Originally Posted by
strtnlevel
Your post really struck a nerve with me. Like you, I tend to not publicly criticize, however, as a retired full scale flight instructor and a long time r/c competitor, I cringe at some of the articles published recently. The "Pro Pilot" turning tips was the most recent. He wrote an article a few issues back on crosswind landings....I was appalled. Problem is the average rc guy does not know a slip from a crab. Further, is it really important to the average rc guy who is just out there having a good time flying his latest pride and joy........I think not.
But, at the very least, the content of the articles should be accurate and presented in a manner to be instructive and helpful to those interested. I wonder if he has any full scale experience......I doubt it because I don't recognize much of his techniques that I have ever learned or taught in 37 years as a CFI. I do agree with you on the quality of the mags compared to what we used to get but the market changes with the hobby and it has changed in a direction that I do not care for. Where are the builders and competitors? Years ago you had to build something if you wanted to fly.......today, you charge the battery and go fly. Now we're being invaded by quad copters.....you can't turn a page without seeing one. Sorry to rant.......but, your post is very accurate.
I'm thankful that I'm not the only one whose nerve was tweaked by that article.
to get us back on track....
I view the choice in subject matter as... well.. for lack of a better word, subjective. I might not be interested in quads, or heli's or gliders, but I welcome accurate informative magazine articles on those. This is a big hobby and it needs to be an inclusive hobby. I'm not going to love every article's subject matter, and I'm ok with that. I'm a builder and a fixed wing pilot. I am not the main target audience of most of the magazine. That is OK... Would I like more building articles and more honest plane reviews?... sure... but for that part I get that that is my opinion and if you ask someone else they would have an entirely different opinion. The magazines try to cover everyone in some way and everyone is going to have something they wished for more of...
My main issue is with the rash of pro elite expert "this man has 50 years in the hobby" advice that usually falls into 1 of 2 categories for me:
1. It is ok advice, there are better ways to do it though and I wish the article went into those better ways. There are always multiple ways to do things, but if it is going to be pro advice, it needs to be comprehensive and a discussion of alternatives and why the pro method leads to better results is in order.
2. The advice is more wrong than right and it is leading people that hope to learn from the articles down the wrong path. For these ... I don't know... people use these magazines as a reference, they learn from them, they take what they read as gospel. it is just not acceptable...
I could be wrong, but it is starting to feel like they don't necessarily care what they are putting out there in terms of quality.
btw, strtnlevel, the crosswind landing article raised my eyebrow as well. Mainly b/c I felt the techniques taught might work ok for a highly aerobatic plane like an extra 300... but I'm pretty sure if you tried the same with a j-3 cub or ww2 bomber you'd be picking up the pieces afterwards..
It is interesting.. I've noticed the magazines have started milking the forums for article ideas... You'll see a thread "What is your opinion on ... x y or z" and then 2 months later you'll get "pro advice on x y and z!!!" in one of the magazines...