RCM&E March 2015

[Graeme Poke]

March issue?? Like Peter, I haven't received the Feb Issue either! That's the slowest ever. Cheers Graeme

[Nigel Day]

As someone new to the hobby, there's tons of interest for me in the mag.

I'm electric only (or will be when I have my first flight later this year.) but the vast majority of articles are of interest to some degree. Yes, I might skip slope soaring and 3D stuff for now but there much more that I read than skip. I suspect that there will come a time when I'll want to read both of those too.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Peter and Graeme, assume you're in the UK? Are you doing anything about non-receipt?

A forum post won't help matters so drop me an email with your full name and address and subscriber no, if you have it. Thanks.

[Cliff Bastow]

Its not the amount of electric stuff that bothers me, I fly quite a lot of electric and am interested in it. I just find it a bit the same every month. There are only so many reviews of artfs you can read and as I am more experienced now I dont find much new information in it.

As I have said I think its me more than the mag, and maybe a break will let me see what I am missing.

I used to buy acouple of other mags as well but i havent bothered with them for a couple of years now.

[G-YRUS]

I have to be honest and feel like Cliff lately as the magazine seems a bit bland. I liked the latest free plan and if time allowed would love to build it but other things are in the way. There seems to be a mix of disciplines but the slope soaring articles seem to be diaries of the authors outings which are not what I want to read. Helicopters and quads are just buzzing beasts and not my thing and increasingly move past the articles. I have a biased view regarding ARTF reviews but that's just my opinion. Building and fitting out all seem to be aimed at the newcomer which is thankfully behind me so I am not sure what it has to offer lately which is a shame as I like the layout and style. Oh and I have petrol, glow, electric and slope soarers so a wideish interest.

Now a real gripe. Not so much about this issue except to be told that a scale build covered for a while is now to be mothballed. What a waste of previous print space.

[ceejay]

used to be a subscriber, but no longer, reason,,, too many "kit" reviews are so similar, either artf or more recently molded foam, now nothing against any of these, some are quite incredible, and i dont mind what they are powered by, i suppose we are victims these days of the utter reliability and quality of equipment and kits, that the end of article "will it fly!!" no. longer applies and without the risk factor its just a bit...dare i say...boring and sometimes seen in more than one mag!!

i do still partake of the mag when something takes my interest, i like to read event reports and am partial to a nice trad build, Hi Tim!!

chris

[GONZO]

I fully understand the sentiment of disenchantment, although, I probably stuck at it longer than most. I took every issue of RCM&E from the first issue in 1960 up to 3/4 years ago and have them all filed away for reference and a bit of nostalgic reading. Reviews of planes was one of my gripes. I have no issue with ARTF's wether glow/petrol or electric but I want more than a subjective assesment. There is room for some subjectiveness but objective detail is what I was looking for. For example, if its electric then the full spec of the motor used, including prop, plus the esc plus the batts. Then a fully tabulated current/ power/prop and rpm list of results. After all, any electric flyer worth the name would as a mater of course use a WattMeter. Then the servos used and why(torque, speed etc), along with deflections and expo settings etc The list could go on. It would be so easy to have a pro former/template for all reveiws to follow as part of the article. Regretably for RCM&E, I now get a lot of this by seaching the various forums along with a lot more other info on aeromodelling. Lots of pretty pictures and enthusiastic subjective comments are not a lot of use.

[Adrian Smith 1]

It's interesting to read some of the comments relating to a little disenchantment with the content of RCME. In some respects I can see where they are coming from as I solely fly IC mainly petrol and still a little bit of glow stuff. That's not to say that the mag shouldn't increase its content in say electric and drones to reflect modern trends. However, this is little of more than a passing interest for me, as while I have tried to keep up with the latest leccy technology I find it's a losing battle as not being a practitioner I feel less and less interested in relearning the latest fashions. From a selfish point of view I would like a bit more on large scale modelling but I understand that this is only a relatively small quartile of our hobby and therefore I can't have everything! That was one of the reasons I started a blog on here on my H9 Inverza large scale ARTF build for those interested in that side of the hobby. One thing I would criticise the mag for was in the February issue Brian Winch started a piece on after-market exhaust systems and implied there would be another instalment featuring tuned pipes. Well the March issue contained no followup and when e-mailing WOO on another matter he said he didn't know when the mag would publish the next phase.

I know at the moment its quite often that when the new mags comes through my door I might find about 40 minutes of interesting reading if I am lucky before I put it aside until the next one. This seems to be a bit wasteful. However, I do like to follow the advertising to see what latest trends are and where to point me to on the internet. I know this is probably a minority view, but I don't know where to go for more of my petrol/glow fix.

[Pete B]

Gents, you'll notice from the header that this thread is intended for feedback on the content of the March issue.

If you wish to discuss the broader subject of how to produce a magazine that will appeal to everyone, or if you've just got to get things off your chest, then please feel free to start another thread in the RCME magazine section.

I thank you.....

Pete

[Adrian Smith 1]

Hence my comment about WOO's missing sequel.

[FilmBuff]

I too am finding it a bit bland and uninspiring. Can't quite put my finger on why.

A bit dismayed to see that what was a post in the Forum becomes a letter of the month and wins a prize.

[Graeme Poke]

Hello David, We are both in Tasmania. I have requested a replacement copy. I believe Peter has as well.

Thanks for your help. bye Graeme

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by FilmBuff on 11/02/2015 22:23:05:

I too am finding it a bit bland and uninspiring. Can't quite put my finger on why.

A bit dismayed to see that what was a post in the Forum becomes a letter of the month and wins a prize.

 

There's nothing stopping posters converting their text to a letter, read it, it was a good letter.

Graeme, ah, I did wonder if it was a question of distance. let me know if nothing arrives.

 

Reading this month's comments it always amuses me that without the mag' this forum wouldn't exist. Folks, just to reiterate what Pete said, we (Graham and I) are no strangers to trolls, mag-bashing, personal abuse, threats (yes, really....) and all the usual stuff that comes with the territory when you make a magazine in this modern age.

I'm not complaining and it's not that we don't want to hear and talk about each issue but it's just that but we've heard all the general mag bashing stuff before which is why we ask that readers just give us feedback specific to the issue in question, in this case March 2015. Talk about the content, what you liked and didn't, what you'd like to see etc.

For non-specific mag bashing please start a new thread or continue one of the many others of a similar nature that have run here over the years.

Thank you

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 12/02/2015 08:43:47

[Graeme Poke]

David, You wouldn't read about it. As soon as we complained they turned up the day after. Thanks for your concern.

I'll be busy reading tonight and maybe the March issue will arrive next week! Such joy! All the best Graeme

[Bob Cotsford]

ok, back to the subject of this month's content - I started reading the glow-plug article over breakfast this morning and found the history and manufacturing part interesting as far as it went, but when I turned the page it was all over! Excelent technical article but too short

[Kit Davidson]

It was a great disappointment to read Graham Ashby was stowing his DB SE5 part-build in an uncertain future. It was more than a personal project. It was a serialised and photographed build in a magazine followed by thousands of enthusiasts. We waited patiently and sympathetically during stalls of the build which eventually proved to be harbingers of abandonment. Graham composed an honest and prostrating editorial and described symptoms of project postponement that we all recognise. But is all lost? This was a magazine feature. Cannot the ball be passed? If Pete Lowe can see a Phoenix rising from the disastrous ruin of his speared Harvard, he is at least one accomplished and enthusiastic RCME feature writer who might fit the bill. It is a regular aspect of aeromodelling for part-built projects to be abandoned, sold and carried forward by others. Could the editor consider donating the SE5 to a RCME writer or reader, in return for a build-blog worthy of publication?

[Erfolg]

I am one of the ones who is pretty much satisfied.

Yep there are things which do not particularly interest me, such as the "wacker" series of aircraft. I do accept that this will happen, from time to time.

I was not to bothered about Andys road trip, as long as it is a one off, a change in some repects. Yet it is just another version of the personal experiences in building of the Lowes and Alex Whittacker, whilst building models, or the added nostalgia and low cost approach of Nigel Hawes, which for me are all relevant and often mirrors everyday issues of many modellers.

There is one area where I would like a bit more info, a previous poster has at least hinted at the same issues. These are a general lack of basic technical data. The sort of thing that does interest me is wing loading, where possible wing section or at least the type. Being a electric flyer, watts pulled, Kv of motor, the ones that have been used even when a Turnigy.

Again there is a area that for me is important, that is addressing the basic aspects of model aircraft, we some times get something from BEB, although not a lot. For instance, i have experienced no end of problems with my canard, an apparent reluctance to turn with aileron, with something akin to a Dutch Roll. Richard Harris put me on the right track. Then there are my experiments with plate type wings, I think i have got some idea, of what matters. Yet an article about what you would expect with a thin, low or non cambered wing, does the entry matter, why and so on. There is so much that could be written. Although I can imagine, it takes BEB some work, plus fighting for mag space, for something that is possibly a bit niche to those who design and experiment with models.

[Cliff Bastow]

I can see I have stirred up a bit of a hornets nest! it was not my intention to magbash at all. I simply stated my feelings after reading the March issue. as I have said I think its a great mag its just that maybe I have become jaded.

I totally understand that its a commercial product and has to represent a wide spectrum of interests. You cant please all of the people all of the time.

I take the point that this thread was about the March issue and not the magazine in general. However it was this issue that confirmed my feelings and so I simply posted how I was feeling after reading it.

I suspect this is a feeling many people will go through at sometime.

I remember when I was into Model Railways I went through a similar thing. When I started I avidly read every magazine on the subject I could get hold of, but over time I cut down on the number until eventually I stopped buying any unless a particular article caught my interest.

[Vecchio Austriaco]

@Erfolg
Carl, there was an electric flyers database in the past -I put some of my stuff in - probably in 2010.
DEAR MODS is the electric flyer database still existing and how to access/update?

About the magazine. Like the build article. Quite an unusual plane and a good size. Maybe I will try my luck. Anybody thought about cnc/laser cut parts for that one?
VA from sunny Munich

[Pete B]

Via the RCM&E Extra link in the Features column on the front page, VA. That takes you to this page where you find the link to the database

Pete

[Erfolg]

Personally I do not think that a report (about a model) is complete without details of the motor, propeller combinations used.

For details of actual motors that i am considering it is usually on that specific retail site that i expect to find some tech. details. Which is something different to a model review.

[Concorde Speedbird]

It is called radio controlled models and electronics so I was not referring to anything other than RC aircraft.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

I've just deleted some more off-topic posts - this thread is to discuss the current issue.

[leccyflyer]

Went to Smiths to pick up the March issue and, guess what - that's right, it hasn't come in yet. Will try again tomorrow.

[Erfolg]

To stay on topic, I would like to comment on the omission of a BEB section.

Whilst this forum is very good on supplying information on building techniques, and the magazine often carries specific , often unique building techniques by the like of Danny Fenton. On technical matters the forum, results in very little feed back, what there is, is not as authoritative and concise as BEB. So I reiterate, we do need more from BEB, to cover the technical aspects, which is his stock in trade, who also has access to other authoritative sources.

I will comment on the IC side of things, increasingly the motors covered are the province of real petrol heads with fat wallets. This month for a change, I was briefly interested, that is until I reached the end, and had to be revived when i read the price. For an electric flyer the lower priced 4 strokes may light my fire. Just keep away from the +50cc engines.

Yet I do follow the tales of motor problems, and solutions by Brian Winch, as they are of a general interest.

Now for the praise, the Springfield Bulldog, can we have more of these please. There are so many aircraft from the "Golden Age of Air Racing", which have character, rather than midget racer, which are like F! cars, all pretty much the same. Again the recently covered Lockheed Vega, great.

Although no great fan of very early aircraft, the Bleriot was an interesting change.

All in all a good varied issue.

I am just waiting for a Laird super solution, or a Gee Bee R1/2 that are all electric. I do not believe it, did a pig fly past the window, unfortunately not.