franklin_m

Short of surveys, it's difficult for Rupprecht or anyone to know why people are or are not registering. It could also be as simple as people see nothing in the way of FAA enforcement, so they don't bother. As for AMA's numbers, they're pretty secretive about actual numbers in each membership category. I've been using inflation adjusted membership revenue as a metric - as they have to report it each year on their IRS filings, and those are public. I expect a blip up from time to time, but a single year does not make a trend ... as we've seen with them in the past.

Unfortunately, the inflation is going to crush the value of the membership dollars they do receive. So they'd have to go up significantly in order to not see a net reduction in real dollars. And of course as we've seen twice before, each time they raise dues, within a short period of time the revenue falls to less than what it was before. I think it took about 5 years when they raised it in the early 2000's, and about half that time with the 2016 increase.

They're dying financially, and they know it. They don't appeal to to the youth in sufficient numbers, and their leadership just cannot break from "the way we've always done it." Look at how many YEARS the magazines have been losing money, yet they're still in place.

pinballwiz

I have several hobbies and they all bemoan the lack of young people joining up. I blame videogames, social media, and binge watching TV for the lack of young people in the hobby.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Agree, the younger generations just don’t have interest in aviation or modeling like we did. You simply can’t force interest onto anyone. The example I like to use is a $400.00 bottle of wine. I have zero interest in such things. No amount of promotion by any organization is going to change that perspective.

ECHO24

A hobby shop nearby got rid of all their balsa and building wood 2 years ago. The Michaels craft store did the same a few months back. The only other hobby shop
went out of business 3 weeks ago. Not sure how much ARF plane sales are down, but that is a pretty good indication that the building side of RC is dying.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

WHAT? ARF sales down indicates that the building side of RC is dying?
That is a really strange comparison.

Astro

ECHO24

The aforementioned, not ARFs.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I agree for the most part, but I have also been spending a bit of time looking at what is going on over at FliteTest lately, and it leaves me encouraged about the next generation of model aviation enthusiasts. It is VERY different from what us old timers are used to, and does not at all fit the classic AMA club model, but there is a lot of creative stuff going on, and lot of younger people having quite a bit of fun with it too. They also seem to have a very active in STEM education support program helping to encourage youth participation. The future will look very different, but there will always creative technophiles out there finding ways to push the envelope.

I also agree with speedracerntrixie that aviation as a whole does not command the same level of interest today as it did for us in the baby boomer generation. We grew up immersed in the aftermath of WWII with a close connection to the "heroes" it created (my own father was a Marine aviator near the very end of the war) and of course the Cold War, the Space Race, and the dawning of the jet-set and the global travel industry put aviation front and center for the general public. Today, the glamour is gone and air travel is considered to be like riding a bus. The "heroes" of today are technologists that are transforming the world (for good or for bad) through the use of technology. These same heroes (using the term very loosely here!) are also driving the next big push into space exploration and commercialization. That gives me hope that aerospace and technology will continue to have youth appeal.

When I started this thread, I didn't really have my ideas fully formed, but what I have come to conclude is that the old version of the hobby (as defined by the AMA club model) is coming to end and there is no stopping that. But as the AMA fades away, there will be a new version of the hobby that will take to the skies with new ideas, new technologies, and new visions. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with that, and while we may like to mourn our own passing, in the end it is really pointless to expect that things will remain the same.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I think that the hobby shop demise has more to do with the convenience of on-line ordering. My kids (all in their mid 20s to early 30s) do 99.9% of their shopping on-line (including groceries) and only reluctantly set foot into a store.

And yes, building with balsa is dying out, but there is a lot of building going on with new techniques. Look at all the foam board building that is going on (much cheaper and easier than balsa). Also, go over to YouTube and see how many 3D printed RC plane videos have been popping up recently. I would venture that there may be more builders today than there were 10 years ago, its just that they are not building what we are used to seeing and certainly not flying them at the club field.

ECHO24

FlightTest primarily sells cardboard RC planes, which most will grow out of quickly. They have one or two 3D printed planes. One RC supplier I deal with is
gung ho on 3D printed planes. 3D printing is awesome for some things, but I'm skeptical of the real-world durability for flying surfaces, especially wings.
Most of the YouTube videos featuring 3D printed planes are under perfect conditions with a paved runway. In the real world an RC plane has to be able to
take some abuse. A Fun Cub is a good example that's hard to break.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

True enough, but that is my whole point about the hobby being something very different than what we think of. They simply don't care about durability. Watch their videos and the biggest laughs are when their planes crash and fall apart. Most of the time, they tape them back together and throw them back in the air. When they are too far gone, they salvage the electronics and build something new. The airframes are completely disposable. There are many other video not related to FliteTest relative to 3D printing. It is still new, but it is rapidly evolving. Once again, I agree that the durability is not (yet) there, but again, airframes are cheap and disposable.

As I said, this is a whole new way of looking at the hobby.

p.s.; As an additional thought, a big part of this new way of looking at the hobby is that you keep trying different things. You are correct, that people will get bored quickly with one particular "cardboard" airframe, but they keep building new and radically different styles of cardboard airframes. The appeal is to see what you can possibly create, bigger, faster, different materials, different styles, recreating sci-fi movie vehicles that would be impossible with traditional techniques, novel uses of technology, different shapes and styles. It is a much more creative process that is enabled by cheap disposable materials , including the electronics.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I've noticed the same things as mentioned above. Where my narrative differs is that, based on my observances over time, "our" hobby (traditional modeling) has lost favor with todays' youth. As with anything over time, it morphs into something different. My contention is that all of the new technological advances have allowed a NEW hobby to be created. The autonomous flight capabilities, FPV, long-range and aerial camera/video platforms IS the NEW hobby, and while this NEW hobby does share some similarities with traditional modeling, it is unique enough both in the way it is enjoyed and in the way it affects the non-participating public, that it really needs to be considered as a separate hobby and distinct differences should be recognized by the regulating agencies as such.

Regardless of declining interest in traditional modeling, it is my contention that the AMA should continue to advocate for those members whose passions still lie in the more traditional realm, and let another organization become the voice for this new, burgeoning, hobby, even if that means not focusing on growth, but truly being the premier organization for traditional modeling, despite understanding that it may be a dying hobby. I believe that by focusing on what they know best, i.e. traditional modeling, that our aging hobby has a better chance of remaining relevant in its own right, rather than getting pushed aside and swallowed up by the growing ranks of droners, videographers, delivery drones, etc.

Astro

ECHO24

One of the most popular reviewer of 3D printed planes on YouTube is Troy McMillian. You'll note the paved runway and upgraded facility. I had a couple of email exchanges with him
and he was honest about the fragility of some of the planes. Also, if you look back through his videos you'll find him spending hours and hours on 3D print settings and printing
parts multiple times to get the desired result, something the average person isn't going to do. Weight is an issue with 3D printing and single layer prints are tricky and break easily.
There is a lightweight filament but it costs twice as much and is weaker than regular filament. It also requires tinkering with print settings.

I asked Troy what plane he'd recommend that didn't require special print settings or lightweight filament: https://www.eclipson-airplanes.com/modelr
The files are about $35. It has a 40" wingspan and weighs 2 lbs. It lists specs for lightweight filament but the recommended filament costs $45 + shipping and again isn't as strong.

I sent a mockup of the pitcheron I designed to FlightTest. Josh gave it a thumbs up says he wants to build it.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

Very cool!!!

It is very much and emerging technology and still has a long way to go, but look how far it has come. I recall using SLA (stereolithography) machines to create engineering porotypes about 30 years (or so) ago. The machines were huge and so expensive that only the largest companies could afford them, and the mockups created were so fragile that we treated them like eggs. Just think what the next 30 years will bring in terms of new technologies and new capabilities.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

And this is one of the reasons for my opinion.

Do you think these guys are more concerned with the flying qualities, scale representation, and longevity of these models (the primary reason for MOST traditional modelers was to build a great looking and flying plane that they would spend far more time flying than they did building it), or is the majority of their focus on the, "tech" end of these models, to be flown a couple of times to prove concept, only to be put on the shelf while they "build" or design the next one?

Astro

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I don't disagree. And while I also will concede that there have been missteps along the way, I do feel that the AMA is trying to advocate for the traditional hobbyist (and I know that we are likely to need to agree to disagree on this). I will also also concede that they need to be more aggressive at drawing distinctions between "droners" who are operating outside the realm of safe responsible behavior and the rest of us, but I also think that they should continue to embrace the new form of the hobby too, particularly related to the more creative aspects I mentioned. I for one and still interested in learning a few new tricks before I fly off into my final sunset

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Yep, that is where you and I disagree. I maintain that by trying to advocate for both, the AMA has proven to be ineffective at both. I also believe that by trying to advocate for both that they make it harder for the feds and the general public to distinguish the differences, thereby being ineffective at fully advocating for traditional modelers and traditional modeling activity.

As far as you wanting to learn some new tricks, there is nothing stopping you from doing so, even IF the AMA took the path that I prescribed above.

Astro

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

Thinking about this for a few minutes more, it occurs to me that this probably very much like the transition the hobby made in the 60's and 70's when the hobby had been dominated by control line and free flight and RC was emerging. The hobby in and of itself maintained some sense of continuity through that transition and is likely to maintain some sense of continuity through this transition. But in another 10 years or so, us old time balsa builders will be about as common as control line fliers are today.

init4fun

Although I haven't done the "twist till I puke" flight mode lately, I'm still equipped to do it, if there are ever any newbies who need to be terrorized by what our hobby once was

PS, Thank You for your posts here, I appreciate your well presented point of view.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

At the risk of opening up old wounds ... I am able to fly the exact same planes at the exact same locations in the exact same way I always have. The biggest change is the need to pay $5 every three years and stick a number on my planes. IMHO, this result represents a pretty effective job at advocating for us traditional modelers. That does not mean I agree with everything the AMA does (I don't believe in narratives that are totally black or totally white), but will give credit where credit is due.

I know others (like sailplane flyers) are more severely impacted, and I know some who don't want to fly at a club field will find the need for the broadcast module intrusive, and I do respect that. But overall, I also suspect that the majority of us traditional modelers will be able to fly their planes at their club fields in the same manner they always have. I do respect those who feel differently, but feel I need to speak out for those of us who have a more positive opinion about how this process has unfolded and the AMA's role in it.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

Thanks for the compliment. I must admit that I do often enjoy the spirited nature of the discussion here.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Interesting observation, and this is what I call the "eye test" nothing statistical.

I get to a LOT of events, sometimes 3 or 4 a month as VP and I've found young people, teenagers and kids at a lot of events this fall. A little of everything too, some flying turbine jets, some 3D, some just flying foamies at club meetings. It's good to see.

I was talking to Burt Rutan about this a while back, when most of us were kids we were inspired by the space program, moon landings etc, with NASA not doing much these days it's difficult for young people to find inspiration though many are looking for career paths in the commercial drone industry.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Agreed. As I have said before at the 4 sites I fly at none of them have altered operations. The CVRC soaring club in California is arguably the host of the largest sharing event in the country that has an entry limit of 200. They currently have an agreement in the works with the FAA that was aided by the AMA to allow them to operate up to 2,000’.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

First, I think you are failing to mention the 400' cap. That is a big one, in and of, itself. I've heard many say this is no big deal and it is easy to stay under 400'. I would venture that if you fly foamies, this is largely true. For just about every other discipline, this definitely changes how we fly. In my experience, The vast majority of flights at most fields exceed 400' during their flight. Is there a way to, "prove" this? No. But any experienced modeler who doesn't acknowledge that, is just plain not being honest with reality. The 400' cap definitely puts a cramp on any giant scale, glider, sailplane, or jet. Again, not saying it can't be done, but it is a significant regulation in my opinion. Yes, I know there have been some exemptions granted, but how many? The AMA has been asked this question and the only answer I am aware of is that it has been a very small handful of clubs so far. Again, I would think that the AMA would be stepping up and being very transparent with these exemptions as, presumably, I would think that all flying fields that have been granted FRIA status would very much want to apply for, and be granted, an altitude exemption.

Second, flying sites now have to apply for, and be granted, FRIA status. This might not seem like a big deal on the surface, however, it is my understanding that there is a limited time to apply for FRIA status, and once that period is over, no other sites will be allowed that status. That means that if a club should lose their existing flying site (for whatever reason), they couldn't seek another field and that flying site, and club, would essentially cease to exist. This is quite possibly the biggest threat to our hobby becoming extinct.

It has been my experience in life in general, that once a certain freedom or liberty has been regulated, it will NEVER get better, and will only continue to be further restricted/regulated. I cannot think of a single example of the reverse happening.

Third, I believe that "we" suffered a tremendous loss when just about every single type of radio-controlled aircraft became known as "UAS" or "sUAS", regardless of that particular aircrafts' capabilities. This will allow for blanket restrictions on all "sUAS" in the future, regardless of their capabiities (FPV-capable, camera, autonomous-flight capable, long-range capable, etc.).

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

You're spreading or interpreting some fallacies Astro
1. Many clubs have asked for and been granted higher altitudes, none of been denied that went through the SRM process. Once that concludes for clubs within controlled airspace we begin working on Class G waivers.

2. Due to the AMA (and others) during the NPRM comments, the FRIA's are no longer limited, they can be moved, new ones applied for etc so your understanding is incorrect.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I stand corrected on #2. Thank-You, that is indeed good news.

As far as the first one, please tell me how my statement, "Yes, I know there have been some exemptions granted, but how many? The AMA has been asked this question and the only answer I am aware of is that it has been a very small handful of clubs so far." is fallacious?

Astro