The Haught Corner
Newcomer Issue
The June 1996 MA will reprise our youth/beginner theme from January 1995. This time we will give extra emphasis to beginners of all ages. We have a number of good pieces in progress, including Project Three-Way, which features a trio of beginners' models for FF, CL, and RC—all using the same engine. We'll also have pieces on model finishing, a two-part article about Cox .049 engines, and the contributing editors will tailor columns toward the newcomers to our hobby. We received a good deal of positive reaction to our previous effort, and I hope we will expand on that success with the June issue.
Cover Story
Speaking of the June issue, a big advance thank-you to the Scott family of HobbyTown USA in Indianapolis. They graciously and enthusiastically allowed us to use their store for a potential cover shoot. Owners Bill and Annie Scott made us feel most welcome, taking their personal time to help us get the "look" we wanted. Their children (David and Lindsay) pitched in, too, and were quite patient with us as we discussed the care and feeding of newcomers.
Bill also gave a thorough hands-on explanation of what he recommends in radios and airplanes (a four-channel radio and a .40-size model) to those who stop by the store. There weren't many questions when he was finished!
It was really nice to see the type of family involvement at HobbyTown that once was commonplace, but seems to be much rarer these days. I'll be the first to admit that I mail-order more modeling supplies now than I did in the past, but a large part of that depended on the availability of good local sources for those items. For instance, the Scotts' store is some 45 miles from my home, and it's the nearest source for all but the most basic products.
There's nothing like being able to stop and pick up a few things on the way home from work, or on a lunch hour—and it takes the kind of commitment made by the Scotts to stick it out in a tough, competitive market to provide such a service. Good luck to all who make such an effort. Let's hope you will always have a place in our hobby.
There Is No "There"
We print a good bit of material about ways to get and keep flying sites. It almost seems inevitable now that if you're a club member long enough, you'll eventually have to search for a new field.
As such, I'm always surprised at the amount of opposition to the concept of regional flying sites. I like the idea that there could be good, permanent fields across the country, and I have no problem with part of my dues being allocated for that.
But I'm not sure how many people agree. It seems that each time it's proposed that AMA get involved with some aspect of a site (Visalia, work at Galeville, etc.), there are howls from those outside that site's "service area."
"Why should I give money to finance a site in another district? I'll never fly there!" It's become a really parochial thing, and I wonder why.
Isn't it worth driving some distance—especially for a regional or major event—to go to a field that you know will be in good shape?
And as often as people change jobs today, can anyone be certain that they'll "never fly there"? You might be living there next month! As precious as real estate has become, is there any real doubt that the idea of the "local" flying field is quickly becoming a thing of the past? Why not have a whole group of multipurpose regional sites?
I'm not advocating that AMA get heavily into the real estate business, but some sort of partnership arrangement could work. Why not sprinkle a dozen of these sites around the country, under the idea that they are for the common good?
Greens Fees
The same sort of attitude was presented when AMA began its policy of charging a daily fee for use of the National Flying Site—the equivalent of a greens fee in golf.
"That should be part of our dues—it should be free." But it costs money to have port-o-lets on the field at all times, and to keep up the grounds in such fashion that flying is a pleasurable, functional experience. Just keeping the grass cut is a Herculean task when we get a lot of rain.
Some of those who have griped the most about field-use fees have been among the quickest to utilize existing AMA support equipment. There's maintenance required for that, too—and the "customer" isn't charged for it.
And if we really took the parochial view, why should someone in Wyoming pay to have Muncie's grass cut? Why not have the people who use the field pay for at least part of its upkeep?
When I went to Lost Hills (CA) this past Labor Day for the US FF Champs, I had to join the Lost Hills Model Association to be able to fly on their field. The fee was modest ($10) but it went directly to keeping the field open and in flying shape. Should I have complained about paying the fee just to fly on the field for a few days? When the California fliers use the field all year, don't you think the $10 would get you access to a first-class facility? I do. I knew that my $10 would get me access to a first-class facility.
And in keeping with the "greens fees" idea, what did you pay the last time you went out on a bunch of green grass, just so you could whack a little ball with a stick, then chase it down so you could whack it again? I don't golf all that much—just a few rounds a year—but I'm sure real greens fees far exceed anything similar paid for the chance to fly model airplanes.
Maybe we're all a little bit spoiled. Most of us have been able to fly at no charge for so long that we're a bit offended at having a bit of a surcharge now. But this is the way of our world: many high schools have dropped sports, or retained only those that pay their own way; many youth activities have fairly substantial activity/entry fees; gyms and health clubs charge for racquetball or tennis court use. Can we really expect to be that much different?
And who will take care of us if we don't take care of ourselves?
Jim Haught Managing Editor
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
