Cool Article in AMA's May "MA"
03-31-2003 | 03:32 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Cool Article in AMA's May "MA"
The article in the May issue of MA concerning the AMA site is -- IMO -- a pretty neat article. While I may give AMA and its administrators a fair pain-in-the-lower-areas, being resentful of having a first class model aviation show-place is not one of my barbs.
It really looks nice. I am thankful that model aviation has its own place to show that there are those among the sport that take it seriously. While many do resent Muncie with the whine, "I'll never get to fly there," in my opinion these people are not of the group that take the sport seriously.
Nice article, and now, that leads to the point of investing in Muncie real estate. There just might be some 150,000 getting ready to move there. Just Joking of course. (;-))<
Now if later this year, you see me lurking around there, don't worry. It's simply that my grand-daughter ( of Arlington Heights, IL) has been accepted into the architectural school there at Ball State.
Horrace Cain
It really looks nice. I am thankful that model aviation has its own place to show that there are those among the sport that take it seriously. While many do resent Muncie with the whine, "I'll never get to fly there," in my opinion these people are not of the group that take the sport seriously.
Nice article, and now, that leads to the point of investing in Muncie real estate. There just might be some 150,000 getting ready to move there. Just Joking of course. (;-))<
Now if later this year, you see me lurking around there, don't worry. It's simply that my grand-daughter ( of Arlington Heights, IL) has been accepted into the architectural school there at Ball State.
Horrace Cain
04-01-2003 | 12:51 AM
#2
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Jesup,
GA
Cool Article in AMA's May "MA"
Labeling those who don't support a National Flying Site as "Not taking the sport seriously" is illogical. There are many, many ways that participants can help promote the sport without the need for a national flying site.
We just had a fly-in in conjunction with a local festival, and we introduced a number of people to the sport- people who had never seen RC aircraft fly and heretofore had considered them playthings.
To those people (Who might have a .00001% chance of ever visiting the Muncie site- We're talking a small rural community in Georgia) we do take the sport seriously. I would sincerely doubt that many of them think that folks up there in Muncie take it as seriously. Perspective is everything.
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
We just had a fly-in in conjunction with a local festival, and we introduced a number of people to the sport- people who had never seen RC aircraft fly and heretofore had considered them playthings.
To those people (Who might have a .00001% chance of ever visiting the Muncie site- We're talking a small rural community in Georgia) we do take the sport seriously. I would sincerely doubt that many of them think that folks up there in Muncie take it as seriously. Perspective is everything.
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
04-01-2003 | 02:20 AM
#3
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: AL
Cool Article in AMA's May "MA"
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
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
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!!!)
