NO MORE FLY ELECTRIC?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by James Gardner 2 on 10/09/2015 21:52:33:
Sorry Matt but your obviously in a minority
If they shut this thread down it'll just confirm there in the wrong
The hole idea of a forum is so modellers can express there opinion so let the editor see what a huge mistake he's made and upset a load of readers
Censorship over free speech I don't think so
Jim

With just 3 posts to your credit - and a self confessed (in your first post) non-forum contributor - you seem remarkably sure of what this forum is for! Also - as you seem to know little or nothing about the moderation policy of this forum perhaps it would be better if you were a less quick to jump to conclusions on what basis we might shut a thread down on. "There" (sic) not guided by the principles you seem to expect. I sincerely suggest that as a new conributor you read both the T&C's here and the CoC here in order to be better informed regrading the purpose of this forum and its moderation policy.

BEB

[Tony Richardson]

Well I have to admit I am really shocked to see Nigel is no longer a contributor, I shall miss his coiumn dearly, despite other utterings to the contrary I enjoyed his flat plate wing designs and his tested power set up recommendations for said models was always spot on, in fact it was his Shorts Tucano that got me to try electric flight, which by the way is still going strong with its Axi 2820/10 motor some 10/12 years later.

I know not the reason behind this decision or who had the final say, and as much as I respect the staff of RCM&E I really think this is one decision you should rescind BRING BACK THE FLY ELECTRIC COLUMN it was informative , interesting reading.

Just my ten cents worth ( about 4p in your money ) so probably not worth a lot.

Sorry to see you go Nige I shall really miss the column.

Tony....

[Kevin Wilson]

I am sorry to see the demise of the Fly Electric column.
It contained lots of useful information on electric flight systems.

I agree that Electric flight is now mainstream, however this is predominantly due to the increasing number of preassembled models that come complete with the power system installed or available as a predetermined package.

The majority of confusion and questions raised amongst RC flyer that I meet is the subject of selecting electric flight power systems.
There are many opinions and folk lore expressed, but It appears to me there is a dearth of reliable information available. With Fly Electric ceasing this is now reduced further.

There is clearly a real need for more informed reliable information on electric flight.

Regarding Nigel's easy practical designs. The only models that I have been inspired to build from the Mag' Plans have been NH designs.
Did the availability of proven power packages influence their popularity perhaps.

[MaxG]

Posted by Tony Richardson on 11/09/2015 06:53:43:

Well I have to admit I am really shocked to see Nigel is no longer a contributor, I shall miss his coiumn...

I know not the reason behind this decision or who had the final say, and as much as I respect the staff of RCM&E I really think this is one decision you should rescind BRING BACK THE FLY ELECTRIC COLUMN it was informative , interesting reading.

Sorry to see you go Nige I shall really miss the column.

Yes I will also miss the column. However, everything has its day and changes must be made to keep the interest going.

I fly glow, occasionally, and electric and read most of the magazine

Personally I do read very quickly all the stuff about big models and big petrol engines and the OCD scale stuff but quite frankly it does not do much for me so if the mag goes off in this direction it will not be for me.

However, it has been stated that electric is now mainstream which to me suggests that electric will still continue to be covered but in a different form. That will be good for me and I am sure that will continue to interest me.

Personally I hope that we will hear more from Nigel, both plans and other articles, but slanted in a different way that reflects where electric flight has now got to rather than where it was.

MaxG

[Colin Leighfield]

I've received my October issue and although I haven't read it thoroughly, Nigel's regular feature is indeed gone. He does though receive two big mentions, both on page 9 in "Switch On". The first is about his "Chapter One" trainer, under the heading "Chapter Two" and saying that the November issue will include the aileron wing build article and plan. Also it says that Nigel will be "tempting you to fit floats and take to the water". What happens after that, Nigel will know, we have to wait to see.

It reminds me of Dave Chinnery's at one time regular feature, "Flying Sparks", which suddenly disappeared in similar fashion. I used to enjoy reading that and I think that Nigel's contribution in effect replaced it. I have enjoyed that too. It was pleasing for me to see Dave re-appear recently with a similar feature in RCMW, which I intend to follow.

[Owdlad]

Stopped buying modeling magazines 10 years ago because I felt that the contents mirrored each other and that the articles was used as a form of advertising for products, but my main gripe was that I felt the articles had been dumbed down to a level that it was almost childish in content.

Just my opinion bieng that I'm of a technical mindset

[James Gardner 2]

Sorry BEB I didn't mean to offend anyone just very disappointed and a bit angry
That's why I don't do forums to easy to get carried away
I'll zip it in future but I agree there sic dropping the column
Jim

[Nick Farrow]

Hi,

I have to echo some of the sentiment here. I stopped my subscription this year, after 7 years as to be honest I was bored with most of the articles.

Being a budget flyer, I flay park fly foamies and have felt that over the last year its been more about scale/petrol and balsa, so not much for me. When did we last see a decent foamie design to be built

I did enjoy the articles on aerobatics and the history that accopanied many designs.

Overall it just seemed bland with nothing innovative or that you could not google.

I'll have a look in a few months and see where it has headed!

Regards

nick

[Cuban8]

Posted by Owdlad on 11/09/2015 11:39:24:

Stopped buying modeling magazines 10 years ago because I felt that the contents mirrored each other and that the articles was used as a form of advertising for products, but my main gripe was that I felt the articles had been dumbed down to a level that it was almost childish in content.

Just my opinion bieng that I'm of a technical mindset

Have to agree and it's the reason that my circle of flying mates and I no longer buy any of the mags on a regular basis. A shame really because I really used to enjoy reading the mags, but I find there's less to warrant nearly a fiver on stuff that really doesn't interest me.

I suppose with the hobby so diverse these days, there is a requirement to cover many more subjects than that were around say thirty years ago. That in itself means not covering certain subjects quite so deeply as was once the case, although I quite understand the business imperative of trying to please everyone within a limited number of pages.

Edited By Cuban8 on 11/09/2015 12:59:47

[Colin Leighfield]

Just a note to Nick, one of the two free plans in the October issue is indeed a foam Me163 Komet. It's worth a look.

[ron evans]

Just another note Nick, April issue free plan Cutlass can be built from foam too.

[Erfolg]

Colin

I have a small Me 163, which is a bit of a problem getting away.

So I have looked forward to a larger version, particularly given that it is a Cyril Carr design. Knowing from past plans that he often used blue/pink (extruded polystyrene) foam boards. My fear that his apparent second favourite is Depron, could have been the basis, which in my hands is fine for small stuff, but rather fragile for every day flying, thankfully that fear has not been realised.

I see that this plan could be a basis for producing a Junkers/Me 263, which had a undercarriage. Which is even better in my opinion was fixed. Although only a few were made, and flown, that is enough to be considered a semi scale basis for a model.

The proposed change does surprise me, as most modellers and a RCM&E poll (by Graham) has noted that there is a definitive move ever more to electric flight. Again as been noted most of us do not have answers to all the problems or issues that electric flight, inherently has. Part of the issue is that electric motors have a greater viable range of performance than a IC motor. There are issues of volts supplied, relative to propeller sizes. Then electric power makes multiples, far more viable, reducing motor issues by a step change in reliability.

If there was ever a time where that there is continued scope in electric power it is still here.

I am not suggesting that this issue is part of the thoughts of the RCM&E editorship, but electric flight is from a trade perspective low cost, when compared with IC power. The other issue that most components for electric flight can be come economically from the small trader and or bypass the established UK distribution and retail trade.

I would have hoped for more electric articles, not less. The range spanning the small, cheap and cheerful, to the emerging larger scale electric models of all types. I think you can guess how disappointed i am at the apparent refocusing.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

It's odd, Erf - I stopped buying the mag regularly as I was getting bored by reviews of electric ARTF foamies!

[Rich too]

Posted by Martin Harris on 11/09/2015 13:55:28:

It's odd, Erf - I stopped buying the mag regularly as I was getting bored by reviews of electric ARTF foamies!

That was my complaint, and we wonder why no one is building any more! Still, glad to see the traditional build column going strong - more of that please.

Did I miss something? Has David stepped down? He's only just taken the helm

ps I am a petrol head, but would agree that the electric column is very relevant

[Colin Leighfield]

Erfolg, I think the 263 is a great idea. In fact, with the longer fuselage before and behind the wing, it is likely to have improved longitudinal damping and fly even better than the 163.

I think it's early days to comment on the direction that the magazine might be taking under David's leadership, he is bound to want to put his own stamp on things and we need to see how that goes. There is a lot of broad interest reflected in RCME and it will always have to deal with the accusation that what is important to some, isn't to others, a bit like the criticisms that we hear of the BMFA magazine. However, I try to at least scan the bits of less interest to me personally, because I think that is reasonable and I want to be well informed where I can be.

My regret about the October issue is that there is no full-size three-view drawing of an interesting plane, as we have seen in recent issues. I am very sad about that and although the continuing feature on cockpits is very interesting, this time it's the Tiger Moth, I'd rather see a focus on a particular plane with a three-view drawing, combined if possible wIth a model of it, as Aeromodeller used to do so well all of those years ago.

In recent years I've been a strong supporter of RCME, I think that overall it does a good job. Let's hope that it continues to do so. RCMW is also good these days, if I can I will buy both when it suits me. If RCME does drift right off track, I can buy the other instead, but I can't believe that David will let that happen.

[Erfolg]

Yes, yes and yea again, I got my David's and Graham's names mixed up, once again I apologise! Particularly to the guys themselves, as I have seen how both my daughters bristle, if any body is stupid enough to confuse them. No insults etc intended.

[leccyflyer]

I like Nige's column and, without a doubt, his designs and championing of electric flight from back in the days of brushed can motors and the seven cell trap has been consistent and positive for the hobby. It used to be more of a challenge to get decent performance from an electric model, compared to today;s solutions which have excess power readily available. Nige's deisgns were some of the first, properly performing, small electric models to be seen on many a site, and pre-dated the Mass Build concept of recent RCM&E fly-ins by several years. I well remember the impact that his Bae Hawk design had on the electric scne back in the early noughties.

If the Fly Electric column is to be discontinued, on the basis that Electric Flight is now mainstream (or even dominant these days) then perhaps a reprise of Nigel's musings of a humorous nature would have a place in RCM&E - his Aeromodeller's Anonymous column on t'other channel was always good for a laugh and could add some laughs to the mag.

[FlyinBrian]

I shall be sorry to see Nigel's column go, I have always enjoyed it, learned a lot from it and built a couple of of Nigel's models - The Whizza being an especial favourite.

Bi Nigel

[Chris Barlow]

Being a (budget) builder with constantly itchy fingers I appreciate all the articles relative to "shed work" Even if I know 80% of the content of a column I still search out the bits I don't know, the tips I haven't thought off and the products/gadgets I don't know about.

Nigels column fills a gap in my knowledge of building and flying electric models. Also his Tucano design is my all weather/all site goto model. This weekend it may even have the prop removed and get thrown off a hill!

I'm not really interested what's inside the latest foamie from eflight, the new radio from XXX or a new 3D ARTF from China (although I still read the articles)

Regardless of whatever changes are afoot I hope the magazine will still contain enough information and inspiration to keep my imagination and fingers entertained.

[leccyflyer]

My Tucano is also my all weather- all field - go to model, and I think that's the case for lots of model flyers too.

[eflightray]

Oh dear, this is where I usually put my foot in it as far as some people may see it.

But there are hundreds of electric fliers out there who probably don't buy the RCM&E any more, or many of the other model mags, myself included.

The model forums can give much more in the way of knowledge, and near instant answers, download plans, etc etc .

I only fly electric, so what use is a magazine to me that shows probably 70% of things I'm not interested in. Or reviews ARF/RTF models that I m never likely to buy, (I prefer to scratch build).

I must admit to using a free plan from a 5 year old RCM&E mag, but then modified it considerably.

Ok, I'm sorry if someone has lost their job, or a column in a mag is no longer available, but somehow I don't think model building will end, certainly not for me.

Just saying it as it came out.

Ray.

[Pete B]

Well, I certainly wouldn't be hanging on every word uttered by someone who's been a member here for less than a fortnight and whose sole intention seems to be to throw the odd hand grenade in every few days....

I'll lock this thread off for now - speculate between yourselves by PM if you wish....

Pete

ps - No, I haven't a clue either