airborne

My Feedback: (1)

I am the advertising rep for Model Aviation (the AMA mag), but I also do a lot of other work for them - covering airshows, some editorial, photography, etc.

The reason for this post is I'd like to hear what you like, or dislike about Model Aviation magazine. Let us know about
any ways we can improve.

As you have seen in our January 2002 issue, we have implemented Product Reviews for the first time ever. Other things are starting to take shape as well. Overall, I think the content has improved over the past couple of years, but I would like to know your thoughts.

Please keep in mind that there are several articles we must keep because of AMA bylaws, such as the AMA news section, as well as the columns by our elected officials.

In closing, thanks for taking the time to voice your opinion.Although we won't be able to make changes overnight, we will be taking every post seriously.

Jim D

My Feedback: (8)

Thanks for asking.

I'd like to see more information and 'how-to' articles.

-For example, Big Super Tigre engines (2300, 3250) have a varied reputation concerning carburation problems. I've seen lots of discussion on fixes, from swapping carbs, to modifying the stock carb, fuels, plugs and such to make them run well. I would think a well written article on this subject with some testing information and results would be great stuff to publish.

-Or a in-depth article on sheeting foam wings discussing glue options, application methods (pressing, vacuum bagging), grades of balsa sheeting used, etc, etc.

-Some serious how-to info on getting good results glassing a plane.

I'm taking about some very in-depth technical articles from some of the field experts. Some subjects might have to be covered in series of articles, but I think you should get my drift. These articles should be well accompanied with the neccessary pictures and diagrams to pass along the knowlege of the subject to the reader.

Currently the magazine is too full of 'lite' reading and short on real meat and potatoes. But I did like the last issue better than most in the past, just keep on working at it.

Nathan

My Feedback: (12)

I couldn't agree more.

It also seems as though the airplane reviews are of some pretty obscure birds... one's I'm not likely to ever build or fly. I'd like to see some reviews on airplanes that are current, and on everyone's mind.

airborne

My Feedback: (1)

Please make sure that you are commenting on Model Aviation - not other magazines.

The post prior to this one references "some pretty obscure birds". We've only printed 2 reviews - the January and February 2002 issues. And only 1 of those was of an airplane - from Horizon.

Thanks.

Nathan

My Feedback: (12)

Getting caught up in semantics I see... Every "article" about the airplanes listed below has construction methods, specs, builders comments, and in some cases they include plans and a flight report. They're clearly not "reviews", as they don't include pros and cons, prices, or some other material you would consider crucial before calling it a review.

Allow me to rephrase my statement for those unable to intrepret what I was saying... I would like to see more "articles" on airplanes that are more current, and on everyone's mind.



FOR REFERENCE: "Articles" in previous MA's

JANUARY 2001
Wing Ding II by Les Garber

NOVEMBER 2001
Kandu by Dale Singleton

OCTOBER 2001
Sir Lancelot by Ed Henry

SEPTEMBER 2001
Vintage Stunt Championships XIII by Bob Hunt

... and more

TopShelf

My Feedback: (4)

I like the idea of more reviews BUT if they are like the reviews in other magazines, they are of little value. The official publication of AMA should be THE OBJECTIVE source of product information. The other magazines appear to be too "in bed" with the manufacturers of the products they are reviewing. Therefore, I have never read anything but a glowing review. If a product stinks, Model Aviation should say so. Model Aviation should be the "Consumer Reports" of model aviation products.

My other thought on the mag is that it tries to cover everything in one book. One could make it better by splitting off certain aspects of the hobby and covering them more in depth. For example, you could have an RC version that covers all the various aspects of RC (pattern, scale, giant scale, IMAC, etc.) and another version that covers the smaller segments of the hobby (CL, free flight, indoor, etc.) My demographics may be off but I would image most members are in the RC community. I know that this would be more costly but I would be willing to pay a little more for a mag that is more interesting to me. When you join/renew, you would specify which version you would like to receive.

Kent

sideshow

My Feedback: (11)

Hear, hear!! Top. If they are gonna do reviews do them in a way that is helpful. I hate to see in every ARF review (seems all of the reviews are ARF's) " This is the best ARF ever!". It gets very tiring. I would also like to see more engine reviews. At least one per issue. I know a lot of people are "assembling" ARF's (ARF's aren't built) but I want to see real kit reviews with real opinions about the quality of wood, hardware, etc. Model Aviation is subsidized so I would expect more realistic reviews. Hope that's helpful.

Bob

TopShelf

My Feedback: (4)

Bob,

I'm with you, I'm sick of glowing ARF reviews as well. Additionally, I agree with you on the engine reviews. Engine reveiws have the potential to be completely objective. Break them in, put them on a dyno & tach with a variety of props and report the numbers and any user impressions.

Kent

Jim D

My Feedback: (8)

Very good point TopShelf. All I would add is that engines should be tested with a LARGE variety of props both in size and Mfg for a review and let the numbers speak.

Sooooooo many people are in the mindset of 'if it's a 40 size use a 10x6' that they never experiment with props to find that the engine works much better when you hit the right combo.

Steve Campbell2

Guys, think about this for a minute. We, as R/C pilots, are just a piece of a very big pie. Model Aviation magazine must service each of the various disciplines. That makes the rag's scope so broad, it precludes any of the detailed info we're looking for.

I think the guys who put together that magazine do a pretty good job, considering the enormity of all AMA-sanctioned modeling areas. But there is no getting around the fact that at least token attention must be paid to everything. Personally, I have about as much interest in Control Line Speed, or Free Flight, or several of the other areas, as I do in the tragic problem of bedwetting among Afghan adolescents. But I also realize that there are AMA members who are keenly interested in this stuff; and they deserve just as much space for their interests as I do mine.

And before some proponent of Free Flight, or whatever, lambastes my attitude with the admonition that one can learn something from every discipline- I already know that. I just don't have as much time to devote to my hobby as I would like (but retirement is on the horizon!<G>), so I restrict my reading, etc., to my specific areas of interest. Nothing personal...

Which is why I think Kent's idea (separate, special-interest mini-magazines as opposed to a full-blown magazine) on this subject is the best one I've heard yet. It definitely would be more work; dunno about more expense. Probably initially, to get the new layout/formats done. But material cost would be about the same.

Model Aviation must strive to be all things to all people. Of course, there is no way it can do this. If there was an option of NOT receiving the magazine for slightly less dues, I would certainly exercise that. But, of course, that ain't gonna happen either.

I will say that the rag seems to have undergone a face lift, both in appearance and content, in the last few months. I actually look at it now, instead of tossing it.

Please don't take these comments as harsh criticism- you asked for input, and this is how I feel about the situation. You guys have a tough row to hoe; I'm sure you're doing your best in a difficult situation.

Steve

Taildrager-inactive

My Feedback: (11)

Where is the meat & potatos of RC, the how to articles that are useful to every day moderlers. Why is it glow powered RC 40 size is the bulk of flying at most every field, but little coverage of this size engine & plane is seen in the rag. How bout some jet articles, as they are the ultimate in RC.

Rodney

I disagree that you should put out special interest magazines, there are plenty of those out there now. Model Aviation now does a very good job of covering most areas of modeling from free flight, RC, control line etc. although they are a bit weak on rubber powered models. I think your present wide coverage is far better for the overall hobby, i.e. you are doing an excellent job now. While I am primarily RC oriented, I never fail to get something out of the articles on unrelated models. The one spot I agree on is that it would be nice if you could be more of a consumer product report but realize that this is not easily done since you must depend on advertising money for much of your income and you cannot easily criticize an advertised product except in the most general sense. Rodney AMA 1455

depfife

My Feedback: (14)

More reviews would be great. Comparisons of simular models would be fun reading to me. Car mags often have these type articles, and they don't seem to be lacking advertisements.

And while I understand that MA readers have a wide variety of interests that need coverage, I would have to agree with Taildrager that 40 size sport R/C does not get much attention.

If I remember correctly, when you join AMA they ask what is your primary interest, so it should be easy to find out what percentage of the members are involved in what part of model aviation. If 1% of the members are involved in sport R/C, then maybe 1% of MA should be devoted to that. But if 50% of the members' primary interest is sport R/C then...

Eric

Dzlstunter

The biggest problem with the talk of the "biggest" faction or segment of the modeling community being allowed to dominate the organization's publication is that you might get what you ask for! If this had been done in 1940, it would have been free flight; in 1950 it would have been control line; in 2001 it could well be ARFs and "combo" deals offered by the big suppliers. Is that really what anyone wants? As for "separate but equal editions," when we divide ourselves this way (as we would, ultimately), what happens to the puny amount of strength we have in lobbying on the local and national level for those things near and dear to our hearts such as frequencies and flying sites? Finally, what about those among us who actually have interests in several types of flying models? Do we have to choose one of the "specialized editions," and then pay extra for any others? Sorry this got so long. I didn't even suggest anything positive, so here goes: emphasize sport flying and how-to-do-it stuff; limit coverage of competition events. Most competitors belong to a SIG which publishes the results of these, anyway.

DavidAgar

My Feedback: (108)

I would like to see more photo coverage of the events that are mentioned in the magazine. It seems that there are long winded stories about the event but little in the way of photos. Another thought would be to do more stories about AMA clubs and how they do things so as to put forth ideas on the table for other clubs. We often see articles about the big clubs with the to die for flying field, but what about the smaller clubs? As for the product reviews, they are a good thing if the are objective in nature and not being presented as writen by the manufactor of the product. I understand that the advertising revenue is needed by the magazine, so how can a review be submitted on a kit, engine radio or whatever if the manufactorer is advertising in the magazine? There are already enough kit reviews that are meaningless in the other magazines, do we really need any more. Maybe this magazine should concentrate more on the members and what they are doing and building. I am an RC pilot, however some of the best looking scale planes that I have seen are U control, which gets me wanting to expand my horizons. I got involved with the park flyers because of an article in the magazine, and I love them. Just my thoughs and Thanks Dave

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Fat chance, Jason. Helicopters are considered voodoo by the pattern/control line/free flight crowd now in control of the EC. The only reason helos have any coverage at all in Model Aviation is because they now comprise 10% of the hobby market and simply cannot be ignored- as much as some in Muncie would like to do.

Clarence Ragland's account of how he witnessed the rudeness shown to and generally shabby treatment of a helicopter demo pilot at the recent AMA extravaganza in Muncie tells it all. I wonder why they bothered to invite him in the first place???

Guys, when are you all going to realize that the AMA rag is just as "political" as the other glossies, which seem to be nothing more than *****s for the industry?

I don't know which one of them is worse; but I DO know that it's all BS. So I look at the pretty pictures and skim the text for the occasional nugget to be found. Anything else is an exercise in futility.

Steve

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Goodness; the PC Police are alive and working hard this morning.

Please inject "prostitutes" for the terribly offensive word I used in my above post.

Sheesh...

Steve

fliers1

Is Model Aviation available to the public via magazine stands everywhere? If not, why? It seems that AMA is essentially preaching to the choir and not trying to get their message out to the public in general. It seems that there are only about 150,000 subscribers to Model Aviation vs. 281,000,000 of the US population.

I suggested to AMA headquarters to send unsold magazines or even new issues to the millions of waiting rooms in the US. Also, to put in print in big letters the suggestion to its membership to gather up all of their old modeling magazines and leave them in any waiting room they can think of. Now wouldn't that very effectively get the word out to the public about our great hobby/ sport? With so many more potential subscribers, there would be that many more ideas on how to improve Model Aviation magazine.

Take care,
Clarence C. Ragland
AMA# 120734
http://www.kites.org/rc_instructors

HitecRedneck

I would like to see more event coverage in color photos rather than reading about Top Gun every month. I see the World Championship Heli pictures were colored but how many Nationals pictures were colored and that's outside the back door of the headquarters.

The product review section is a welcome site but the District VP reports could be published every 3 months and no one would miss anything inbetween. This would leave room for a bunch of photos or how to articles and the beginner section could acutually show instead of tell.

Hossfly

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fliers1
[B]Is Model Aviation available to the public via magazine stands everywhere? If not, why? It seems that AMA is essentially preaching to the choir and not trying to get their message out to the public in general. It seems that there are only about 150,000 subscribers to Model Aviation vs. 281,000,000 of the US population.

I suggested to AMA headquarters to send unsold magazines or even new issues to the millions of waiting rooms in the US. Also, to put in print in big letters the suggestion to its membership to gather up all of their old modeling magazines and leave them in any waiting room they can think of. Now wouldn't that very effectively get the word out to the public about our great hobby/ sport? With so many more potential subscribers, there would be that many more ideas on how to improve Model Aviation magazine.

Take care,
Clarence C. Ragland
AMA# 120734

CLARENCE!!! Man, there you go again with all that GOOD SENSE stuff. Don't you know the AMA EC cannot afford to chance getting a large informed membership? They just might lose control.
As it is, MA is small and easy to manage. It keeps the VOTING CL/FF membership happy and that keeps the current powers in office. Don'che'kno'?
Actually, I hate to see MA go the same route of self degradation and bootlicking that all the other so aptly named (earlier post) rags / publisher/editors pursue. OTOH, for those that want these so-called reviews, they get what they deserve. Beats H--l outa' me why anyone wants/needs a review of model airplane stuff. None of it is a rocket science.
Back around 1980+/-, when I was a VP, and MA staff was toying with the Review thing, I followed an agent around a Trade Show as he begged for stuff to *review* while making promises that only the best points would be presented, even to promising that radios would be cleaned to the point that no one could tell they were used and they could be returned to be shipped out as new items. NO DEFECTS would be reported. Well, that defect was reported to the EC, however they did not seem to mind. I was always on the wrong side!!!! Still am.
You see, I expect no less of any current AMA/MA program. SOSDD.
Now has it ever occurred to you that the person originating this thread is the advertising agent for MA, not an employee? He has a place of business 19.87 miles from DB Products by the main roads and about half that as the crow flies. Why does MA need an agent when the other mags do it in-house?
BTW, for his question: The VP columns need 50% of their space devoted to issues and less to the BS. In addition, GO OUT and interview Clubs of all sizes and tell about their programs. As it was said earlier, one needs just so much of the same old TG/NATS stuff. I like the NATS issue, That is enough.
I like the inside politics, H--l I know about a kit when I see it, I can test an engine and I can design my own.
The EC is my concern.

HC

fliers1

HC,
Thanks so much for the info as I could never understand why AMA and the industry didn't seem to want to get the exposer that should've been so easy to get. The standard excuse was that T/V exposer was much too expensive. With all the millions that headquarters has spent thusfar, it would seem that some of those millions could have gone for T/V time. They could've reached millions of people immediately.

I guess they must think of it as a three's a crowd philosophy. Gordon Banks once asked me: "Who wants to wait 2 hours to get on only a couple 15 minutes flights?" I heard that Futaba owns part of GM or something like that. The RC aeromodeling is a multibillion industry and no one can afford to advertise on the tube? Incredible! It appears that for the most part that no one wants the hobby to grow.

Take care,
CCR
http://www.mfarchive.modelstuff.co.uk/mf045/postbox.htm

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

>

Well, how about that? Why am I NOT surprised?

>

I used to scoff at that notion. The past election made it plain that notion is very, very valid.

Oh, well. They've got their empire built now. The rest of us have to live with it.

Steve

airborne

My Feedback: (1)

I know there are many of you who are not happy with the AMA or some of the things they do. To be honest, I can't think of any organization I am a member of, or have been associated with, that doesn't have its problems.

But, with that being said, please let's stay on the subject. I would like to know your thoughts about Model Aviation magazine - how to improve it, what you like, don't like, etc.

The magazine staff (including Bob Hunt) and myself are doing our best to change Model Aviation into one of the best. The implementation of reviews is just the first step.

Thanks for your ideas.

fliers1

Mark,
I fully realize that the organization can only do so much, but what is really needed is a way for beginners to find readily available instruction. There is a list on AMA's website but not in the magazine. How about a place for volunteer instructors to list their names? Don't you think that would be a good idea?

This list on AMA's website is for commercial instructors, but it was supposed to be a list for all RC flight instructors period, whether they be commercial instructors or not. Last I looked, there wasn't any volunteer instructors listed. Logically, if there were more instructors, there would create more eventual lifetime members, thereby creating more Model Aviation subcribers; offering more input for ideas in the magazine. Maybe this just makes too much sense, I don't know. SAFETY IN NUMBER FACTOR.

Nathan

My Feedback: (12)

Are you really interested in making it the best? Combine the quality reading material and honesty of RCReport, with the style and vibrance of Model Airplane News. That would be a winning combination to me.