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