What products would you like to see reviewed?

[Tom Foreman]

Thanks David

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Just to go completely against what I said in a earlier post about having less electric features  I would love to see an article or probably series of articles on EDF. I always loved the thought of IC powered ducted fans as a way to fly Jets without a turbine (& the associated costs) & see EDF as an even better way. If the article could cover fans, motor selection, pitfalls to avoid etc etc this would make me happy.

I know David Ashby did a bit on the HET model a few issues ago but this really only amounted to a bit more than a model review (sorry David!!). EDF is right up there on the "must do" list but I'm wary of spending a lot of money & not being very happy with the result.......

But who could pen such a series.....who would have the electrical knowledge, modelling experience & the test data available to write such a useful & informative article......just where would we find such a person & could we afford him!!!!!!!!

[Tom Foreman]

For a good introduction to EDF buy a Phase 3 EF16 or the BRC equivalent, go for 3s1p for economical sport flying or 4s1p (and corresponding motor and ESC) for supersonic fun!

[Danny Fenton]

I was talking to somebody at YT about shipping models from China sans covering and a problem they encounter is the airframes warping and twisting, the covering imparts some rigidity to the airframe.

I personally am not terribly bothered about reviews, other than to say a product is available. I would prefer to see the inside of some of these impressive models that others have built, the problems they encounter and how they solve them. What materials they use, what accesories, how they solve interesting wheel door scenarios etc etc.

I would love to see inside some of Mick Reeves, Brian Taylor, Peter Mc Dermots models. They are impressive from the outside, but it would be nice to be able to find out how they do it.

I guess this is not really answering your request for review information, more a cry for info in a scale section.

I see the hobby forming two camps, aeromodellers and model flyers, though many of us drift somewhere in between. The aeromodellers I feel are not catered for a great deal anymore...... Thank goodness for forums and build blogs.

(Steps down off soap box)

[winchweight]

David, I will review the Phase 3 F16 and the E-Flite Sea Fury if you want. Perhaps soon I'll do the Ripmax BF109 as well.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

On the website here Shaun?  The SeaFury and 109 are already there, the F-16 I can add in a few minutes......

 Thanks guys, Steve, Tom, Danny - all comments noted. 

[winchweight]

That'll be me not paying attention then...

Can't find the E-Flite Sea Fury though...

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Must be going mad , I was sure I added it, apologies here it is.

[Erfolg]

Although you are asking about subjects for review, my own thoughts are along the lines of a few more contributors, which hopefully would produce a more varied style.

Although from the perspective of the magazine, you need reliable contributions both in content and time constraints. From the readers prespective a little more variety, whilst maintaing your brand image/ethos, blah, blah, blah

My other observations would be along the lines of a more regular appearance of scale matters, gliders, electronics, book reviews (can I do them mister), aerodynamics. I guess i would like to see a bigger magazine.

One thing that seems to be deteriorating are the number of advertisers, just the big uk names are there,(although Micron is seen) yet it is the broad breadth which I find interesting. How about a few non UK people ). As the magazine seems to sell in many other countries these days. Particularly Chinese supliers, as many of us shop via the inter-net, with these companies (United Hobbies, Tendarni etc.). 

Erfolg

[Ralph Yeates]

There was a good article a few moths back on aerobatics  currently trying to get the hang of prop hanging getting there slowly but any pointers from some of the Expert/ display pilot's on how they achieved this and some of the other things they do would be good for the people above the basic level. Here is an example of what I would aspire to do with a plane  At 2:58 you can see him working the rudder and elevator hard.

[Bruce Richards]

Yes I wish I could do that too.

[Dusty]

PMC Tucano 56"?

[airman]

Can you do a series on the factories producing ARFT aircraft kits, model engines, radio equipment etc.

Also a follow up series on the model kits that RCME have reviewed, after a couple months club flying. So that readers can see if there are any promblems, which will can only show up after regular use.

[Myron Beaumont]

Also 2.4 conversions for various makes of 35 Mhz radio gear other than futaba    'EG In my case -Whats the best for my Optic 6 .Have seen a few sites suggested on this forum but am not sure what to get!

[Erfolg]

I will start by saying my primary interests are electric flyers.

I recently have been given some old circa 2005-2007 Silent flyer magazines, published in the USA, the cover has sinced ceast publication.

It interesting to note, what was a hot topics, is now old news/run of the mill. It seems that what needs reviewing is whatever is the latest trends. This magazine had a far greater bent towards technology than RCM&E. The recent debate regarding Ohms law illustrates the poor or none existent grasp of the foundations stones of engineering that most readers have. Therfore they need careful leading through technology related areas or total avoidance. It should be noted that this magazine no longer exists and suggests that technology orientated leanings were not to the tastes of enough of the modeling public (I personally think it was a great cover, including the front ).

I think we must remember that Ford consulted us, the public and gave us what we wanted. The Edsel! You are probably best doing your own thing and see if we buy more or less.

Erfolg

[Bruce Richards]

Erfolg wrote (see)

The recent debate regarding Ohms law illustrates the poor or none existent grasp of the foundations stones of engineering that most readers have.

 I do not agree Erfolg. This illustrated the "poor or none existent grasp of the foundations stones of engineering" a small minority of reader have. This may or may not be representative of the majority of readers. But I think is it a mistake to draw the conclusion that "careful leading through technology related areas or total avoidance.". RCM&E covers a very wide remit and not all articles will be right or of interest for all readers. That is what makes it such a good magazine. There a basic articles for beginners or the less technical and more advance/technical articles for those that are interested.

David please do not dumb down the magazine to the lowest common denominator.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Thanks guys, we hear what you say. Dave - we've had a few follow-on reviews here on the site that do just that but we could do more agreed. We've tried to get into a few factories but UK distributors seem reluctant to take us along worried we may share their development secrets. We'll keep trying.

Bruce - it's certainly difficult getting the right pitch, we try and make sure there's a good spread in every issue if we can.  

[Erfolg]

Bruce

There was a substantial difference in the technology pitch of quite flight.

One of the problems of technical areas, is that knowledge is almost built up of bricks of knowledge on top of each other (or at least related). So if you want to talk about beams, you probably would benefit, fro some knowledge of the properties of materials, then you have the concepts of bending, shear forces, before you start on ideas such as Euler crippling or Rankin and it goes on and on. Most could not care less, or barely interested. Just as importantly do you need to know to build and fly a model aircraft.

Many are very sucessful at their hobby, with no knowledge of some of the technology. I do care, are my models the better for it? Well i will not claim any great sucess.

I also think that the pitch is probably right, the magazine is sucessful.

As to avoidance, we probably disagree, only in part. The discourse of Oms law, is typical of what happens with a little knowledge. I kept thinking, this is not quite what i was taught, and the manipulation of the relationships is not quite right. either Unfortunatly it took some time before a Electricla Engineer (degree/chartered to EU law) stuck his oar in.

I just think it is beneficial to provide a step by step approach. As was done when ducted fans were examined using the basic Newton laws by some German correspondant.

I do not want to make waves. So please accept we differ and it does not matter much what i think anyway.

Erfolg

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

David the last time I saw Pete Willis of a certain independant ARTF importer with "Nutz" & "Plane" in the title I suggested he got in touch with Graham about doing an article on ARTF factories. Pete & I were talking about his recent visit to China & I said it would make an interesting magazine article. Certainly he was not adverse to sharing his photos & experience. He told me he had learned the Chinese for "use more glue" so he could tell the operators who were fitting the U/C plates!!!!

I don't know if he ever did ring Graham but he might be worth getting in touch with. I hear he is winding down his involvement with the ARTF business at the end of 2008....

[David Ashby - Moderator]

LOL, thanks Steve. Yes I remember we spoke to Pete about that, I'll chase him up, thanks

[Bruce Richards]

Erflog thanks for responding. I understand what you say and half agree and half not.. I would hate to see RCM&E go like some of the TV programs which cover technical subjects with absolutely no technical understanding, content or attempt to educate.  I find them just banal and almost content free.

[Ton van Munsteren]

Hi,

Would love to see some RBCKITS models reviewed.

Ton