Letters to the Editor
Corrections
- In the October 2004 issue, the captions for the two nose-block photos in Gene Smith’s "Free Flight Sport" column were reversed.
- In the 2004 Special Issue, the photo in the bottom left corner of page 176 in D.B. Mathews' "Flying for Fun" column was incorrectly identified. The model was Randy Winter’s Fancy Foam Models Extra.
- Also in the Special Issue, on page 20 in the upper left-hand corner, Jason Bauer was mistakenly identified as Peter Bauer.
Our apologies for the errors. —MA staff
Not Enough Zeros
In my letter to Model Aviation, which appeared in the Special Issue, I inadvertently indicated that the top rpm of the GHQ engine was less than 100. It should have read “… less than 1,000 rpm.” The error was my typo.
August R. Freda Bradford, Pennsylvania
Calling Interference
I’m glad to see that my letter [Small-Model Dangers] in the October 2004 issue of Model Aviation had created some interest and controversy. I think that the subject of RC model airplane flying vs. radio interference needs to be discussed and acted upon.
Mr. Taylor’s comments (in the Special Issue of Model Aviation, 2004) are interesting. He’s correct, of course, that when I lost my airplane to interference I did not discover the source. However, neither had I blamed the loss on a park flyer or RTF purchases. I was merely pointing out that I had been the victim of radio interference and that I expect it to happen to others. As he suggests, I may have to find a new hobby soon. After 72 years of building model airplanes, my fingers and sight are less accurate than they were in 1932. I think Mr. Taylor may be correct also when he extolls the joys of indoor flying. Unfortunately, there is no suitable place available in my area that I know of, at present. And I wonder if he has ever had the thrill of seeing one of these big models floating majestically and silently along in the sky!
I do know what I am talking about when it comes to potential liability. I’ve testified in court as an expert almost 100 times in some 3,200 investigations. Even though I am an engineer, I’ve learned about "deep pockets" and shared liability, and I’ve seen how entities (companies and/or people) that seemed blameless to me were brought into suits and required to pay disproportionate damages because of some arcane quirk of the law.
Mr. Anderson’s letter in the same issue of Model Aviation tends to follow my line of thinking more closely. I do have to take exception with him, however, on the issue of what type of radio system one is most likely to use with the aforementioned park flyers and ARFs. As I write this letter I have been perusing two other model airplane magazines I subscribe to, and while I agree that of those small airplanes that do come with a radio, most seem to come with a 27 MHz system, the number of those so supplied is quite limited compared to the total selection in the field. 27 MHz radios do have the advantage, price-wise, but since the majority of these small airplanes come without any radio, can we complacently assume that their owners (who, in my aged mind at least, have spent an inordinate amount of money for someone else to build their airplanes) will select a radio based primarily on the lowest price? I agree with Mr. Anderson that manufacturers of 27 MHz radios intended for surface use who limit the power radiated from the antenna would be taking one positive step to reduce the overall radio interference problem. While I also like his idea of being able to reduce the power of a transmitter by use of a power-setting switch, I fear that such a safety device would rarely be used, because the user would have to be using it purely altruistically. Indeed, he would be placing his own airplane in greater jeopardy of being interfered with by some other transmitter.
John W. Juechter East Greenwich, Rhode Island
Target Practice
It was with great interest that I read [Doc Mathews’] column appearing in the November issue of Model Aviation regarding attempts by the United States Army to develop a radio-controlled aerial target drone for target practice by the military.
I do recall the days of the late ’40s when my brother and I attended the Illinois National Guard summer training camps as part of the 33rd Division, 698th Gun Battalion duty. The first time I saw one of the Radio Controlled Aerial Targets (R-CATs as they were called), at the two-week summer exercises at Camp Claybanks, located near Muskegon, Michigan, I was totally fascinated!
His column fully described the airplanes and electronic equipment used at that time in great detail! I was amazed that the control of model aircraft had progressed as well as it had at that time.
My brother and I watched in amazement as we observed the airplanes gaining momentum for their takeoff on the circular runways constructed for the unusual but effective launch method. One item of interest not mentioned in the column was the fact that these target airplanes had an operational parachute that would deploy when struck by a shell.
While attending the summer training exercises at Camp Claybanks, Michigan, and later at Upper Red Lake, Minnesota, we aimed our quad mount 50-caliber machine guns on the drones in an effort to disable one. They traveled easily at 150-plus miles per hour in a zigzag fashion so as to test our abilities.
It was at this time that my brother, PFC Alfred Mostardo, was in control of one of the guns mounted on one of the "Half-Tracks." On one of the passes, the drone performed a snap maneuver high above the sand cliffs overlooking Lake Michigan.
My brother fired a burst of 50-caliber rounds striking the R-CAT squarely in the center, sending the airplane into a spin in the lake. The parachute did not deploy! We later were told that the price of each of the drones was approximately $3,800—the price of a Buick Century in 1948.
My brother and I are now both retired and avid radio-control model airplane enthusiasts. Al lives part-time in Mesa, Arizona, and I live in San Diego, California. We would like to say that our experience in the Guard with R-CATs is partly due to our continued interest in radio-control model aviation. Thank you for retrieving that bit of history for us.
Anthony V. Mostardo Spring Valley, California
Benefits of Competition
I always enjoy [Bob Hunt’s] column in MA. I was raised in the ’50s in Fort Wayne, IN, and model airplanes were a big deal. I even worked in a hobby shop and flew CL on the weekends. I was never very good but I did enjoy it.
Well, I retired in 1999 and decided to get back to the hobby of my youth. I found a CL club here in Minneapolis (Piston Poppers), joined, and resumed flying. The members have really been very helpful to me. I’m still not very good but that’s beside the point. I really enjoy model aviation.
Our club has a contest in August. I have entered twice in the Beginners’ category and still have difficulty with the beginner’s pattern. I look at competition a little differently, I suppose. I challenge myself to do the best I can, I challenge myself to overcome the nervousness that comes when you're the only one flying. And when I inevitably crash or do a figure 9, as they say in the Piston Poppers, I'm always given words of encouragement.
My point is that competition, regardless of how it's presented, is good for developing skills and moving to the next level.
I want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the special edition issue of MA which featured the 2004 Nats. I enjoy reading about all the different forms of modeling. I think this issue should be an annual event: a special edition featuring the Nats.
Competition—it's what has pushed the airplane from the Wright Flyer to what it is today. And look at what it has done to our hobby!
Mike Moylan Minnetonka, Minnesota
Building/Repairing Skills Lacking
Although I have been in RC since the ’70s and have built practically all my aircraft since I started, I have really been enjoying the beginners' articles in the magazine. These articles have a lot of good information that anyone can learn from, whether you have been flying for 1 month or 20 years. A lot of this we learned initially and then forgot or we never learned the right way in the first place.
Recently a situation arose at the field which raised some concern in my mind. The club instructor was complaining that he had no time to build, as he had so many repairs to do for his students. Now correct me, but isn't it the aircraft owner's responsibility to repair his own aircraft?
It seems that the advent of ARFs has led to the total demise of those who can build or repair. Also I have seen pilots with damaged aircraft say they will throw out an airframe with only moderate damage rather than repair it because they don't want to be bothered with repairs.
This isn't all bad, as I have gotten a lot of good parts from these airframes. Essentially these people are spending $200 to replace an airplane that could be repaired with $20 or less in epoxy, super glue, a little balsa, and covering.
ARFs are a definite benefit as far as getting people started flying and for those who don't have the time or talent to build, but the skills to repair these aircraft need to be developed and retained.
As for me, I will keep building from plans, and I, for one, will never have an airplane on the flightline that is exactly like someone else's.
Jack Pfaller Rockledge, Florida
Honoring the Wrights
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, Frank Rende and I launched my 1903 electric Wright Flyer at exactly 10:35 a.m. at the KVMA field in Sidney, Maine. At the exact same time, Peter Flanagan and Robert Baker launched their two Piper Cubs at the Skystreakers field in New Gloucester, Maine.
All of these flights were to commemorate the original flight of the Wright brothers. Pete and I both thought it would be unique to participate in this historical event at exactly the same time to the minute one hundred years later.
The weather at the time at both fields was a light freezing drizzle and very little wind. Frank and I are retired but both Peter and Robert had to take a vacation day in order to be at the field to re-enact this event.
I only found out about the flight of Peter and Bob at an August Fly-In at New Gloucester, Maine, while talking to Peter.
We thought you might be interested in our flights and hope many other fliers did the same thing even if they made their flights at exactly 10:35 a.m. local time.
Paul Flohn Monmouth, Maine
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
