January 2015 Issue feedback and chat

[PatMc]

Andy, AFAIK there's only one mag, QFI, that's mainly EP (last time I bought it it included gliders) is there another ?

My criticism of the January RCM&E was nothing to do with EP or IC.
I find it difficult to believe that there's that much interest in quads to warrant two reviews of them in the same issue.
The articles & engine review that I mentioned are, IMO, bloated space filling waffle that could have been covered in 5 or 6 pages at most instead of 10 or 11.

[cymaz]

The magazine is reporting on the latest flying fads, technology and trends. The way it is going if battery capacity keeps improving there will only electric power and for anything over .90 size petrol.

I don't by the mag on a regular basis. I look in WHS and if there is anything I take a fancy to I buy it. I'm glad I don't have a yearly subscription. I can't think when there was an article on small petrol motors of the .60-.90 size, DLE, DLA, the Laser 155 ( glow granted). Just look at all the petrol engines for sale on eBay.

Though I'm sure an electric flyer could argue the other way.

Could there be a more defined sections for the different motive power diciplines? A table in the back of the mag of the most recent tests? A star rating maybe? A bit like What HiFi publishes.

Someone said "You can't please all of the people all of the time" . Was it the editor of the RCME?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by cymaz on 04/01/2015 22:38:29:

Could there be a more defined sections for the different motive power diciplines?

But Cymaz - that is exactly the issue I'm highlighting above. In the modern ARTF market the distinction which marks this model as "IC" and that model as "electric" has largely disappeared for medium size models - most manufacturers are now making their products so they can be powered either way.

The only thing that could be considered "purely IC" or "purely electric" would be something like an engine or motor review. So such "defined sections" as you propose would surely be rather thin!

BEB

[Lee Smalley]

i have to agree with the lads here, poor article really on beginners, lets be even handed eh!! i had one guy training and he was sick of charging his multiple packs, and wanted to go glow another could not get on with engines and was way happier with electric, each to their own, but to state electric really is the only way to go.... is sloppy and lazy sorry david!!

and i have to agree i have never put an RCM+E in the bin quicker in my life, agreed i really have no interest in quads and plenty others do, but 2 in one issue !! and then an electric foamie..... 2 days later when at Steve Webbs i purchased RCMW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wash my mouth out !!!!!! sad but true.

[Lee Smalley]

agreed beb nothing is ic or electric much anymore....but there was a time when the mag insisted a review be done IC for balance

[Barnesyboy]

For referance the review I wrote, was not a review of the quad it was a review of the flight controler/OSD system that can be used on both quad or fixed wing as detailed in the words.

BB

[SR 71]

Mine was already canceled, living in Cyprus i cannot justify the cost of the mag for what is inside it month after month

[Tomtom39]

Rather disappointed. A somewhat lightweight issue.

I've just had a renewal notice (for next June) informing me that my subs have increased to £54 - time I think to look at other mags - I will review in May

[Ian Jones]

Posted by Lee Smalley on 05/01/2015 16:31:15:

i have to agree with the lads here, poor article really on beginners, lets be even handed eh!! i had one guy training and he was sick of charging his multiple packs, and wanted to go glow another could not get on with engines and was way happier with electric, each to their own, but to state electric really is the only way to go.... is sloppy and lazy sorry david!!

and i have to agree i have never put an RCM+E in the bin quicker in my life, agreed i really have no interest in quads and plenty others do, but 2 in one issue !! and then an electric foamie..... 2 days later when at Steve Webbs i purchased RCMW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wash my mouth out !!!!!! sad but true.

I have electric , I.C. and gliders. So there is much in the mag to suit me but all the same I really do take exception to "electric really is the only way to go" and similar statements. It's also said in other places and to me this sort of comment demonstrates a narrow outlook with a touch of "... it must be the only way because it's what I do".

We've been there before, so lets not have the I.C. V Electric debate again (anyway it should be power V gliding/soaring) but really to the unitiated, which of course a proportion of the RCM&E readship must be, selling a personal preference as the only choice is misleading.

I did like Alex W's "CliffWhacker" design and I think I will probably make a variation of it as my next glider build. Enjoyed Danny's article too. Quads, so boring, there really is only one way for them to go, in my opinion that is .

 

Edited By Ian Jones on 05/01/2015 17:50:14

[Cuban8]

I don't take any of the modelling mags these days, as for me, they represent very little that I wish to read about, they all seem to be clones of each other and I think that's a common feeling amongst many of my club mates when we've discussed this topic. So much detailed info is available at the click of a mouse and all gratis!

Don't get me wrong, what's in the mags reflects a change in tastes (I do fly foamies, electric and a toy quad btw) and perhaps some do enjoy reading again and again about how to stick a foamie together, and charging a lipo, but it's not for me.

People are making their living from these mags, so I take no pleasure in being critical and I genuinely hope that those that remain, continue. Pity that Ken Shepard's offering is no more.

So, what would tempt me and those with similar views to come back to the fold? Perhaps an on-line subscription might tempt me and for which I'd be looking to pay no more than £25 per year. Content would have to change though, with much less basic stuff and more in-depth coverage of 'proper' building techniques, finishing, scale detailing etc (look at how popular 'build threads are, both here and elsewhere). More space for fuller reviews of engines, motors, flying techniques etc that hitherto have become rather superficial and rushed. Maybe something interactive via the web? Video of a motor test, or that flight test that only needed a couple of clicks of up - straight from the box?

Maybe I'm asking for too much? Sorry.

Flicked through Aeromodeller in WHS this afternoon............£5 for a very slim edition indeed, not surprisingly covering minority interests (nothing wrong at all with that of course) but can't see it lasting. How long would the BMFA News last for if it was only available on the news stands?

Edited By Cuban8 on 05/01/2015 18:21:03

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Goodness, no wonder my ears were burning, some pretty heated remarks there

Well, first of all and despite what some may have assumed the article wasn't suggesting anything other than an electric powered trainer for first time flyers. I've nothing against i.c. at all, long may it prosper. It is just beginner's series after all. The line 'electric is the only way to go' meant for a first-time trainer, nothing more. It's strange how some of you have brought your own interpretaion to bear.

I write a lot in the mag of course but, as my close and not so close friends will confirm, I talk to a heck of a lot of people - industry folks and flying folks. I talk to people to clarify my understanding and get honest feedback. I spoke to a lot of people before I wrote that article asking flyers and instructors whether they'd suggest i.c. or electric for a trainer. Every single one of them said 'electric', even the i.c.-only flyers. I really was quite surprised.

Their thinking was (and this is borne out by my own experience as a club instructor) that there's nothing wrong with i.c. power but it requires a certain knack, a certain amount of knowledge that's not so easy to acquire. It's knowledge that existing flyers take for granted but can be very dispiriting for a beginner when their engine doesn't start and there's no guarantee that the club 'experts' will provide a solution.

Everyone I spoke to agreed that i.c. flying can come later and that the most important, the most pressing concern was making sure today's beginner gets plenty of stick time because there are far too many other things out there to distract people, especially youngsters. Electric flight is a more reliable way of helping them get the bug.

My sincere apologies though if I've upset anyone. I didn't intend to write an i.c. v electric debate, or rubbish i.c. engines but merely to provide some really sound advice for beginners.

Anyway, all feedback is appreciated of course and, as always, many thanks everyone for taking the time to express your thoughts. Both Graham and I are in constant receipt of feedback - here, by email, letters, on the slope and down at our club patch and we always listen.

Thanks again.

PS - .... I can't wait to read your next piece in the mag Lee

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 05/01/2015 19:27:05

[cymaz]

I started my flying straight into glow. As I was new to the hobby It was no more hard or difficult than electric because I had no prior knowledge.

A good tutor who really knows his stuff is an absolute must for glow....as I think for electric as well.

The regime of glow engines, starting safely, tuning, post/preflight checks, cleaning up at the end of the day, fuel cleanliness, was told to me week after week and explanations/hint and tips always freely given. This was done until it sunk in.

I'm sure the same goes for electric....amps,volts,esc, motor power ratings, lipo, 3s..4s. I would think the learning curve would be just a steep.

So why do some people automatically assume electric is easier from the start?

[Andy48]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 04/01/2015 23:18:42:

But Cymaz - that is exactly the issue I'm highlighting above. In the modern ARTF market the distinction which marks this model as "IC" and that model as "electric" has largely disappeared for medium size models - most manufacturers are now making their products so they can be powered either way.

Hmmm. I bought a Black Horse model that was described as being for either electric or ic, with a view to having an electric model. Basically it was an IC model with a ply motor mount and a brief description of the electric conversion. The battery fitting was a nightmare as it was expected that one battery would remain in it at all times - ty-raped in.

The balance was dreadful. With the correct sized motor and battery it needed most of a local DIY store's supply of sand and cement in the nose to get the CofG correct.

I wish there had been a decent review to read first.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I agree Andy that the "IC or Electric" label can sometimes (certainly on older kits) be a bit nominal!

Of course, in principal you can convert almost any IC model to electric - with enough effort - and most the other way. And I've done both in my time (an Extreme Flight Extra 300 intended for electric got a Saito70FS, while a Great Planes Cub and a Blackhorse Chipmunk both designed for IC got electric power!)

But this nominal "you can convert it if you really want" sort of thing is fast becoming far less common I believe with more modern kits. More typical is say the Ripmax Wots Wot that came out this summer that is designed from the outset to be fully practical (and balance well) with either power source. Hangar 9's Ic/Elec conversions are similar - I've done two of them and both have been fine, and I'm sure would have been in either power mode.

BEB

[Pete B]

Posted by cymaz on 05/01/2015 19:40:42:

I started my flying straight into glow. As I was new to the hobby It was no more hard or difficult than electric because I had no prior knowledge.

So why do some people automatically assume electric is easier from the start?

With respect, cymaz, when you probably started, the only realistic choice to be made was IC or gliding - it was for me....

The world, whether we like it or not, has moved on since then and electric flight is a mainstream option now. I don't think you can doubt that, particularly in the light of the recent poll results. It is cleaner, normally quieter and less likely to create problems such as dripping oil on the upholstery, neighbours suffering the running-in of engines in garage or garden and general noise issues for sites, etc.

What the novice chooses is up to him, of course - he might prefer the challenge of messing about with engines rather than getting his head around kV, volts and watts/lb - but all things being equal, there's a lot less fuss with electric models. That's got to be of some advantage when learning, both for pupil and instructor, surely?

I don't think it's necessary for any mag contributor to be expected to perpetually sit on the fence either - it's an opinion expressed in a magazine, not a Papal Encyclical - so if you don't agree then submit an article extolling the advantages of learning with IC!

Pete

[Lee Smalley]

the one thing that was said to me many years ago when i wrote my first article for the mag, was be prepared to be shot down, and i have no problem with that, whenever you write something for public consumption, it is always open for critique, and you have to accept that, but please david you seriously cannot be surprised at a few comments after writing that, and i dont think people are taking it differently to that in which it was intended, you are basically stating to anyone who is thinking of taking this hobby up that to forget IC, and just go electric, well i dont know who you teach David but a few people i have trained over the years simply either dont get on with electric or prefer to have a mess with engines, and again to call operating an ic engine more tricky is shear laziness, it is simply untrue if that person is shown how and has the right aptitude, it is like saying, picking an electric motor and battery/esc combo is tricky... it is if you have not been shown and dont have the right aptitude, to state such an untrue is again lazy and plainly incorrect. you can't state something so controversial and then act all surprised, in over 30 years of flying i have learned that many different people want to do many different things and long may that continue, personally i think the mag is there to provide as broad a scope as possible to encompass as many interests as it can, and generally it does that well, however it has to be careful how it treads this fine line in reviews or articles, to ensure a good spread of interests,otherwise it risks joining the long lists of dead magazines we all just about remember.

and BB yes you are correct the review is for a flight controller that could be used in other things than a quad...but really ......come on it is still for quads, and will 99% of the time be used as such!

[Lee Smalley]

pete B yes when i learnt to fly IC was the only way to go and yes that now is not the case, but some common misconceptions always arise, a nicely set up irvine 46 (not hard to set up) will run and run like a sewing machine with virtually no messing about, the tyro pilot can be up and down as quick as it takes to fill the tank, and 5 to 7 flights a day no problem, and duration of those flights can be > 10 mins, so there are benefits as well !! one guy i was teaching turned up with 2 lipo packs and within 15 mins they were flat and he had to sit down for an hour to charge, it was not until he had purchased another 3 packs that this situation was eased, it was not a problem just an issue that needs thinking about with electric, one guy john would not go near electric with a barge pole and was in love with his ASP 70 FS which ran like a kitten and i would not like to think about how much flying and fuel he got through until he passed away. if you really honestly think IC engines are a faff to operate and run and are best left to after they have learned to fly then you really need to leave engines alone and stick to electric, you really dont have the aptitude

personally i love both and the mag should reflect both positively whilst highlighting each systems pros and cons,

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

I was at our normal club Sunday morning session this weekend. This is a club that was predominantly I/C not very long ago at all. Sunday morning is the main IC session of the week.

On Sunday there were probably a dozen fliers there and a few other members that had come just for a chat.
The ground started frozen, but the surface thawed through the morning. The sky was blue and there was very little wind.

I only saw one I/C model. Everyone else was flying electric because of the convenience in these conditions.
There were two recent A test passers, both passed their tests on electric models, they both had their second model with them, both electric. Neither of these models needed any great knowledge of power systems because they came complete with ESC and motor already built in and a battery recommended.

There were a group of the club stalwarts, one chap who's been flying longer than I've been alive (that's a long time), the club treasurer, and a handful of others, all flying electric.

I had my 6lb foamy Do27 Zebra there, this flies three 10 minute flights on a 4S 4000 pack, I take two packs and get an hours air time with that model. I also had two other models with enough very cheap packs for an hour with each too..

Just saying..

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by Lee Smalley on 05/01/2015 21:27:26:

the one thing that was said to me many years ago when i wrote my first article for the mag, was be prepared to be shot down, and i have no problem with that, whenever you write something for public consumption, it is always open for critique, and you have to accept that, but please david you seriously cannot be surprised at a few comments after writing that, and i dont think people are taking it differently to that in which it was intended, you are basically stating to anyone who is thinking of taking this hobby up that to forget IC, and just go electric, well i dont know who you teach David but a few people i have trained over the years simply either dont get on with electric or prefer to have a mess with engines, and again to call operating an ic engine more tricky is shear laziness, it is simply untrue if that person is shown how and has the right aptitude, it is like saying, picking an electric motor and battery/esc combo is tricky... it is if you have not been shown and dont have the right aptitude, to state such an untrue is again lazy and plainly incorrect. you can't state something so controversial and then act all surprised, in over 30 years of flying i have learned that many different people want to do many different things and long may that continue, personally i think the mag is there to provide as broad a scope as possible to encompass as many interests as it can, and generally it does that well, however it has to be careful how it treads this fine line in reviews or articles, to ensure a good spread of interests,otherwise it risks joining the long lists of dead magazines we all just about remember.

and BB yes you are correct the review is for a flight controller that could be used in other things than a quad...but really ......come on it is still for quads, and will 99% of the time be used as such!

I'm never surprised Lee, least of all by your 'thoughts'

[Pete B]

Posted by Lee Smalley on 05/01/2015 21:51:41:

if you really honestly think IC engines are a faff to operate and run and are best left to after they have learned to fly then you really need to leave engines alone and stick to electric, you really dont have the aptitude

There is a fundamental reason why IC isn't an option for me personally - but I'm sure I could manage if I was pushed...

But then, I've moved on from starter handles and prefer starting my car with a key these days, too....

Pete

[cymaz]

I was a bit taken-a-back when David gave glow such short shrift! If anyone does electric, great! They are still in the flying hobby.

I have a SC 52 2t in a Wot 4, only adjusted the needle 1 or 2 times in nearly 3 years. 15 mins of flying on a tank. It starts easily on a couple of back flips. No harder to operate than plugging a lipo in?

Electric is mainstream and popular. Don't dismis glow because it's old fashioned or not convenient....in the age of excellent and cheap radio gear, why do people still have a passion for free flight?

Edited By cymaz on 05/01/2015 22:30:24

[Andy48]

Surely some have missed the point here, and in particular, the difficulties surrounding learning to fly.

Over the years I have tried to learn to fly during, shall we say, "stable" periods in my working career where I had time to try such things. The first club was a nightmare due to a limited range of frequencies, and no real club instructors. When I finally nailed someone down to take me up, we'd faff about with the motor to get it going, walk out onto the field and have it stall, at which point next bloke on the same frequency would come along and say, "Time's up". I gave up.

Several years later I decided to try again. My new club had 150 members and learning there was not all that easy. One had to wait in the queue on training night, and again by the time the engine was running sweetly (with all the know-it-alls offering conflicting advice) and I got in the air, I was lucky to have two flights in an evening.

This club would not allow new engines to be run in down at the field. Not that great sat in the garden cluelessly fiddling with a new engine trying to start it and get it running smoothly when I wanted to be down at the field learning to fly.

At this point I almost gave up, and a couple of years later decided it was learn or give up completely. Out went the ic model, and I went electric. Bought a number of batteries, at £12 each for a 4S not that expensive. 10-12 minutes from each flight. Soo much simpler. Roll up on an evening, bolt on the wings, plug in a battery and ready to fly.

At the end of the day, learning to fly and getting my "A" licence was important and so much easier with electric. For instance, nobody can dispute that it is easier to try and repair a damaged electric trainer than an ic trainer soaked in oil. Easier to repair..... sooner back down at the field.

Once I had my licence I was free to go down when I wanted, tinker with whatever I wanted and fly when I wanted.

[Solly]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 05/01/2015 22:12:28:

Posted by Lee Smalley on 05/01/2015 21:51:41:

if you really honestly think IC engines are a faff to operate and run and are best left to after they have learned to fly then you really need to leave engines alone and stick to electric, you really dont have the aptitude

There is a fundamental reason why IC isn't an option for me personally - but I'm sure I could manage if I was pushed...

But then, I've moved on from starter handles and prefer starting my car with a key these days,

Surely you can't still be driving a car with an I/c engine ..........

[Pete B]

Posted by Solly on 05/01/2015 22:44:52

Surely you can't still be driving a car with an I/c engine ..........

At the price of Li-Pos for car - you bet I am!

Pete

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Slightly off topic - but only slightly - I arrived back at my car after work tonight to find that I'd stupidly left the lights on. Battery flat as a fluke. With happening to have a couple of 3s Lipos in the boot - I did give it a thought for a moment,...but then I thought "Nah - ring the RAC"!

BEB