Letters to the Editor
Send your letters to: Model Aviation, 5151 East Memorial Drive, Muncie, IN 47302
Flip Side
I have thought for some time that I should write and express my appreciation for your magazine, but you know how such gets put off. For my purposes, yours is the best because I participate in several facets of the hobby and find your general coverage to be well balanced.
My interests are in free flight, control line, and RC, and at any one time either can be in the lead. I plan to try my hand at RC Scale, and maybe some small-size racing. RC-assist Texaco also is on the list.
Things that I have little to no interest in are the larger (3/4-scale and above) planes, the ducted fan/jets, helicopters, electric power (except for free flight), and gliders. I have had some experience in flying full scale, and if I want to fly something expensive and large, with attendant logistical loads, then it will be something I am in. Electric does not appeal because it is expensive and, as such, is a low energy-density power source. The lack of noise is no turn-on.
My favorite articles are George Aldrich's column (he gives useful information that you can apply), plus some nostalgia pieces, the free-flight articles, and the Speed/Racing, Combat, and Stunt CL features. I like how-to-do-it articles on most anything, including radio mods and various other electric/electronic support items.
My favorite design articles are ones like the Chambermaid FAC Racer several years ago—a quality article in detail and accuracy, and the subject was an excellent flier—or simple roots-type free flights, or a good Scale RC that is not outsized. I also liked the .38 Special CL article you did recently, and some of your glider articles.
My least favorite items are those that give contest results and just talk about the various competition events. I like sport RC, but get tired of the near-same sport design articles.
The only column that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is Kopskis's Electric, because he seems to have to put down "wet" flying to promote electric. I have a little fear of those who are zealous in promoting how their aspect of the hobby is better than the others, because in this crazy day of making others do your way, their zeal might one day be directed to ban what I like.
I would like to see an engine column on a full-time basis, such as George Aldrich once had in MAN, or like the present one by David Gierke which includes flight performance. I have flown RC (your cash cow) since the mid-seventies with a large number of clubs, and over those years there is an increasing lack of engine-running skills in the new/incoming pilots.
Most engine-running problems stem from lack of engine-handling skills. Many of the experienced pilots do not know the why of engine handling, and turn off lots of the new entry-level pilots because their suggestions do not work. Also in all kinds of clubs, engine questions are the most prevalent. I do a newsletter for a CL club, and the most response I receive comes from engine articles.
Also I would like to see the Combat column on a regular basis.
I know these are personal preferences, and I list them as such, but felt I should give a mini-survey since I do like your product.
Hal Howard Dale City, Virginia
Long-EZ
I am forwarding pictures and this short letter to share my latest modeling effort with your AMA readers.
The model is a 1/4-scale Long-EZ. Plans used were blown up from 1/5-scale (St. Croix, Inc.). Construction materials are foam-core wing and fiberglass. Carbon fiber is used as spar material. It is powered by an ASP .91 Red Head with a 14 x 6 pusher prop. The nose gear is retractable. The aircraft weighs 13 pounds with a wingspan of 80 inches and an overall length of 50 inches. I am using a JR Max 6 radio for flight controls.
The model took eight months of part-time work to complete. I am presently flight-testing the Long-EZ and all is going well.
Eugene C. Eberle El Cajon, California
Letters
Too Many Jumps
(A "jump" is text that continues in a separate location from the main body of an article.)
I want to lodge a complaint with you. As the publisher of a newspaper, I cringe every time I read Model Aviation.
I have never seen a magazine with as many jumps as yours. It seems ludicrous to me that a story has to jump four times across 50 pages. You should find somebody who can dummy the magazine with your readers in mind, rather than what is easiest for you.
In the latest issue (February 1994) I read a story about a Colorado flying club that jumped at least four times. I also read the safety column, and it jumped at least four times, possibly more.
As a reader, I do not want to fool with these jumps. For one thing, I lose my place in the magazine and could miss something that you feel should be published.
The jumps seem especially ridiculous when you only put three or four paragraphs on a jump page.
As a service to your readers, whom you should be serving, reduce the number of jumps so that it is easier for us to read.
John A. Hruby Duncan, Oklahoma
Buttercup
I've been into RC for about 10 years. One of my favorite planes is my .020-powered Buttercup, designed by Fred Reese. I built it after it was featured in the June 1985 issue of Model Aviation.
This small plane always draws a crowd at the local field, and is surprisingly aerobatic. I always hand-launch the model, except during the winter, when clip-on skis make snow takeoffs possible.
After eight years, 250-plus flights, and a few repairs, my Buttercup still flies well but shows its age, so I decided to build a second Buttercup at 3/4 size. The result flies great using the newly reissued Cox Tee Dee .010!
Wingspan is just over 20 inches; total weight is seven ounces ready to fly. I left off the wheels from the original design, and use a 50 mA Ni-Cd, Futaba S-33 servos, and a four-channel micro receiver.
The first few flights were tricky until I realized that trimming out the plane was easier by hand-launching the model (with prop removed) over tall grass. I was very surprised at how well a plane this small can fly, even in a moderate wind. Actually, a light breeze makes hand-launching a little easier.
I'm having a lot of fun with this micro RC plane, and plan to build the Buttercup Twin next!
Glen Kuykendall Reston, Virginia
Helping Hands
Recently I wrote Jeff Troy (Contributing Editor, Radio Control Scale) requesting information on Docu-Search, Profile Publications #91. My request appeared in the February 1994 issue.
I have received a very heartwarming response from the membership. I can't remember ever getting such a response from any of the other hobbies I have been associated with over my 50-plus years. What a great group of helpful, concerned hobbyists.
Jim Dukes Medford, Oregon
P.S. I have not received anything from the AMA's Library. It's nice to be reminded occasionally of how helpful modelers are.
Editor’s note: Library services have been suspended indefinitely following the Muncie move, until such time as the Museum can reopen (the library will be in the Museum building) and everything can be properly organized.
Letters to the Editor
One Man's Trash...
I have been involved in RC flying for a few years. I joined the AMA to obtain the insurance coverage needed to fly at our local field.
Your magazine goes in the trash almost as soon as it is received. I have never read such a poorly organized and uninteresting publication. I suspect that you require all AMA members to receive the magazine because it could never be profitably sold on the newsstand.
Why is Model Aviation included with the Open membership fee of $42.00? If $10.00 of my membership dues are for the subscription, why not allow an option not to receive the magazine? This would reduce the cost of AMA membership and save a few trees.
Gary J. Honis Sugarloaf, Pennsylvania
...Another Man's Treasure
Thomas is my seven-year-old son. He saw your magazine at our auto mechanic's shop and asked if he could have it. Since then, he has poured over it several times. When he got his allowance this time, we had to sit right down and send for this patch.
I think we have a model enthusiast in our family!
Margret Edstrom Dallas, Texas
Editor’s note: It's great to hear about youngsters who are interested in our hobby. I sent Thomas a couple of back issues to fan the modeling flame a bit more.
Blakeslee Fan
Three emphatic, profound, and well-above-the-90 dB-level cheers for Sir Byron of Blakeslee.
While it's indeed great that Byron plans to continue his thoughtful and excellent contributions to the soaring community from time to time, I will miss the monthly Blakeslee wisdom rendered so well in the column.
Throughout his column years, "Double B" (or B to the Second Power, if you prefer) gave positive and unending support to the soaring community. He pushed for a strong National Soaring Society (the soaring community's SIG), supported the League of Silent Flight, endorsed a primer (the SM7) for F3B aspirants, pushed for acceptance of electric-powered sailplanes, and lent a Ross Perot–size ear to all comment. Passing the thermal-generating torch to Daryl Perkins—one of the country's top soaring pilots—assures the continuation of high-quality soaring information started by the late Don Pruss and maintained by the open mind of Mr. Blakeslee.
Thank you, Byron Blakeslee... hail fellow... well met.
David G. Manley Shawnee, Kansas
Whoa There!
Thank you for the subscription for your fine magazine. It's out on loan right now; I'll probably have to go fight to get it back, you know how modelers are—smile. Have a good New Year!
Gregory Smiljanich H68404A-21261 Mule Creek State Prison Ione, California
P.S. Now we have a couple of guys making ice-cream-stick airplanes and flying them on the prison yard; they also thank you!
Special Request
I am looking for a model, kit, or plans for a de Havilland Beaver. I saw a picture once of a plane built with a Unionville kit; however, I have been unable to locate this manufacturer. Do you know where I can reach this business? Also, do you know anyone else who has a plan or kit for the same plane? Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
James Frankenberg Lula, Georgia
Letters
Fox .35 Redux
I've never written a letter in response to any magazine article before in my 51 years, but after reading the new "Now You're Talking" (February issue) I just felt I had to respond, for whatever it is worth.
Although I thoroughly enjoyed the article and its comments on the venerable Fox .35 CL stunt engine, I must add a few comments of my own.
I possess six of these beauties—one a .29 from 1952, four .35s predating 1958, and one new .35 purchased in 1978. None of these engines have ever been torn down or had any other replacement parts other than needle valves, glow plugs, and prop washers and prop nuts. I doubt if any of these engines except the 1978 have less than 1,000 runs each on them, and I am thoroughly amazed at everyone's opinion of the "Fox burble" in maneuvers.
I run most of these engines in the outboard profile position nearly all the time, and I can only say that burble in maneuvers is only caused by one thing: improper needle-valve setting that is usually a couple of clicks too rich.
I believe that the main reason for this problem is break-in technique, or rather, lack of one that works properly. If I were to list all of the different engines that I have broken in through the last 42 years, that list would probably fill several pages of this magazine. Just let me state that too many people baby their Fox engines, and they never run to their potential. More than any other engine that I know of, Foxes need to be broken in hard and run fast—and I don't mean by using an undersized prop!
(Continued from page 56)
My break-in period usually consists of running 16 to 20 ounces of fuel prior to the first flight. Break-in runs should be done using the prop size you plan to utilize, and once your engine can run six minutes properly leaned out, you're ready to fly.
I prefer to make my first few flights on a "test bed" type model so that I know what to expect, and thus minimize any unexpected problems that you may encounter with a new model. I do hold back a bit on maneuvers on the first few flights, and add maneuvers gradually over the first ten flights using a 9 x 6 prop to let the engine spool up and to loosen up the motor for later use on a 10 x 6 prop. Since the piston throw is greater at the higher rpm when running on the 9 x 6 prop, you won't be hitting the limits of piston travel when you run the 10 x 6 prop.
The last "trick" is to run a few flights on fuel that is five to ten percent higher in nitro content than you plan to use in normal operations.
Come on, guys, unleash all those millions of pent-up Foxes and have more fun. Remember, engines don't burn—people do! Thanks for a great magazine, and thank you, Fox, for a great engine.
Al Smolko Greensboro, North Carolina
Real Customer Service—Two Examples
I began this process of buying, building, and crashing RC airplanes twenty-five years ago. I have built many different kits by different manufacturers during this time and have encountered some real nightmares in doing so.
During most of this time I lived in a very rural area, with the closest hobby shop 45 miles away. Needless to say, it was very inconvenient to obtain replacement items for those that had been left out of kits. I remember writing to many of these manufacturers for help—the process proved to be, in most cases, a complete waste of time.
Recently I had an experience with one of these companies that was so pleasant I feel compelled to write my first letter to a publication in hopes you will share this with your readers.
Over the years I have built and flown many planes from Carl Goldberg Models. I have always found these to be fine kits: very complete, well-designed for ease of building, and always extremely fine flying capabilities.
For the first time since building my first Goldberg kit 25 years ago as my first built-up plane, I recently purchased a kit from them that had a missing part. My new Goldberg Sukhoi SU-26MX kit was missing a few pieces (four 12 x 3 x 3/8 balsa blocks). I found this not to be a concern, as I had plenty of this in my scrap box.
I continued to build my Sukhoi in anticipation of what a great flying plane this was going to be, and with all the excitement one feels when you know you have your hands on a project with this much potential, the missing balsa parts were long since forgotten.
When I had the plane 95% complete and ready to finish, the nose wheel strut location pieces were missing. These were small but very necessary pieces. I wrote Goldberg requesting the missing pieces. In the past I've had to wait weeks or months for such items, but this time I was pleasantly surprised. They shipped the parts immediately and at no charge.
The parts arrived in three days and were exactly what was needed. Enclosed was also a stamped envelope for returning the incorrectly stamped sheet. After I returned the wrong sheet they refunded my postage. I was very impressed with this prompt and courteous service and felt it worthy of mention.
I was very shocked to receive a phone call from my local hobby shop manager, who told me that he had something for me from Goldberg. This company had, in fact, taken all the trouble to track these kits that had gone out with missing parts and to send these parts out to the modelers that had purchased these kits.
After all the bad experiences over the years (including a current one building another model for a friend), I can't tell you what a pleasant experience this was—to know that a company had realized a problem, admitted to their mistake, and had gone to such great lengths to correct it.
This should be noted by everyone in the business—most of all, the kit-buying public. The postage alone cost Goldberg $7.00 to mail out these parts, not to mention the expense of tracking the shorted kits.
We pay premium prices for these kits today, and we should get what we pay for. I sincerely appreciate that Goldberg has displayed this example of responsibility to us as modelers who buy products, and I hope that this act sends a loud message to the other manufacturers in the industry.
This has given me even greater respect for the fine line of products Goldberg has supplied over the years, and I will be happy to continue to recommend these products to anyone.
Ted R. Connolly Springfield, Illinois
Most of your letters are to complain about something or somebody, but I am writing to let all your readers know about a company that really goes the extra mile to help.
I was testing my RC engine on a table, and I didn't notice the vibration slid my transmitter off, and it landed face down on the cement. Bad news. It broke off the mounts of the control sticks.
I called Airtronics and talked to Bobby in Service. I was to be in Irvine on a pleasure trip the next week, and I asked if I should send the transmitter to him to save turnaround time, or bring it to him because I would be in the area for two weeks and pick it up.
He gave me an appointment time when I would be there, and fixed it while I waited, in approximately one hour. I was flabbergasted.
That's what I call service.
Merle A. Sidell Seattle, Washington
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
