The Haught Corner
Technical Difficulties:
The March issue contains a letter from Hal deBolt ("Now You're Talking," p. 41) in which he responds to those who have been critical of his aerodynamics articles.
I felt it was important to give Hal a chance to respond to his critics. His place in modeling history justified his "day in court."
A number of those critical of deBolt have suggested peer review of technical articles. That's fair enough, but it's amazing how many of the critics have volunteered themselves as the "source of knowledge." Hmm... I can see now: "Well, you had peer review of XYZ article, but you used the wrong person to analyze it!"
In discussing the tech-article situation with a number of folks within and without AMA, the constant seems to be that any technical presentation is a no-win situation. I understand that previous editors have fared no better than I with these articles.
Several people seem to think they have "the straight word," that they are the only ones to possess said knowledge, and that everyone else must be wrong, regardless of qualifications.
For example, Bob Meuser is a highly respected modeling author. He has written for and edited the National Free Flight Society's Symposium reports (which can be quite technical in nature), wrote a column for this magazine for many years, edited the NFFS Digest, and on and on.
Yet even Bob has his detractors; witness his ongoing battle with reader John Vesper in "Letters to the Editor" about physics. So who's right and who's wrong? And does it all matter, anyway?
Well, of course it matters, but I was criticized for wanting to present divergent authors' opinions. "There is no room for divergence when it is not right," wrote one reader.
I still maintain that whether or not a technical piece is useful depends on the reader's needs. I also believe there is a lot of scientific theory that is treated as fact, and that these are often confused, with a good deal of self-righteous harumphing by those blessed with "the straight word."
A final thought on the deBolt issue: one advantage deBolt has that many of the "techies" cannot match is that he can make model airplanes fly. You may not agree with all of his reasoning, but the man can get it done on the flightline. There are many who can cite chapter and verse on aerodynamic theory who would be utterly lost with a hand-launched glider in their hand, to say nothing of a CL handle or radio transmitter.
Technical articles are of no use to the average reader unless they can be applied in practical, everyday modeling situations. Many more modelers are results-oriented than are willing to get knee-deep in theory to try to get 1% more efficiency from their Super Floozit Mk III #24. And, by the way, that 1% increase is only good at sea level, under ideal conditions.
We're faced with a different set of circumstances with an author like George Myers ("RC Flying Today"). Some of George's remarks in this month's column could be rather incendiary, to say the least.
We showed an unedited version of George's column to several AMA officers for review and comment. He "tees off" on several topics not directly related to modeling, and I didn't want the officers to be surprised by Myers' text.
(Yes, the officers do have a say in the magazine's content—not from point of origin, as has been claimed, but from an official AMA perspective. I consider this to be much like the old "best interest of baseball" clause used by that sport's commissioners.)
It's Bob Underwood's position that the nature of George's column is more philosophical than most others, and that allows him to expound on topics normally outside his column's focus. Therefore, the column will essentially run as written.
I'd like to remind our readers that the opinions expressed in the columns are those of the columnists, and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of AMA or the AMA staff. Please don't write and tell me that I am running something like the Myers column; I try to be an editor more than a censor. The part about me being an idiot is common knowledge, anyway.
Not My Type:
Several readers have written to ask why the type in "AMA News" is smaller than that used in the rest of the magazine. "Hard to read," they say. Well...
The smaller type size (8-point type, as opposed to 9-point for the bulk of the text) allows more copy to fit on a page. Since the VP columns are limited to one page in length (by Council mandate), this allows more information to flow to the readers. It also lends a certain fairness to district coverage, since each district is allotted the same magazine space.
Even with the small type size, we have VPs whose columns regularly run long and must be edited. We'd have an even bigger space problem if we used larger type; better to have too much information rather than struggle to fill the page.
The type style is Times, which is one of the most readable typefaces around and one that is widely used in publishing for that very reason.
Suggestion: If you still have difficulty reading the officers' columns, you might invest in a full-page magnifier to ease the eye strain a bit.
That same magnifier might also come in handy to study plans as they appear in the magazine—another area where we've come in for some heat. "Can't read the notes on the plans!" is the comment.
It's my view that the reader shouldn't necessarily be able to read plan notes. This is not an attempt at deception, or a desire to sell more plans, but a practical reality: the more room a plan takes up in a layout, the less space there is for photos and text. We've even had readers complain that the size of our plan reproductions in the magazine makes it difficult for them to be photocopied to full size! Hey guys, just buy 'em! It's not as if I'm money-grubbing here, because believe me, we don't make money on plans; but if you're interested in a new design, order the plans for reference and future study. This used to be a common practice. How many modelers out there have a file cabinet full of plans to models they may never have built?
Continuation foul:
Still other readers want to know why articles jump (are continued to the back of the magazine) rather than finishing "flat" (all together).
Sometimes the length of a given piece makes it almost impossible to run in continuous fashion. Ads and text are mixed at other times so the reader will see a particular ad while reading a given article. This gets into things like target marketing, ad dollar values, and, not least, good old dollars and cents. It's naive to think that money is not a factor, even with a nonprofit organization such as the AMA.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
