Rcm&e and traditional building

[Rich too]

I wonder what the proportions are of the various areas of the hobby on the forum - in terms of discussion and volume, in posts and threads. If 10% of the forum was helis and drones the magazine could devote 10% of its pages to the same? Seems reasonable to me, but I've never run a magazine....

[Danny Fenton]

Interesting discussion I think you may need to be more specific as to what you want to see? I personally try to enthuse others to have a go at scale techniques rather than show how to glue a to b. I do see your point about stuff being on the Web, but I was told the paper readership and forum members are separate demographics.
Cheers
Danny

[Rich too]

I want to see more detail in the building process. There seems to be an assumption that we all know how to do the basic stuff, which just isn't true. And people have a new solution for an old problem.

Perhaps you are right Danny and they are two very different markets - that does surprise me though. I would have thought that the mag would try and encourage people to the forum and the forum likewise...

[Delta Foxtrot]

I too have cancelled my subscription, but I will buy the odd issue after reviewing in WH Smiths if there is a good plan or article that interests me.

I empathise with the summary made by Peter Miller. For me personally there are too many reviews of ARTFs and relatively little aero modelling content. I spend more time reading aeromodeller despite the fact that it does not have a lot of RC content.

[kevin b]

I read the magazine and take part in the forum Danny. Does that make me twins ?

Indeed it is a very interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it Rich !

I have been model making (on and off) for over 50 years now and consider my self fortunate these days. Tomorrow will be a better day than today. I don't care what the size of Mars bars is (as long as they keep making them) and I always make sure my glasses prescription does not include a rose tint.

All the magazines rely on contributors for their content. The editors do try to cover all the aspects, but if nobody wants to write about gluing part A to part B there is nothing they can do about it. Do remember that these contributors, although paid are mainly doing so out of interest in the subject and not as a profession, having other income streams or being retired.

I will pass one comment though. Modern media generally has no interest in education. Apparently the sole purpose of media is to entertain. Irrespective of the content. For this we have to thank the box in the corner of the room (or on the wall).

Thanks for all the articles Danny. I find them riveting. Keep up the good work.

kevin b

[Terry Walters]

Every so often this old chestnut comes around and that is to be expected. Our hobby is one with many strands appealing to different people with many people interested in more than one aspect of it. It's not surprising then that the editor's task becomes more and more difficult.

Magazines exist because they make money and they make money because the editorial staff best guess the audience in a broad sense. We do not own RCME. It is owned by a commercial company.

I, for one, do not envy the job of the enthusiastic editor trying to deliver a magazine containing enough content to appeal to a sufficient number of casual readers and regular subscribers to keep it healthy in a business sense.

The content must reflect the needs of the market and as we, as a group, have wider interests now than ever before the articles must represent that. I'm not a 'drone' enthusiast, 3D flyer or free flight follower. Control line flying does not excite me. However, I do like to keep in touch with the many varied aspects of our 'broad church' that is aeromodelling and to understand a little of developments in a wider sense.

Together we stand - divided we fall. We need our magazines to survive and in that regard both commercial demands and the wider membership interests need to be acknowledged so we have to accept that is the reality. I would rather have an inclusive, surviving magazine than one which is to specific that it writes it's own death warrant.

Personally I am still mourning the loss of Pete Lowe but there is enough to keep me buying RCME and have tried most of the others (I do buy the odd copy of competitors issues when there is something that appeals to me) I applaud the efforts of the editorial staff and continue to look forward each month to the issue arriving in my post box. Would I miss it - yes I would.

Terry

[Ben B]

I'm still mourning the passing of Radio Modeller! What was the difference between R.M. and RCM+E? For me R.M. struck the right balance. And this was way pre ARTF.....

[Rich too]

Posted by Terry Walters on 13/06/2016 21:31:31:

Every so often this old chestnut comes around and that is to be expected. Our hobby is one with many strands appealing to different people with many people interested in more than one aspect of it. It's not surprising then that the editor's task becomes more and more difficult.

Magazines exist because they make money and they make money because the editorial staff best guess the audience in a broad sense. We do not own RCME. It is owned by a commercial company.

I, for one, do not envy the job of the enthusiastic editor trying to deliver a magazine containing enough content to appeal to a sufficient number of casual readers and regular subscribers to keep it healthy in a business sense.

The content must reflect the needs of the market and as we, as a group, have wider interests now than ever before the articles must represent that. I'm not a 'drone' enthusiast, 3D flyer or free flight follower. Control line flying does not excite me. However, I do like to keep in touch with the many varied aspects of our 'broad church' that is aeromodelling and to understand a little of developments in a wider sense.

Together we stand - divided we fall. We need our magazines to survive and in that regard both commercial demands and the wider membership interests need to be acknowledged so we have to accept that is the reality. I would rather have an inclusive, surviving magazine than one which is to specific that it writes it's own death warrant.

Personally I am still mourning the loss of Pete Lowe but there is enough to keep me buying RCME and have tried most of the others (I do buy the odd copy of competitors issues when there is something that appeals to me) I applaud the efforts of the editorial staff and continue to look forward each month to the issue arriving in my post box. Would I miss it - yes I would.

Terry

Terry, they make money due to circulation and most importantly advertising. The balance is usually trying to satisfy the readership without upsetting the advertisers. Some contributors to this thread have confirmed that they are considering cancelling their subs - that's not good Terry? And to be honest, I have been buying the mag to largely just to show my support of rcme - after all the forum that they provide is a great (free) resource.

I would just like to see a little more "meat" in the magazine. Reviews (and there are a lot of reviews) currently do not interest me unless I am interested in the subject being reviewed. Whereas, if more detail on installation etc was covered, it would then be of interest to me. Receiver batteries as a simple example. We used to wrap them in foam and pack them in the front of the fuselage, lost forever (I did anyway). Then Lipos came along and that meant that they needed removing for charging - that meant a change in how they are installed. Now we have LiFe batteries, which can be left in the fuselage. Do you wrap them in foam and use zip ties? Or Velcro? Where do you mount them? What is the reviewers preference? This would interest me - a lot! And save me searching the net for answers.

As I said previously, there seems to be a general assumption that we all know how to do the basics.

Anyway, I am glad that my thread was taken in the context it was intended.

Edited By Rich2 on 14/06/2016 06:46:59

[Trevor]

Terry's posting pretty much echoes my position - I appreciate the wide coverage of the magazine and accept that, as a consequence, there are bound to be some articles of little or no interest. Mind you, I still often read Brian Winch's pieces in spite of not having flown i.c. for over 50 years!

One of the problems with more basic instructional material is that it tends to get repeated and re-hashed regularly on the basis (excuse?) that there are always newcomers to the hobby. This has caused me to unsubscribe from other magazines in the past but I tend to regard RCM&E as aimed more at the established modeller than the raw beginner, so less likely to fall into this trap.

That said, there does tend to be a lot of ARTF reviews and maybe there is room for some articles of the type that Rich suggested - e.g. battery stowage. As an early adopter of electric power, one of the issues I grappled with regularly was that of motor mounting - see here . This has become less of an issue nowadays with the outrunner / cross mount format and battery stowage has arguably now taken over as the main area calling for creative and different solutions with every model. Hatch latching would be another topic for a 'survey of available methods' article. It may be that topics like these would benefit from a forum discussion first to tease out as many different approaches as possible which could then be summarised into a coherent and informative piece for the magazine?

Trevor