Ahhh.... How little they understand.

GallopingGhostler wrote:

batjac wrote:I was talking to a guy at work who flies R/C with his kids today.  I asked him if he flies control line, and when he said he never had I sent him a link to Shug Emery's YouTube video on Introduction to Control Line.  Here was his email response:

"Mark, That looks pretty cool.  But, more of a step backwards from radio control. Sam"

There are none so blind, as those that will not see... The Misquoting Mark

You'll find some just not interested, Mark. Take like those who can't looked beyond their computer tablets. There are others interested, might take a little time to find them, but they are out there.

i fly rc and i making me fist control line plane
p.s what is wrong with these people! control line is awesome even though i have never flown controline
they would rather be sitting on the loo doing nothing!

i must say that i am the other way around.. i really have no interest in flying r/c, at least at this point in my life. i like the feeling of hanging on and being connected.

I fully understand him, the whole point of building an airplane is to set it free and watch it fly!

Having it tethered to a post, or person, just isn't right...

Surfer_kris wrote:I fully understand him, the whole point of building an airplane is to set it free and watch it fly!

Having it tethered to a post, or person, just isn't right...

I like free-flight planes too  With my R/C planes I am at the skill level where I watch them fly and only control them to keep them in sight. I fly a glider with E-power, the plan is to advance to something more agile, but I don't want to practice with a simulator.

C/L fascinates me because you actually have a direct physical link to the elevator of the plane. I have not tried it yet, but just look at someone flying a big stunt plane, that's a real sport where you have your entire body involved (as opposed to an R/C pilot lying on a portable recliner only moving his thumbs). But as a model plane C/L is a completely different animal. Less worry about weight, intentional asymmetry and so on.

But to each his own. I sure would like to see the C/L hobby to become more popular in Finland. Right now in my town I think the "club" would have one member and zero collective experience  Well, the only direction from this is "up", I will try to get my sons involved too, maybe even some of their friends.

Same old argument.  The same as one car brand versus another.  Rarely will we agree.  
My R/C experience is limited and was unpleasant.  Big money & big risk.  If I had the money that many of these guys spend on R/C planes, I'd be out flying full size ones.  Regular newsletters from a local R/C club generally has pages dedicatd to the past month's accidents.  They rave about 2.4ghz being fool-proof, but they even admit that many of the accidents are caused by radio reception glitches & drop-outs.  Too many shattered dreams for me.

I agree that saying that C/L is a "step backwayds" is quite unfair.  Different doesn't mean better or worse.
But in my opinion, flying models is all about copying the real thing.  Apart from recent military application, as far as I know pilots have always been connected to their plane & have direct "hands-on" control, much like control line.  I don't see the point of squinting into the distance trying to figure out which way's up and hoping that it's actually going to come back to you.  If I can't be in it, at least I want to be hanging on to it.

Rod.  

It's only a step backwards if you started with CL and moved on to RC. Otherwise it's just something new to try.

To each his own.

Many times, these discussions end up simply being a "My hobby is better than your hobby."  I disagree.

I have been flying model planes for over 60 years and have built and flown almost everything in the hobby -- stick and tissue, rubber, free flight (powered and high-start), hand chuck gliders, control line, multiple types of R/C planes, helicopters, quads - and the list goes on.  Some I like flying more than others; some offer technical building challenges; some offer technical flying challenges; some are just simple fun.  But, the bottom line is that I never had a model plane that I didn't like.  Moving from one type of flying to another has never been a step up or back for me -- it has just been another facet of the hobby to be enjoyed.  My only regret is not having been able to spend more time doing it.

I had a late uncle who had a commoner's insight into folks - he frequently said, "People are not alike, that's why we have chocolate and vanilla." Whatever kind of flying makes you happy, enjoy it to the fullest, life is finite.

balogh wrote:I am not sure if I understood this "to each his own" statement correctly (sorry I am not a native speaker and my Hunglish is sometimes a hurdle in decyphering underlying meanings) especially in the context of saying R/C is stepback from C/L

This is how I understand it (from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/to+each+his+own ):

To each his own.
Prov. Each person has the right to make choices.
Example:
A: Bob likes chopped prunes on ice cream!
B: To each his own.

Me: Prunes? Dude!  

I ran into (and participated to) this kind of discussion at the Finnish SAAB enthusiast site, where I claimed in a discussion that vintage Saabs and modern ones are so much different cars that you can consider them as two different hobbies. Well the discussion went sort of downhill from there, there were accusations of elitism, certain models were called rustbuckets, GM era Saabs were called Opels and so on. And I think I know what I was talking about, as I own a 1958 model and a 2005 9-5 and work on them a little too. And I like both of them a lot for different reasons.

My point there and especially here is that there are different hobbies, none is better than other as long as they bring enjoyment to the hobbyist and cause no harm to others.

Hence, To each his own.

I love the SAAB with two-stroke engines, those were the ones that started the whole thing.

After that it was just another car among many other, except that they also made some weird solutions. Imagine having to take the whole engine out just to reach the starter motor (on the 99 model). Third gear was the first thing to break on those too...

balogh wrote:I am not sure if I understood this "to each his own" statement correctly (sorry I am not a native speaker and my Hunglish is sometimes a hurdle in decyphering underlying meanings) especially in the context of saying R/C is stepback from C/L..

R/C may well be a step back from C/L (though here again I am puzzled to figure out exactly why), but surely not from a building perspective. Jamming all those electronic gadgetry into the fuse - which cannot be a profile but only a 3 dimensional one with formers inside - then properly setting and trimming the servo mechanism etc are just adders to building a C/L plane I guess.

I am not here to incite rivalry on whose hobby is better; for me building the plane is essential part of the modeling obsession and the more complex it is, the more exciting. I would rather say that tastes are different and are not woth arguing about..

Sorry Balogh,

I was trying to say that if one first started flying CL and then moved on to RC and felt that RC was better then perhaps it would feel like it was a step backwards to fly CL again.

It was kind of a subtle joke as the guy originally made the comment had never flown CL and after reviewing the video said it would be a step backwards for him. It's not a step backward for him. It's just a new discipline.

The "to each his own" comment was just me saying that I don't give a hoot what people do!  

Of course, it all comes down to your own personal opinion; as Cribbs said, "to each his own".

That being said, my own opinion is that the modern ARF electric RC scene is a step back from actual "modeling". I don't say that to disparage anyone at all. I have several RC ARFs myself and enjoy flying them as much as I do flying my own designs.

It's just to say that a HUGE part of fun of modelling to me always involved building the airplane (car, boat, etc.) and then making it fly or run properly. That involves a bit of craftsmanship and at least a basic knowledge of some of the principles involved. These skills apply across the board whether you prefer RC, CL or free flight (And if you are like me at all, you probably like all of it!). Of course, when I was a kid there weren't really any ARFs around, and we learned as we went.

It was quite a wake-up call for me when one of my RC flying buddies, who had built and flown at least half a dozen ARFs, asked for help with one of his models that just wouldn't fly right. He had installed a larger battery in the original position and had thrown the C of G way off base. But because the ARFs he had built and flown all were designed so that proper C of G was automatic if the components were placed correctly, he had never realized that an airplane had to be balanced correctly if it were to fly properly. The realization that there were "principles of flight" absolutely fascinated him and sent him off on a path  of learning he never anticipated!

To me the tragedy of your friend's statement is that it seems to indicate that he feels that other aspects of the hobby are remedial and not worth trying, and so will miss out on something he might otherwise really enjoy. And who know what he (and his kids) might have learned from it.

Just my , and I might owe y'all some change...

Mike

Mike Mulligan wrote:.........
That being said, my own opinion is that the modern ARF electric RC scene is a step back from actual "modeling". I don't say that to disparage anyone at all. I have several RC ARFs myself and enjoy flying them as much as I do flying my own designs.

It's just to say that a HUGE part of fun of modelling to me always involved building the airplane (car, boat, etc.) and then making it fly or run properly......

Mike

I'm always hesitant to use the words "step back" only because it implies something is being lessened in some form or another. The move to plastic coverings and CA also meant a change in skill levels when we moved away from tissue, silkspan, silk, dope and Ambroid.

But, I do want to stress that Mike and I are in complete agreement, it's only a matter of semantics. Building, for me, also represents a major component of the hobby; and I do own several ARFs. Early on, I looked on them with disdain, but time constraints for building and ARF quality sent me looking for a trainer for my son.

My LHS is usually populated on Saturday mornings by 4 to 6 of us old f**ts bemoaning the fact that the new crop of youngsters don't know the difference between nitrate and butyrate dope, they've not spent a week cutting and sanding parts to fit, heck, most can't even tune a nitro engine. But, they usually can fly circles around us because they're at the field instead of at the bench. Step forward, step back, umm, maybe just a step sideways.

As Mike said, when we grew up, there weren't many ARFs around. Today, the only kits at the LHS are old and collecting dust. Foamys and the move to electrics has saved this hobby for us; without them, I don't think there would be sufficient demand to keep the hobby going and to make product development profitable.

Anything that keeps the hobby viable is positive. For me, being a dinosaur, change is difficult to accept, but I'm learning.

I enjoy every minute of time spent in my workshop.. either building or designing something to do with modelling. That's what I enjoy the most. Not everyone is creative, so they don't experience that side of it. I try to do what I know I will enjoy with minimal disappointment potential. That's why you haven't heard much about the Rod-O-Gyro project  lately..

roddie wrote:I enjoy every minute of time spent in my workshop.. either building or designing something to do with modelling. That's what I enjoy the most. Not everyone is creative, so they don't experience that side of it. I try to do what I know I will enjoy with minimal disappointment potential. That's why you haven't heard much about the Rod-O-Gyro project  lately..

Roddie - If you really want to fly a Gyrocopter, with minimal disappointment, check out this thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=469368
See more information from builders who " have been there and done that!"