as I look at what I have in front of me, almost everything I plan to do in the next year or two is civil, and would definately "go" in a civil aviation forum.

Now even so, I dont really care if there is a new subforum - I almost never look at the subforums, except to pick an appropriate ghetto to park a new thread. My bookmark to this site goes to LATEST POSTS. If I want to find something specific I use the search. but that's just how I use forums.

setting that aside for now, I wasnt going to comment on this at all, but -


worth what? effort to create? would take 10 seconds, click click click done. cost to create/maintain? none. risk to readership or other downside?
I can't think of any. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

My father is a member, and has put his voice on this discussion. Mom is a member as well. Now I am here, waiting for the campaigns I joined to start.
Till then, I think I'll start on one of dad's airliner models.

I will participate in civilian forum, because the planes are colorful, historical, and really look cool.

Welcome!
Mcleod

Sorry to be coming so late to this discussion. I have for quite a while been thinking on how best to categorize and compartmentalize our various categories and forums on AeroScale. In the forum we have the era/type divisions (early, ww2, cold war, modern) but now other classifications are coming in (civil, helos, etc.) that don't fit into the era scheme.

And in the features/reviews area we have the type division (props, jets, helos, pilots/crew, ground equip).

If we add Civil Aviation to these schemes it will be easy, but potentially confusing to both areas.

So the questions would be:

1. Perhaps we need a new system or way of dividing up these areas.

2. Perhaps adding the term "Military" to some of the existing names would solve the issue.

3. Add 'Military' and 'Civil' as Groups (sub-forums) in Forums (except WW2 forum). Add Civil Airliners to features/reviews.

Some ideas but obviously not all potential solutions.

Cheers,
Jim

Option 3 seems to me to be the simplest from the users' perspective, but I don't know what sort of setup work needs to happen behind the scenes for that to happen.

Hi Jim

I'd go got Option 3 as well - but add Civil to WW2 too, so there's a category for civil aircraft in every era.

All the best

Rowan

Hi
I like #3
Just a few thoughts:-

Forum:- Civil

Civil:-Early - 1939
1940 - present

Just an opinion.
Perhaps one could leave the 'Era' type layout as it is. Instead, place sub-catagories such as 'RotaryCraft' and 'Civil Aviation' sub-forums under the 'General Aviation' main forum.

Hi there

That undoubtedly makes sense within the era-based structure of the Aeroscale forum as a whole, but the Helo builders campaigned long and hard for their genre to be recognised with a section of its own within the forum, so I think they'd be a bit miffed to go back to being in sub-categories.

In designing the forum along simply era lines, it was perhaps short-sighted of me to assume that topics such as Civil and Rotary would sit happily within the rather arbitrary divisions. But the problem was, however we did it, expanding what was simply a small "Aircraft" category of the original Armorama (with every genre muddled together) into a full website of its own was bound to please some folks and disappoint others...

For instance, I never envisaged a continuing need for "Pre-Flight Checks" to continue (it's a hangover of the old Armorama equivalent), because all builds would logically go into each era and be commented upon, but it's still a thriving section - and, to misquote the old adage, proof that no plan survives first contact with the users.

All the best

Rowan