Drones /drones /drones??

[Bravo Delta]

Posted by ASH. on 10/01/2016 16:19:27:

Are we still droning on..

The reason why they would be boring is because not much time, effort or emotional investment is made to get them flying.. rather like plug &play or any other toy bought off the shelf. They appeal to same people who are in awe of the lastest tech gizmo. The satisfaction is very short lived!

As with fixed wing , there is a spectrum of multirotor build that runs from RTF down to complete self build from scratch .

My first multirotor was an RTF Hubsan X4 , ,rebuilds and repainting to my own scheme gave a degree of emotional investment I think

Subsequent larger , non RTF / ARTF builds have followed

[trebor]

Its quite a task just sorting the compatibility of parts out before you even start building, Unless you buy a kit box of bits.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

1. Building a top capability MR from the basic parts or even a kit is not a trival task - I know I've built loads including specialist own designs. If you think its easy - I'd be happy to watch you try!

2. Yes, MR's can fly in an automated mode and yes that doesn't offer much flying challange. But they can also fly in stabilised (not locked) and fully manual modes. Come out for an afternoon's flying on an MR with me, or any MR pilot with real experience, and they'll let you find out just how "easy" thay really are (not)! I have seen many accomplished fixed wing pilots really struggle with this.

Sadly it looks very much to me like many of the comments about what is "wrong" with MRs come from people with very little, or even no, experience of them beyond maybe flying a glorified toy! Its a bit like generalisiing and holding forth on model helicopters on the strength of a couple of flights on a co-axial toy.

BEB

[Martin McIntosh]

I have flown, and still do, everything from F3A to scale, gliders, turbines, autogyros, fun fly, wierdos, old timer diesels etc. etc. and now find quads fascinating because if you build/assemble your own there is a huge amount of work to do involving electronics and wiring which is very satisfying to see actually function. I only use auto levelling, no gps or RTH. I also find them extremely difficult to fly as a none heli pilot (tried but got bored) so these are a new challenge.

Because of the recent upsurge in these I think that the mag. has done well to address them in a logical and informative manner (yes we could well do without being associated with the off the shelf toys).

Try watching some FPV racing and then come back and tell me that you were not impressed.

[ASH.]

I prefer to fly without wearing goggles or looking at a screen.

And, I would hate to traipse a laptop to the field everytime!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

You don't need to take a laptop - I rarely do. I only take one to maidens etc when I might want to fine tune.

Martin - once you have self-leveling flight sorted - try manual i.e. with just a rudder gyro nothing else. Now that is fun and a challenge!

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 10/01/2016 22:26:45:

I have flown, and still do, everything from F3A to scale, gliders, turbines, autogyros, fun fly, wierdos, old timer diesels etc. etc. and now find quads fascinating because if you build/assemble your own there is a huge amount of work to do involving electronics and wiring which is very satisfying to see actually function. I only use auto levelling, no gps or RTH. I also find them extremely difficult to fly as a none heli pilot (tried but got bored) so these are a new challenge.

Because of the recent upsurge in these I think that the mag. has done well to address them in a logical and informative manner (yes we could well do without being associated with the off the shelf toys).

Try watching some FPV racing and then come back and tell me that you were not impressed.

I can watch origami and be impressed - but it's not something that would attract me to buy an aeromodelling magazine. While there is a tenuous link with my hobby, wouldn't multi-rotors be better served by one of the rotary wing magazines? In my admittedly limited experience with them, they have felt very much like helicopters to fly and hold my attention in a similarly disinterested manner.

While I have little interest in rotary wing flying (ironic, as I started back in the model flying hobby with Concept 30 and Nexus helicopters before deciding to re-utilise my very old Irvine 40 in a fixed wing model and finding my heli interest rapidly waning), I fully appreciate the skill and dexterity levels demonstrated by competent heli fliers and wish their enthusiasts well, while not wanting to read about them in any detail. Much the same applies to multi-rotors...

The OP was a simple statement expressing the opinion of a very well established model flyer, not knocking the multi-rotor genre in any way - other than if you choose to interpret the reference to drones as derogatory which I don't think was intended.

I can only state that I rarely buy RCM&E these days due to lack of interest, while my enthusiasm for building, assembling, maintaining and flying model aircraft of many types continues unabated. If Myron, several other contributors and I are in a minority and RCM&E are happy that their readers want to read what they publish, I have no problems with that, but expressing our opinions are the only way of feeding back our feelings for consideration.

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 10/01/2016 23:04:42

[Richard Harris]

Posted by ASH. on 10/01/2016 22:39:02:

I prefer to fly without wearing goggles or looking at a screen.

I must admit I had this very same attitude towards FPV, that was until I tried it. It is a whole new experience that is quite fascinating and very addictive. It is something that should be written about more in the magazine for sure.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Martin Harris on 10/01/2016 22:51:13:

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 10/01/2016 22:26:45:

I have flown, and still do, everything from F3A to scale, gliders, turbines, autogyros, fun fly, wierdos, old timer diesels etc. etc. and now find quads fascinating because if you build/assemble your own there is a huge amount of work to do involving electronics and wiring which is very satisfying to see actually function. I only use auto levelling, no gps or RTH. I also find them extremely difficult to fly as a none heli pilot (tried but got bored) so these are a new challenge.

Because of the recent upsurge in these I think that the mag. has done well to address them in a logical and informative manner (yes we could well do without being associated with the off the shelf toys).

Try watching some FPV racing and then come back and tell me that you were not impressed.

I can watch origami and be impressed - but it's not something that would attract me to buy an aeromodelling magazine. While there is a tenuous link with my hobby, wouldn't multi-rotors be better served by one of the rotary wing magazines? In my admittedly limited experience with them, they have felt very much like helicopters to fly and hold my attention in a similarly disinterested manner.

While I have little interest in rotary wing flying (ironic, as I started back in the model flying hobby with Concept 30 and Nexus helicopters before deciding to re-utilise my very old Irvine 40 in a fixed wing model and finding my heli interest rapidly waning), I fully appreciate the skill and dexterity levels demonstrated by competent heli fliers and wish their enthusiasts well, while not wanting to read about them in any detail. Much the same applies to multi-rotors...

The OP was a simple statement expressing the opinion of a very well established model flyer, not knocking the multi-rotor genre in any way - other than if you choose to interpret the reference to drones as derogatory which I don't think was intended.

I can only state that I rarely buy RCM&E these days due to lack of interest, while my enthusiasm for building, assembling, maintaining and flying model aircraft of many types continues unabated. If Myron, several other contributors and I are in a minority and RCM&E are happy that their readers want to read what they publish, I have no problems with that, but expressing our opinions are the only way of feeding back our feelings for consideration.

Edited By Martin Harris on 10/01/2016 23:04:42

And that is absolutely fine Martin. I respect your position 100%. Gliders do nothing for me, so I can see what you mean. That I have no problem with - its the rubbishing of MRs as boring, trivial and easy to fly and only flown in GPS lock mode etc. by people with absolutely no experience I contest. I wouldn't express derogatory remarks about gliding as its a subject I know very little about and have even less experience of!

BEB

[Craig Carr]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 10/01/2016 21:

Sadly it looks very much to me like many of the comments about what is "wrong" with MRs come from people with very little, or even no, experience of them beyond maybe flying a glorified toy! Its a bit like generalisiing and holding forth on model helicopters on the strength of a couple of flights on a co-axial toy.

BEB

With respect Dave I think that statement is without any fact or evidence.

The key thing is that all some folks have done is simply state why RCME has lost its way a little for some of us because quads/multi rotors are not their bag. I don't think it's fair to disrespect people's views regardless of what experience they may or may not have with "MRs"

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Craig, read my post above yours. As I say my problem is not with people saying they don't want to read about it - that's is obviously their choice. My problem is with posts that express uninformed opinions about what MRs are or are not!

To say "I know nothing and I want to know nothing" is OK! A bit insular maybe, but OK. I feel the same about gliders. But I don't go round making sweeping derogatory statements about gliders as if I know, or tell people they must be rubbish because my mate's second cousin twice removed had one once and found it boring!

BEB

[Piers Bowlan]

Beb, we know that you are passionate about MRs but aren't you being a tad over sensitive by saying people are making 'sweeping derogatory statements' just because they express the opinion that they find MR's boring? Personally I am interested in anything that flies, a sort of jack of all trades and master of none! I have enough components to attempt a MR (hex) build, just as soon as I can find the time. My passion is gliders and e-gliders however but I don't mind if people say they are rubbish - each to his/her own.

For those that don't like the spike in 'drone' coverage in RCM&E don't worry, it will pass. The magazine has to follow trends and fashion to survive, as the advertising revenue that springs from it is it's life blood. Remember those foam hydrofoil toy thingies which were a fad for a short while, several manufacturers made them. Or indeed the plethora of helicopter articles. Now they have their own specialist publications and so it will be with MRs. I am not saying for a minute that MRs will fade away, although the CAA/FAA might secretly wish they would! Commercial UAVs may become as important in the fullness of time as PCs and the Internet, or is that going too far?

RCM&E can rely on my subscription, I just wish they would go easy on the 'big stuff' coverage - and the indoor scene doesn't thrill me either...... Keep up the good work with the GLIDER COVERAGE David!

As I say, each to their own, it's a broad church.

 

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 11/01/2016 05:47:59

[Cuban8]

Posted by Cuban8 on 11/01/2016 08:14:57:

Posted by ASH. on 08/01/2016 18:39:14:

I got my 15yr old nephew into RC flying a few years ago, alas, he's into drones/ fpv now (to my dismay) and totally obsessed by them. I think it's an interest to a younger generation who are computer native and have been brought up on the instant fix solution.

Ash.

Hit the nail right on the head there Ash. I know several people who have have got into drones (including an R/C boat fan) and as far as I can see, the attraction comes from programming the device itself and all the paraphernalia associated with that, then on to customizing its performance to get it to do what you want.

The aerodynamics/mechanics/building/aesthetics of the machine are regarded as a means to an end and subservient to the programming. The complete opposite to a balsa basher or even a foamy fancier! Not so sure that they are an instant fix though, as there's plenty of discussion about getting the software/firmware correct and many simply enjoy spending hours on that alone as they would upgrading their PC's performance or getting a domestic network to work correctly.

Should they be regarded as aeromodelling? Well, I suppose that they do fly and are radio controlled, so from that standpoint, they deserve coverage in RCM&E. How the readership takes to them will be clear from the circulation figures, and I suspect will do them very little good.

[Dai Fledermaus]

Instead of Droning on as someone else put it, and as we have polls on most other subjects, why not this one?

Are you happy with the present coverage of MRs?

Would you like more articles on this subject?

Would you like fewer articles about MRs?

The result would only represent the views of this forum's members, not of the hobby as a whole, but could be informative never the less.

[John F]

Come on folks. Are we not supposed to share an interest in model flying?

So what if it has one propeller or eight or none? Does it really matter what it is you like and what others like?

We are all different and as such enjoy different areas of interest, some are powered fixed wing, some gliders only, some folk enjoy helicopters, some multi rotors, but we are all involved in the hobby of flying aircraft. I think that this has been forgotten by some folk and should be respected.

So what if RCM&E has a series on multi rotors? Does it interest you? No? Is it that hard to move along the pages till you find something that does.

Does a magazine really have to include only the items that you, as an individual, are interested in? That will never happen.

I, personally, have no interest in FPV but I am not going to just skip it, I'll have a look and see, it might be of use, but for the moment it is a no. I accept it and move on, with a little bit more of an understanding of what it is. I don't actively slag it off though!

Multi rotors are having a bad time here with accusations of it not being flying, too easy, no building skills etc, yet we don't see as many negative comments on ARTF or RTF models with SAFE technology! Is that because it is still fixed wing?

Some heli chaps I knew a few years ago poured scorn on the fixed wing fliers as they see fixed wing as not needing many flying skills! And so, in a similar way, some people transfer a similar scorn to multi rotor fliers. Is that really fair?

Why can't we all just skip over what we don't like and concentrate on enjoying what we do like?

Edited By John F on 11/01/2016 10:06:24

[Levanter]

Excellent post John. Hear Hear!

[trebor]

Well said that man, when I started getting interested in this hobby I had no idea that I might go into FPV multi rotors but I have just ordered my first carbon frame

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I totally agree.

Could this be an outbreak of sweetness and light!

BEB

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I suppose Sport's still a no no then

John

[AVC]

I think we are missing the point of this thread. As I read the first post, this is not about drones/MR's yes or no. It's one person stating that A) he doesn't like MRs (which it doesn't mean he hates them, he simply doesn't like it) and B) that the RC magazine he normally reads is including more and more MR content (=not interesting content from his point of view) in detriment of other RC disciplines.. The conclusion is that he will likely stop buying this magazine and try to find the interesting (for him) content elsewhere.

This is how I read it it, and I must add that I fully agree with this. I remember many years ago in Spain, I used to buy a magazine that was RC aeromodeling focused. Then they started to include more and more RC cars content, to the point that 3/4 of the magazine was about cars. Many readers (including me) began to complain, and the editors, considering that the RC cars market was growing, decided to create TWO magazines, called "XXXX aero" and "XXXX auto". That way they kept the traditional loyal readers, and they captured new ones.

If the MR world is that important as to take three articles in the last issue (and at least one in any issue), and considering that MR's / FPV is a different kind of toy to planes, why don't "split" the magazine and keep everybody happy?

[Mr.B.]

I don’t have a problem with MRs/FPV. I’ve built a 250 size quad and helped my son build a 450 quad and a tricopter, all home builds from scratch. I’ve raced the 250 and I’ve obtained MR cert A (which of course has to be flown with self level off). I’ve flown friends MRs (thanks chaps)….and….I think MRs are boring. Boring to build, boring to watch, boring to fly. Just my opinion of course and I would want to stop anybody else from playing but they just don’t do it for me. Racing seems like an organized crash. Like I say I don’t want to diminish people that enjoy them. There are lots at our club and good luck to them (lots of good natured micky taking, both ways). But I’ve tired. I’ve the right to hold an opinion, and that opinion is that they are boring.

I don’t think anyone has said that there should be no MRs in the mag. I’m certainly not saying that. There should be a mix of stuff. Just that in the current issue there seems to be quite a lot on MRs. I'd like to see more conventional helis. I shall now run to my bunker.

[AVC]

Posted by Ben Kenobi on 08/01/2016 21:05:55:

Simply excluding technology out of some elitist ideal is crazy, I'm with the guy that says why when you say but I can do that manually - if a hi tech onboard computer can stop me putting my pride and joy into the ground I'm all for it.

Hi Ben Kenobi

This hobby is about enjoying with the challenge of being able to control an aircraft using you psychomotor abilities. If the aircraft can take off, fly, do a snap roll, hover, and lands autonomously while you look at it from the ground, where the pride and joy of that?

[John F]

Posted by AVC on 11/01/2016 10:55:32:

 

This hobby is about enjoying with the challenge of being able to control an aircraft using you psychomotor abilities. If the aircraft can take off, fly, do a snap roll, hover, and lands autonomously while you look at it from the ground, where the pride and joy of that?

There are a new breed of fixed wing models that can do all of that! And who is to say that building an aircraft that can do that won't give you enough of a buzz?

The hobby is not necessarily about being able to use your own skills to fly but rather to buy, build / open box, switch on, then fly. How we get there is immaterial. Some models are even free flight so don't even have any imput from the person who's investment of time and effort has seen its creation.  Some advocate building and scorn ARTF models. Who's right?

There's an awful lot of jugdemental comments and inferences throughout this thread but is there not a place for every facet of our hobby?

As technology outpace some people's desires would it not be better served to simply accept that it is progress, and you still have a place in the hobby, instead of denying that technology can also offer a place?

Edited By John F on 11/01/2016 11:11:00

[Area 51]

Posted by AVC on 11/01/2016 10:55:32:

Posted by Ben Kenobi on 08/01/2016 21:05:55:

Simply excluding technology out of some elitist ideal is crazy, I'm with the guy that says why when you say but I can do that manually - if a hi tech onboard computer can stop me putting my pride and joy into the ground I'm all for it.

Hi Ben Kenobi

This hobby is about enjoying with the challenge of being able to control an aircraft using you psychomotor abilities. If the aircraft can take off, fly, do a snap roll, hover, and lands autonomously while you look at it from the ground, where the pride and joy of that?

Can only agree with this view of the mass produced drones..

My neighbour got one last year; parted with around £700.. first I saw or knew of his interest was when I saw him on the way back from the park we live next too.. the drone in bits, I mean smashed to bits..

That was the end of that!... as an architect, he thought he could turn his hand to anything..

I hope the intro to last months RCME about "I'm doing FPV" this year doesnt mean I am going to regret my subs renewal!!! Sorry to add to the droning on here, but the coverage is becoming tiresome ..

[Tim Kearsley]

As the author of the series on FPV currently running in RCM&E, can I just make a plea that you don't automatically link FPV to multi-rotors, as some seem to do?! I fly quite a lot of FPV, but it's nearly all with fixed-wing models. I think overall David does a pretty good job of keeping a good balance in the mag. Inevitably, there are bits which are of less interest to me than others (I'm not into IC engines much), but you really can't expect to follow every aspect of what is a broad hobby these days.

Tim.