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.
Remember Al's Mustang?
I would like to supply you with a little additional info and an actual photo of K1-C-C of the 55th Fighter Squadron, Kings Cliffe, England. It is being piloted by Lt. Tom Doody, whom I now work with at Argonne National Laboratory. It was taken over Europe in 1945.
About the model itself, I promised in MA, March 1978 to build a new ship on the OS .35 engine and the efforts were more than justified. Minor design changes were made to bring the plane to a more scale-like appearance. (It took 1st in Sport Scale at the Chicago Aero Angels Meet on its 5th actual flight, having only been painted six days before.) But the big accomplishment was that it grossed out at only 43½ oz., which is quite good for such a large-scale model. I will be happy to supply anyone with the change information should they be interested.
Al Meyers Joliet, IL
That's a military secret—but we have reason to suspect that Hank's artistic hand is faster than the eye! Wonder how many people would collect his drawings if made available full-size (triple the magazine page size)? Framed on the shop walls, or den, they'd make a glorious conversational topic.
Hank, Take a Bow!
I would like to take this opportunity to compliment Hank Clark on his really beautiful drawings which appear in Model Aviation. What a fantastic job!
I was wondering how long it takes him to draw a picture like "The Solution," shown on pages 14–15 of the August 1978 issue? I think that I'm going to start a collection of these drawings.
John E. Kleber Buffalo, NY
Gone Forever?
After reading your "For Openers" this month and Ken Simpson's letter, I wonder if it is possible to generate the kind of interest today that would support even the best program for young beginners. So many today concerned with this are too young to remember how new aviation was overnight after the Lindbergh flight. In 33½ hours the world's opinion changed: people who had looked upon the airplane as a flying coffin now saw it as a means of transportation and clamored to fly. It was all too new to be taken for granted as it is today.
In 1924, when I was nine, I remember seeing my first aeroplane. In fact, that afternoon several appeared. They were with a flying circus at the N.Y. State Fair and doing some of their acts at treetop level over Syracuse to draw a crowd at the fair. Today the F.A.A. would have them grounded after one such demonstration.
In the summer of 1925 the dirigible Shenandoah passed low over the city one night, so low every detail could be seen. Where we were, it seemed to cover the sky with the lights of Syracuse bright on its belly. The deep throb of its big engines I will never forget. As it passed, its ensign could be seen and heard as it fluttered from the lower rudder. I don't believe anything ever airborne was more awe-inspiring or more majestic than the big silver, rigid, lighter-than-air machines. What kid today could see the likes?
The years before Lindbergh's flight belonged to a few in aviation: the barnstormers, the Army Air Service, and the U.S. Post Office flying the mail. All of this in wood-and-wire surplus WWI aircraft.
The year 1927 not only saw the famous transatlantic flights but the C.A.M. (Contract Air Mail) routes and newly designed much safer aircraft. Aviation had come into its own and the public all of a sudden could not get enough of it. The growth of this new industry, headlines of new records and heroes, all were mind-boggling. Civil aviation regulatory laws were yet to catch up.
One morning during school vacation, my brother and I were still in bed when the roar of three Wright Whirlwinds low over the house brought us to our feet. It was a Ford Tri-Motor with a loudspeaker in its belly advertising Old Gold cigarettes. It would climb for altitude, throttle back to glide and at the same time turn on the speakers to spout a ditty, set to music, ending with—"Smoking Old Gold Cigarettes." I can still remember the tune. It was this sort of dangerous thing that soon brought on the civil aviation laws.
As you say, American Boy magazine printed the A.M.L.A. plans, the first of which was the Baby R.O.G. Some newspapers published these as did the Syracuse Herald. This newspaper even sold kits of the Baby R.O.G. at 65 cents. One of these was my first encounter with balsa and a true flying model.
After the R.O.G. you went on to the indoor tractor, which was an enlarged R.O.G. After that it was the simple outdoor cabin models also published in American Boy. My first outdoor cabin was one of these, the Stinson Detroiter. All of these models had a wing adjustable fore and aft which taught a beginner about trim without adding weight. My Stinson (tail heavy, a problem you had to learn to correct in building) flew very well with the wing halfway between the windshield and the rudder—not too scale-looking but no added weight.
I belonged to the AMLA in this period and I understand that there were over 450,000 youngsters who were members. It was a sign of the times, I believe.
As you well remember, the whole thing was a challenge in those days. Many a youngster could build these simple stick models and the carved prop was sometimes as far as he got. But he had no choice; many kids' natural ability was brought out in carving a prop. Plastics may be progress, but plastic props and models never helped a young modeler improve his or her ability.
Supplies were a problem also at the start. Usually a modeler started selling balsa, Ambroid, piano wire, etc., in his folks' cellar. Kits as we know them today were not around yet. If you wanted an Army P-1 Hawk you sat down and drew it up. My basic knowledge of drafting started here long before I took it up in school. These sketches were usually done from a photo as 3-views were not yet available either.
I still have one of these drawings of a Nieuport 17 on which was hung a pendulum between the landing gear legs to work the ailerons. The linkage had too much drag and only corrected late. The result was a flight that looked like the pilot was waggling his wings. The day that I first flew this model, the 24 Savoia-Marchetti twin-hulled flying boats of the Italian Gen. Balbo flew directly overhead. We were about 30 miles north of Syracuse that day and the Italian armada had taken a more southern route from the Great Lakes to escape bad weather. Forty-eight Isotta-Fraschini 500-h.p. engines drumming on 48 flying boat hulls at that time was something to behold. The ground shook beneath us. They were on their way to the 1933 Chicago World's Fair.
This was the so-called Golden Era of Aviation. The likes of it will never be seen again.
George H. Clapp Central Square, NY
He Likes It!
Just a quick note to tell you how much I enjoy Model Aviation each month. Although I am involved in RC and am editor of my club newsletter, I also enjoy all the other articles on FF, CL, etc. Many RC modelers don't realize that really valuable tips on building and finishing can be had by just glancing through the other areas. Anyhow, your magazine has printed some really interesting aircraft to date—keep up the good work.
I sincerely feel that your "For Openers" is the most well-written and provocative column to appear in any magazine covering model aviation in America.
Thomas W. Bilheimer Bethlehem, PA
We like him too—natch.
This Guy Is Persistent
You were right. I like the FF coverage better this time. The extra page for indoor puts them almost up to their fair share. 192 pattern fliers get as much space or more than 270 free-flight fliers? That still ain't right. I know you have one million Ugly Stik pattern fliers crying they want more RC coverage. 99‑44/100% of them wouldn't walk across the street for a pattern contest. I wouldn't either. Why bother with the extra coverage? A Hellcat or Bearcat like the Wildcat would be OK, but contest coverage should be for those who are interested in it—the people who go! And there were more FF'ers at the Nats than there are helicopter fliers in the country. Twenty-five helodrivers get more space than over 500 gas FF entries! You surely don't get that many requests for more helo coverage. Glider fliers get hardly as much as FF glider fliers. They get half again as much space. Not good. After writing last month I was going to skip this one but I just couldn't.
Other than my yearly gripe about the Nats coverage, I think you are doing great.
Terry Rimert Baldwin, FL
If Model Aviation's proportioning of space according to RC, FF, and CL were based upon Nationals entries, FF for many years would have looked like the national pastime. The editor noted this interesting situation a long time ago, even when he was on MAN. Terry poses many things to think about. It is true most RCers won't enter a pattern contest. When we were a member of the LIDS, four out of 125 members attended a nearby Pattern meet, while the rest enjoyed their usual Sunday. But the hobby/sport is so big that Pattern is a major activity, regardless.
And there are not more free fighters than RC helicopter pilots—telltale is the large advertising space on helicopters (not in MA). RCers—like everyone—would like to see more stuff in their area. To all you guys, we can promise great things coming soon. RCers seem to enjoy what their fellow crazies do without wireless, provided we entertain them adequately. Other people do put us under pressure. A dear friend in industry, one of the giants, advised us "don't try to bring back CL." An RCer himself, your editor also dearly loves rubber scale and free flight and dabbled in CL—but now it is the oddities with RC, like our big Sniffer, that please him. There is an answer—about 100 more editorial pages and we'd be able to make the whole world happy! That's a fair letter, Terry, and you didn't call us unprintable names. Like Voltaire, we defend to the death your right to say it.
One for the (High) Road
I read with interest Joel Chesler's letter and your reply in the October issue of MA. And I'll accept your challenge even though the creature that appears in these photos may not be exactly what you had in mind when you called for more FF input.
Recognize it? It could be almost any number of OT designs but, in fact, it's an original. It's a sort of composite of many of my favorite OT design features and was designed and built just last year.
I liked the .020 replica concept and size so I built it with a 33" wing span and since it would be ineligible for contest work anyway, I powered it with the Cox PeeWee reed-valve .020. Besides, after several years of all-out contest machines I wanted to build something that wasn't too hair-raising.
This ship was the result and it has really been a delight. It flew, as they say, right off the board; 1/8° of incidence under the tailplane being the only adjustment necessary. And, at 4 ounces, the performance is more than adequate with the PeeWee engine.
Ed Hopkins Fillmore, CA
We have encouraged Ed to submit a plan. If he does so, we hope you "general interest" guys will sport fly it—as well as RC guys who could stand some relaxation—and healthy long walks during which they can analyze their problems.
The Sticky Problem
As suggested in the November Model Aviation, I am sending this letter and copies to my AMA District VP, Contest Board, and H.Q.
Engine displacement has never been a good method of limiting aircraft sizes. For free flight and U‑Control, it does give relative power outputs. For RC, horsepower has increased from the order of 1 hp on a .60 to— I guess—2½ hp over the years. Horsepower is the only valid measure of output, and would be constant. Whether a flier uses a .60 at about 2 hp or a Quadra at about 2 hp actually makes no difference, although the rules don't recognize this. It is true a .60 will likely have to be geared or belted to reduce prop rpm and give the required torque to turn it while allowing the engine to develop peak power at high rpm. This means a max engine should—by logic—be hp related.
The area of weight and size is more sticky and is more out of my field. First of all, I believe the "damage quotient" is kinetic energy = ½mv². This means the damage is directly proportional to the weight and proportional to the square of the velocity. With a weight of 2 to 2½ times a pattern ship and a velocity of ¾ of a pattern ship, the "monsters" will be less damaging—or perhaps equal under worst conditions.
Horsepower limitations (2 hp–3 hp?) will limit speeds and weights and sizes.
F. F. Van Keurin, Jr. Greenville, MS
Oh, That Beautiful Bird
I am writing in reference to a picture on page 38 in the November issue of Model Aviation. In the lower left-hand corner is Tom Stark and his "Bird" model.
I am an RC flier and a senior citizen. Years back I flew the "Bird" with its five-cylinder Kinner. Would you please put me in touch with Tom Stark? I would love to get a set of plans for this model. To me, this model, back in the thirties, was the greatest.
Thank you for any and all help you can give me in this matter. I am enclosing a self-addressed stamped envelope for a reply.
Arthur F. Cervenka Oakdale, NY
We have put Mr. Cervenka in touch with Tom Stark. The Bird, incidentally, is regarded by many to have been a truly excellent airplane.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
