The Haught Corner
We Have No Secrets
At least, I hope we don't. But some disturbing information has surfaced regarding an incident that took place at this year's Jets Over DeLand Fly-In.
Our Jets columnist, Del Ellis, showed a number of AMA employees a videotape (shot at DeLand) of a turbine model crash and resulting fire. This was not an insignificant incident — as any crash with a turbine would have to be regarded.
But word has reached us that there may have been a sort of "gentlemen's agreement" among reporters present not to mention this incident in the event reports submitted to the various magazines. Indeed, our own report, submitted by Wally Zober, contains no reference to the crash and fire.
At AMA we often hear claims that we are being "secretive" about some aspect of the operation. Phrases like "members' right to know" are sometimes invoked. (And for the record, the charges of secrecy are usually unfounded, in my experience.)
But I saw the tape, and I know what happened. I hope that an accurate accounting of the events surrounding the crash is forthcoming. Let's hope the protectionist attitude was simply the result of some misguided thinking by a few persons under stress. There certainly is nothing to be gained by acting as if this incident did not happen.
In any new field of endeavor, taking risks is part of the price to be paid for advancing the state of the art. Let's acknowledge that, report such incidents honestly, and learn as much from them as possible.
This is in no way an indictment of turbines; many people are putting forth a great deal of effort to make them an integral part of model airplane flying. All aspects of their construction and operation are being tested and studied, and I have no doubt that a sound working platform is being established.
But no one has all the answers yet, and as such, communication about all aspects of turbines' use and development can only help.
Two of our columnists raise interesting questions this month:
- Rick Allison — "RC Aerobatics"
- Bud Tenny — "Indoor"
Rick Allison — RC Aerobatics
Check out Rick Allison's "RC Aerobatics" column. There's an extensive discussion about the merits of those who build their own models, rather than purchasing turn-key aircraft or commissioning someone else to do most or all of the work.
I have long struggled with a way to express my feeling that competitors should build what they fly. I grew up with the Builder of the Model Rule, and I still feel that's the best way. Rick's column has focused these ideas and expounded on them in a way that I have not been able to accomplish:
"If we choose to gain time [by not building our own models], we also lose the experience of creation, the pride of workmanship, and the sense of accomplishment that used to be part of our hobby," Rick wrote. "The model no longer represents a personal investment of time, but merely money, which is not the same thing."
That's right. It isn't the same. Building is a commitment to ideas you have about what will make a really good model. And flying the model you've built — risking the time and effort you've put into it — is one of the richest, most rewarding, and most nerve-wracking parts of our hobby.
"If you haven't felt that knot in your stomach, and that little cold-sweat when it's time for the first flight, you're really missing something. It's what Jeff Troy rightly refers to as the Emotional Debt Factor.
When you fly a model you built yourself, there's a little bit of you — your personality — riding along with it. That link is almost tangible, and can make for a very intense feeling about the model.
Writing another check to replace what you've lost in a crash will never approach the feeling of sorrow when you trash a good model that you built from scratch. And likewise, the joy of watching your own creation fly successfully cannot be duplicated by looking at a MasterCard receipt."
Rick made another good point when he noted that many beginning Pattern fliers today can't build; they have never had to develop those skills as they progressed through a series of ARF (Almost Ready to Fly) models.
"It's a bit like the situation in football today, where almost no quarterbacks call their own plays. Even the Raiders, my team of many years, had to finally start calling the plays for their QBs. Had to?"
That's right. Like the flier who can't build, their QBs had been brought up in systems where they had never called their own plays. They simply couldn't do it. Are building skills going the way of the dinosaur — and the "real" quarterback?
It's interesting to note that we take occasional criticism for printing construction articles. "Guys don't build that stuff anymore," and "Why not more articles on ARFs instead?" are the type of comments we hear from time to time.
We may live in a "disposable" society, but if we allow pride of craftsmanship to become a thing of the past, this hobby will have lost a major portion of its rich heritage.
"Those who can't build will always be at the mercy of those who can," said Rick. "I certainly hope so!"
Bud Tenny — Indoor
Bud Tenny raises an interesting question in his "Indoor" column: If a record is broken more than once on the same day, should all flights that surpass the old record be processed as new records, or just the last (highest/fastest/longest) one?
I know there are some fliers out there whose flying is virtually centered around the chance to break records; indeed, that's what a Record Trials is for.
But suppose three good fliers beat a particular record at the same contest on the same day; is each entitled to say they held the record? Or is the "real" record held by whoever has it last?
There have been cases where a flier has beaten a record multiple times at a given event, then applied for records for each flight (or series) that broke the record. This kind of stuff can get to be a paperwork nightmare for Contest Directors and Competitions Department people.
Is it really worth much to say, "Gee, I held the Class XYZ record for 15 minutes," or "I set three records in one day (by stair-stepping an existing record)?" What's the point? And doesn't this kind of tinkering cheapen the value of records?
Jim Haught Managing Editor
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
