May Issue feedback

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Some subscribers got the May issue before we did here in the office!
Ok, like last month we're always very happy to hear your thoughts - too much electric coverage?
I know we're majored in on EDF in this issue, hope you don't mind but it's superb fun and quite an adrenaline rush steering one around.
Several readers have alerady said they're building the Pogostick !

Tell us what you'd like to see.

Regards to all as always.

David and Graham

[Slopetrashuk]

Dear Mr eds brother. I should very much like to point out (following our recent conversation on this very topic) that you city boys really do need to get out more and perhaps visit the countryside occassionally....
Even a city farm has a Shippen...NOT a Cow Shed!
;-)

[David Ashby - Moderator]

The countryside sounds far too dangerous these days....and besides Graham said it's not in his Collins dictionary..

[Tom Sharp]

when i was a lad down on the farm the cows lived in a byre and shippen was spelt shippon, we could'nt afford a cow shed.

[Slopetrashuk]

You were lucky.....

[Slopetrashuk]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Shippon

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Ah yes....farm outbuildings.

[Tony Jones]

Sorry, I'm a bit lost. Is there a product review of a shippen/shippon/cow shed in the May issue? :) Come to think of it, I look forward to the day when a modelling magazine has the courage to say that a particular review model flies like one. And we all know they are out there. I've bought a couple following quite positive reviews. Not in RCME, of course!
Best wishes
Tony

[nasa_steve]

the thing is tony if it flies like a shed chances are it won't even make it to print and there certainly are a few sheds out there some are even built with the wood left over from shed building!!

[David Ashby - Moderator]

My shed flies great

[Bladerunner]

Bwaahahaha!

[Tony Jones]

Steve
Well, it would be an improvement IMHO if bad models weren't reviewed rather than reviewed and then given favourable reports they don't deserve.
But car magazines are perfectly happy to test bad cars and report on them 100% honestly. They consider it part of their duty to their readers to steer them clear of duff models. I have yet to see a modelling magazine report with words to the effect that 'Despite all the hype, the new X51 ARTC from J Maxperk is rubbish. It's badly put together and flies like a shed. Avoid this model at all costs'.
Of course, I accept the Editor's word that product reviews are conducted totally independently and couldn't possibly be affected by a rather over-cosy relationship with the trade. :=0
Best wishes
Tony

[nasa_steve]

tony
i do know of a few review writers who if they personally think a model is a pile of perverbial horse dung will send them back. i do know of several being sent back from just one reviewer and if i'm faced with something that is not worthy of review i will do the same. as yet all i've been asked to review has been very good and worthy of the time involved in writing review's. but there is certainly some proper rubbish out there on and in the market place.
regards
nasa

[Slopetrashuk]

Personally (And I'm exposed to many of the RCM&E reviews) I'm a long time aeromodelling consumer who knows what I like and also what I don't. I'm also broad shouldered enough to be able to say it without worry. (Taming it later may be something for the editors to take on). I don't approach my reviews with glibness and I don't take them on if it's not a model I, or any of the lads at TMFC who also review for the mag are not interested in. That said, even when they are a total pile of poo, (and it does happen) i'd rather tell the readers via the review than send it back. It's almost like sweeping the issue under the carpet!
I have had issues with some of the models and always try to tell it like it is. This has on occassion resulted in manufacturers pulling advertisements from the mag. It doesn't affect me of course as big Ed and little Ed have to carry the can for that, but at least in RCM&E they have the balls to print it!
I've truly slated models in the past only to read a glowing review of the same kit in a different publication. As a 'user' that really winds me up. Why can't people just tell the truth?
There is little or no point in covering up any issues with models. A quick Google will point you to forums full of praise or acrimony if the model's a pup and when I take a model on I always have a scan of the net as I wait for it to arrive. Not so much to pre-judge it, more to look for any trends associated with it's use.
As a parting shot, Little and large will tell you I'm sure that if they do tone down something i've written before publication, they can be sure i'll be asking them why!

Andy Ellison.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Absolutely spot on Andy. I hope readers don't confuse the RCM&E reviews with other titles.

[Peter Roberts]

HI David,
Thanks for starting this months issue feedback thread.
I'm pleased to say that I've still lots to read in the mag, which being a subsciber I got a couple of days before it hit the stands - thanks.

You couldn't have pleased me more with the article on the F20 Tigershark. I'm very much a newcomer to EDF and I've started off with an Alfa F86 Sabre which after its first few flights shows that Depron doesn't stand up to bad hand launches! We have no one in the club with any previous EDF or Jet experience so after the last launch I have decided to try taking it off from the floor no wheels and all! (I've seen it done in a video).

The F20 is a totally other beast entirely which I bought from the Electric Plane Company (www.modellhaus.com) who did a package (I already have 421p LiPos) and were really helpful on the phone. They did send the instruction CD with the HET RC kit and having had a good look decided I wanted some hands on and some serious research before building and flying it. So David's article was v. interesting and I'm looking forward to a follow on. One of the things I would like to see is the construction of the launcher and the setting up of the bungee. I don't want to go to all that work and wreck the plane with a lousy launch. I've been passed solo to wreck my own models I don't want a launcher to do it for me!

Thanks too Nigel I'm really looking forward to the EDF series too. There are a couple of us starting to play with EDF and get a few more folks looking at electric so we're constantly scouring the web for the new fan units which are appearing at relatively low price but with significant thrust outputs! Finding suitable models is interesting!

Please keep up the good work both of you. I'll write more when I've read more. This magazine just keeps getting better!

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Thanks Peter, The F20 has now had 6 flights and (to be honest) has lasted longer than I thought it would given the huge learning curve I found myself facing.

Now it's balanced (I've moved the battery forward an inch) in the air it's a sweetie, not too fast and easy to land too. The model is very robust. This last weekend we tried my new launcher and we had several aborted take-off's until we got the tension right. During these the model would get pulled across the ground, spitting grass from the fan, and didn't suffer a scratch.

Two important things I've found so far (for the F20) is yes, bungee tension and launcher angle. Part 2 should be in the July issue.

I'll re-measure the balance point and let you know.

[Peter Roberts]

Thanks to both David's.

I only started with electric because I prefer to fly on a Sunday. Our club was in danger of losing its flying site because of (spurious) noise complaints so we made a Sunday electric only rule.

The club flies other days but I can't often during the week. Please don't mistake enthusiasm for evangelicalism but I'm interested in electric models because its the only thing I'm allowed to fly on Sundays.

I'm sorry if you found my enthusiasm off putting. I was trying to share my enjoyment only.

A fellow member who has been looking at EDF got me interested so I was therefore delighted that David's article couldn't have been more timely on topic and for a model I've bought but not yet built!

Having had to make the investment in LiPo batteries I want to find other models which I can use the same investment in. (Batteries are not cheap @ virtually £100 per battery). The F20 was one of those suggested to me.

I do equally enjoy flying IC - actually I enjoy trying to fly almost anything without crashing it and want it to be powered by whatever works best - and have a number of models built around OS 40, 70, 91 and still to be completed 7' Piper Cub which will have an RCV engine in it.

I've got to my middle age and am finally enjoying the fact I can follow a hobby with more freedom than my working life has allowed over the last 30 years.

David's experiences with the F20 launching and flying rings lots of bells and frankly I do want to try it now that I've bought a couple of models - but I maybe lucky in that I think all sides of our hobby have the potential to be enjoyable.

The next thing I want to encourage the mag to come up with is an ideal design for a 12 x 8 or 10 x 8 "shed" workshop. I don't want to spend a huge amount of time building planes but it would be nice to have a really good modelling space to call my own!

[Peter Roberts]

I would like to endorse a couple of other comments here and in the mag. Graham this month asked whether the manufacturers promoting 3D really reflect the needs / wants of the majority of club flyers - no but I guess they have to promote to make it worthwhile for the show jocks. He is very right but lets get manufacturers to improve the quality and reliability of their ordinary models.

Tie this in with the earlier comment in this thread about honest reviews. Any newcomer to this hobby and many of us afterwards are heavily influenced in our choice of models to buy by a combination of friend recommendations, web thread comments and magazine reviews. It is critical that the mags report honestly if only to pressure the manufacturers to improve their quality, instructions, fittings etc. The worst example I had was a Graupner ME 108 Taifun where the instructions were awful and inaccurate, the plane fittings were so foor in some instances that I had to replace them, the cowl was brittle and difficult to fit the recommended engine at their location, the wing seating disintigrated at touch, the control rods and sheaths were so stiff even after lubrication I had to replace them with new. The model had cost nearly £200. Worse still the magazine article which had effectively sold it to me said what a joy it was to build and fly!!

So after another rant, I think we should flag up problems we come across with Kits and it maybe a worthwhile idea to ask if the Ashby brothers and the gang want to start a collection of problems readers have experienced with the models they have bought to feedback to manufacturers and maybe then feature the solutions. What do you think Graham and David?

Peter

[Antony Wright]

Sounds good Peter - may be very helpful to us all. Particularly if another mag has rated it highly when in fact its not.
It would also help us if a mag would take the bull by the horns and actually publish names of kits which are not worth buying. Its ok only reviewing a model that is good but sometiomes when we are looking for a choice it would be nice to know the names of some to avoid - and why. Maybe the manufactureers while then put those faults right and submit them for a second review.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Thanks Peter and Antony,

What about a forum thread/section specifically for the purpose?

[Peter Roberts]

The reviews section would gather rankings so this should literally be to highlight building difficulties and problems where kits and instructions are not up to par.

People may be better prepared to complete in line - how could you organsie or categorise the feedback - by model and manufacturer I suppose.

[Andrew Thomson]

Referring to earlier comments - electric power evangelists are extremely offputting . especially when they proclaim that e/p is more widespread than it clearly is in reality when you look round most flying fields !
With commiserations to those who may be restricted to e/p only , e/p is best described as most suitable for the niche areas of multi-engined models and small jet replicas .Otherwise it is still a short but generally novel and amusing interlude at most fields , executed by the very well off , before getting back to flying real model aircraft.As such it only deserves very limited coverage . Not the levels currently seen.
That said , it is nice to see a short and constructive set of articles re edf , which is one of the niche areas e/p has something to offer scale and sport modellers .

[Peter Roberts]

I don't disagree with Andrew's comments although there is absolutely no doubt that electric use is on the increase. However I only know 1 member of our club who is electric only. The rest of us with electric models have done it to comply with electric only flying days for good neighbourliness in our area.

It is certain that this number is slowly increasing. My motivation is simple - having invested in 4s1p LiPo batteries I'm looking for models in which I can use this kit. I've recently built and fitted the same batteries in a Samba and Hangar9 Pulse XT (Capable of using both ic and electric) the latter of which seems to be a really nice flier. Both these models are able to use the same batteries I've already invested in. Last Friday I flew both ic and electric at the same meet and gave our instructors the chance to fly my XT which they seemed to like.

Once you've delved into electrics I think a for quite a few people it becomes simple economics not environmental evangelism.

[Michael Warren]

When are we going to see the promised revue of the Hanger 9 Piper Cub. This was originally mentioned in the March edition with the revue promised the following month. I did e-mail Graham Ashby a couple of weeks ago but haven't had a reply to date