Letters to the Editor
Mufflers? They're OK but!
I usually read the magazine cover to cover, even though my interest is in CL Precision Aerobatics. I feel a compelling need to make a rebuttal to Fred Berman's (October '91) statement on mufflers. I agree that we need to adequately muffle our engines. Fred says that "There are good aftermarket mufflers available." I agree! They are good. Good and heavy; good and big; good and ugly; some are good, big, ugly, and heavy. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Larry Barickman Orlando, Florida
The following letter was taken from Issue 114 of The Shakey Thumb, newsletter of the Statesville, North Carolina Model Flyers Radio Control Club.
AMA on our side.
Chatting with Howard (AMA District 4 VP Howard Crispin, ed.), we get some insight into the activities of AMA that we don't see in the normal course of events. A problem arose for a club near Asheville when a new homeowner moved in some distance from their flying site. It mattered little to this guy that the club had been there for several years. It mattered less that when he attempted to videotape their flights from his place to support a claim of their disturbing noise, the camera didn't pick up the model's sound over that of a nearby street and the usual ambient neighborhood sound. After threats fell on deaf ears, he sought an injunction to prohibit use of the flying site.
The club contacted AMA. Our legal people examined the situation; they next prepared a brief in response and instructed Howard in the matters of their presentation and alternative action to pursue. Howard hand-carried the paperwork and verbal instructions to the club, providing them with a course of defensive action. This involved a round trip of about 800 miles. We pray the club will find success in preserving the flying site. At the same time, we learn there is more to AMA than an insurance policy and a magazine.
John Franke
I would also like to write about Ray Hall and the Model Airplane Club. (Not reprinted here, ed.) Hopefully, your organization can award commemorative pins and patches to Ray Hall, Bill Lyons, Dick Rake, Ken Shioji, and Emzie Ward. There are not enough words of praise for these gentlemen; in today's society, who gives of themselves like these men? VERY FEW.
Patricia Woodhouse At-Risk Coordinator Terrace Hills Middle School El Paso, Texas
The "Junior Problem:" Is this the right approach or not!
There is an unusual club at Terrace Hills Middle School in El Paso, Texas, called the Model Airplane Club. What's so unusual about the club is that its sponsor is a retired grandfather of one of our students. Ray Hall, grandfather of Jennifer Hall, wished to introduce students to his love of building and flying model airplanes.
Ray and I met and set guidelines in early October of 1991 for the initiation of the club, which would meet every afternoon from 3:35–4:45 in a science room. The club would, hopefully, become an incentive to do well in school.
After hearing interesting announcements about joining a new, fun club, the students responded with over 40 attending. Thereafter, students came, stayed, or left, until, finally, we had a great group of 13 who became the nucleus of the club.
Ray worked with Carlos Priemer of Hal's Hobby Shop, and I wrote letters to Jack Albrecht of Airtronics, Inc., expressing thanks for a four-channel Vanguard FM with Buddy Box Trainer System, and to Mrs. Betty Fox for her generous donation of a No. 24096 Fox .40 RC STD.
Ray and his students worked diligently, until he had to undergo cancer surgery at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. Yet, the club continued through the efforts of fellow AMA members Bill Lyons, Dick Rake, Ken Shioji, and Emzie Ward, some of whom were retired; others worked as time allowed. The club continued meeting as scheduled: every day after school, Monday through Friday, from December until school was out in June. WHAT DEDICATION! WHAT LOVE! The men patiently supervise and instruct students in the art of building their model airplanes.
Ray Hall returned last week to his club of special students and found one completed plane, another almost finished, and three other planes progressing rapidly. The highlighting event will be in May when all planes are complete; the students will eagerly fly the planes from ground control.
Enclosed are several published articles.
Commentary: "No Substitute for Cubes:"
I enjoyed B. H. Towers' article "No Substitute for Cubes" in the January issue of MA. Mr. Towers compared several planes on the basis of HP per mph, at each plane's respective top speed. That comparison would only be valid if all the planes had their power requirement measured at the same speed. He quite correctly pointed out that power required increases as the cube of speed for a given aircraft. So, a more meaningful measure of efficiency would be to compare the planes by calculating the cube of speed divided by horsepower. We can simplify it a little more by factoring out the least efficient plane's value, giving us a relative efficiency index (REI):
- Columns: Plane — Vmax (mph) — HP — V^3/HP — REI
- Piper Cub — 65 — 90 — 11,215 — 1.0
- Mustang — 450 — 3,000 — 30,375 — 2.7
- GeeBee R — 253 — 800 — 20,242 — 1.8
- Buster — 166 — 85 — 53,815 — 4.8
- Goodyear — 240 — 135 — 102,400 — 9.1
- Pushycat — 244 — 135 — 107,606 — 9.6
- Formula V — 170 — 65 — 75,585 — 6.7
The comment "one sixteenth the power ... of the GeeBee Model R" indicated 50 HP, but going back to the August issue the Pushycat is implied to have 135 HP at a racing rpm, so I used that value. With 50 HP the REI is calculated to be an unbelievable 25.9!
So, the Goodyear racers and the Pushycat come out as the kings of efficiency, over 400% "cleaner" than the Formula Vees. If we factored out aircraft size, we'd get down to a number very closely related to the coefficient of drag, and I'm sure the mighty Mustang would look a lot more competitive, since it has easily three times the frontal area of the tiny Goodyear racers.
Thanks for the interesting and thought-provoking article. Keep up the good work!
Jim Casey Knoxville, Tennessee
Sports hazard liability: food for thought
On my way to work last week I heard a story on the radio about a recent court decision made by a justice in the State of New York. The case involved a lawsuit filed by a motorist against a golfer whose golf ball had hit her windshield and caused an accident in which the motorist sustained neck and back injuries.
The justice ruled against the motorist, saying that "bad shots" are an inherent risk in the sport of golf and that the golfer cannot be held liable for accidents or injuries incurred as a result of his golfing skills.
How can the precedent set by this case be applied to our sport of model aviation?
Crashes and other accidents are an inherent risk of our sport, just as bad shots are an inherent risk in the game of golf. Both crashes and bad shots are caused by lack of skill, unfavorable winds, or (to a lesser degree) equipment failures.
Continuing the analogy, the potential for injury is just as present in the game of golf. When a golf ball comes down, it is traveling very close to the same speed at which it left the surface of the club, possibly faster for a downhill drive or slower for an uphill drive. A golf ball cannot be heard by a possible victim; whereas, a model aircraft can be heard (even gliders make an audible rushing sound).
I would really like to see something done to reduce the incredible number of lawsuits in our country, and model aviation would be a great place to start.
Rich Lockyer Brea, California
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
