a snort40 but slower than a dozey60") is helpful up to a point, but if you've never flown or seen either of the comparator planes, you're left none the wiser.

What I would suggest is a selection of specific tests to be done on each plane reviewed, like;

- How slow can it be made to fly? (time to cover...e.g. 100m?)
- How fast does it fly at full throttle? (time to cover same distance)
- How far does it roll after landing? (an approximation for landing speed)
- What length runway/grass strip does it need to take off
- What duration do you get from a tankful? (this does appear in most reviews, but not all)
- How long does it take to descend from a set height with engine at idle?

I have to confess I'm no aerodynamicist, and I appreciate that this would add to the workload of the reviewers, but data like this would help me compare kits/artfs.

Anybody else think this?

I'm happy with most of the reviews I read, and I do think it is interesting to have something of the reviewers character (whether it's someone you'd want to have a pint with or not!) in the reviews.

Keep up the good work


Alistair
PS - Might RCM&E be able to get access to a wind tunnel to assess the aerodynamics of a set of "benchmark" models in different catgeories (sport, aerobatics, electric sport, foamie), with a view to assessing subsequent models in these categories against these? Just a thought.

[Tony Jones]

David

Your offer is extremely kind and reasonable - especially considering my rather aggressive opening salvo. I would be happy to drop you a line but as I spend quite a lot of my working life writing technical articles and product reviews for IPC and CSL titles, I'd like to keep my hobby a keyboard-free zone. Apart from sorties onto various forums like this one during coffee breaks.

I was interested to see that nasa_steve thinks reviews are 'supposed to be light hearted with AN EMPHASIS ON THE PERSONALITY WRITING THEM. (My caps). I would beg to disagree with that. IMHO the emphasis should be on the product, not the reviewer. When I got my first byeline I was warned not to get big headed. My job, it was emphasised, was to transmit information and - with extreme caution - a little opinion. I was reminded that the readers didn't know who I was and couldn't care less. The word to be used with the utmost circumspections was 'I'. That used to be the rule for interviewers on radio and TV too, but now THEY are the prima donnas and the interviewees simply fodder to feed their egomania.

I certainly don't think I'm capable of re-inventing the genre, or that it needs re-inventing. Might I suggest a look at the product reviews (boat tests and the like) in the IPC sailing and motor boating titles - or the road tests in any established car magazine - for examples of how well it can be done?

Anyway, apologies for dragging this thread off topic: away from the April issue and into a discussion on journalism which most readers won't be interested in. Any future thoughts to you in private.

Best wishes
Tony (Meldrew) Jones.

[Braddock, VC]

Just a thought, when I subscribed to MAN (I think) they gave me a password and I could access the mag on line, could RCME not do this?
David, I'm a bit like Bomber Harris, Dortmund, Nurnberg they're all the same to me......

[David Ashby - Moderator]

John, yes good idea, the boffins are working on this I'm told.

David,

[nasa_steve]

Tony
I think you may have mis-interpreted what I meant by "emphasis on personality" personally I feel any article needs to be written in such a way as to convey what the reviewer thinks of the model/product he is presenting. IMHO if no personality show's through in the writing you end up with a magazine full of building manuals and nothing more. There are a few mag's out there that tend to lean this way and i find myself getting bored of the monotone almost robotic feel to that way of writing. I feel a little personal touch to any article pays dividends.
With regards to the idea of comparing models to others in their class this idea can be difficult if the reviewer has not had any experience of what the competition has to offer. Yes it is very true most reviews that i've had experience of, are in fact done in total isolation as such. It would be nice to compare two different models from build to flight. Certainly in car magazines i can imagine it being a lot easier with most reviews being written by people who have probably driven most of the competitions offerings therefore being able to draw on personal experience.
I am writing a review at the moment and I will draw on some of what you've said to further improve my article(s)(please ed.)now and in the future ,but I do still feel that an article always needs to portray a human element to it in the sense of a modeller talking to another modeller for example. I don't see it as an ego trip merely trying to tell an honest opinion there'll always be someone who disagree's with the writers view.
nasa

[John MacDonald]

Reference the comment that we are unlikely to see an electric powered full size plane, one flew the channel about ten years back; solar powered at that! Top of the wing covered in solar panels. Picture and articles in both Evening Standard and Flight magazine.

[John MacDonald]

Reference Ken's article on wheel brakes, a lot of space to re-invent a wheel! (forgive the pun). Ken, there is no need to dedicate a servo, just use Down elevator like everyone else! Proportional braking that way, plus the download on the nosewheel assists the braking action. For even better results and superior holding power, put brakes on main wheels, where the most of the aircraft weight is.
Du Bro used to market a "nose wheel brake" unit some years back, used a small drum with a coil spring wrapped round, two long tails on the spring,one tied to the leg, one pulled by a cord to the elevator servo.The drum had three protusions which engaged the wheel between the spokes. Very effective,I used to use a pair on the main legs. Unfortunately not available any more!

[John MacDonald]

Further to electric powered full size flight, there was a rubber powered ultralight flown in Australia some years back.A load of rubber in a carbon fibre and kevlar tube, and a drum brake set-up as a sort of throttle system. Could be applied to R/C? (Fuel manufacturers wouldn't like it if it caught on!)

[Tim Mackey]

I think you will find that it was Alex Whittaker who did ( I think rather fun ) the wheel brakes article. He did tell me that he thought it was a bit "anoracky " but as I say, I thought it was good geeky fun for DIY ers.

[Tony Jones]

Dave
No need for me to moan or you to visit. Your English is impeccable. And I would not be so rude to criticize anyone for whom English is not their natural language anyway. (My Finnish is a bit less than perfect!)
The taxi drivers in your country speak and write better English than many who have left school over here in the last 20 years.
Best wishes
Tony

[Tony Jones]

David
Agree 100% with your comments on engines. Personally I would like to see some figures of rpm on props of various diameter and pitch. Some engines seem quite happy to turn larger props than the manufacturer recommends quite happily, while others won't. That's important for scale flyers.
Best wishes
Tony