Letters to the Editor
All letters will be carefully considered; those of general interest will be used. Send to Model Aviation, 815 15th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.
Equal Opportunity for Beginners
The loss of our indoor flying site, a school gym, has made some changes in the 4-H Aerospace Program here in Ozaukee County. We will be moving outdoors and will have to use different models and flying procedures. Since there is very little information on developing a junior program—which is what the 4-H amounts to—I turned to the "Junior Flight" pages of Model Aviation.
Going through the 14 issues of "Junior Flight" raises a number of questions: Who reads "Junior Flight"? How many juniors get Model Aviation or have access to it? With a few exceptions, of how much value were the articles, plans, and contest news to the typical junior?
What is a typical junior modeler?
After working with the 4-H Aerospace Program for 2½ years and having two summer school sessions of aeromodeling, it seems that the typical junior is somewhere between nine and 13 years old and has little or no experience with model airplanes. If there is previous experience it is with models such as North Pacific products, rockets, and maybe even a plastic control-line model. For most, though, this is their first encounter with models. The kid has no equipment, not much money, and few chances to get to a hobby shop other than a discount store. He has very little idea of his manual ability and only a vague idea of what modeling is about. Many have never seen a model airplane in the sense adult modelers consider models. Most cannot spell aerodynamics and couldn't care less. From what they have heard they believe that the ultimate in modeling is to have a "remote control" plane. Hardly any know the many types of airplane models that can eventually be theirs to explore.
With this type of junior, where do you begin? A primary tenet of teaching is to begin where the student is and then progress from the elemental to the complex in a natural, logical sequence. "Junior Flight" does not do this. It assumes that the junior has the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in contests. Undoubtedly some juniors are ready for competition, but I believe this to be a very small percentage. Is a contest the place for a junior to begin? Is this what the AMA wants? With the exception of the Delta Dart, what has the AMA really done to start at the beginning and develop a program for juniors?
What has the hobby industry done for kids? RC is out for most juniors because of cost. Control-line has fared fairly well because of the ready-to-fly plastic models, .049 engines that really work, and kits that can be built and flown with a fair degree of success. Free flight has little going for it. Most free flight kits are scale models and, with a few exceptions, most of these should be labeled "For builders with previous experience" and "Will not fly if built with the materials and plans furnished in this kit." There are some excellent models for juniors but try to find them on the hobby shop shelves. The kid with a couple of bucks in his hand comes into the hobby shop and takes his pick from what is available. If he has success with his model his chances of going on are much greater than if he meets with failure. It happens all too often that the first venture into this hobby is also the last. Both Comet and Midwest made a series of models for beginners but try to find them in a hobby shop.
What is the point of all this? Here are a few ideas:
- What is generally called a "junior" problem may really be a "senior" problem. I don't think the average kid under 14 is really capable of building and flying anything except the most elementary models. Some, of course, are and they should be encouraged. The average kid should have available to him plans and models that meet his needs—models that will let him gain success in building and flying. At this point contests should be between the modeler and his model, not between modelers. Trying to meet specific tasks seems much more realistic at this point than trying to better someone's time. That can come later.
- A logical sequence of learning, building, and flying should be determined and then made easily available to juniors and those who work with juniors. The Delta Dart is available, or can be, but what happens after you've built a Delta Dart? It would seem that a hand-launched glider such as the Lunchbox would be a good second model. Then a simple rubber model complete with full-size plans and the other materials needed to complete the model and make it fly. At some point the entire range of model airplane types should be made known. For many, "remote control" may not be the ultimate type.
- If there really is a junior problem and the AMA and the many modelers that say they want to do something about it then they should do something. There is certainly enough talent available, but how many modelers are willing to give a couple of hours for 12 or 15 nights a year? Try and find one. I do not want to put Ed Whitten or what he is doing with "Junior Flight" down. He is doing something. I feel that more can be done. I'm sure that you understand what I am talking about because of your efforts in this direction while editor of Junior American Modeler. Much of what I use in my programs comes from the pages of that magazine and I was extremely sorry to see it become Sport Modeler and be dropped completely. Maybe with a little push from where you are now something can get started.
Ken Simpson
Ken Simpson's comments are right on. One can infer from them, quite correctly, that—if after so many decades of this activity the answers to the beginner question remain as foggy—the beginner problem must be a monumental one. Because suitable comment in this space is not possible, and because the question is so important, a commentary will be found in this month's For Openers.
Virtue Is Its Own Reward
It would be a very poor workman who could not acknowledge the work of others, and examining the current crop of illustration (MA September 1978) I felt it necessary to praise the work of Hank Clark. I have been entertained by his superb cutaways ever since you started to present them, but his style was familiar to me before then. I always wondered who he was until recently I picked up a magazine of the '40s (I think it was Air Trails) and saw pictures of him with the Cub. The same issue of MA also carried some excellent construction illustrations with the "Mentor" by Van Hattum. Every picture is worth a thousand words, 'tis said—in the case of a novice such illustrations are worth perhaps 2,000. Judging by the initial 'H' the drawings also appear to be the work of Mr. Hattum. It is nice to know that J.V.H. is still active. The fin style has been his trademark as long as I can recall. In fact, if my memory serves me right I remember seeing Van Hattum representing Holland at the Old Eaton Bray Modeldrome in England during the late '40s/early '50s. I own up to being influenced by his glider fuselage design for several years. The simple yet aesthetically pleasing angular lines were also his signature. Keep up the excellent artwork—nice!
Jim Newman Midwest Products Co. Hobart, IN
Build 'em Light
We just received the September MA and enjoyed it thoroughly. We were rather startled to see Harry Robinson's drawing of the Seversky, as that is the subject of our next plastic display model kit.
We also greatly enjoyed your "For Openers," for several reasons. First, your description of the scale model flying by the gang at the Maryland site was a joy. You certainly captured the "spirit" of the models and their flyers.
Second, your comments regarding the fine performances of Royall Moore's Gee Bees and other supposedly "unflyable" subjects were most astute. We think you are 100% on the beam regarding the difficulties encountered by RC modelers who build brick-weight, over-powered reproductions.
Since I am not involved in RC, my views are strictly those of an interested outside observer. The Morgan Hill "Golden Age" contest conducted the weekend before last provided a beautiful opportunity to study the differences in approach, because lightweight "regular" size models, heavyweights and "mammoths" were all flown. Conclusion: The big jobs appear so realistic in the air, not just because of their impressive size, but because of their moderate speed. Some of the average-size models compared quite favorably because they, too, featured light wing loadings and moderate power. By contrast, some of the small jobs were roaring around the course at what looked like Mach 2 speeds. Even the non-enthusiasts in the crowd clearly perceived the difference in realism.
Granger Williams took a first in class at Morgan Hill with his RC Gee Bee "Z." He has an R-1 about 70% completed and we all look forward eagerly to seeing it in action. It will be as accurate as available reference material will permit, with no "cheating" devices or modifications to proportions.
Bill Hannan San Marcos, CA
Touchy Subject
I refer you to the first two paragraphs of the "For Openers" column, page five, August 1978. There is one of the best descriptions of the present state of Pattern yet written. The question is, "Why doesn't the writer wish to take issue with Pattern the way it is?"
Let the masters and experts be elite with only the well-heeled able to go from tournament to tournament. But let them and their tuned pipe, retracts, Webra-, OPS-, Rossi-powered specialized airplanes stay out of Novice pattern! Presently that class is a farce.
Pattern is going to end up about as popular as Dooling-powered race cars. You cannot allow the so-called state-of-the-art with its excessive price tag to drive the masses away. It is likened to wheat and sugar that are refined to the point of being valueless as a useful food.
Somewhere along the line, someone forgot that RC planes still must be considered expendable items. When the cost does not allow such, the majority look elsewhere for recreation. And those that would like to enter the hobby simply stop before they start.
Everyone seems to agree that new faces have to appear if an event is to grow or even stay constant. When a contest for Pattern garners 90 contestants in 1974 and presently is hard pressed to get 30, it would seem that the handwriting is on the wall.
I love pattern flying and the really fine people involved with that facet of radio control models. It is because of that love that I want Pattern to not only continue, but grow. Manufacturers as well as individuals alike will have to work together to find a way to put the "Novice" back in novice pattern.
Bill Northrop suggests a valid alternative. Give bonus points for engines of .40 cu. in. or less; Clark Y airfoil; no pipe; no retracts; shoulder or high wing design; less than four channels.
Again, I refer you to the column mentioned in the opening paragraph. You have stated clearly the problem. Now to find an answer.
Ben J. Garrett Brownwood, TX
The reason why we did not wish to take issue with Pattern is simple: the thought never occurred to us. It seems to us that the Novice, Expert, and Master classes were set up to compensate for variations in piloting expertise—so that people could enjoy competition with the airplane as it existed. Which also means with the airplane as it evolves. Perhaps we really need the equivalent for Pattern of the Quickie 500 in Pylon, or a "Slow" Pattern just as we have CL Slow Combat and Racing—but not yet another official event.
Those Winglets!
Dave Jones's AR-25 (August 1978 Model Aviation) might well be a leg up on other models in its class, and to be sure, it is a snazzy-looking machine. But those things out on the wingtips are not winglets; they're plain old, downhome, tip plates.
For tip plates to be elevated to the status of winglets requires that they have a high L/D airfoil section and a proper toe-out angle. Just making the profile shape about like the NASA winglets doesn't hack it; in fact the shape is probably the least important aspect of the design.
I wonder if the statement in one of the captions, stating that the "winglets" really improved the performance, is really justified. That would require extensive testing of the model both with and without winglets under identical conditions, and with careful measurements of their performance. Quite possibly that was done, but there is nothing in the article to indicate that it was.
Bob Meuser Oakland, CA
Jones on Winglets
I don't wish to get into a semantics battle with Bob. But he is taking a hard stand on weak ground. "-let" is defined as "a diminutive suffix attached to nouns"; therefore winglet is a small wing. I may then call any small wing a winglet if I choose.
NASA-designed winglets do not necessarily have to have "high L/D airfoil sections." Sections may vary from no camber to high camber along the span of the winglet. This, along with twist, is used to match the local flow along the span of the winglet. The winglet can only be optimized to one flight condition, a complicated task. The span of the winglet determines its effect on geometric aspect ratio. Shape has little effect, but area determines the fin/rudder size required to overcome the destabilizing influence.
Flight characteristics have such a pronounced change between winglet on and off that no measurements were required. However, with all this I do not advocate winglets when span can be increased.
The winglet shown on the plan is the second tried. The first, with more area and the same span, was close to uncontrollable. The second paragraph on page 28 of the August Model Aviation denotes other changes that may be tried.
The design parameters used by NASA for winglets are hardly appropriate for sailplane models, especially ones with these diminutive Reynolds numbers. Remember the winglet root chord is only 2-5/8 inches. In our model regime, the most important single item for increased performance is winglet span. The possible small improvements caused by proper camber, twist, and cant are only good at one flight point. These are very difficult to determine and I don't feel this is advantageous to the design.
Dave Jones Torrance, CA
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
