2015 Autumn Special

[John F]

Posted by kc on 12/10/2015 19:47:46:

It's advertised as 4.75 pounds (not 5.99 )in the 'advert' at the top of the page!

No, the picture is quite pixellated but it looks more like £5.99 in the picture. Anyway, if you were in doubt it definitely states £5.99 in the text below the description of content.

[John F]

Posted by David Ashby - RCME on 12/10/2015 19:16:18:

Posted by Tim Hooper on 08/10/2015 21:31:16:

Definitely on the dodgy side. Paper seems to have gone thinner over the last year or so too.

tim

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 08/10/2015 22:59:03

Paper quality hasn't changed.

Is that it?

Several complaints have been posted ranging from image quality to price through to general content and later onto almost irresponsible lack of info for FPV users. Despite Beth sorting out where to buy a magazine the only reply for any comment posted so far about the 2015 Autumn Special is to confirm the paper is the same!

Is this really the sum of the comments that people at RCM&E towers are willing to commit to?

(I agree though the paper is exactly the same as last years special magazine.)

To add though I thoroughly enjoyed the article on the use of split pins. The use of some of the pins are very creative and clever indeed, giving lots of ideas to muse over.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Sorry John, it's past 9pm and I've been sitting here tonight building a little Depron EDF jet and the wings need joining, then I need to work out how to fit the fan unit........

....but I'm relieved you agree that the paper quality is the same as last year. The cover is Condat Gloss 170gsm and the interior pages are UPM Star Gloss 70gsm by the way.

I thought the article on split pins was good too, it had me ordering some on eBay last week to have in stock. As you say, lots of ideas.

Sorry about the colour reproduction in some copies, it happens sometimes and we're equally annoyed.

Keith, thanks for spotting that slip on the preview page, £5.99 it is, as last year. You can stand down your solicitor Area 51.

David - not all photos need captions, it just depends where the photos are, the article type etc. I agree there were a few more than normal in the Special though.

I tend not to shoot back on every comment in every feedback thread as I don't want to stop people from expressing their thoughts. Often folks are incorrect and can sometimes be mischevious or rude so I prefer not to rise to the bait but sometimes too there are some good points which I quietly take on board.

Thanks to everyone as always for contributing.

Right, back to the Depron bashing

[ken anderson.]

sometimes don't you think we expect too much from mags............i have found that after a lifetime of aero modeling that some things in mags and at shows smack of I've seen it all before..and therefore aren't interesting to me....where as someone who has just entered the hobby and is keen/desperate to get and find out as much as possible will have a totally different view to me...the 'special' has lots of good article's in it-the bit about the full size mossie is informative as is the mill's stuff.... and a free plan also...i keep thinking what else can you go out and buy for the same dosh(not a lot)...........my view anyway...... maybe 8/10 score.

 

ken anderson ............. ne...1 personal view dept.

Edited By ken anderson. on 13/10/2015 09:46:42

[Area 51]

Agree wholeheartedly Ken!

My view is that any mag needs circulation to survive; with prices going up and competition down (in the RC arena).. their formulae needs to adapt and be spot on or sales targets wont be met and serious questions asked.

I have trimmed down my magazine consumption as titles have closed and lost quality content in my view; the saving is startling.. it is not one I was trouble spending! (upgraded to a DX9 with the savings for my leccy fleet)

Its a shame as I appreciate it is a way for me to support the hobby I have enjoyed for a very long time..

Similarly at the shows, a bit “samey” for me too.. so I have trimmed these too as we don’t get to see models we can go and buy “traders slots” .. its does appear to be all bling and models that wont fit the club field we frequent..?? Why..?

Besides, after half a day I always wish I was down my local field having a fly after watching them..

I appreciate it’s a tough challenge, the never ending retail trait of “pass on the costs to the consumer” but this is dead in the water these days and some imaginative thinking and leadership is needed to get the right results..

Still some are employed to do this, we shall wait and see how it develops.. It needs too if they want MY money!

[Bob Cotsford]

I'm a bit surprised at the criticism of the print quality as I hadn't noticed anything amiss, now I'll have to read it through again to see if I can spot anything, I know I'm short sighted but I do think anything that bad would have been notable on the first read.

I know it's a biggish model for a free plan and it exceeded even two sheets, but I really wouldn't fancy trying to build the Mossie from the plan - just one point being front and rear fuselage drawings on reverse sides of one sheet not being a very helpful layout.

A fair amount of good content on the whole, though personally I skip straight past the fpv and multirotor sections.

[Frank Skilbeck]

The print quality and paper on my subscriber issue are fine.

The only complaint I have is the waterplanes article, very unfair on those of us who can't find anywhere local to fly one.................................., maybe a follow up article on how to twist local lake owners arms to say yes rather than no.....

[John F]

Posted by David Ashby - RCME on 12/10/2015 21:30:08:

Sorry John, it's past 9pm and I've been sitting here tonight building a little Depron EDF jet and the wings need joining, then I need to work out how to fit the fan unit........

I tend not to shoot back on every comment in every feedback thread as I don't want to stop people from expressing their thoughts. Often folks are incorrect and can sometimes be mischevious or rude so I prefer not to rise to the bait but sometimes too there are some good points which I quietly take on board.

Thanks to everyone as always for contributing.

Right, back to the Depron bashing

David, don't get me wrong, I wasn't demanding an answer just dispointed that no-one replied to any of the concerns, I wasn't pushing for you, presonally, to wade in.

Thank you for the comments though.

I looked through my collection of split pins last night that I bought to use for my motorbike and found a few likely bits that might come in handy although, to be fair, unless I'm doing a 1/4 scale biplane I might need to search fleabay too.

[Rich too]

Posted by John F on 12/10/2015 20:40:15:

Posted by David Ashby - RCME on 12/10/2015 19:16:18:

Posted by Tim Hooper on 08/10/2015 21:31:16:

Definitely on the dodgy side. Paper seems to have gone thinner over the last year or so too.

tim

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 08/10/2015 22:59:03

 

Paper quality hasn't changed.

Is that it?

Several complaints have been posted ranging from image quality to price through to general content and later onto almost irresponsible lack of info for FPV users. Despite Beth sorting out where to buy a magazine the only reply for any comment posted so far about the 2015 Autumn Special is to confirm the paper is the same!

Is this really the sum of the comments that people at RCM&E towers are willing to commit to?

(I agree though the paper is exactly the same as last years special magazine.)

To add though I thoroughly enjoyed the article on the use of split pins. The use of some of the pins are very creative and clever indeed, giving lots of ideas to muse over.

I totally agree, I was very underwhelmed by the issue. I want traditional building, not all the electric foam rubbish

and the bit on the Big Beaver page 114, most of the article was on the full size subject and the photos were really poor - NONE of them showed the scale of the model!!

ps my subscription has always been a xmas present, but it wouldn't bother me not to receive it this year

Edited By Rich2 on 16/10/2015 20:21:27

[Augusto]

The quality on my subscriber copy is right and the contents are very good as the free plan as well. So, in the whole, I'm very satisfied about it.

Augusto.

[Steve Adams]

I love the special as always David,

However I have to say seen as you've done a feature on water planes how about a water plane special for the next one with Lindsay Todds 2 Grumman Goose models the 60 ins as the free plan and the 76 ins as a feature plan with all info about getting started with water planes history of them and plenty of nice pictures to boot war birds and jets will always go down a treat and the specials to date prove that. I will one days get round to building a TN design but at the moment in building Robin Fowlers Curtis P36 Hawk featured in RCM@E some nearly 20 years ago now theres a very good chance it will be lighter than his prototype since we now have brushless motors and lipo technology .

Anyway congrats on another great special sir and may there be many more

Steve

[Tim Hooper]

.....still wandering through the Special....

Really enjoyed and gained a lot of knowledge from Danny's rib tape article, and Brian's split pin piece. excellent!

tim

[Danny Fenton]

Ahh we are biased though Tim, I liked Dave's bit on mixing, still a black art to me. I thought the Special was a good mix, perhaps not in the same flavour as previous Specials, but it wasn't edited by David. Just goes to show you can't please everyone And as for the plan what a corker that Mossie is.

Cheers

Danny

[Glenn Ryan]

Hello,

Has anyone heard about any issues with international deliveries. I'm in Australia and I still haven't received my copy of the Special. I'm beginning to think it's not going to show. It should have been here by now.

Regards,

Glenn.

[Erfolg]

I will admit that the Special Issue has been a damp squid for me. That is because of my bias, not building very large aircraft. I have only been tempted the once and that was the Fw 190 and I was hoping that TN would make available a 190D alternative, via the same basic plan.

In more recent times, my bias has also spread to there being to many Large Scale in particular model coverage at events and photo graphs. I have issue with some coverage, it is all a question of personal preferences.

The flip side is that those who have a passion for plus 50cc models will be happier.

There seems to be a drift away, now almost complete from the smaller electric model. This could reflect which direction electric models are moving, that is towards the mid sized. This range is possibly the 40-60" span model. Yet a lot of small (approx. 36" models are being built.

I also have issues with to many reviews of very expensive ARTF models, particularly the 3d machines and mega buck gliders. Although not an issue in the Special.

The examination of the capability of RC Txs etc is interesting, and also useful.

I do fly ARTF models, my main non flying interests are related to building, both the flying Lowe and Nigel Hawes type pieces are far more interesting than much of what I read in the Special.

 

Edited By Erfolg on 27/10/2015 13:26:48

[Preben Soegaard]

At last: The 2015 Autumn Special found it's way to my mailbox here in Denmark today. And no print quality problems.
Look forward to dig into the articles and pictures.

[Kelly]

I think the magazine is fine .

Just a thought , how about allowing a beginner to review the Hanger 9 beginners Mustang ??

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Hogstrom]

Huston we have a problem.
The autumn special magazine has not received Sweden. And when I go to Traplet to order a magazine there I can't find RCM&E at all!!
What happend?
Do anyone know where to order back issues if now Trap let don't have the magazine. I want that one. :-/

[Danny Fenton]

RCM&E is not published by Traplet Peter

[Peter Hogstrom]

I have bought the magazine once some years ago from Traplet. ( if I remember right) Who publish the magazine now?

[Danny Fenton]

Hi Peter, the publisher is MyTimeMedia, if you scroll around this page you should be able to find a link to buy back issues?

Special

Cheers

Danny

[Peter Hogstrom]

Thank you Danny.
I will order one copy after I come home from work.
Thanks again. Peter

[Erfolg]

Andrew

I can at least guess, and try to understand the issues confronting the editor. I would make an guess (educated?) that there is a steady reduction in the general numbers of readership of aeromodelling magazines. Even though the population has grown by over 20% from my youth, more exactly when 15 and the population was 52 million. Interest in aeromodelling has probably declined.

I think I have noticed a shift by David Ashby to include Quad type devices and FPV. I do not think that this is a response to feed back via the polls taken, more a response to sales figures of the devices, same heated debates on this forum. It is an attempt to stay relevant.

Many of us take a view, that reviews of ARTF models can be seen as a waste of time if more than a single sided page is devoted to any model. In essence there is little to say beyond price, how good the mouldings or laser cut ply have been made, then how well it flies.

I do fly ARTF models, and do try to be objective with the scope of plan/kit/OD builders there are, I am guessing that they are as numerous from observation, than fly big expensive petrol/glo/jet models. From observation they are more numerous, although they are composed of the 3 groups, who tend to be involved in all three areas. On that basis I am suggesting there is a bias towards the big model.

Many have been concerned that the spread of writers is not as wide as is desirable. I understand that Nigel Hawes will not be a regular contributor in future. Then there is the very sad loss of Flying Lowe.

This seems to have required that Alex Whittacker broaden his contributions firther. I do like his work, although I have the perception that is photographic interests have caused him to focus (almost a joke) on ever more impressive museum type qualiyty models. Maybe just a little to much in this direction.

Tim Hopper and Peter Miller do have their own categories which broadly seem to be obscure UK aircraft (which many love) and general sports/semi scale models, equally loved.

I think it is a difficult balance, yet I am convinced that the "silent majority" club fliers are involved with models in the 36 to 60" approx models. Although there is a definite shift to very small models as fun fliers with their stability control.

I would like to see more Richard Harris models beyond Auto gyros and Cyril Carr models with more build detail (which contrasts with the detail that ARTF models receive).

Very few European aircraft are covered, although occasionally there will be one. Apart from Fw 190s, where are the Cauldrons, Dewoitine, Junkers, Fiat models?

My own biases I know, yet it these areas which leave me thinking, the kernel of modellers type/sized models are not really dealt with proportionally. It seems either newcomers, expensive models and Quads that are increasingly covered.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

To begin - this is my personal opinion, its not based on any particular "inside information" and I'm certainly not speaking on behalf of the mag in any way here - I'm just putting some thoughts forward based on being a reader.

So how many topic areas do we think a general R/C aircraft magazine could cover? Well, let's make a quick list: Newcomers, ARTF's, Scale, Builders, Kit Bashers, Tx info, Gyros, Flying Technique, Trainers, Club Models, Show Models, Slope, Thermal, Hotliners, PSSA, Quads, FPV, Foamies, Small Models, Building in New Media, Adhesives, Covering, Large Models, Electric Power, IC Power, Gas Turbines, Event Reports, Simulators, Sports Flying, Competition, Pylon Racing, Quad Racing, Warbirds, Indoor Flying, Vintage Models, Aerobatics, Aerial Photography, etc., etc.

My point is that our hobby is a very broad church. With a little thought I am sure you could add to my list above. No one is interested in all of these, everyone of us has our sub-set of interests. But if we insist that the mag must contain substantial content on our specific interests in every issue the situation rapidly gets out of hand.

There are nearly 40 items in that list above - to include all of them in say 90 editorial pages would mean that each would get two pages! Hardly 'substantial content'. But if we insist on each and everyone them getting a minimum of 8 pages then we need 320 pages of editorial! Are we prepared to pay the price that would involve and still maybe only get 8 pages on the thing that really interests us? I think not.

Alternatively, suppose the mag selects a fixed given subset and just does that every month - no change. The problem with that is it will make a very small number of people happy, but a very large number unhappy. Are that small, but happy, bunch prepared to pay the cost of producing such a very specialist magazine at the same quality as RCM&E? Again I think not.

Surely the more sensible plan is to give a different sub-set of the topics a good airing each month. That way, over a period, everything gets covered - but maybe not every month.

If anyone can come up with a better solution - which doesn't amount to 'I simply want the mag to only deal with topics that directly interest me and ignore everything else' then I'm sure we'd all be delighted to hear it!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 29/10/2015 16:41:31