Letters to the Editor
Send your Letters to: Model Aviation, 5151 East Memorial Drive, Muncie, IN 47302
Buy & Fly
I read all the model magazines devotedly—model aviation is my avocation as well as my vocation. I must say I was impressed with your editorial in the March 1994 issue of Model Aviation.
You really opened up a bucket of worms with the BOM (Builder of the Model rule). Buy & Fly is great for the sport flier with limited time and for those who want to enjoy model aviation without the bother of spending time and effort building. Sometimes that time and effort is much more valuable than a RTF airplane.
However, Buy & Fly has no place in competition; enforcing it, though, is another story. Anybody who's competed as a junior has probably been beaten by a "daddy built" at one time or another. I know some good pilots who could probably be great pilots if their planes were professionally built.
Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble on. Your real message came through loud and clear. A deep passion for this hobby is what motivates many of us. It's good to know our organization is in good hands.
Azarr New Carlisle, Ohio
---
Likes "Letters"
It's getting so that when I get each new issue I open immediately to the "Letters" section for some lively discussions.
Concerning the March 1994 issue, I say "bravo" to everyone that wrote in and got printed, and furthermore, bravo to you, Mr. Editor, for helping to develop this informative forum.
I am, in fact, rereading each letter and digging into past issues to get at the subject matters that are referred to. Rather than pick out any one in particular for comment on my part, I say all the letters are "right on."
About the Buccaneer B Special plans, perhaps I can help the Messrs. Dabney and Smith. I have a rather beat-up original plan that they may borrow and try to make some sense out of. In fact, I wrote a note to Bill Dabney last month, but the letter was returned to me as undeliverable (U.S. Postal Service).
Feel free to allow the use of my name and address for their reference, or give me their correct mailing address and I will pursue it.
I continue to look forward more and more to the reading of your "Letters" section.
John Nataloni P.O. Box 544 Amherst, New Hampshire 03031
Editor's note: It's very gratifying to know that John and other readers are getting the idea of what I'm trying to present in this section: a lively, open forum for discussion of modeling issues. The idea is not controversy, but opinions; not rebel-rousing, but communication. The more communication we have about our hobby, the greater the benefit to us all.
---
Correction — Visalia/Fall Soaring Festival
I just received the March issue of Model Aviation and was very distressed to read the section of your article (RC Soaring column) referring to my display at the Fall Soaring Festival in Visalia.
I am in no way affiliated with Soar Minden. Soar Minden is a competitor located on the same airport.
I went to great trouble to transport a full-scale glider to Visalia and at great expense to offer the grand prize.
As Model Aviation is a nationwide publication, I feel the incorrect information could have quite an impact on my business. I would appreciate a correction being published in the next issue.
Tom Stowers Owner, High Country Soaring Minden, Nevada
---
Jai-Fai (Doug Galbreath design)
The model is Jai-Fai, a Doug Galbreath design from the '60s. The plane still has the 1972 Nats processing stamp on the stab.
The airplane Doug designed is straightforward: rudder under stab for natural right power pattern, a lot of downthrust, and constructed with a lot of plywood and aluminum. SuperTiger .15 power, Tatone floodoff and DT timers—this was big stuff back then.
The plane landed in a tree and ripped the paper on the wing. I recovered it with some new-fangled stuff you shrink with heat instead of water. You don't have to be older, either!
Charlie Harper Blanchester, Ohio
Editor's note: Charlie was quite a competitor in the AMA Power classes in the late '60s–early '70s, and is ready to rejoin AMA and begin a "comeback."
---
Help Appreciated
My letter in the January edition of Model Aviation has been well received. At that time I was hoping that someone would give me information to obtain a set of plans for the Buccaneer "B" Special. Little did I realize that the aircraft was so well known. I now have plans—plans to build and plans to fly. My many thanks to you and to all who helped to reunite me with an old friend, my Buccaneer "B."
Bill Dabney East Elmhurst, New York
---
Riding in Style
I have been back in flying and building model airplanes for a little over a year now, after having been out of it for several years. The members of our local club helped me with the building of my first plane, and also offered helpful advice about flying. This left me with two problems: a place to store my planes and a good way to get them back and forth to the flying field.
I used my pickup truck to transport my planes for a while, but it was not covered, and I used it for other things; it had to be loaded and unloaded each time I went to the field. My airplanes and the family car did not mix too well, either. So I started looking for something that would not cost too much to buy, that would hold more than one airplane, that would be covered so I could use it for storage of my airplanes, or unload it at my convenience.
What I found may seem a little unusual, but it solved both my problems. I found a bargain buy in a 1965 Cadillac hearse. After a little work and a little paint, I had my airplanes riding in style. It is also the perfect thing to bring home the ones that don't survive a crash.
Enclosed were two pictures that show what I mean.
Eugene White Rainsville, Alabama
Editor's note: It's a shame that the photos were too dark to use. They were also Polaroids, which tend not to reproduce that well. The late Bruno Markiewicz also used a hearse as his modeling conveyance for many years—complete with a built-in workbench in the back.
---
Critique
I hate to say it, but as a magazine devoted to model airplanes, you have really gone downhill.
First: You devote a lot of space to the communication "needs" of the AMA. The president's report, the PR report, the executive vice-president's report, and reports from each district vice-president accounted for approximately fourteen pages of the March '94 magazine. This material may be vital to the operation and administration of the AMA, but it is unrelated to model airplanes. The reports from the top brass should be greatly condensed by editing out worthless rhetoric. The district VP columns should be more informational, and required to contain only items that the district needs to know. Most district VP reports are full of "so-and-so club had a contest" and "there's a picture of Joe and his new airplane." What a waste.
I also think your calendar of swap shops and model shows is a waste of space (3.5 pages in March 1994), but if your research shows this is a widely read item, then keep it.
Second: Your attention to model airplanes has declined over the years. The March '94 issue had two entries under "Model Designs" in the table of contents. Two is not enough, and one of those was a propeller from an F1D microfilm model.
The March '94 issue is not an isolated incident. The same things are true about January and February, and you've been reducing your attention to model airplanes for a long time. In the early to mid-1980s, there wasn't a model magazine better than Model Aviation. Now there is.
I still support the AMA, and I still read Model Aviation. It just doesn't take as long to read as it used to.
Glenn Ponder Chesapeake, Virginia
Editor's note: The content of the officers' columns is up to the individual. The columns are not subject to being edited, other than for minor syntax/formatting changes (and in some cases, not even that). And many modelers get enjoyment from the various modeling shows, swap shops, and collectors. If you've ever seen the doors open at Toledo when it's swap shop setup time, you know what I'm saying here.
---
Unsolved Mystery — Stolen Molds
Approximately ten years ago our manager in California disappeared, and with him also disappeared the master molds, production molds, original blueprints, and templates for the giant 1/3-scale ASW 20 glider and 1/4-scale CAP 20 French aerobatic plane.
We are still looking to recover our equipment. This stolen equipment may have been sold to an unaware party. If you have any information leading to the recovery of this equipment or part of it, we will offer you a free complete kit. Contact Phillipe Leroy at Leroy Enterprises, Tel.: (602) 384-2611.
Phillipe Leroy Willcox, Arizona
---
Multiengine Solution?
About your multiengine transmitter letter in the March Model Aviation:
I think you could get the same effect that you're looking for by using a seven-channel radio system. I have an older (yes, it's upgraded) Kraft system that has two auxiliary channels located on the side of the transmitter case that are operated by the index or middle fingers, while still leaving enough control with my thumbs on the sticks.
However, as an aerospace engineer with multiengine pilot and A&P mechanic's licenses, I cannot fathom why you'd want to invite the potential disaster that single-engine flight opens the door to. Except for Rutan's Voyager, I cannot think of a multiengine aircraft designed to fly with an engine purposely shut down. All multiengine designs that I know strive for both (or all) engines to be operating in synchronization, to the extent that there are computers to monitor and adjust the throttles (power levers) to maintain that rpm match. We even have these systems for models!
As for taxiing with differential power, only older airplanes with free-castering tailwheels (DC-3s, Beech 18s) use this technique, and then only on the ground with wheel brakes to assist turning. These planes are just too heavy to be turned with leg power on the rudder pedals.
Boats, on the other hand, often turn and close maneuver with differential and split power (one fore, one aft). But they won't spin out of control as a result of this.
There is a trait of multiengine flight that all pilots fear: With one engine inoperative, you live to a number called Vmc, or the minimum controllable airspeed. That is the airspeed at which there is insufficient control left in the rudder and ailerons to counteract the yawing force of the full-power single engine. Below this speed the airplane departs controlled flight, usually in a spin towards the dead engine. Quite often (but not always) Vmc is a lot higher than the normal stalling speed of the airplane. In the Piper Twin Comanche, stalling is around 60 mph but Vmc is 110 mph!
This becomes a bigger problem in model aviation, because you have no way of knowing that you've hit Vmc until after you're in a spin—usually about half as high as you need to be to recover. If it does depart controlled flight, close all throttles to idle, let the airplane enter a stabilized dive and recover, then advance both throttles, or if one has quit, even though you have one still turning, pretend it's a dead stick and land with the good one still idling.
RCM published a multipart article on unthrottled flight by Gordon Whitehead a couple of years ago; you might review his comments as a starting point.
I'm telling this to you not to stop you from experimenting, just be prepared for some violent reactions at a lot higher airspeeds than you might be expecting. And I kind of agree with your hobby shop owner's comment. Our hobby gets enough bad publicity without designing a system that will give the average pilot more problems than he or she can handle.
Thomas Solinski Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
---
BOM (Builder of the Model)
I just finished reading your "leadoff" article in the March issue of Model Aviation, to which I say, bravo! Your thoughts reflect my own feelings and opinions on free flight, and your background in the hobby more or less approximates that of my oldest son, except that he is a "tad" older than you, being now 46. How well I remember him cutting, sanding and otherwise doing his very best to duplicate his dad's creations (I always designed my own models), and fly them in a competitive manner. It got so that each time we went to a meet, many of the fliers would say, "oh, boy, here come the 'pros'; say goodbye to Junior and Open firsts in this meet." We just flew as a team, and everything that dad could do, Junior did just as well.
My son would no more think of having me build his plane than he would of flying to the moon by flapping his arms! Today, the ARF is ruining the hobby, and should be classified as a "toy-airplane"—nothing more. I have met so many "pilots" who haven't the vaguest knowledge of even basic aeronautics that it's literally sickening. It's all a matter of "who has the bucks; needs nothing but luck." Having been a pilot for 58 years, the thought of some of these guys in my cockpit terrifies me!
There are plenty of really excellent RC pilots out there who do a magnificent job in construction of their models, but the "sport" has become so commercial that it no longer represents what was intended for it. Even the high-tech aspects of the hobby (i.e., VIT and other auto-functions) should be reserved for FAI and world competition events. These events, although not RC, are in effect MC (mechanical control) and not true free flight.
In a local hobby shop just last week, some "doting daddy" asked for a ready-to-fly 8-channel bird for his seven-year-old son! Luckily, the shopkeeper discouraged the deal, although there was about $900 involved. All I could say to him was, "bless you, brother."
Anyway, Jim, congratulations on being a true believer; we need more people like you in this buck-oriented world.
Bill Kimbell Smithtown, New York
Editor's note: Bill is editor of SAM Speaks.
---
Rules-Change Communication (BOM and CL Racing)
I read with interest your (first?) "Corner" in the March 1994 issue of Model Aviation. Your comments on the BOM rule hit home with me.
As of the latest AMA rules cycle, the BOM rule was eliminated for all classes of AMA CL Racing. This is an unfortunate change, and one which slipped in without general knowledge of the CL Racing community.
Another rules change from the latest cycle resulted in CL Aerobatics eliminating the hand-starting requirement and allowing electric starters. I have heard that there is a lot of controversy associated with this change, and much of it is because many did not even know the change was being made.
A common thread to both of these rule changes is that the fliers were not aware the rules were being changed! And this is where you fit in.
Model Aviation publishes the original rules-change proposals, and in the past this has been a reasonably effective method for communicating. However, in the past cycle, for whatever reason, the summaries of the proposals as published in Model Aviation were so bad that it was impossible to understand the essence of the proposals! The summaries accompanying the ballot tabulations (from the August '93 MA) read:
"CL 94-8: Events 311-317, redefines entrant's responsibilities"
"CL 94-7: Events 322, 326, delete starting requirement"
My memory says that the original proposal publication was little better. It is impossible to know what these rather innocuous statements really mean! This level of description looks like a summary worded by a copy clerk who doesn't know anything about model airplanes or the rules. Without adequate publication of the proposals, most of us just do not "snap" to the impact they will have on our events.
As Managing Editor of MA and as a "competition-sensitive" modeler, I think you can understand the dramatic importance of adequate communication of the rules-change proposals. I suggest that, for the next cycle, you publish the original proposals fully, or at the very least get a summarization which adequately conveys the content of the proposal. Perhaps, then, changes like those slipped in this time will not happen again.
Bill Lee Seabrook, Texas
---
Language and Usage
Prior to your column in the March issue, no one has even admitted that there was any. I see an "sic" or two scattered through the pages, and you have even managed to render that Vought fighter as an F4U without any hyphens in strange places. Things may be looking up.
You have let a real howler slip through on page 67. Mr. Day writes of the edge of the cockpit where you will add "combing" and says "Combing around the cockpit gives it a finished look." Well, perhaps. But only if the cockpit in question is very hairy. Having never encountered such a cockpit in 50+ years of modeling, I insist just to put a padded edge around mine, i.e., a coaming.
While I'm at it, I'll mention last month's article in which two of your writers described flying fields as "expansive." Truly remarkable fields. "Able to, or tending to expand" is what my dictionary says for "expansive." There's also the meaning, "genial, willing and ready to communicate," but that applies only to people. In all those years of flying at fields in all four corners of the country, the Middle West, and two foreign countries as well, I have yet to run across one that could expand on its own or one that was gregarious for that matter. They usually just lay there, staying the same size, day in, day out, saying nothing, though the ones in California and Japan did tend to shake a bit from time to time.
I suspect that both your authors really wished to convey the simple idea that the fields were big. If "big" was too simple to fill the bill, then "extensive" would have served, but "expansive," no.
Good luck and keep that dictionary handy. Sooner or later, one of your writers will use "noisome" when he really means "noisy."
Charles V. O'Donnell Eugene, Oregon
Editor's note: According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "combing" is a variation of "coaming." And one definition of "expansive" is "characterized by richness, abundance, or magnificence." Sounds like a good flying field to me! And just where is the "Middle West"?
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
