Letters to the Editor - 2003/04
The Right Direction?
Let me start off by saying I am one of the "few" who read Model Aviation almost from cover to cover! And for the most part, I am satisfied with the final results—nice color, interesting topics, etc.
But you will probably agree with me that the majority of AMA members' complaints boil down to the comment "don't want the magazine." So by trying to improve the magazine, you are on the right path.
(Bob Hunt's January 2003 column) stated that 96% of AMA members are involved in RC in some fashion and later stated something to the effect that the majority of new members dropping AMA was just that—new members! I believe these observations are correct—and see that happening in our area and have heard about it in other regions also.
Now to where I disagree: "… there is not much to write about for the casual ARF or RTF modeler." If (and that's a big word) the majority of modelers dropping out are "newbies," maybe we (Model Aviation) should be focusing more in that area! Also if 96% of AMA members are RC oriented, shouldn't a greater emphasis be placed in that area?
Of the total AMA membership, perhaps 90% or greater (I'm guessing here) are "sport fliers" (to use that term without a definition is easy, huh?). Maybe Model Aviation should focus more in that area also.
It really bothers me when I hear or read so many modelers "just throw the magazine away"—there is so much to learn if one would just give it a try!
The article on "Airplanes and the Wind" was great, as was the article on prop selection a couple of months ago, so keep plugging away. Maybe I can generate some interest via the Web to get guys to read this stuff!
Jerry Festa Huntsville, Alabama
---
I was shocked to learn that the "vast majority of AMA members … are sport fliers." And further pleased to see that you recognize it. I regard myself as a sport flier, who will build as necessary to acquire hardware.
Your publication usually commands about 20 minutes of my attention and I often wonder why I bother with that. (Too bad you don't offer membership without the magazine.) I am not being critical of the many fine articles and information—they just don't have much interest for me. I think your analysis is right on, and I am encouraged to see the future you are working on.
When I was a kid, in the forties, I used to build "models." Years ago I went RC flying and found it lacking for me. Sure I admire the good work those fellows do, but it just doesn't interest me. Then I found RC soaring. I especially like slope soaring. Electric sailplanes are great for finding thermals. I will build kits and even from scratch to get a good sailplane but I have not yet found the courage to put out for those expensive competition models. That's probably because I am not interested in competition. I just want to have fun. I don't consider myself to be a "modeler" and I don't build "models." I am a flier who knows his hardware through first-person experience. Your editorial makes a lot of sense to me and I look forward to seeing where it leads.
Bill Pike Amherst, New York
---
Your January 2003 editorial certainly has struck a chord; for years I have been complaining (to other fellow modelers) about AMA's lack of understanding of the readership of its official publication.
I agree in your assessment that 96% of your membership involves RC; however, does the staff know what percentage of that involves Scale, and in the last several years, Giant Scale? The lack of significant construction articles for the past two decades covering that segment vs. the amount of articles dedicated to CL and FF must be 80 to 1, and when an RC construction article is printed, it involves some kind of Mud Duck type of aircraft. Has anyone from AMA visited a flying field in the last 10 years?
I agree that the proliferation of ARF types has encouraged many to join the hobby; however, I do not see the "traditional modeler" waning as you assessed, not even statistically. The "traditional modelers" are being overlooked by a monopolized model industry for not filling their pockets since the traditional modeler does not spend as much money, we take longer on a project, scale models live longer, and because for the most part we are the ones that support the smaller manufacturers.
In this new era of fast food, and even faster communications, new fliers cannot conceive spending a year building a classic model such as a Fleet or a WACO from a kit, or sitting in front of a table and "wasting" a month cutting the parts for a plans-built project.
I believe it is up to the AMA to bring back that spirit, to bring to your readers through construction articles the joy of creating and flying one's own creation—articles on how to cover a model—not in "fast plastic covering" but in traditional covering materials suited to the type—articles on how to paint, articles on how to gather information for that scale project; the list goes on.
And finally, there is another monster lurking—that of the super large, get-a-second-mortgage-on-your-home-if-you-want-to-fly aerobatic models such as the one on your cover. The AMA has to take a step, and limit the size of these monsters with engines powerful enough to power a man-carrying ultralight aircraft, for safety reasons, for the spirit of the organization, and for the younger generations.
I have seen it, time and time again—potential new members get discouraged at local fly-ins by the price tag of these models; no young modeler can afford them, nor a parent trying to keep his son/daughter occupied in something creative, and away from the perils of today.
You're headed in the right direction; I congratulate you on a much-needed course change, and your January Extra 300 construction article shows a great future; just don't overshoot the runway.
Roger Gonzalez Miami, Florida
Consumer Responsibility
I read, with interest, in the January '03 issue of Model Aviation Steve Wilson's letter to the editor. Steve's concern was that the AMA demonstrated no leadership by not exposing and putting pressure on manufacturers and marketers who put out inferior products. It seems that Steve has a basement full of them. In the same issue Bob Kopski (Radio Control Electronics) wrote about electric ARFs "X" and "Y" that fell a little short to say the least. This is not a new problem and it is one that is not that difficult to overcome.
In 1946 I was 12 years old (OK, do the math) and was ready to buy my first engine. I went to the local hobby shop and asked for a recommendation. The shop owner recommended an Ohlsson .23 that he had in the case for $16.50. I asked him about the Thor .29 that America's Hobby Center advertised for $12.95. The dealer said that he had never seen a Thor .29 so he could say nothing good or bad about it.
The dealer had a vested interest in his inventory so I wrote off his advice. I worked most of the summer cutting neighbors' grass using a reel-type lawn mower (totally boy-powered); I made 50 cents a lawn.
I learned three major things from my Thor:
- How to flip a prop—always expecting it to fire, which it seldom did.
- That the Thor was not reliable enough to put in an airplane.
- Most important, that before making a major investment you should ask others what they use and know works.
My dad felt so sorry for me that he gave me a partial advance ($5.00) on my next two months' allowance and helped me to talk the hobby shop owner into allowing me to pay off the balance at 50 cents a week. The dealer's final words, as we left the shop, were that if I failed to make my payment each Friday, a big fellow would be at my house on Saturday to pick up the engine and do "bad things" to me. I paid off the engine ahead of schedule. The O&R .23 ran great.
When I decided to buy my first Control Line kit, I talked it over with the hobby shop owner. He said he had sold several kits; however, he knew of none that had been successfully flown. On our next trip to Jacksonville, I asked at the hobby shop for advice. Since I had no instructor and had never seen a Control Line airplane fly, they suggested a Comet Flicker.
The Flicker was unique in that it had flaps on the wings and a fixed horizontal stabilizer. In flight, the airplane appeared to go up or down with almost no change in attitude. This made it almost impossible to stall and flyable with the underpowered ignition O&R .23.
My friend and I both learned to safely get a Control Line airplane off the ground and back down without ever seeing anyone else fly one. The Flicker could not be looped or even do a wingover. For an experienced pilot or a student pilot with a good instructor, it was a dog. However, for me and my friend it was just the ticket.
I've written all of this to say that there has always been a wide variety of quality associated with any type of product in the marketplace. Over the years I have purchased few model products that did not reach or exceed my expectations. I've looked or asked to find what others are having success with, or used my experience to evaluate the product before purchasing it.
If you have a need to be the leader of the pack with the latest and greatest, and plan to get it sight unseen from a mail-order house, expect to have a few Thors in your basement.
Don Wolfe Saint Augustine, Florida
---
Pluses and Minuses
I did a double take a few days ago upon retrieving the 02/03 MA from my mailbox. "When did I start a subscription to an aviation art magazine?" I asked myself before recognizing an old friend in new, very evocative clothes. I hope to see more of the same in the future.
MA is the most comprehensive magazine of its kind and I enjoy reading every column. I like the recent additions (Paul Bradley and Dave Roebelen in particular) very much, and am glad to see product reviews appearing from time to time. Also, I like not having to deal with overwrought graphic design that makes reading copy difficult, if not impossible.
Two things need improving. One, the specifications provided with model construction articles are pitiful. Take a look at specs shown with such articles in RC Modeler. (I emailed this concern to you over a year ago, but no change so far.) Two, the specifications provided with product reviews are likewise insufficient. Take a look at info for product reviews in RC Report. They're tops!
Frank Korman Dallas, Texas
---
MA or no MA?
I am writing in regard to the letter from Victor Stuhr from Seattle, Washington in the February edition of Model Aviation. I believe that Mr. Stuhr speaks for a significant segment of AMA members.
Most, if not all, of the people I fly with are exclusively Radio Control enthusiasts. Most, if not all, of the members in the clubs I know only take their AMA memberships in order to be able to fly at club fields, because, let's face it, you need insurance to fly at club fields, and AMA is basically the only game in town.
If Model Aviation is a "benefit," then why is there a price of $3.50 conspicuously placed on each and every issue of the magazine? This price tag says to me that this magazine is an "extra" that we are billed for, in excess of our insurance, instead of a benefit that goes along with said insurance.
AMA's Special Services Department further states that some organizations include such "benefits" to their members and use the United States Tennis Association as an example. To me, this is much like comparing apples to oranges, as tennis is basically an exclusively competitive sport, which needs a set court to play on and cannot be practiced without a competitive partner.
Flying model airplanes needs no real set environment, doesn't need to be competitive, and can be practiced anywhere where there is a safe amount of room and can be enjoyed in the company of others or alone.
Most of the people I know in the RC community could not care less about whether the AMA staff has a comfy office in Muncie, a national flying site to show off, or whether or not there are national contests.
Nearly all of us merely enjoy the company of friends on a sunny weekend afternoon. Nearly all of us enjoy the freedom of being able to go to the field for an afternoon of fellowship and fun and that's about it.
Why not give us the opportunity to put our subscription dollars toward a publication that suits our interests and our tastes, instead of telling us which we are required to subscribe to?
When will the AMA finally realize that the rank and file of the membership only takes AMA because it is the only game in town and for the one and only “benefit” that really matters, and that is insurance?
Randall L. Huston Skidmore, Missouri
---
After reading Mr. Stuhr’s article, I wonder if he has actually read Model Aviation. I have always found something of interest in these pages that has helped me with the hobby. I believe that is the intent of the magazine in the first place. It has a lot of AMA-related information. I like the District Reports because I know where flying sites are, so when I am traveling on vacation I can stop in and talk with fellow modelers and get in a little flying.
Maybe Mr. Stuhr does not wish to support the hobby. The hobby does not need such narrow-minded thinking. I have given my copies of Model Aviation to other people, and because of this magazine and the information inside they have joined the AMA.
AMA, keep up the good work you do with Model Aviation and ignore the negative people in this world.
Lee Bergen Lakewood, Colorado
Project Extra
I want to personally applaud your decision and efforts in regards to Mr. Mike Hurley’s Giant Scale Aerobatics Extra 300LX project begun in the January 2003 issue of MA. Not only am I going to tackle this project, it is going to be my first large-scale and scratch-built project.
After reading over the first two article installments, the available detailed plans and the detailed construction steps that you made available over the Internet have given me the confidence and necessary resources to attempt a project of this nature and do it right. The methods and materials described in the articles will only enhance my building skills and knowledge in this great hobby.
I am very appreciative of AMA and what the Academy has accomplished over the past nine years while being a member. The way this article is being presented is just another step forward in the right direction to assist modelers of any type and venue to learn from the best and become a better representative of the hobby towards the public and one another. Here is one member who feels you made a very good progressive decision. Again, great job.
Ed Casandy Brighton, Michigan
Sound Feedback
I wanted to respond to Bob Wilson’s letter (in the February issue) asking about sound reduction for large engines. First, there is no “wizardry” or dedicated systems for 100cc or 150cc engines common in 40% models. A few modelers have experimented with homemade canisters, but those are rare efforts and the majority of modelers are using commercially available props and exhaust systems.
Second, the majority of “research” has come from trial and error—modelers experimenting with prop and muffler combinations—and often with differing levels of success, and sometimes differing interpretation.
Modelers with firsthand experience and the distributors of Desert Aircraft or 3W remain, in my opinion, the best sources for sound reduction information. But the majority of “data” are reported noise footprints of different prop types (carbon vs. wood and two-blade vs. three-blade) and exhaust type and installations.
One of the fallacies of noise reduction efforts has been reliance on an arbitrary ground-measured dB level. Our own experience has demonstrated that “ground compliance” may or may not result in a reduced noise footprint in the air.
Modelers are left to decide which of the two is more important.
The JR SCAT Series pilots have a great deal of experience with 100cc and 150cc sound reduction, and a visit to one of our meets could probably provide a lot of information on what has worked and what hasn’t. But much of the trial and error has only been possible because the pilots are willing to incur often significant expenses—two- and three-blade spinners, three-blade carbon props, and canister systems. In some cases the cost alone may limit someone’s ability to quiet their airplane.
Last, there has been a lot of rhetoric on this subject in the last year or so, not just in MA, but in other magazines, most of it coming from people with a poor understanding of the issue, and some of them proposing bizarre, if not Draconian, remedies. I agree with Bob that it is time to move from the rhetoric into substantive discussion.
Paul Kopp Contest administration, JR-SCAT Series Aerobatics competition
Hurrah!
I am the founder of the HHAMS (Hempstead Harbor Aero Modelers Society) of Port Washington, NY and have recently received a newsletter and a note announcing me as a life honorary member of the HHAMS. I found that they are having a very hard time keeping the small airfield they have and get very little recognition, though the club does represent a huge aviation history.
It’s rare that I see a spread on small-town USA and the people as a group through RC modeling and the effect on history these small towns had on aviation. So let’s hear a small hurrah for the Port Washington HHAMS (Roy Coniglio, president, [516] 883-8062). They have honored me and I feel they deserve the honors. Thank you for your time and interest!
Gary Le Clere Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
