Women editors

I have often wondered the same thing.

I can remember when the mags were more male oriented in their content. This was demonstrated by an emphasis on competition, high tech articles, do-it-yourself articles, etc.

Frankly, when the mags lost these features, they lost me too. The mags turned into nothing but product review rags that catered to the advertisers and not the modeler.

Now that there is a new medium that is controlled somewhat by the end users (mostly males), the internet, the old stalwart, female edited, magazine institutions are going by the wayside. Is anyone actually surprised?

For over three decades, magazines were nearly our only means of sharing modeling information. Even when the mags left the male favoring formats, they were all we had. Newsletters actually began the revolution when computers became nested in many modeler's homes, but the real change did not happen until the internet had spread considerably amongst our brethren.

Would I buy another pulp magazine again? If they went back to the old format and enlarged the print, I probably would. There is something about a magazine that appeals to me. Some of our younger modelers might not feel this way. Any younger modelers reading this? What would it take to get you to subscribe to a model airplane magazine? TIA

Ed Cregger

I'm 62, and laying aside the gender issue (which, as a former publication editor, is a "don't care" for me), I find that the net has reduced my once-formidable magazine habit to approximately zero.

There are IMHO, 2 things going on. For one, I think if the mags or rags realized what their industry was, would adapt.

It is like the railroads. Many went out of business, thinking only railroad. However, if they realized they were transportation, they would have adapted and still be in business. One example is Barlington-Northern (Now BN-Santa Fe, BNSF). They have trucks, planes, along with their trains.

Magazines are for propogating news, plans, techniques, events, etc. The net is now another medium of conveyance for this.

Also, the popularity of model aviation in general has declined. Most military bases used to have model flyers doing their thing on weekends, I'm seeing less and less of that now. Nearly every drugstore, variety store and some grocery stores used to carry rubber powered model kits like Comet and Guillows and stick model "ARF's". You hardly every see these there nowadays.

I used to remember seeing MAN or RCM at the airport newstands. People's interests in the hobby in general have declined to the extent that magazines are no longer available in the airport and Air Force Base Exchanges. They are even evaporating slowly from your mainline bookstores. Bookstores used to carry 6 or 7 model mags, now you may see one or two.

| The recent discussion of the possible demise of RCM has gotten me to | wondering how it is that so many R/C magazines now have female editors. | RCM has one, MAN has one, the Managing Editor of MA is a woman, and | there's the "power behind the throne" at RCR, Mina. ;-) While there | ARE a few women who've been very important in model aviation, it's | mostly a "boy's club."

... so, when you see a woman's name, you assume that she knows nothing about a model?

| I doubt that any of these women editors have ever built a model, so | I'm wondering whether the job of editor is now more administrative | than hobby knowledge based.

Hasn't it always been?

This is pretty much representative of the entire publishing industry as a whole -- editors are quite often women. They seem to gravitate to it, much like men gravitate to jobs like auto repair.

And editors often don't have much experience in the field of the publications that they edit ... instead, they often studied English in school, or maybe journalism.

Right or wrong, it seems to be the way things are, and it's certainly not restricted to R/C magazines. And as long as the editor picks up enough about the hobby to know what people want to read, and the people who actually write the articles know what they're talking about, it generally works.

| Does this reflect an increase in "professionalism," or a decrease in | the level of passion about our hobby on the part of these magazines?

If it's really a change (I've only been in the hobby for a relatively short period compared to many) then it's probably more a desire to treat the magazine more as a business. I'm not sure it's an increase in professionalism, but instead more of a desire to make a profit.

People with the proper skills to make good editors AND who are active in hobby are probably rare, and it's probably more efficient to find somebody who's a good editor and teach them about the hobby rather than the other way around.

RCM used to be run by Dick Kidd and Jim Pearson, who were both modelers. I don't know who's in charge now, or whether they have any hands-on knowledge of models.

When I used to read RCM, when they had interesting articles about actually building an airplane rather than articles about new products, I couldn't help but notice that the editing was rather poor. The grammar and general writing skill was not the best. But these guys had something to say about airplanes, so it was OK.

| When I used to read RCM, when they had interesting articles about | actually building an airplane rather than articles about new | products,

That's just the way the hobby has gone. Fewer and fewer people build all the time.

About the only thing that has worked on counteracting that trend is how foam is becoming more and more popular to make planes out of -- with electrics it can become incredibly easy to make a nice flying airplane out of foam.

(And I'm guessing that many of the serious builders look down their nose at people who make planes out of foam, especially if it's not even covered with something like Ultracote.)

RCM might have been able to make a niche for itself by sticking to their roots and catering to the builder, but maybe the niche isn't even big enough.

| I couldn't help but notice that the editing was rather poor. The | grammar and general writing skill was not the best. But these guys | had something to say about airplanes, so it was OK.

I've noticed that in several hobbies -- as things get started, magazines (often little more than pamphlets) are created with very poor editing but great content. As things mature, the editing improves greatly, it turns into a full fledged magazine with advertising, etc. ... and the quality of articles often (but not always) declines.

I don't think this is the case. Check the bill of materials for many big name plans and/or and kit suppliers and you'll find lots of foam, fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc. Modelers DO embrace evolving technologies. Sure, there are "purists" who still build with a bundle of sticks, silkspan, Ambroid, and nitrate dope, but these materials don't lend themselves to heavier r/c planes. With the advent of low-vibration electric power, however, this "old-fashioned" construction style is having a bit of a rennaisance. Nevertheless, I think that most of us who scratch or kit build use use a mix of traditional and modern materials and techniques.

RCM has had some kind of deal with the British Traplet publishing company for some time. Maybe the "big changes" someone mentioned in the thread about RCM has to do with their combining forces. In this world of mergers and internationalism, that might be the way they have to go, and, since the British still have a strong penchant for sticking al the "fiddly bits" together, there's still a good market for traditional model aircraft magazines in Britian.

Perhaps this explains the success of R/C Report. They have no idea what an apostrophe is for, but there's a lot of good content, and it's a lot of fun to read what kind of trouble Gordon Banks has gotten himself into month ofter month! However, those who subscribe to RCR will note that they've had some trouble keeping good people, both in the front outhous- er, office, and in their list of contributing editors.

I think women find their way into editing because, let's face it, they have superior verbal skills than us guys, and running a magazine IS a business. Also, only a handful of women get into this hobby. Finally, the nature of our hobby has changed. Although building from plans is enjoyable from some, few in our instant-gratification-centered society are going to spend weeks or months building. The mags have to follow the whims of the modeling public, so construction articles fall by the wayside to the kit reviews.

Morris

I think most new R/C modelers haven't built a model, either. Even Model Aviation is going over to the product review and "how to build an arf" side (and they have a male editor who builds lots -- so where does _that_ put your thesis?).

Flying Models still has at least one buildup per issue, usually two and often three. They still cover R/C, C/L, freeflight, glider, powered, electric, small, large, etc., etc. Quiet Flyer magazine is my second favorite; they average two buildups for every three magazines -- but I only subscribe to Flying Models.

I don't know, but whenever I hear talk like this, I think back to the book publishing business of a few years ago. "Nobody reads books, especially kids. With television, computers, and video games, there's no time any more for people to read -- especially kids." Then, pow, along comes Harry Potter and not only are kids reading, but they're reading *thick* books and they're standing in lines for hours to buy them. Maybe we need to get J. K. Rowling interested in scratch building R/C.

PRose

We'll have to focus on what we mean by "modeler." To me those folks are just fliers, not modelers.

I also subscribe to FM, and like it! By "Quiet Flyer," do you mean the British mag? As I said earlier, it seems the Brits haven't given up on balsa butchering quite as much as we have in the USA. Now I wonder how much the magazines drive the ARF market, and how much the ARF market drives the content of the magazines. Tell somebody that building is hard for a long enough time and he'll start to believe it!

snip

No, it's out of Washington State. It's all electrics and sailplanes -- usually their construction articles are huge scale sailplanes, but they have aircraft for mortal flying fields as well. They also often run articles on converting gassies to electric.

I think it's driven by the culture of buying stuff, and the fact that you can buy an ARF for less than a kit, because the ARF is made by someone in Malaysia for $1 a day.

Then, pow, along comes Harry

Not just kids. My wife dreamed she found a "room of requirement" in our house, and someone left the ceiling fan on! mk

LOL

I think I might be the only person in the world who hasn't read any of the Harry Potter books.... I'm just amazed and delighted by the phenomena.

PRose

The same is happening to amateur radio and its various publications. Radio is just plain no big deal in a technical sense. It is taken for granted. The folks that do get new licenses have a different vision of radio than I had when I started. I can call anyone I want in the contiguous US these days without incurring a horrendous phone bill. Years ago, it seemed like cheating to talk via radio. Now, it is no big thing at all.

Flying has lost much of its romantic aspect. It just isn't the head scratcher that it was many years ago. Remember the old WWI & II dogfight movies that we watched as kids? That had a lot to do with the popularity of model aviation. Anyone remember "Fowler Patrol"? I think that was its name. The star had an inexhaustible supply of machine gun equipped Curtis P-40 Warhawks. Good thing, since he used to crash one in every episode.

Ed Cregger

"Nemo" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@enews4.newsguy.com:

True. I know what you mean by ham radio, I was interested in it in high school, even had ARRL plans for a 2 tube (valve) transmitter and 3 tube (valve) receiver. I built a Graymark shortwave radio with plug-in coils I hand wound, then a 5 tube superhetrodyne receiver with shortwave band.

I think ham interest has shifted to the internet and computer hardware hacking.

Before there used to be novice class, technician, amateur and amateur extra. Now they have dropped the novice class and it starts off with technician instead.

Now that I look at the WWII movies, the planes seem so ancient. It is hard to believe that one would carpet bomb an entire city block to take out one or a series of buildings. Back then it was called high altitude precision bombing. In the Pacific, I watched one documentary. Several squadrons would fly out, a handful would return. Loss of life was high. Smart munitions were comic book stuff.

Hehe, fortunately for my generation, there was "Bah Bah Black Sheep" and "Midway." I still remember movies and T.V. shows from almost 30 years gone by. I have no doubt that F4U Corsair and P-40 Tiger Shark warbirds lie in my R/C flying future.

We can only hope that somebody can produce a modern movie better than "Pearl Harbor" sometime soon. I'd hate to spend my silver years at the flying field watching kids learning to fly nothing better than their Top Gun F-15 and Star Wars X-Wing ARFs!

"Ed Paasch" wrote in news:PSAIe.1954$Xj2.1465@okepread02:

I still remember the TV series, Sky King, about a twin engine plane.

Which one? The Bamboo Bomber (Cessna Bobcat) or the 310?