New Classification of Skill Levels...

Ain't that the truth...."but would you like Fries with that?"

I love to build from kits, but I'm ever so thankful for RTF parachutes! Back when I got started, you made 'chutes by tying a simple thumb knot near the end of a shroud line, curling it into an arc and sealing that down to the plastic canopy with a tape strip. Repeat 5X and you were done. What could be simpler? But then some genius decided to use reinforcement rings instead, forcing you to poke a hole in the canopy with a dangerously sharp object, prick your flesh, bleed on the canopy, clean that off, attempt to force the shroud line through the tiny hole, mutter under your breath when unsuccessful, and then when finally achieving success after the n to the 27th power try, to then attempt to tie a perfect miniature bowline knot with two hands that have been blessed with ten thumbs. Then repeat 5X? Oh, I think not! Go RTF!!

Some of the RTF / ARF / E2X kits are pretty slick looking too! I might just buy a Pro Series II Majestic kit just because it looks slick.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum

I noticed quite a bit of the "ARF" style mid-power rockets swing by inspection at the last Plaster Blaster. I don't have much issue with low power ARF, although there are reliability issues with the hotter Quest motors melting the cheap styrene plastic retainers.

I DO have issue with someone stepping up to the mid-power pad with a F or low-G motor and a flimsy ARF retainer.

"Did you use high temperature adhesive?" I would ask.

"Dunno. What's that?" they would invariably respond.

"Go over to the vendor over there, get some 15 minute epoxy, take this off and all the plastic model cement, reattach it properly, and come back." was my stock response.

"Awww man really?"

"Yes, it is my job to make certain no one gets hurt. You want to experiment, do it some other time."

This happened twice in one day. No lie. I still do not know what it actually says in these kits but it makes me nervous as hell.

When I started getting into RC I had my own homemade gliders with rudder-only radio gear.

My first 2 channel model was a Square Soar 72" span sailplane. All balsa, with built-up hollow rib and spar wing, covered with monokote. But I did not have a hi-start at the time so the flights were throwing off a tall hillside and gliding down for 20-30 seconds or so.

My first powered plane, a 2 channel Goldberg Ranger 42, with Cox .049 engine. ALL styrofoam ARF, the wing was one piece. The only "building" structurally, was to epoxy the horizontal stab on, and IIRC the rudder (and attach the landing gear). I had to hinge the rudder and elevator, and mount the engine and radio gear, servos and pushrods, which might have taken me a few days here and there but it could have all been done in a few hours on a Saturday. That plane is what I really learned to fly with.

Now I have ended up spending a lot of time building other R/C models. Including two "Gentle Lady" balsa sailplanes (I finally did get a hi-start), and my own mostly balsa electric sailplanes (with current electric motor and battery technology, far better than a hi-start in nearly all ways). Plus dozens of R/C Rocket Boosted Gliders, mostly using wood, and a few with foam cores. More recently I have learned how to lay up composite wings, using precision-cut foam cores, graphite spars, and various pieces of fiberglass cloth to do the layup with, requiring hours to go thru all the steps to prepare things to be ready for the layup. They are for contest R/C Rocket Gliders, so they need to turn out well, and be as light as practical to make. I would rather not be making them, but of the very few professionals who would do custom work like this, as light as needed, it would cost way too much.

But, ironically, most of my R/C electric sailplane flying the last 2 years has been a Radian electric sailplane. Ready-To-Fly, just add battery, program the transmitter, and go fly. I get plenty of fun out of flying that, even though I did not build it. Well, I have gotten in some experience with "rebuilding" Radians, but that is another story.

Rocket-wise, people in this hobby do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to build so much they may not even fly some models. Others just want to fly, with whatever they can.

I like to design, but do not like to build at all. If could press a button and the George-O-Matic 3000 would build it for me, that'd be just fine. So, to have a lot of the models I want to fly, I have to build them, they do not exist as RTF or "kits". And after I have built them, I appreciate the fact that I built them, and have pride about the result. But not during the process.

So, anyway, I understand why a lot of people just buy and fly. Rocket-wise, there is no buy-and-fly rocket that I can recall offhand that I have bought and flown (Might have flown the Estes flying Saucer. But usually I when I fly "saucers" I either fly my TRI-F-O, or my Centuri Flying Saucer I built in 1980). But for R/C, yeah, there's a lot of buy-and-fly models I'd like to have. Another one I have had fun with till Winter set in was a small RTF electric flying wing model. It does not glide worth a darn but I have fun flying it around.

While it does not matter what other people choose to do, build, or get RTF models, there is a long-term issue. If the places like Hobby Lobby and others only stock RTF models, then those will become more prolific to the point that the true "kit" models that require assembly will be produced in smaller number of choices. Heck, there are hobby shops you can go into these days and not be able to find any model airplane kits….. unless they are plastic models.

Think about this. About 1975-1976 or so, there was a hobby of using various electronic components to build your own home computer. Then the "RTC" (Ready To Compute) home computers came along, no need for soldering irons or programming, just plug it together and flip a switch. I wonder what the people in that build your own computer hobby were saying on the internets forums when that happened?

Oh….. never mind…

- George Gassaway

Our already terrible microwave society has gotten much worse. The world just moves so fast, the younger generations can't wait around for anything anymore.

But those of us who like to build CAN influence the younger generation if we want to. I thank my Dad and couple of my uncles for teaching me some basic skills at the right time in my young life. I like to build as much as the next guy but spending hours hunched over the workbench is a personal preference. It fills a need to create that isn't present to the same degree in everyone. Honestly, if the RTF and ARF models were available when I was a kid you know where my paper route money would have gone. The name of the game IS punching holes in the sky, after all.

georgegassaway said:

I like to design, but do not like to build at all. If could press a button and the George-O-Matic 3000 would build it for me, that'd be just fine.

Click to expand...

For model railroading, they have layout building and simulation software. Of course, rocketry is much smaller and our simulators are much more crude, but there's no reason I can see for an "armchair rocketeer" segment of the hobby not to develop.

JohnCoker said:

For model railroading, they have layout building and simulation software. Of course, rocketry is much smaller and our simulators are much more crude, but there's no reason I can see for an "armchair rocketeer" segment of the hobby not to develop.

Click to expand...

For armchair rocketeers, there is a better alternative to sims like Rocksim. Much easier to "build" the rockets from an assortment of parts, and more fun to fly than other sims.

Kerbal Space Program. KSP.

Not relevant to using it to find out how high a model rocket would go, but lots of fun. If a person wants to be an "armchair rocketeer" who only flies sims, and not fly anything real-world, then that's a better "world" to do that in.

Oh, yeah.... the rockets can go into orbit, and go to other moons and planets. Also can rendezvous and dock. One little bug is that while it incorporates drag, it does not for example reduce drag if you add nose cones. So some design approaches that work great in the game would not be so efficient real world.

Of course, the game has "stock" ships that come with it. So, it has "RTF" rockets. But most people only use those to help learn the basics, then start building their own. Sometimes really crazy stuff that goes "boom" in seconds.

- George Gassaway

I love KSP!! I even go into the configuration files and make the game harder !


Tales of deeds shouted out from thee pocket parrot iPhone on th' seas of rocketry forum!

KSP is great...significantly more accessible than Orbiter. Both programs are great for different reasons.

As far as the real world goes, George brought up a great example in computers. Ultimately, computers went from being a hobby that only a few people know about to something almost everyone has. At the same time, you'll note there is a lot of knowledge about computing devices that people didn't know about before. One only has to look at things like jail breaking, hacking, custom roms, Raspberry PI, open source, to realize that though most folks think of computing devices as the magic box, there is still a strong hobbyist presence out there.

Everyone is different as far as degree of building wanted or desired to enjoy the hobby...any line you draw between RTF and making your own paper out of wood pulp is arbitrary. I think there will always be room for the hobbyist/builder.

FC

Ah KSP... If it explodes, ADD MORE STRUTS! If it doesn't make orbit, ADD MORE BOOSTERS!

Personally I think building is more fun than actually flying (or shooting, driving, operating the layout, showing off models at a show...) in both rocketry and my other hobbies. Yeah it needs to fly, but creating something new that works is the fun part.

I know in rocketry I really enjoy the scale kits, and modifying existing kits with bigger motors, payload bays, zipperles construction... Stock building and ARF/RTF is just no fun. Its all about creativity for some of us.


screenshot17 by [email protected], on Flickr


screenshot36 by [email protected], on Flickr


screenshot85 by [email protected], on Flickr


screenshot115 by [email protected], on Flickr






screenshot225 by [email protected], on Flickr

My first rocket was very simple to assemble, with a plastic fin can. I loved it and got my parents to buy me more. This was mostly done through catalog and mail. The more challenging aspects of the hobby, I learned from magazines and tech reports. The point is that it was ME, not a well-stocked hobby shop, that was the difference in where I went with rocketry.

Just like all those darn kids out there: it's THEM, not the store that will be the determining factor. We here all know that rocketry is one of the coolest hobbies on the planet (and a little off it.) Sadly, there isn't that high a percentage of people who "catch on." Never has been. Good news for us is that it seems many of us these days are more active in pursuing educational rocketry and demos. And the availability of easy rockets is helpful in capturing new recruits from these efforts.

The other good news is that the internet is now a perfectly acceptable way of buying things, and there is a whole world of choice out there. Anyone interested can find more than they can handle with just a couple simple keystrokes in Google.

It would make life for us 4H leaders (and possibly other educational leaders as well as parents and youth alike) to determine which kits are more suitable for which various skill abilities and age levels if manufacturers could develop a universal skill level (SL) set. Many manufacturers do not even list an "appropriate" skill level/age level for their kits; I guess they just assume you'll know what is best for your own ability. From lower power to high power I believe there ought to be a standardized skill levels set for all manufacturers to follow -- I know, I can hear it -- more bureaucracy, but as a 27 year 4H leader, from beginner to advance skill levels, I know the frustration parents having in trying to select the right kit for their child's project unit they are involved with. And it is extremely frustrating to find an exciting kit from a company other than Estes or Quest (the ones that "usually" mark their kits with some sort of SL), but can't use it because there is no definitive documentation showing what "Skill Level" the kit is and what the "Recommended First Flight" motor is for that kit. (Even some Estes & Quest kits don't show that information anymore!) I have spoken with youth and their parents who wanted to learn about model rocketry and increase their building and technical skills but have found it difficult selecting the right kits to get started with (trying to base the kit on their current age and building skills). They usually end up purchasing the wrong kit, getting discouraged and frustrated, and ending up quitting the sport because they find it's beyond them when it's actually not. --youth rocketry leader

I hear ya... I work with the 4-H kids and have done judging and put on programs for the kids in rocketry at the county fair where my SIL is the 4-H extension agent. It CAN be daunting to figure out...

Thing is, getting all the manufacturers to agree to a "universal" skill level set would be about like herding cats... and the thing is, it's sorta like the old saying about how opinions are like butts-- everybody's got one! Getting everyone to "agree" on what skill level a kit is would be impossible.

If anything, the skill levels have gotten "watered down" over the years, because sales figures revealed that the higher the skill level, the generally poorer the sales figures were. SO, the tendency nowadays is to rank EVERYTHING rather lower in skill rating than it might actually be. On the other hand, when you DO get into the "upper levels" of the skill level debate, oftentimes most builders who frequent the forums complain that the kit was actually ranked higher than it should have been. While some of this is semantics (what an experienced builder considers a "level 4 or 5" build and what a newbie considers "excessively challenging" are usually two ENTIRELY different things!) it just muddies the waters further and makes it that much more difficult to really assess the difficulty of a particular kit... Then of course you get to argue over WHO actually determines what skill level a particular kit is, and whether *their* rankings are "in-line" with the majority of hobbyists, how their skill level assessments appear to newbies, etc. In short, you can't please everybody...

Now, MAYBE you could get agreement by a *majority* of kit makers on some specific guidelines that relate to how the kit is put together, the parts and materials it contains and the difficulties or challenges of working with certain materials or assembly methods, traits of the design that make it more difficult to assemble (like pods, off-center wings or strakes or intakes or other such detail parts, etc), level of complexity of the recommended finish/decals/etc., or whatever. Getting *everyone* to agree and be on the same page, I don't see that ever happening.

This is where an experienced rocketeer that can advise and make suggestions and point out the differences in kits so that the kids and parents can sort of make up their own minds is really helpful. It's also helpful to have some basic "rules" that define what can and cannot be entered into competition in 4-H fairs, etc... For instance, in Indiana (where my SIL's group is) E2X and RTF kits aren't allowed in competition... They have to be a "skill level 2" or above, IIRC. If confronted by a kid asking about a particular kit, it's good to have some experience with rocketry and kits and be able to assess the thing for yourself... Does it have balsa fins and/or balsa nosecone that requires finishing?? Does it require the fins be glued on by the modeler, hopefully straight and true (using good building techniques and developing skills), does it require painting and finishing or applying decals or stickers?? These IMHO are the basics required for a craftsmanship type competitive event. Pre-printed/pre-painted or pre-decorated tubes, plastic fin cans, RTF kits requiring little/no assembly, no gluing, no painting, etc. just shouldn't be allowed... for demonstrations or just "gaining a little experience" (introduction to flying) is one thing... but for competition amongst the kids, I don't see it. I really think a basic, understandable set of rules delineating what IS allowed and what is NOT is the simplest and most straightforward way forward... ie NO RTF, no pre-printed body tubes, NO plastic fin cans, etc. It doesn't have to be terribly complicated. IMHO if you have kids working with composite materials (fiberglass kits) then these are going to be pretty high skill level kits and not really a problem (other than kids needing to be taught the proper way to safely build with these materials, ie exposure to epoxy on bare skin, fiberglass sanding dust, volatile chemicals and fumes, etc.)

I always advised the kids that, as a judge, I preferred to see a relatively simpler kit (say a "three fins and a nosecone" (3FNC) type kit that was DONE VERY WELL with excellent craftsmanship over a more complex or "cool" kit done poorly... This was something of a change from the old judge they'd had for many years that seems to have judged the kits more for their "coolness factor" than for the skill of the builder. Since NONE of the kids were involved in the actual design of the kit, IMHO this was more about judging the kit picking skills of the kids and their level of "coolness" in what they picked than actually judging what the kids actually DID in regards to their workmanship, development of skills, etc. For instance, I'd give a kid a little more credit for building a kit with four balsa fins and balsa nosecone, which was all finished well, smooth, with no wood grain, over a kid building a "cool sci-fi kit" with all-plastic nosecone(s) and details parts... I had one kid turn in a kit with immaculately finished paint job and no wood grain showing anywhere, while another kid turned in a kit that was "cooler looking" but had a bad paint job with runs and the fins were all crooked and the pods on the ends of the fins were crooked, decals were creased and not straight, etc... so of course it scored lower despite being "more complex"... While one can give a kid some credit for picking something that they saw as "more challenging" (which probably means "more cool" actually), like say picking a complex sci-fi type kit to build instead of say a simpler looking 3FNC kit using much the same materials and methods, IMHO if the kid doesn't work hard or develop the skills to pull the build off with high quality, then they "over-reached" and would have done better with a somewhat simpler kit. It's not to discourage kids from doing complex kits, but rather to say to them "know what your skills are, and if you're gonna do it, do it right!". Most of this stuff comes from EXPERIENCE. IOW, a kid won't expand their skills or learn new techniques or perfect their methods unless they get PRACTICE, and the ONLY way to get practice is to build *more than one*! It was MORE DISCOURAGING to kids doing really good builds, very neat, fins all on straight, wood grain filled and sanded smooth, painting done beautifully, decals applied straight, etc. to be judged LOWER than kids who picked a neat-looking sci-fi type kit who put the fins and/or pods on crooked, didn't sand or smooth the fins or nosecone with ugly wood grain sticking out under a slobbery-looking paint job with runs and drips and poor coverage and with crooked and creased decals, simply because the kit design they chose to buy was a bit more "interesting" to the judge... IMHO it just reduced the competition to "who can pick the kind of rocket the judge likes best?" competition, with no skill or talent on the part of the builder hardly even coming into play... Some kids who'd operated under that mindset were in for something of a surprise when I judged simpler kits with immaculate finishes, fins on straight, everything well done MUCH higher than their "cool kits" with slobbery paint jobs, bad decal application, fins and pods crooked, etc... I went over the kits with the kids when I judged their record sheets and made gentle suggestions on areas where they could improve for next year... Then later I went into a lot more detailed investigation of the rockets, during the final judging to determine the actual final standings and who went on to state fair and stuff...

My recommendations are, go over the different materials and building techniques used with those materials, and then outline the differences in designs... then let them make their own decisions, but run them past a knowledgeable "coach" that can review the factors with them and help them make a good decision... encourage them to get different kits, even simple ones, made with different materials and from different manufacturers, and get a "feel" for working with them... different manufacturers commonly use different techniques and recommendations in their instructions, based on their own skill sets as modelers and hobbyists and things they've been exposed to over time, and what they've found works best for them. As the kids skills increase, they should be encouraged to know and understand how they can integrate their OWN skills and talents into the build, and come to understand where they can and cannot change the instructions recommendations to use their own preferred methods where possible and proper. Don't be afraid to experiment a little! The one thing I've learned above ALL on these forums is, there is more than one CORRECT way of doing most things!

Encourage the kids to do some RESEARCH online... yes, using the forums here and at Ye Olde Rocket Forum as well to gain knowledge and tap into an experience base of other users, and also the manufacturer's websites themselves... If in doubt about the 'skill level" of a particular kit or its suitability for a given kid and their existing skillset (or lack thereof!), don't be afraid to use the 'contact us" button and write an email to the vendor and ASK their opinion of a given kit and the skills needed and difficulties involved in building it.

I see far more kids pick "too complex" a kit and then get discouraged because it didn't turn out very well than I do of kids who picked "too simple" a kit and get bored with it... Simpler also usually means "cheaper" and so I ENCOURAGE the kids to build a simple kit first... if they built it and flew it and decide to do something "more challenging" for the competition, GO FOR IT! Just don't try to jump from say a "Big Bertha" as your first or second rocket to a "Saturn V" for your next build and expect it to turn out wonderfully... it's a journey and skills take time to develop... just as with anything else! Skills only develop with PRACTICE, and practice comes from DOING...

That's the best advice I can give you...

Best of luck! OL JR

model railroaders have been saying much the same about kits where, you open the 'kit' box and give it a shake until a finished product comes out. lets see I first ran across the term 'shake the box' back in the early '70s
Rex

Kirk G said:

So, I just came back from a walk through the local craft 2000 store... our version of Hobby Lobby, I suppose.
And on an end-cap facing AWAY from the register area (where one would half to go seek it out) is a four shelf display of Estes Rockets.
Most are boxes setting on shelves, but there are a few plastic or celophane packages hung on hooks. To one side is a shelf with "Boosters" and a multi-pack variety of motors...A8-3, B6-4, C6-4 and C8-4 or there abouts.

As I scan the various packages, I'm looking for skill level indication to narrow my search, and it hits me. I see NOTHING labeled Skill Level 1... NOTHING 2...only ARF, RTF and E2X... which I believe mean "Ready to Fly", "Almost Ready to Fly" and "Easy to Assemble". A few of the packages say "Completed".

Is this some sort of new packaging or NU-speak to communicate with the texting generation that they need do nothing to the rocket but launch it?
Where's the fun or craft in that?

I am seeing NOTHING on their shelf that indicates any sort of required skilll, modeling ability or wait time.:surprised:

This last weekend, I made a 45 minute drive to the next larger city in the other direction specifically to see what the Hobby Lobby had in stock, and I found EXACTLY TWO kits out of an entire wall display packed with kits on hangers, that were Level 2 assembly... a Neon Green XL kit and a Solar Explorer. ALL the rest were ARF, and E2X.

I'm beginning to think that's the future of this hobby...that the mass marketing for the masses is for "off the shelf, ready to fly" rockets...and that the expectation for anything that needs to be assembled...they are expecting and relying on older kit builders to shop over the internet...

Am I just behind the times, or has this marketing strategy already been discussed and documented here?

Click to expand...

It's not just you...

The prevalence of this sort of thing is EXACTLY why I don't hardly build Estes kits anymore... I bought a bunch at one of their sales last years, but more for "scratchbuilding" parts or for kitbashes than out of any desire to build the kinds of kits they're offering...

I've moved on to "builder's kits" like Dr. Zooch for PRECISELY this reason-- that they are actually BUILDER'S kits... not some RTF junk.

Not saying there's NO place for such stuff... clearly there is, to introduced kids and newbies to the hobby... but IMHO after the first 2-3 maybe 4 of these, it's honestly time to move on to something a bit more challenging. Yes, it DOES require a bit more work, but, isn't that the POINT??

Oh well, it is what it is. Estes is doing very well and serving that 'introductory niche' part of the market very well... IIRC I read somewhere that basically the higher the skill level, the lower the sales of a particular kit was. Part of that may be "intimidation" of the prospective purchaser (gee that kit is COOL, buy NO WAY can I build a skill level 4 or 5!" but I think it just as likely that the complexity and COST of higher skill-level kits (which they have to be, with more parts and more materials and stuff to make it a "complex kit") is probably a big part of the problem as well.

I think it's a case of "ya go where the money is" in business... Estes can make more money selling a thousand RTF "fly one and done" type kits/starter sets than they can selling a few dozen skill level five masterpieces... And, in all fairness, I think Estes IS trying to expand their role and offerings for the 'dedicated, experienced hobbyist' since the departure of their former leadership and being sold to Hobbico.

Anyway, it is what it is... you're not going to find MOST of the more "interesting" kit manufacturers in Hobby Lobby or even local brick-n-mortar hobby shops anymore. Rocketry isn't the LHS's "bread and butter", RC is. Most of the hobby shops I've seen have MAYBE part of one aisle dedicated to rocketry stuff, and then usually only the standard Estes fare, or perhaps some Quest or a smattering of Red River Rocketry or something like that thrown in for good measure, and then usually just the most BASIC of kits... most hobby shops I've seen don't even carry high end MPR or HPR stuff AT ALL...

For anything past the most basic "entry level" rocketry, you really don't have much choice but to go looking for "online vendors"...

Later and best of luck! OL JR

Cl(VII) said:

Casey launching his Estes Green Crayon for the first time (Photo by Gary Briggs, lifted with permission):
View attachment 160501
From back to front: me, Casey, and TRF's own "samb"

Click to expand...

Yep, that's what it's all about, right there!

Like Dr. Zooch's motto-- "If rocketry isn't fun, you're doing it wrong!"

Later! OL JR

Hobby shops just aren't for "us" anymore. and that's fine.

Those more into a hobby have plenty of resources.... and I think that going to the internet for the more advanced stuff makes it better. Smaller outfits have a better chance of surviving this environment.

Plus I work in the shipping industry....so.... It's good for me

DizWolf said:

Plus I work in the shipping industry....so.... It's good for me

Click to expand...

Then you might be able to tell me why my order that was suppose to be delivered on the 23rd still shows it's in transit and will be delivered on the 23rd.

DizWolf said:

Hobby shops just aren't for "us" anymore. and that's fine.

Those more into a hobby have plenty of resources.... and I think that going to the internet for the more advanced stuff makes it better. Smaller outfits have a better chance of surviving this environment.

Plus I work in the shipping industry....so.... It's good for me

Click to expand...

This is true... the LHS is really more about being able to "put your hands on stuff" and see/feel/look at it and judge it for yourself... this is usually pretty difficult to do via pics on a website alone...

Then there's something that someone else mentioned-- getting good, experienced help to make recommendations to steer you in the direction that is probably a better setup for you than you might choose on your own. Of course, the problem is, that unless you have a PARTICULARLY GOOD hobby shop with a friendly, well-rounded, and experienced staff, the help you get may range from a blank stare and a mumbled "I dunno-- this one maybe" to something ranging to good salesmanship but completely incorrect or inaccurate, on up to genuinely good advice. And of course, given the LHS prices, this "service" definitely comes with a cost, compared to most online sources available.

It's sorta like "Best Buy"... lots of toys, lots of "help", sometimes "too much", and the quality of that help varies GREATLY depending on who you talk to... BUT, you DO get to "put your hands on stuff" and play with a bit and see if it's what you REALLY want or like, which is nearly impossible to do on a website. BUT, honestly, I bet local hobby shops are suffering much the same fate as Best Buy-- It's fine to LOOK at stuff there and kind of come to a decision, but most folks choose to actually buy the thing online for a much better price!

Later! OL JR

And if all that isn't bad enough, take a peek at Barnes and Noble toy store. You used to be able to go in there and find an interesting book about astronomy, war and mayhem, fishing or something else. Now the quantity and quality of books have declined but boy have they started selling a crap ton of toys and fluff. Instant everything. Not a fan.

TopRamen said:

Careful. Last time I made comments on how I felt about these types of Rockets I got an Earfull about how "That's how to get new Folks interested in the Hobby" and such.

Click to expand...

You and me both, brother.

chadrog said:

I don't think it's as much instant gratification as it is short attention span. If you're looking for more advanced things, Hobbyshop 3000 isn't the place to look. I'd equate that to looking for a fuel injector at Walmart.

Click to expand...

That is essentially correct. People can debate the causes for decreased attention span and lack of impulse control. What they can't debate is that whatever the reason, it happens during early childhood development. You could make an argument that by offering quick results, like that offered by an RTF rocket, you are contributing to the problem. Waldorf schools have become very popular among the silicon valley folks because of the benefits of an early education that focuses on fine motor control and problem solving. Personally, I think Waldorf schools miss the mark a bit, but the spirit of their approach is consistent with findings in the cognitive sciences.

JohnCoker said:

I wonder if there's money to be made in (almost) ready to fly MPR or even HPR rockets. If the first step down this path is kits for level 3 certification, then RTF rockets for level 1 and 2 (including the motor) seems a natural next step.

Click to expand...

There is money to be made in crystal meth, too! I love your sense of humor.

shreadvector said:

E2X models are bought by people who would never have bought a kit or launched a model rocket. A small percentage of these tens of thousands of people who would never have built a kit or launched a model rocket will then look for more rockets, either more easy to execute models or something to build.

Click to expand...

While I agree you may see people at launches that you otherwise never would, I doubt there is a lot of sticking power in that notion. That's not to say that no longtime enthusiasts didn't get their start with an RTF, ARF, or E2X rocket.

samb said:

But those of us who like to build CAN influence the younger generation if we want to. I thank my Dad and couple of my uncles for teaching me some basic skills at the right time in my young life. I like to build as much as the next guy but spending hours hunched over the workbench is a personal preference. It fills a need to create that isn't present to the same degree in everyone. Honestly, if the RTF and ARF models were available when I was a kid you know where my paper route money would have gone. The name of the game IS punching holes in the sky, after all.

Click to expand...

I think this personal preference is related to attention span and impulse control.

Then on the other side, if you make things too complex from the get-go there will be no interest at all. There has to be a "just right" level to get people involved, then addicted...

dward said:

...


I think this personal preference is related to attention span and impulse control.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that "kid's these days" are that much worse than I was as a young whippersnapper. I agree that the concept and practice of discipline has changed, probably for the worse, both at home and at school. Showing somebody how to double glue a balsa fin is a small way I can fight the tide, whether it makes that person a lifelong builder is something else.

samb said:

I don't believe that "kid's these days" are that much worse than I was as a young whippersnapper. I agree that the concept and practice of discipline has changed, probably for the worse, both at home and at school. Showing somebody how to double glue a balsa fin is a small way I can fight the tide, whether it makes that person a lifelong builder is something else.

Click to expand...

Sure, the current generation seems to always view new generations as dumber--see the work of Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) whose work forms the basis of the movie Idiocracy. There is also the argument that technology contributes to a decrease in intelligence, attention span, and impulse control. As far back as Plato, the Phaedrus dialogues point out the ill effect of writing on memory. So it's nothing new. That said, there is scientific evidence that certain technologies, like iPads, in the hands of children have negative effects on intellectual development and that even in adults, computers and the internet decrease our working memory--effectively making us dumber. Hell, I feel dumber every time I visit facebook or watch a cat video on youtube. Fortunately, TRF provides some respite!

wfcook said:

Another problem is that most people don't know how to build anything. Kids don't learn to use tools any more. And the big box stores aren't exactly helping. I was in Home Depot yesterday in search of an Awl, and the gentleman working the tool crib had no idea what I was talking about.

Click to expand...

:eyepop:

I think everyone is caught up in the question: "Should there or should there not be E2X, RTF, and ARF kits." To me, that is not the question. Of course there should be, for the reasons others have specified. But here is my problem with the big stores stocking ONLY those kits.

Dad and kid (or Mom, whatever) walk into big hobby store, looking for something fun to try. See rockets. Looks easy. Buy a launch set. Go out to the state park and launch. Have fun. Do this a few times. Kid starts thinking this is boring. Rockets get lost, but who cares, 'cause no work went into them. Eventually they quit and move on to another hobby.

So, how do this parent and child discover that there is more to the hobby than that? Now, if the big hobby store had the easy rockets, and also the more difficult rockets, then parent and child see that there is a progression to the hobby. Next time they lose one, they say, "Let's try one of the more complicated ones." Now, instead of it being boring, it goes to the next level.

But if all they are selling are easy kits, how do the parents know? Hopefully they go to Estes.com and discover that there is more to it. But that's a shot in the dark.

dward said:

Sure, the current generation seems to always view new generations as dumber--see the work of Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) whose work forms the basis of the movie Idiocracy. There is also the argument that technology contributes to a decrease in intelligence, attention span, and impulse control. As far back as Plato, the Phaedrus dialogues point out the ill effect of writing on memory. So it's nothing new. That said, there is scientific evidence that certain technologies, like iPads, in the hands of children have negative effects on intellectual development and that even in adults, computers and the internet decrease our working memory--effectively making us dumber. Hell, I feel dumber every time I visit facebook or watch a cat video on youtube. Fortunately, TRF provides some respite!

Click to expand...

I recently read Howard Pyle's Robin Hood, written in the 19th century. The language is so difficult that I constantly had to look words up, and jot them down so that I wouldn't forget. Sentences like, "And Robin saith, Marry! Would that thou wot in which way yon Sheriff didst travail, that I might smite him upon the pate."

What blew my mind is that Pyle wrote this for EIGHTH GRADERS.