August Issue Feedback

[Slopetrashuk]

Ack!!.....Cover photo is another studio staged, clipped off pic of a cheap and nasty chinese made foam toy I could pick up at a gadget shop.... Whatever happened to proper pictures of proper models on proper flying fields with real life people...???
Ahh, the good old days....

EDF's are flavour of the month once again it seems - Nowt wrong with that except of course with kolibri turbines knocking about, EDF's are a little old hat already.

Excellent Parting Shot BTW. Wished I'd took it.
Who did?

Andy

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Andy - You just love that Art-Tech Mustang really......I can tell..
EDF? what EDF, I didn't think we had any in this issue?
Graham took the parting shot btw.

David....every other post you threaten to cancel your subscription....... ;-)


David
RCM&E

[Nicholas Booth]

I personally quite enjoyed this months mag and will be reading it again today. I would have liked to have seen a bit more information re the LiPo balancers i.e. number of cells supported ect etc A little chart at the end would have really helped the buyer help choose a model. Saying that though, ten minutes on the net and I had already decided on the Tornado balancer from tornado, already have their watt meter and this will I am sure work as well as that. My girlfriend did ask if the Ashby's have taken over the whole mag now ;)

nice work though (sorry David, but I love the EDF, my toothpaste must have the right mix to stop that noise)

[Dead-stick]

MORE on EDF? Wonder if I can cancel my sub. There was one that flew at our field, horrible high-pitched THING that set my teeth on edge. Thank goodness it couldn't fly for more than about 3 mins at a time.

David Smith, Elimäki, Finland



Live and let live eh?

Not everybody likes the monotonous drone of a f**t stroke or the whine of a 2-stroke either. As for magazine content, I think that if a certain aspect of the hobby is developing and popular, then it is the resonsibility of the modeling press to report on it and keep the readers well informed.
Also, isn't variety is the spice of life?

[Nicholas Booth]

I suppose you could say that this discussion must be finnish then.

[Nicholas Booth]

appologies for the previous comment.

We have a guy at my club who absolutely refuses to have anything Electric as it is #!$+!!
I have quite often seen him looking at some of the more fun electric models that are around and think that had he not made such a condeming statement he would have maybe given it a try.
I will say that as far as magazines go they tend to rotate through many different subjects, some of interest some not. Were you as vocal then as to your exact aspirations in the hobby, probably not as is the case with most of us when we are happy with something.
Either way, electric is quickly becoming a very popular way to fly our planes and my guess is now that you may want to seek other hobbies in the future as this is not a current craze but for many modellers the only acceptable future.

[Les Holloway]

Congrats on balancer article - this kind of research is really helpful to those of us struggling to make sense of the Lipo world. Pity you could only get four balancers to assess, though, because there are several others advertised elsewhere in the mag by various retailers, plus some that are not - Graupner and Hyperion, to mention a couple of contenders. I would also have welcomed a bit more information on how the various balancer plug wiring configurations match up - i.e. how many of the four wires in a 3s plug are positive and how many negative? One neg and three pos looks likely, but are others one pos and three neg? If you don't know this, mix and match experiments could be disastrous!

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Thanks Les

The Graupner balancer wasn't available (even Graupner didn't have any) at the time.
The wiring side would be a good topic for a future article, I'll need to do a little research first though !

David

[Slopetrashuk]

Well, there is an 'E' in RCM&'E' David.

Lighten up....It'll be something else sooner or later...Warp drive anybody?

[airman]

In the August edition it was a change to first read the editorial high lighting the poor build quality of ARFT kits.
Secondary, to read reviews which publish the faults of the kits.
Would it be possible to do,a follow up reports on the kits which have been reviewed,after a couple of months flying?
Are RCME,having promblems in obtaining articals for the magazine? Thats the only reason, for the amount of space which is beind allocated to the building of project Bushwhacker. Up to part three, how many more parts to be published?

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Dave

We always make sure the models we review are tested thoroughly and reported honestly and fairly. I guess a follow-on report could be useful but only if there's anything tangible to comment on - to say that a model is just as good or as bad as first noted wouldn't add anything?

We're not short of material, quite the opposite in fact but many readers have told us they like a build tutorial series -we try to cater for all skill levels.

David
RCM&E

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Thanks for the comments chaps..

Andy - I didn't think there was anything about EDf in this issue? I think you secretly like the old Art-Tech Mustang..
Graham took the photo.

David Smith - you threaten to cancel your sub' every issue David... ;-)

Les - Thanks, I stopped where my knowledge base ran thin though.

Dave Stewart - It's a tricky one because we don't want to take up space saying that a kit we liked the first time is still just as good. I'd rather we thoroughly test a model first time around.
The Bushwacker series is to help potential first-time builders, there are still a steady stream of folks who ask us for advice in this area.

Electric flight does seem to be where the new products and developments appear at the moment, we have to reflect that.

[Graham Ashby 123]

Dave, our reviews have always highlighted faults - no change there.

Follow-up reports? Yes, a very good idea and one that we've been contemplating for a while now. The mechanics of it aren't quite as straightforward as the principal and, ultimately, they'll eat space that might otherwise be used for new reviews. An ideal feature for the website, perhaps?

We're certainly not having problems obtaining articles for the magazine. There are, however, many people who aren't as experienced in plan building as you and for these guys the serialised build of the Bushwhacker is very useful and instructive. Wherever possible we try to cater for all levels of skill. Sorry, but I'm afraid you'll have to suffer one or two more parts.

[airman]

Yes, follow up reports on models which have been reviewed, on the website seems like a good idea. And, around up of the reports could be published in the RCME.
It would only work if the site was policed, to stop modellers and rival manufacturers writing reports rubbishing the model,with out evidence to prove the promblems.Also, to stop the manufactures writing glowing reports of their products.
Thanks for your reason for the number articals being published on project Bushwhacker.

[Peter Miller]

I have just learned something new from a kit review!
Maurice Asby, in his review of the Piper Cub says "Small, Short coupled models like this can have tip stalling characteristics."
I never knew this and could not imagine why the moment arm should affect the tip stalling characteristics. I dived at my Kermode and and Darryl Stinton books on the subject of aerodymanics and could not find a mention of this anywhere.
Please could someone explain why the moment arm should affect the tip stall?
I know all the other things that can and do cause tip stalling.
Also, please tell me what qualifies as short coupled, the Piper Cub has a tail moment of over one and half chords, not what I would consider short coupled.

[flytilbroke]

Having received my August issue today I have not yet had a read of it. I did look to see when the publishing date was. Now, either it is a week late or four weeks early. The reason I checked this is that earlier this year I had a polite knock down when I queried why I had not received one, only to be told LOOK AT the NEW publishing date.

I am still waiting to receive ANY of the freebies which subscribers were supposed to get.

I think that follow-up reports on somefeatured models could be helpfull as the possible problems and suggested improvements could then be aired in print.

Any hobby magazine has the problem of trying to satisfy newbies and the more experienced builder or just plain model flyers.

[Dead-stick]

Regarding critical kit reviews; I did one for a 'quiet' mag some years ago and was very critical of the quality of die crushing and parts fit. I actually had to make some replacement fuselage parts out of my own wood supply to complete the kit.
Before the article was published the Editor contacted the manufacturer (American) to explain the situation. Within a fortnight I had a replacement kit delivered to my door direct from the manufacturer with a polite request to build this kit too and report on my findings. The second kit was better to be fair and an additional paragraph was added to the review with an explanation.
I think that this backs up that some reviewers report truthfully on their findings and that (some!) Editors are not fearful of publishing the findings.
The down side to this episode was that I ended up with two kits of the same design. Still, one has to take the rough with the smooth when reviewing! :-)

[nasa_steve]

moan moan moan stuck record stuck record i'm cancelling pooh pooh electric blah blah blah same every BLEEDING MONTH blah blah blah THEN CANCEL!!!!!;-)

[the unmagnificent man]

Hi all, everyone and his dog seems to have had a say on this thread as to what they would like to see in the mag so I thought that i may as well stick my twopenneth in. Although I prefer IC to electric I have just built an electric plane and had a real problem understanding the motors. I would like to see some sort of article explaining the numbers on an electric motor. For example a 2204/54 costs £41.99 and a 2208/20 costs less at £40.99 but yet a 2820/12 costs £56.99 and a 2826/10 costs £62.99. the first two numbers in each pair of motors never changes the second two numbers in each pair both go up and the numbers after the / go down in each pair yet one pairs prices go down the other pair the price goes up? obviously the motors vary but which number or part of it refers to what....the revs or power or consumption or what...its a minefield, could someone please clear it up for me so that when I see these numbers I have at least a slight idea whats going on. Or is it good to assume if it costs more its probably heavier and more powerful?

[Tim Mackey]

Generally speaking the numbers after the / refer to the number of winds. Lower winds mean higher speed ( k/v ) but less torque. Why are they dearer....ask the manufacturer!- but probably several things such as higher kv means better bearings required, thicker wire, better magnets, and so on etc etc...

[Jon Sales]

I agree Nasa, if you don't like the content then go and buy one of the crap mags.
You do say the same every month David Smith. I'm sure they won't miss your money if you do cancel, there's plenty more people who buy the mag, and actually enjoy it.
It may sound strange i know but people do tend to like what they read in it.
There are some diciplines of aero modelling that i don't particularly like but i don't get onto my soap box and put them down because the people that do them are nice, they're enjoying themselves and its not interfering with my enjoyment so why should i worry?
I'm not cancelling my subscription just because i don't like all the articles. How childish can you get?
Rant over from the RCM&E Covert Operations Unit!

Excellent i thought, especially the article on the SEBART KATANA. The flying shots are excellent. Hats off to whoever took those, he should be hansomly rewarded David (lol).
Keep up the excellent work David and Graham, i know the long hours you work to please the majority and i'm just glad that i can contribute to it.

P.S Graham, where's our sweatshirts? :)

[Dead-stick]

Shot of the month for me has to be Mike Booth's Spitfire. The look of the panel lines, sheen and weathering look utterly convincing in that picture. Also, well done to the photographer for a super shot, Alex?
John Rickett's Chrislea is also a great looking model and it is difficult to tell if the flying shots are of the full size or model!
It's articles and photos of this quality that make the mag worth reading IMHO, despite what others may say.

[nasa_steve]

mr unmagnificent
if you go to the following website all will be revealed www.modelmotors.cz all the motors are listed against their equivilant IC variant.at the bottom of the page.
what you need to remember with electric is it is a minefield and good advice is hard to come by. BUT electric power is a lot more versatile than IC which is why it makes it more complicated. you can change a motor/esc/prop characteristics by changing cell count or prop size very easily. use the website i've given you. you can simply not go by price alone each of the motors you've listed is going up in size physically as well as power and from what i've seen they all seem to be AXI motors. the reason why a list would be so difficult to produce is firstly the rate at which things change in the electric field and secondly all of the motor manufacturers use different number designations i don't think any two use the same.
regards
nasa

[Tim Mackey]

happy b'day Steve :)

[nasa_steve]

thanks timbo how'd you know????
steve