I’m not a fan of the multirotors and, like many here, have primarily been concerned that a few idiots might spend several hundred dollars on something they can’t control, then go out and create havoc - the end result being that we are all severely limited in our ability to fly.
But, time for confession: I had the same concerns when weight restrictions began allowing models weighing more than about a ton. When 1/3 scale J-3 Cubs were routinely flown by (sometimes unreliable) radio control. When models powered by actual jet engines started showing up at RC fields.
And here we are, knock on wood. The years have passed; models have gotten bigger, heavier, faster, and we can still enjoy our own brand of flying.
The current definition of model airplane at Wikipedia reads:
“A model aircraft is a small sized unmanned aircraft or, in the case of a scale model, a replica of an existing or imaginary aircraft. Model aircraft are divided into two basic groups: flying and non-flying. Non-flying models are also termed static, display, or shelf models.”
With all due respect, I read that definition to include multirotors. Not that I’m overly “protective” of that particular species, but I do think sometimes we get a bit too … um, er, ah … rigidly conventional?
Just sayin’ …
Dennis
PS: With all the concern about ARFs, new modelers not learning skills, yada yada, I have yet in all my years on the forums to see anyone complaining about the 10-year-old kid who buys a Guillow's glider at the corner drug store and flies it at the local park or school. Are we to condemn that too?!?
“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” - Charles Darwin
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." - John F. Kennedy