Originally posted by bobfox
Ever think about this? If Muncie is required for growth of the sport, how did it grow before Muncie? Has the growth rate changed significantly since Muncie?
The opinion that the cost/benefit relationship of a national flying site to the sport is questionable is logical and serious. Perhaps even more serious that simply accepting the statement without analysis. In the long run, Muncie may do more harm than good.
A different opinion
Bob
Actually, I DId once think about it... I decided MUNCie MUST HAVE made a difference.
Before the AMA got that fancy 98% of membership will never use it flying site, I NEVER read much about the number of active flyers decreasing.
Shortly after they opened the Muncie site, there was quite a while that I was even seeing articles in the model magazines pointing out, and some even almost complaining about the "number of active modellers is in a drastic decline."
PRE Muncie = active modellers....
POST Muncie = decreasing model activity???
Some of the things I'd read seemed to almost equate it that way. But then, HOW MUCH of the model activity decline is from people who "lost interest", and how much of it is because of people like me? (Work got in the way of flying, therefore caused my NON-renewal of AMA since I haven't had time to get ANYTHING off the ground in OVER TWO YEARS!!!)