Is there a difference between an aeromodeller and a model flyer and does it matter anyway?

[Christopher Wolfe]

Is there a difference between an aeromodeller and a model flyer?

 

This might open a can of worms, but it needs to be said.

 

I have noticed that some people whom purchase a 'ready to fly' plastic foamie stabilised model (so called 'Park Flyer') actually call themselves aeromodellers.

 

To me this is a traversty of the term 'Aeromodeller' in the traditional meaning of the term when an aeromodeller actually built (and maybe designed), flew and trimmed a model aircraft themselves.

 

Is there a difference between an aeromodeller and a model flyer who flies $2 worth of plastic drink cooler material material in a park, when the only effort required was to open the packaging, charge the battery and let the autostabilisation system handle the finer points of actually flying the model?

 

I was bemused by the change from SMAE to BMFA but in hindsight this makes sense as the establishment obviously saw the writing on the wall.

 

Then of course the 'Model Flyer' magazine appeared with paid ARF and foamie reviews which did not help the traditional aeromodellers to advance with their constructional skills.

 

So I put it that there are aeromodellers and there are model flyers, some of whom will hopefully evolve into becoming genuine aeromodellers.

 

Over to you.

 

I have my flak jacket on.

 

* Chris *

[Graham Bowers]

A pointless exercise in cemantics. I’ve read similar in a cycling context.

[GrumpyGnome]

15 minutes ago, Christopher Wolfe said:

This might open a can of worms, but it needs to be said. 

Does it? Why?

 

We need more tolerance and unity, not divisive and unnecessary 'labels'

[Ron Gray]

1 hour ago, Christopher Wolfe said:

Is there a difference between an aeromodeller and a model flyer?

There most definitely is and I’m surprised you have to raise this as a topic. An aeromodeller is one who is involved in the sport/hobby of model aircraft whereas a model flyer is, usually, a glossy piece of A5 depicting a good looking person advertising the fact that they are available for work.

 

Nuff said?

[Futura57]

6 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

There most definitely is and I’m surprised you have to raise this as a topic. An aeromodeller is one who is involved in the sport/hobby of model aircraft whereas a model flyer is, usually, a glossy piece of A5 depicting a good looking person advertising the fact that they are available for work.

 

Nuff said?

Boom boom

[Futura57]

In short, I'm inclined to agree with the OP. But I like to engage in pointless semantics, as one 'model flyer' put it. Perhaps that's what 'aeromodellers' do 😉

 

I also think there's a question of duration. Perhaps AMs are hobbyists in it for the medium to long term, whereas MFs are more short term flash-in-pan types. Obviously this is a generalisation.

 

For me the 'modeller' part conjures up someone who constructs a model from raw materials (from a kit, plan or own design), not assembles half a dozen pre-finished parts from some enormous glossy box. I do both these things and there is a gulf between the skill and dedication necessary to be successful. But do we need a sematic distinction, beyond winding-up a fellow club member, I don't know.

 

A similar debate took place recently at our club field along the lines of aeromodeller vs cheque-book modeller. One CBM who often spends circa £500 on an ARTF openly admitted he doesn't have the time, patience, skill or motivation to build a model. He is happy to cough up more Wonga to buy something already built and finished, provided it takes no more than a couple of evening's to put it together. He is on the club committee and one of the more frequent flyers at the club. He also plays with expensive drones 🤐 So it takes all sorts.

 

In the end it's all a little harmless banter.

[Tim Kearsley]

It seems to me to be drawing distinctions for the sake of it.  There will always be those who prefer flying model aircraft over building and vice-versa.  Why try and divide the hobby when we should be sticking together as one voice surely, given the pressures we face?  The OP clearly thinks those who don't build their own models are lesser beings.  I don't see it like that.  Until a few years ago I only "built" ARTF models.  I tried out traditional building and thoroughly enjoyed it and now feel deprived if I haven't got something on the building board.  But I don't decry those who only want to fly.  Where do you draw the line?  Are you only a "real" aeromodeller if you build your own radio?  It's a daft road to go down in my opinion.

[leccyflyer]

The rot set in once folks stopped growing their own bamboo and retired their silkworms. It was downhill from that moment on.

[Nigel R]

17 minutes ago, Futura57 said:

One CBM who often spends circa £500 on an ARTF

 

Sounds like the average build cost for a scratch build at present.

[David Davis]

7 minutes ago, Tim Kearsley said:

...  Where do you draw the line?  Are you only a "real" aeromodeller if you build your own radio?  It's a daft road to go down in my opinion.

When I was fourteen years old I built my own radio. It had a range of about four feet.

 

Then I discovered girls...

 

[Futura57]

What we need is a Venn diagram 🤣

 

I'm sure all the bubbles would overlap, so we wouldn't be divided.

 

 

...or even be congruent. Ah 😂

Edited February 5 by Futura57

[Engine Doctor]

36 minutes ago, David Davis said:

When I was fourteen years old I built my own radio. It had a range of about four feet.

 

Then I discovered girls...

 

Dave surely motorbikes should have been more important 🙂

[MattyB]

3 hours ago, Christopher Wolfe said:

Is there a difference between an aeromodeller and a model flyer?

 

This might open a can of worms, but it needs to be said.

 

It really doesn't, but you've done it anyway...

 

3 hours ago, Christopher Wolfe said:

I have noticed that some people whom purchase a 'ready to fly' plastic foamie stabilised model (so called 'Park Flyer') actually call themselves aeromodellers.

 

To me this is a traversty of the term 'Aeromodeller' in the traditional meaning of the term when an aeromodeller actually built (and maybe designed), flew and trimmed a model aircraft themselves.

 

Is there a difference between an aeromodeller and a model flyer who flies $2 worth of plastic drink cooler material material in a park, when the only effort required was to open the packaging, charge the battery and let the autostabilisation system handle the finer points of actually flying the model?

 

I was bemused by the change from SMAE to BMFA but in hindsight this makes sense as the establishment obviously saw the writing on the wall.

 

Then of course the 'Model Flyer' magazine appeared with paid ARF and foamie reviews which did not help the traditional aeromodellers to advance with their constructional skills.

 

So I put it that there are aeromodellers and there are model flyers, some of whom will hopefully evolve into becoming genuine aeromodellers.

 

Over to you.

 

I have my flak jacket on.

 

Oh no, it's "Your hobby is not my hobby" again... 🙄 

 

Drawing this distinction only seems important to a (thankfully shrinking) subset of flyers who predate the advent of ARTFs, and seem to resent the fact newcomers can now learn to fly without having to build if they wish. What precisely is wrong with that anyway? It has always been true that the flying aspect was the biggest motivator for the vast majority of participants. Sure, there are people who come to love building their own models, but only a small number start off that way - for most building was just a necessary requirement to be able to fly. Let's not forget all those who left the hobby in the past after their third or fourth crash because they couldn't face yet another rebuild of a balsa model. Besides, if recreational cyclists, motorcyclists, car enthusiasts, runners, photographer aren't required to build or make the equipment they need to participate in their hobbies/sports, why should model flying require that?

 

This hobby has enough problems to deal with without long standing participants sneering at newcomers because of the models they choose to fly (yes, that's what comments like "...$2 worth of plastic drink cooler material" amount to). As long as people are having fun flying safely and responsibly, they should be welcomed - what they call themselves and whether they constructed their model from scratch using traditional materials  is immaterial.

 

Edited February 5 by MattyB

[kevin b]

55 minutes ago, Engine Doctor said:

Dave surely motorbikes should have been more important 🙂

Some of us were early learners.  😉

[leccyflyer]

3 hours ago, Christopher Wolfe said:

Is there a difference between an aeromodeller and a model flyer who flies $2 worth of plastic drink cooler material material in a park, when the only effort required was to open the packaging, charge the battery and let the autostabilisation system handle the finer points of actually flying the model?

 

Why on earth would anyone imagine those to be mutually exclusive? I know that together with several of my model flying pals with decades of aeromodelling experiemce who have built and flown all types of models over the years, the sheer fun available from those wee fellas that you are attempting to pour scorn on is out of all proportion to the cost or material involved. We would have marvelled at having a pukka tiny full house warbird that could fly in winds up to 20mph, in formation and in dogfights that are so much fun that you are likely to do more damage to yourself from laughing than if you hit yourself with one, We would not have believed it fifty years ago.

 

That's progress though - and it's all aeromodelling - even without your own balsa tree or brewing your own fuel proofer.

[kevin b]

Ok. Being pedantic, but by the same standards anyone building model aircraft could be considered an aeromodeller.

That would include anybody making static modells from scratch, or plastic kits and they probably outnumber flying modellers by at least 100 fold.

[leccyflyer]

5 minutes ago, kevin b said:

Ok. Being pedantic, but by the same standards anyone building model aircraft could be considered an aeromodeller.

That would include anybody making static modells from scratch, or plastic kits and they probably outnumber flying modellers by at least 100 fold.

That's not being pedantic, it's being inaccurate,

 

Static plastic kit modelling is a different pastime, but it's interesting to note that when injection moulded plastic kits were introduced, there were remarkeably similar mutterings to those in the OP, raised by the old guard, for whom modelling started with a lump of wood and removing all the bits of wood which dedn't look like an aeroplane.

[Rich Griff]

Your going to be asked when you learnt to fly and with what next Chris....

 

It had been suggested before that the real "aeromodellers" are the "free flighters" who either make their subjects from kits, plans or even their "inteligence'".

 

Do I have a rtf foamy model aircraft, yes, two. Have I flown them successfully, yes. Are they ready to fly at the moment, yes. Is the local weather suitable for them to fly at the moment, no.

 

Hope that helps you.

 

Stuff to do...

 

Happy landings.

[Engine Doctor]

20 minutes ago, kevin b said:

Some of us were early learners.  😉

Yes early learner but motorbike were still more important 😉

[Fly Boy 3]

“All modellers are fliers, but not all fliers are modellers”

     Cheers

[David Davis]

1 hour ago, Engine Doctor said:

Dave surely motorbikes should have been more important 🙂

 

Those as well, A Norton Dominator in my case.

[Robin Colbourne]

You could equally argue that the 'foamie' is a model and as a person is flying it, that must make them an aeromodeller.

If you read Flight magazine from 1909/1910, the letters pages were full of debates whether an 'aerodrome' was a thing that was intended to fly, as in Samuel Langley's 'Aerodrome' or the place from which one took off and landed as in Farnborough or Brooklands.  Ultimately it doesn't really matter, provided the listener knows to which type the conversation refers.

When I taught an adult education couse for people wanting to learn how to build and fly R/C models, I had the full spectrum of interests amongst those on the course.  Some were happy to buy a secondhand model, charge it up, put fuel in it and fly; others built and flew; whilst one chap who built a very nice 'Pilot Kits' Tiger Moth, once the model was up in the air and trimmed out, when I offered him the buddy box, replied, "Oh no, I'm happy to just watch you fly it".
We get from the hobby what we want, and as time and money pressures vary through life, what we build and/or fly varies too. 

Edited February 5 by Robin Colbourne

[Engine Doctor]

What's the argument ? Surely its irrelevant whether you build and fly or buy and fly, just get over it and enjoy the hobby and the company . If you cant get on with somebody then talk to someone else . Its a bit elitist and comparable to  asking if a person passed their test on a synchro box or an auto car are they a real driver : because  I passed on real car with a crash gearbox with no power steering . Come on and pull together as divided we fall an together we achieve and its an argument for arguments sake    

[Engine Doctor]

2 minutes ago, David Davis said:

 

Those as well, A Norton Dominator in my case.

Hi Dave . Great bikes the Nortons . First bike was a BSA Plunger framed Shooting Star Later fitted with a Golden Flash 650 engine . Cost the grand sum of £7-10s-0d later moved on to a BSA Rocket Gold Star amongst others . Great comradery at the Chelsea bridge Cafe.

[Martin Dilly 1]

35 minutes ago, Fly Boy 3 said:

“All modellers are fliers, but not all fliers are modellers”

     Cheers

That pretty much says it. Having been involved for around 20 years in the negotiations that finally got model flying recognised in the early 1990s as a sport by the Sports Council (now Sport England) and the Central Council for Physical Recreation (now the Sport and Recreation Alliance) I can assure you that the semantics are actually important.

 

When we took the first steps towards recognition of model flying as a sport we soon found that two major hold-backs were the title – Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers – and the words ‘hobby’ and ‘aeromodelling’. There’s nothing wrong with hobbies; stamp collecting, model railways or making a model of the Houses of Parliament out of a thousand matchsticks are pastimes that give people a lot of harmless enjoyment. Making model aircraft, whether Airfix plastics or ones that fly, can be a hobby too. But, as Fly Boy says, what we  all enjoy is model flying and that is without a shadow of a doubt a sport; it’s a man-and-machine as well as a man-versus-the-elements one, whether we fly recreationally or competitively.

Every time we fly a model, whether we’ve spent many hours building it or many pounds buying it, we’re enjoying a sport. It’s not a dirty word. It doesn’t imply cut-throat pot-hunting competition or trying to fly better than somebody else. If there is any competition then it’s you trying to make this flight just a bit better than your previous one.

Why does this matter? Moast UK Councils have a Sports and Recreation Committee which can provide funding and facilities for local sports clubs, including model flying clubs, and permission to use sites. So please, please, please can we satop referring to 'the hobby' and give model flying the respect it deserves as a SPORT.