Letters to the Editor
Microhenrys
We received many letters in response to Joan Anastasio's note that ran in our "Now You're Talking" section in the July 1996 issue. Below is a representative sample of both sides of the issue, in the interest of fairness and to give a sense of closure to this matter.
J. Harvey St. Louis, Missouri
I am addressing this letter to you, but my comments are actually for the lady from Redmond, Washington. She says she is "not a raving feminist," but her diatribe against Microhenrys sure sounds like it to me.
She says, "When I became an AMA member, it was very much a man's world." So, did she join to fly RC or to change the gender of AMA?
I'd like to tell the lady from Washington about my club. We have 100 members and have been in existence for 35 years. We have a few women members, a few pattern fliers, a few fun fliers, and a few "old codgers." One thing we all excel in is having fun and enjoying the flying field. Most of the things depicted in the Microhenrys have actually happened at our field. We all have wives or girlfriends (some of them wear miniskirts). Our wives do comment from time to time about our flying a lot, but they do it at the field while visiting with other wives. It's called gossip. They have also seen fit to discuss our hobby at Christmas parties and other social gatherings which we have every year.
If any of our women want to fly our planes or their planes, they are welcome to do so. One of our wives judged our pattern contest for a few years. No rules against women here. Actually, our gals would rather stand behind us on the flight line and make fun of our flying.
At our club we don't worry about how many pattern fliers versus fun fliers versus control-line fliers, or how many men or women show up. We mostly have fun at our hobby, which is for anyone who is equipped to enjoy it and not have to get up on a soapbox. Our club is pretty much as portrayed in the Microhenrys.
Rodney Iwan Titusville, Florida
Re Joan Anastasio's letter in "Now You're Talking" in the July 1996 issue of Model Aviation condemning the content of Ed Henry's Microhenrys: I wish to refute her comments that they are sexist or antifeminist. In fact they do depict life as it usually is, and I am sure most of the illustrated situations are only versions of real-life incidents with the usual exaggerations done by all good cartoonists.
Maybe Ms. Anastasio has had some bad personal experiences in life to be so against the common banter of love interests or of the common dress of present U.S. women wearing short skirts or shorts. If her personal preference doesn't include such dress, she has every right not to wear them, but she does not have the right to belittle those women who do. In fact, I know a number of modelers' wives who do seek out just these cartoons when they see a copy of Model Aviation because they get a kick out of them.
In short, Ed Henry's cartoon content is right on and artistically presents the everyday vagaries of the life of the typical RC modeler. Keep the Microhenrys coming.
[Unsigned reader]
Let this letter serve two purposes. First, I want to commend publicly Ms. Joan Anastasio of Redmond, WA, for her stand published in her letter to our District VP Ed McCollough on our attitudes toward women in this hobby. She is absolutely, 100% right! Though I had strong opinions, I didn't get involved in the recent controversy over "The Microhenrys." But I knew, as I read all those letters and tried to find some—any—humorous value in that page, that there was something that not only did not interest me but actually offended me, and Ms. Anastasio has nailed it dead center.
So now that my face is out from behind the tree, I'll say what I've been thinking all along: as fine and decent a gentleman as Mr. Ed Henry must be, "The Microhenrys" is not contributing to the advancement of model aviation. There is simply no humor in it, and any adult who thinks there is should get some James Thurber or Ring Lardner stories and find out what true humor can be. Ms. Anastasio is neither overreacting nor a "raving feminist." She has simply had the courage to say what she feels and I suspect many others think. So there; I've said it.
Secondly, somebody has to stand up for keeping our hobby and its publications inside what we might call a reasonable range of decency.
Graham Hicks La Grande, Oregon
In scanning through the Contest Calendar in the July 1996 issue, I came across a contest on June 12th in Benbrook, TX. The title, to me, is offensive. I believe that you and I and 99% of the rest of the modeling world want our hobby to be ranked in the top few percent. If you need an example, look at any issue of QST; its standards of publication are among the very highest of any hobby magazine.
I am ushering several young men into the modeling world locally, and I feel sure that if their parents came across wording such as this contest announcement in Model Aviation, they would find another outlet for their children to pursue. So let my suggestion to all those who have any involvement in putting together Model Aviation be to use careful and critical judgment in approving copy for publication, and if it would fail any test of decency, leave it out or require the submitter to change it.
Stephen Scotto Bronxville, New York
Regarding Joan Anastasio's "Now You're Talking" from the July 1996 issue. Bravo! About time someone pointed it out! It's not just "good fun" anymore. It hurts any women involved with the AMA (including employees), and it hurts the organization. Lose the stereotype cartoons, or write off half the potential membership base!
Vivian Price Walsenburg, Colorado
I have just finished reading the section of your magazine "Now You're Talking" by Joan Anastasio. After reading this, I am convinced that any woman who ever thought of going into modeling would be discouraged. Ms. Anastasio makes it seem as though the hobby is an uphill battle between the sexes, and she has the only real solution: "accept us."
I am here to tell you, madam, the men have already accepted us. They have been accepting us for years. Where have you been? You get up on the feminist soapbox and complain about features in Model Aviation that you don't read, stating that they are offensive to women. Don't you know the difference between an article on modeling and a cartoon?
Cartoons are meant to be funny. I enjoy them. If you can't read a cartoon without finding something sexist about it, then there's something wrong.
You give me the impression of a woman who walks into a group of men and demands to take over. You say that you're not a raving feminist, but your article proves the opposite. Any woman reading this magazine for the first time would be turned off by you and the hobby. You lead women to believe that they have to barge into the hobby and demand to be heard. That's enough to turn anyone off.
As for me, I tried the hobby when my husband and I first were married. I made a plane, entered it into the local state fair, and won a prize. Unfortunately, my husband flew it and damaged it. Ever since I was a child, I enjoyed plastic models. I would say these were about the same as wooden models. I enjoy plastics more than wooden models. Does that mean I don't enjoy my husband's hobby? Far from it.
I still partake in it by helping him build his planes. I know several women who help their husbands build, or even cover the planes themselves. Does this mean that the women aren't active in the hobby? A person doesn't have to be an all-out activist to enjoy something or to partake in it. Just by helping my husband with his hobby, I feel I am a member of his organization.
Just because I don't fly or I don't actively participate in a club doesn't mean I'm not accepted. I have shown off my work to my husband's club, and the men were just as impressed by my work as they were by the men's. That's acceptance for me.
I would challenge you, madam, to take a poll among the women readers of Model Aviation to find out how many women help their husbands in their hobby. Find out how many women have built a model. These women are just as much members of the organization as those who fly.
You don't have to be an activist to enjoy a hobby. It's activists like you, Ms. Anastasio, that give us women a bad name in the eyes of men.
Blindfold Cockpit Check
William D. Motl Austin, Texas
Back in the days when I was a brave and bold (and young) fighter pilot, the Air Force had a policy wherein the checkout in a new or different aircraft required the pilot to demonstrate his familiarity with the cockpit, blindfolded. To prepare for this, and the checkout itself, the pilot spent some "cockpit time." This entailed sitting in the cockpit with the checklist and/or dash one (pilot's operating manual), to learn to start and fly the aircraft. Many of the early jets were single-seat machines, so there was no instructor pilot or "buddy box" to keep the pilot out of trouble.
During the blindfold cockpit check, the instructor called for the pilot to reach for and touch a specific switch and determine its position. The pilot was also requested to demonstrate emergency procedures, such as air start, electrical failure, or hydraulic failure. Air Force pilots always carried a checklist and were required to memorize emergency procedures.
It's easy to see the wisdom of these policies. In bad weather, at night, or in combat, you didn't have the time to reach for the checklist, and being thoroughly familiar with the cockpit could, and often did, save your life.
So what does all this have to do with flying radio-controlled model aircraft? Well, your radio transmitter is your cockpit. If you get in trouble—say an unusual attitude, engine failure, or almost any emergency—you have to keep your aircraft in sight and maintain aircraft control. Like combat in a fighter plane, you can't afford to look into the cockpit. Lose sight of your adversary and that's all she wrote. Look down at your transmitter, and ?!??!!
Get familiar with your transmitter. Don't just read the operating manual. Give yourself a blindfold cockpit check. You don't have to blindfold yourself, but learn switch positions by feel, and commit their position and function to memory.
If you are an instructor, teach this to your students. If you are an "old head" with a computerized transmitter with its many bells and whistles, take the time to "learn the cockpit." In either case, your flying ability and confidence will improve, and last but not least, enhance flying safety.
You will not die if you lose your model aircraft to an unnecessary "dumb thumb" accident. You will, however, hurt your wallet and possibly your pride. Think about it.
Great Lakes Twin
Allan Grinnell Las Vegas, Nevada
I recently took two Great Lakes biplanes and joined them together. The fuselages are 11 inches apart on center, and I installed two Magnum 53XL engines.
I used six Futaba 5148 servos and a Futaba six-channel radio with a 500 mAh receiver battery. The engines are angled outward at about 3 degrees each.
The plane is easy to taxi and is a great flier. The plane can use smaller engines but I prefer a little extra power.
I really look forward to getting your magazine every month, as there are many articles that help me.
Berliner (plans-built)
Erich Jost Chesterfield, Virginia
Enclosed please find some photographs of my plans-built Berliner. The plans originate from a German modeling magazine, FMT. The model is constructed from balsa and Lite Ply, covered with transparent MonoKote. Building it requires average modeling skills. The polyhedral wing makes for a very stable flier. With a little rudder and up-elevator trim, the model will fly big, lazy circles by itself with the transmitter positioned on the ground.
Takeoff run and landing roll are very short. The pictures show a .61 Fitzpatrick engine; however, this engine has been changed to a .70 OS Surpass 4C for more realistic sound and the ability to fly slow using about 1/4 throttle.
Are there any other Berliner fliers out there? Here is some data:
- Wingspan: 86 inches
- Fuselage length: 63 inches
- Weight: 7½ lb
- Wing loading: 17 oz/ft²
- Wing area: 7 ft²
- Control: JR radio, 3 channels
I would be happy to share more info about building this model.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
