Limited scope of this fine hobby here on HIP

[Konrad]

...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 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,

[Konrad]

Loved the look from Stewart towards the end of that clip. OK, anything that flys is not a toy.

[ilgk48]

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    ).

Helped by Google Translate.

[Konrad]

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.

[ilgk48]

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.

Excuse me: the question about squaring the round holes is for me?

[Konrad]

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.

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).

[Jmk89]

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. 

[Konrad]

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).

...
From my perspective they are all miniature aircraft and take a certain common perspective.

All the best,

Konrad

[Lastwoodsman]

There is always the option of starting your own website.

[pb_guy]

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.

[Lastwoodsman]

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.       

Where have you been?  George wants more build threads,  just like all of us ...

Lastwoodsman
Richard

[Konrad]

There 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.

[Lastwoodsman]

     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

[Konrad]

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.
...
    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.