I'd like to ask that there be a reevaluation on the content allowed under RC. With the realities that open space is limited in most parts of the world, RC assist is a very viable option to keep the model within the boundaries of small fields. As I read the guidelines non-scale RC models such as a Sinbad, Comet Sparky, Comet Phantom Fury, Guillow's Javelin, etc. are not welcomed. Are you sure this it the intent you are after?
Most other RC Forum site are tied to commercial interests. One of the best features of the old HIP was that it was free of commercial interference. As such the truth about the short comings of products could be brought forward to help the membership of HIP get the most from their hobby dollars, free of commercial interference. If the new HIP is free of vendor influence, then there really are few RC Form sites that can claim to offer the openness (honesty) that was available from the original HIP. Please reconcider your position limiting exploring the very exciting area of aeromodeling, RC modeling. RC and electric flight are the future of this fine hobby we participate in. Please don't close this aspect of the modeling comunity to further discutions/advancement from the membership.
Hi Konrad, welcome.
I see some valid points in what you write.
"RC-assist vintage models" sounds logical to be included.
I would like some input from others on that.
Why limit to vintage?
Actually why place any limits under RC? Let the HIP membership (free of vendor manipulation) drive the direction.
There is a lot of skills and craftsmanship that can be shared when making the most of our time in the hobby, be it balsa or epoxy, RC or FF. Let's expand the skill base for all of us HIP menbers.
Hi Konrad and welcome.
You have some points, I will agree on that.
However and this is my personal point of view, HPA is rather focused in smaller themes, mainly FF, and opening the doors to the wider RC community would require alot of administration work and obviously a bigger platform, since the RC community is bigger.
This original HPA was the core of the FF community worldwide and since it shut down, we are all trying to revive it. It will take some time but I'm optimistic
Vintage RC assist is a good thought on similar lines to the small rc scale option but I don't think the site should widen to the wider rc world. There are numerous rc forums but as we have found with the demise of Hippocket there are no FF and small model forums at all. This is now it seems the only one
The balance of activity on "old" HPA was very firmly in favour of FF and although I can't be certain the only parishioner I can remember posting anything about RC models, excluding RC assist, was Konrad. So while I wouldn't say never to a dedicated RC section I can't see that there's a pressing need for it.
"Need", that's the key term.
Towards the end of HIP we only had 10 maybe 15 regular topic stater/posters. Yes, I was the main poster under RC. We still have the Guillow's board. And while it is hosted by a commercial interest it appears to be open to all to make your modeling experience even more enjoyable.
Prior to the big HIP crash there was some activity under RC Stick & Tissue. In the time frame from 2000 to 2015 this was a fast moving area of the RC hobby. I and about 10 others add a lot of content to that sub forum. After the reboot I've been posting in the RC forum mainly under RC-Gliders as this is as of today my main RC interest. The San Francisco bay area is one of the premier slope soaring sites in the world.
It is mentioned that there are ample forums for RC. I submit that there are few (none that I know of) that are free from vendor meddling. As a result you aren't likely to find topics discussed in such honesty covering the many short coming in the products we use.
Regardless of the topic, HIP has been a place where the product short comings can be openly discuses in painful detail. It is the ability to discuss the shortcoming of products and their solution that has been the key to what I see as value in HIP. It had been my hope that the membership will have learned from my experience. I know I have learned a lot from the membership, particularly what and where to acquire the materials I need. So no there isn't a place other than HIP to find the exquisite honest detailed advice we all need, be it RC or FF.
Please look at your bias against RC, and ask have my discussions of Gummy band to RC conversions and the promotion of RC glides adversely effected your enjoyment of HIP in the past? I'd like to see HIP maintain its all inclusive appeal to what we call model airplanes.
Hi Konrad,
there are many arguments for one or the other side. It will take too long to go through all of them.
I will try to be short.
Being inclusive is one thing. But there are limits.
RC... How much RC? do we include drones? (like you, I do not like them either). Foamy 3D schock flyers? Large 20+kg models? Turbine powered jets? Helicopters? How about space models?
This is not what the vast majority of members will like to see here. We know that from the past.
Before HPA there was SFA. there was no RC at all. And that was most attractive to many people.
I am not biased against RC. On the contrary, I must literally be the only person in the world who participates at international indoor free flight events, with an RC transmitter hanging from my neck. And I fly plenty of RC as well.
As Spiros correctly posted, this is too much for me or for what I hope this place to become.
Lastly, you mention vendors. Well, this is a vendor free place anyway and I plan it to remain like that. They will not be an influence.
Vendors are most welcome to post, when it comes to the core of the forum which might be 80% FF and 20% CL. To post about their related products.
But there is also a "limit" as to how much discussion we can have over vendors.
After all, this is mainly a builder's forum, just like its predecessors.
(BTW, please all excuse my occasional spelling errors. To fast or to lazy to go over and correct everything. I need auto correct... Be glad I am not posting in greek)
So, to sum it up because I have to go indoor flying soon,
Your idea for RC-assisted free flight is good and will be added.
The conversion of FF models or kits to RC is also welcome I believe it already falls under the Stick and Tissue RC. It could be a separate board, depending on the interest. Open to discussion.
Further RC classes will not be added, most probably.
George
I too agree, that the vendor should not be the topic or the threads in the RC sub-forum. I like that HIP allowed the short coming of products be discussed in detail without interference or concern for ad revenue. In my threads I made a concerted effort to show solutions to the issues we often dealt with in poorly designed and/or manufactured products. This is what I often think of as problem solving during the build. True, many of these issues never should have made it to us the consumer. But the world isn't perfect. Those that offer us high quality products should be rewarded. Those products that are found to be sub par should be brought to the memberships attention and avoided if possible. This isn't just for RC product but all our hobby products. If the vendor is to be the topic of discussion it should have it's (their) own sub forum.
I'm just curious why we see a detailed welcome in the CL forum. Yet, we (HIP) appears to be very restrictive in it's recognition of the RC side of the hobby. To my mind CL models are further removed from FF than RC models are from FF models. I also recall almost no threads posted under the CL forum in the last iteration of HIP.
As the RC forum is titled it is excludes many of the models I build & fly that are often built with the same Stick & Tissue type construction we find in many of the FF models we love. I for one love the FF structures we see that has cross pollinated to RC. I'm thinking of FAI F1B and F1C with their carbon taco shell LE, carbon ribs, mylar covered wings. We still see these modeler built model with the FAI F3L (F3-RES of old), and to some extent FAI F3J classes.
If you are wanting to limit this forum to FF then state that. But if rebuilding HIP from ashes focus on what made HIP what it was. HIP was a place to encorage all aspects of this fine hobby. Well, that was what I recall was the goal of the site and forum.
For now how about removing the word Scale from the RC sub-forum title.
P.S. I would be the last person to call anyone on their english spelling or grammar. This is a toy airplane site. Being an english major is not a prerequisite, well not to my mind!
April 19 2026
Re: Limited scope of this fine hobby here on HIP
I find this title totally inappropriate and misleading, and a literal contradiction, in and of itself.
I agree with everything that George, Spiros, Squirrelnet, and Lurker said, and I don't have to quote them.
Thank you George for keeping this site Free Flight, only. Please don't let any statistical outliers impose their personal preferences on the rest of us. There are plenty of rc related sites to use elsewhere out there, if that is one's preference ..... Maybe try rc goups ...
And by the way .... HPA is not "a toy airplane site" as you project.
You are taking way too much liberty with that rude and crass statement. Not needed. No offense, just an opinion from a Senior Member ...
Lastwoodsman
Richard
Quote from: Lastwoodsman...HPA is not "a toy airplane site" as you project.
I think you've misread Konrad's intent. I suspect that, like my use of the phrase that it's a tongue-in-cheek reference to the 1960s version of, "The Flight of the Phoenix"
If you've never seen it (which I can't believe is the case), this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rx8HKyI_I) is the relevant scene. :)
I can see all sides of this discussion and we all have to be mindful of the amount of work involved that George (and others) have put in to revive HPA. There is also the ongoning admin and moderation to consider never mind any IT /Server upgrades etc. I am extremely grateful to George for reviving HPA because there is nowhere else to get in depth information on all aspects of FF modelling, be it scale vintage or duration models. Also because there are many other RC orientated forums around, whether or not they carry adverts or are sponsored by commercial interests is a bit irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. I am predominantly an RC flyer but with a great interest in the FF indoor scale side of things . I am also a better organiser than scale modeller which is why I spent a decade plus on the BMFA Scale Tech committee and also ran the indoor FF and RC nationals for a number of years (with some help obviously). So I have to come down on the side of the dicussion that says keep HPA v3 for FF and CL and let RC interests find their info on other forums.
My special interest area is gliding, both GPS, scale slope soaring and aerotowing. In fact yesterday I spent the day GPS triangle flying which is probably the most tech involved niche of gliding and everyone was lamenting the passing of F3j as we flew back in the 80's and 90's with two men tows and home built models. Now its £2000+ airframes, electric launched and so much easier than having to be an athlete just to get your model in the air. Old age has caught us all up! But no way would I expect to have a section on HPA for that niche of RC modelling because the majority of followers here are FF orientated. Even though I did (and still do) find Konrad's dissertations on RC gliding stuff interesting and useful to me.
John M
Konrad's post was from the 28th of December, 2 days after "HPA the third" was launched, so rather early in the formating process.
After that time I can say that the direction of the forum is more or less well established.
Free flight and control line are the main focus (although CL remains rather low in activity, just like the previous HPA) and RC is there for specific types which might not even be considered RC by "normal" Rc flying people. The popular RC classes already have homes elsewhere and can very well stay there.
But free flight doesn't...
So, not really an issue, in my mind, I think the forum is moving in a good direction.
In terms of improvement, What I would really like to see is more build threads.
George
I agree completely.
I really need to say thank you George for all the work it takes to keep this site up and running.
What I really liked about the "old HIP" was its inclusiveness. I for one love the idea of cross pollination from various disciplines. I fail to see how excluding any segment of Aeromodeling promotes another segment even FF- Scale. I go through cycles, for a time I'm building FF, then I'm dabbling in 1/2 combat only to notice I'm racing F3F. But I know I use the skills from segment of the hobby to support the next.
The change in 2 man F3J just mirrored the realities that combining athleticism with fine motor dexterity (assuming builder of the model rule) just didn't work (low participation). Besides I would be at a gross disadvantage with my belly! Now I agree the FAI designation should have been changed when the real world forced changes from winches to the much more practical electric motor and prop. (Manpower was no substitute for a winch!)
Not sure what price point has to do with it. Just think of the countless hours it takes to make some of the exquisite scale models we see here. That is just another way to measure value. I'd be mortified to crash (even damage) some of the works of art we see here. Yet, I wouldn't blink an eye to replace my F3J or F3F ships other than the time to assemble and set them up.
I see the RC Park Flier, or RC Gym Fliers bring in the youth. When looking at the cost of FF, FF can't compete with the entry level RC. The days of a box of sticks and some harsh chemicals being the basis of this fine hobby are long gone. Just as the 2 man F3J soaring isn't practial in today's world. Times are a changing.
As to a "home" for FF and FF-scale it looks like RCGroups is far more active than what we see here.
https://www.rcgroups.com/aircraft-exotic-and-special-interest-358/
I agree I'd love to see more build threads or "How I did this, that and the other thing" posts regardless of what modeling discipline the idea came from.
This clique mind set is what I see as a major failing of this iteration of HIP. (Second to the lack of build threads, and that is on the membership!) I hope I'm wrong and that this site grows. Or that this site sees fit to expand its scope to be more inclusive to promote this fine but dying hobby. Particularly the building side, be it wood or modern composite plastic (high value RC).
Quote from: TheLurker on Apr 19, 2026, 07:36 PMQuote from: Lastwoodsman...HPA is not "a toy airplane site" as you project.
I think you've misread Konrad's intent. I suspect that, like my use of the phrase that it's a tongue-in-cheek reference to the 1960s version of, "The Flight of the Phoenix"
If you've never seen it (which I can't believe is the case), this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rx8HKyI_I) is the relevant scene. :)
That, and that the requlatory agencies classify RC aircraft as killer drones. Dispite our love of these flying machines that obey all laws of aerodynamics they are toys in the eyes of most,
Loved the look from Stewart towards the end of that clip. OK, anything that flys is not a toy.
I'll chime in with a personal observation.
In my mind, RC models are built to be piloted (I repeat, piloted) via Radio technology, while a FF model is unpiloted (let's leave aside the towing phase of a glider), but as FF says, it's free to roam, even to escape. Okay, I've stated the obvious, but with today's cramped spaces and the limitations imposed by aviation authorities, I'm glad I can keep my 1941 "Simplex" on a leash (see Aeromodeller June 1984: it's the first example I found) without the pretense of piloting it in an RC sense. In fact, if I were the model, I'd feel like an RD: Radio Disturbed, a constraint that's unbearable for me, a born FF :-).
If I'm not mistaken, the HPA spirit isn't RC modeling in the strict sense, but it's also not about leaving RC technology out the window. So, I find it completely justified to talk and discuss Radio-Assisted models.
Thanks for your attention.
PS.
Anyway, I'll never be able to build the Simplex mentioned above, much less install an RC system (oops! RD :D ).
Helped by Google Translate.
Ok, how do you square the round hole as it pertains to CL models?
From my perspective they are all miniature aircraft and take a certain common perspective.
Quote from: Konrad on Apr 20, 2026, 09:00 PMOk, how do you square the round hole as it pertains to CL models?
From my perspective they are all miniature aircraft and take a certain common perspective.
Excuse me: the question about squaring the round holes is for me?
Quote from: ilgk48 on Apr 20, 2026, 09:41 PMQuote from: Konrad on Apr 20, 2026, 09:00 PMOk, how do you square the round hole as it pertains to CL models?
From my perspective they are all miniature aircraft and take a certain common perspective.
Excuse me: the question about squaring the round holes is for me?
Or anyone that wants to explain why this site should cater only to FF. The original HIP was inclusive to all model aviators. I recall the website gave some space to RC. Also the plan site included RC plans. CL (what we old timers called Real Control)looks to be an area that the management wants to support.
I'm fine with the management wanting this to be whatever they wish. I just have some concerns about keeping the original name, (but not the original scope) looks a bit like a bait and switch tactic. From where I sit this is not the Phoenix of HIP rising from the ashes. (Not that there is anything wrong with that).
P.S.
"Original" as the scope of HIP at the end of 2025 circa Nov.
My Sparky thread is anything but RD. It is aimed to be a full blown 3ch RC old timers ( 2X vintage).
I haven't participated in this discussion until now because I haven't really known what the basis was for my feeling that there is something different about the main focus of HPA and other model airplane activities.
My inclination in all things is to favour inclusiveness over clannishness, so I don't automatically favour restricting the scope of our community. On the other hand, when I started model building and flying in the 1970s and developed an interest in quiet FF, other modellers regarded me as weird and out of touch because I didn't want to use noisy engines and RC equipment . At the time, I felt that I was being ostracised within my own hobby and it led me to becoming a 'lone wolf' modeller, probably to my detriment as a modeller and perhaps as a human.
Looking at the question now, I think that there are two characteristics of the members of HPA that I can discern that they share despite the different kinds of planes in which they are interested:
1. HPA members are model makers, they are not interested in buying RTF or ARTF models (except perhaps as bait to potential new modellers). Even if they build from a kit, they usually can't help trying to make the model better than just an assembly of the components supplied. They look for better ways of making their aeroplanes so they are better flyers, more authentic scale models or survive the flying experience better.
2. HPA members look to their own skills to make their models and then fly them - they do not buy in a significant proportion of the model and they don't hand over their model to someone else to fly it for them.
In a sense the hip pocket is involved twice - one doesn't try to buy his success and he finds a way to do something himself rather than sub-contracting it to someone else.
I think that if an aero modeller signs up to those concepts, the kind of plane or the control system used (if any) probably does not matter. whatever he or she makes and however he or she flies it, they are likely to be on a similar wavelength to the other HPA members.
It is probable that the majority of members will be interested in FF or CL for the simple reason that the lack of commercial alternatives means that they have to rely on their own skills, but an RC flyer who follows what I might call the " hip pocket approach" would be equally welcome here.
I am still not satisfied that I have quite expressed my concept with complete accuracy, but I think that you can see where I'm headed.
Well said!
That was what I was trying to say with a lot less words. Like you I too have problems coloring between the lines (building to plan or others expectations).
Quote from: Konrad on Apr 20, 2026, 09:00 PM...
From my perspective they are all miniature aircraft and take a certain common perspective.
All the best,
Konrad
There is always the option of starting your own website.
Sometimes, there may be something that doesn't quite fit in one of the existing categories. Perhaps there is a particular interesting model, or a subject that evokes interest. Or it might be a model that belongs to someone else. Or even a news article that has some impact on aviation history. Therefore, I suggest one additional category under GENERAL, perhaps called 'OTHER' or 'CAFE' (which was on the old S&T website) in which such things as C/L or R/C might appear along with anything else that doesn't quite fit anywhere else.
PB Guy Tue April 21 2026
Maybe that thinking would also apply, to their own, 'new rc website', where they can have one additional category under GENERAL, perhaps called 'OTHER' or 'CAFE' (which was on the old S&T website), in which such things as Rubber Power Freeflight, and Tow Line Glider, might also appear. :o ;D
Where have you been? George wants more build threads, just like all of us ...
Lastwoodsman
Richard
Quote from: Lastwoodsman on Apr 21, 2026, 04:52 PMThere is always the option of starting your own website.
Why not make this the best site possible? It has so much potential.
Like George said I made my original comment suggestion as he was setting up the forum. As it was clear to me that RC was deliberately left off the welcome wagon.
I'm happy to see that RC is given a minuscule bit of server space. I'll try my best to grow it despite the circular justification for this policy. That is that the few month this site has be up that the lack of interest from the membership, is justification for the omission (severe limitation) of this great area of the hobby.
I contend that the lack of interest in RC on this site is as a result of limitations placed on allowable RC subject matter.
It is clear to me, that some see clear reasoning for omitting the fine discipline of RC as somehow reflecting positively in allowing FF to flourish. Clearly, I don't see this relationship.
As many have said they practice many aspect of this fine hobby (Aeromodelling it is in the URL name). I'd like this site to reflect that as I think each discipline builds upon the other. I know from my experience this is the case.
I think we all need to respect what George says on his privately owned website. And it does not have to be exactly like the previous site that went down. I think there are legal framework precedents, enabling the owner(s) , of privately owned web sites, and actions that they can take, right Jeremy?? Please enlighten us.
Quote from Lurker
"The balance of activity on "old" HPA was very firmly in favor of FF and although I can't be certain the only parishioner I can remember posting anything about RC models, excluding RC assist, was Konrad. So while I wouldn't say never to a dedicated RC section I can't see that there's a pressing need for it."
Quotes from George
-------------------
"Hi Konrad,
there are many arguments for one or the other side. It will take too long to go through all of them.
I will try to be short.
Being inclusive is one thing. But there are limits.
RC... How much RC? do we include drones? (like you, I do not like them either). Foamy 3D shock flyers? Large 20+kg models? Turbine powered jets? Helicopters? How about space models?
This is not what the vast majority of members will like to see here. We know that from the past.
Before HPA there was SFA. there was no RC at all. And that was most attractive to many people.
I am not biased against RC. On the contrary, I must literally be the only person in the world who participates at international indoor free flight events, with an RC transmitter hanging from my neck. And I fly plenty of RC as well.
As Spiros correctly posted, this is too much for me or for what I hope this place to become.
Lastly, you mention vendors. Well, this is a vendor free place anyway and I plan it to remain like that. They will not be an influence.
Vendors are most welcome to post, when it comes to the core of the forum which might be 80% FF and 20% CL. To post about their related products.
But there is also a "limit" as to how much discussion we can have over vendors.
After all, this is mainly a builder's forum, just like its predecessors.
(BTW, please all excuse my occasional spelling errors. To fast or to lazy to go over and correct everything. I need auto correct... Be glad I am not posting in greek)
So, to sum it up because I have to go indoor flying soon,
Your idea for RC-assisted free flight is good and will be added.
The conversion of FF models or kits to RC is also welcome I believe it already falls under the Stick and Tissue RC. It could be a separate board, depending on the interest. Open to discussion.
Further RC classes will not be added, most probably.
George"
-------------------
"Konrad's post was from the 28th of December, 2 days after "HPA the third" was launched, so rather early in the formating process.
After that time I can say that the direction of the forum is more or less well established.
Free flight and control line are the main focus ( although CL remains rather low in activity, just like the previous HPA ) and RC is there for specific types which might not even be considered RC by "normal" Rc flying people. The popular RC classes already have homes elsewhere and can very well stay there.
But free flight doesn't...
So, not really an issue, in my mind, I think the forum is moving in a good direction.
In terms of improvement, What I would really like to see is more build threads.
George"
----------------
It all comes down to plus or minus three Sigma ...
Lastwoodsman
Richard
Quote from: Lastwoodsman on Apr 21, 2026, 07:32 PMI think we all need to respect what George says on his privately owned website. And it does not have to be exactly like the previous site that went down. I think there are legal framework precedents, enabling the owner(s) , of privately owned web sites, and actions that they can take, right Jeremy?? Please enlighten us.
...
It all comes down to plus or minus three Sigma ...
Lastwoodsman
Richard
Where have I or anybody else said that the final word was outside the purview of George. Why are you trying evoke legal precedents.
I'm just trying to have an all inclusive environment. I'm also trying to learn why anyone wouldn't want an inclusive environment.
I don't see any benefit to the exclusion of RC.
Heck, have you seen the fine RC build of George's boat? I'm so happy it doesn't have to bounce off the gym walls!
I see this exclusion or highly restrictive policy with regards to RC and a major minus.