Letters To The Editor
All letters will be carefully considered; those of general interest will be used. Send to Model Aviation, 1810 Samuel Morse Dr., Reston, VA 22090.
Flying Field Source
I think I may have found at least one possible answer to some R/C clubs' quest for flying field land. It's called the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
Being born and raised in the farming industry, I am constantly exposed to information concerning government programs aimed at cutting overproduction. Basically, CRP offers farmers government payments to idle land; farmers are only required to control weed populations.
This could be a real windfall for model clubs if approached the right way. Locating farms that have signed up for CRP should start at the nearest Soil Conservation Service office (listed in the phone book). I have enclosed a copy of a CRP article appearing in a farm magazine that suggests possible uses for idled land. (Editor: most of the suggestions pertained to enhancements for wildlife.) I am sure the article writer never thought of our favorite recreational activity—model flying.
To clubs that may take up my suggestion, a little advice on how to approach farmers: forget what you've seen on TV. We are nothing like Hee Haw or Green Acres. Farmers are generally well educated; some modern farmers even own computers. Talk to a farmer with respect, and he will have no reason to resent your request.
Alvin E. Johnson Oxford, PA
---
Whirlaway Comments
I much enjoyed Dick Miner's Whirlaway article in the April 1988 issue. I do think, however, that a few corrections may be helpful:
- Two to three years prior to 1944, "tether" flying was generally considered one-line flying, such as that done by the Stanzel boys with their beautiful Shark. Jim Walker's system of two lines was known as Control Line flying because you could control flight (the patented name was U-Control). It could also be considered properly as "remote control" because controlling from a 60-ft. distance is certainly remote. Gas-powered race cars were considered to be "tethered cars," i.e., having but one guiding line. The Whirlaway, although perhaps called a tether model at the time, was incorrectly labeled. Other authors then referred to such models as Control Line flying.
- "In 1944 . . . the still to come Stunt ships were only on the drawing board." Sorry, but two to three years prior to 1944 the Walker legions were doing inside loops, climbs, outside loops, dives, Immelmann turns, inverted flight, and figure eights.
These feats of derring-do were accomplished with the Walker Fireball, of course. By 1944 it had been on the market in one form or another for four years. It is true that more advanced Stunters were yet to come, but nevertheless the basic, workable Stunter was laid down by Jim Walker and flying some years before 1944. As a sidebar, the original Fireball plans are available from A-J Aircraft, Box 68132, Portland, OR 97268. Indeed, there are rumors of a 50th Anniversary Fireball rumbling from the A-J factory.
Doug Dahlke Oshkosh, WI
---
Danger in Frequency Change?
There may be a new headache in our R/C life: the "converted" old transmitter. Here is our experience.
We opted to have a solid 72.240 MHz set converted to Channel 50 by a national service center. The set was returned and tried out, and it seemed to work fine. We took the transmitter to one of those free AMA spectrum analyzer checks—where the box flunked the test. "Don't use," they said; bad sidebands. Sure enough, on our bench the converted Channel 50 transmitter was easily able to affect a Channel 52 receiver!
A radio expert friend explained it this way: the old 72.40 MHz frequency, now right in the middle of the new narrow-band Channels 12 to 34, gets changed to one of the high-band Channels 38 to 56 where wider-band transmitters may still be usable. But on those frequencies the set's built-in filtering and trapping may not adequately confine the bandwidth of the frequency to which it was changed. He said that while the transmitter can be made safe, the labor and parts cost may approach that of a new, complete economy radio system.
The realization hit us like a ton of bricks: flying next to a converted set like ours could be very hazardous. Surely ours is not an isolated case. The comments of someone with experience would be helpful in this situation. Is conversion generally unwise?
Fred Berman McKeesport, PA
AMA Frequency Committee Response
AMA Technical Director Bob Underwood provides liaison with the AMA Frequency Committee. In consultation with various members of the committee about Fred's query, Bob provides the following information:
Significant numbers of transmitters on the so-called "old" frequencies have been converted to Channels 38–56 with no problem as far as the sidebands are concerned. The cost generally is in the $30.00 range for both the transmitter and receiver. In a number of cases it is possible to also "narrowband" the transmitter for about $20.00, thereby enhancing the transmitter's performance.
We can only guess at why a newly converted radio might reveal bad sidebands. Many things could contribute. In a case where frequency conversion doesn't also produce clean sidebands, the conversion agency should be asked what can be done. Note: crystal changing alone may be inadequate—returning the unit to the service agency may be necessary.
As far as the bench test mentioned, it is not revealed whether the Channel 52 transmitter was turned on. If it was not, then servo chatter could easily be caused by the Channel 50 operation nearby.
In any case, service stations doing a frequency conversion typically check the sidebands as part of the process. They then are able to determine whether a transmitter fits within the FCC specifications.
---
Pima Identification
As I was looking through my latest MA (June 1988), I noticed the article on the Pima Air Museum on page 77. Anything on this museum is of personal interest to me because I lived in Tucson for 12 years, and I helped restore one of the museum planes—the F-86H.
Imagine my surprise when I saw the picture of the plane (F-86H) and it was labeled as an FJ-4B Fury. How do I know this? First, anyone familiar with the Sabre family of aircraft should notice right off that this plane sits level with respect to the ground instead of being lowered in the rear end. Second, it doesn't have the hump on its back between the canopy and vertical stab. Third, the gun locations are different. Last, but not least, the tail number is 51255.
This plane was initially restored in the late '70s by a 390 SMW Titan II missile crew, crew S-213: Capt. Bruce Beakley, T/Lt. Hal Jordan, MSgt. Bill Johnson, and TSgt. John Clement. We put in many long and hard hours to get this plane ready for display, not to mention many hours and personal expense involved in finding new or missing items.
As I remember, each plane in the museum has a person and unique background. This Sabre was merely a parts plane; much of the electronics and the panel were in place or were put back during restoration. The only major engine part missing was the adapter section between the engine and tail pipe in the afterburner section. Of course, the cannons were taken out prior to the initial storage. We found a log that indicated the plane last flew in 1969 with the New Jersey Guard.
At the same time a group of scouts restored the F-86D, which you have labeled as an F-86L. Many D's were converted to Ls, but I don't think the museum's version was converted. At least it was always referred to as a D model, and the publication Aircraft of the Pima Air Museum (page 73) shows it as a D model. Our plane, the H model, is pictured on page 74 as it looked when we first got it cleaned up. The Fury is shown on page 78.
You can see from your photos that the other Sabre looks more polished. The reason is that the group doing the other plane had about 12 to 15 people working on it, so they took some ideas from the group that did the RB-57D (page 66). Our fearless leader was going to do this, too, until we convinced him that we didn't have the manpower or time. Besides, if North American had wanted it polished, they would have done that in the beginning. The coating was for corrosion protection; the plane would look better with less maintenance later, and we could get more important things accomplished.
I realize you have space limitations, but a shot of the 390 BW's B-17 would have been great. The 390 BW and the 390 SMW have been a big part of the museum. I remember the day that bird arrived at Davis-Monthan, crated by a beautiful F-51. I also remember back in the late '60s when the planes were displayed along Golf Links Road at the north end of the base. It's too bad that some of those old planes didn't make it to the museum.
It was a nice article. I know that little errors can creep in with "Murphy's help." As you said in the last paragraphs, it is a great place to visit, easy to get to—and bring a lot of film. Keep going with your great magazine! I like to see the complete range of coverage that you have. I fly mostly sport and Scale R/C, but I still like all types for a change of pace just to keep my hand in it. After all, the name of the game is to have fun!
Bill Johnson, CMSgt. USAF (Ret.) Jacksonville, AR
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
