Letters to the Editor
All letters will be carefully considered, those of general interest used. Send to Model Aviation, 815 15th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.
Penny Plane Bipe
The occasion of this letter is an editorial comment in Meuser's penny plane article in the June issue of Model Aviation.
I would agree Meuser's model is a good example of monoplane design. I have no objection to your running an article on this model. It's an excellent model.
However, I am deeply distressed by the editorial comparison of Meuser's model and Kukon's biplane. This unnecessary comparison, by indicating that the biplane (as compared to the monoplane) requires "expert handling" gives support to a very bad rules change proposal to outlaw biplanes.
The Kukon biplane is not extremely difficult to build as compared to the Meuser penny plane nor is it difficult to handle. I know, I've seen the model!
My personal feeling is, that you should run an article on Kukon's bipe as soon as possible and let the modelers decide the relative merits of the two models for themselves.
For reference a copy of my letter of April 29 to the FCCB is enclosed. Please note: Two years ago the authors of the original proposal (in a letter circulated to the entire NIMAS membership) indicated that Novice penny plane was to be the penny plane event for beginners. In the same letter, the many loopholes for advanced design penny planes were called a glorious opportunity for innovation and experimentation. There were no objections. After almost two years of serious AMA competition, many fliers have devoted a good deal of work to advanced designs, particularly biplanes. The rules change which would capriciously outlaw biplanes after fliers were invited to develop such models is, to my mind most unfortunate.
Tom Vallee Laurel, MD
MA regrets that present scheduling and inventory does not permit publishing this season an article on a penny plane biplane.
Spirit of St. Louis
"I really enjoyed reading 'The Spirit of St. Louis' article in the last issue of Model Aviation.
Many of the facts told I had never known before. However, some of the other interesting things were omitted. No mention was made of Charles Lindbergh's age at the time of his flight. He was 25. He almost lived to see the 50th Anniversary of the famous flight. I heard news sometime last year that he had died in Hawaii. A little simple addition would reveal he would have been 75 years old this year.
Another important thing I would like to tell about is the motion picture made in 1957 by Warner Bros., starring James Stewart, released simultaneously in San Diego, St. Louis, New York and Paris on May 20, 1957. Of course the name of the movie was The Spirit of St. Louis. To my knowledge it has never been shown on television; it would be a perfect nationwide showing for the anniversary of the flight.
Alvin E. Johnson Oxford, PA The government supplied a ship for Lindbergh's return to the U.S. 'NYP' was brought back in the same way. The film mentioned has been on TV twice that we know of, as well as a fine documentary on the anniversary of the flight.
More About the "Spirit"
Robinson's drawing (June MA) of the "Spirit of St. Louis" is superb, no doubt the most accurate and detailed ever published.
Letters to the Editor
I've seen the drawings by Andrew Lech who lives close by, and who made the finely detailed model that is in the National Air and Space Museum, as a companion piece to the actual "Spirit." Lech's drawings are quite complete and accurate, but I do not believe that they were ever published, although available from NASM (4 pages) for about $19.22.
I'm enclosing a couple of prints of the Tallman-built replica of the Spirit of St. Louis that is on display in the San Diego Aero-Space Museum. This craft is the most accurate duplication of the original airplane of the five replicas in existence (3 for the movie, the EAA ship, and ours). It was taken out of the Museum for only one day to shoot a documentary TV to be shown on 19 or 20 of May. It has not seen daylight for about eight years, yet the old Wright (it's older than the one in Lindbergh's plane) fired up on the first pull! It's now back in the museum. It gave Hannan and I a rare opportunity to shoot some clear shots of this plane, as well as having a long talk with Cliff Robertson, a real antique airplane buff. His biggest thrill of the day was taxiing the airplane around the field!
Warren D. Shipp San Diego, CA
Grey (Gray) Day
Good grief! Isn't it enough that I have paid my taxes, forgotten what the letters "VTO" stand for, and have finally cleaned my workbench? Alas, I now find that I have to shoulder Robert C. Morrison's alarm (May MA) over the infiltration of the word "grey" and his memories of Major Grey's Chutney from India! Enough. I solemnly promise to refrain from using "grey" (except, of course, during the dredging of the Thames and coronation ceremonies) if Morrison will do the following: notice that the Random House Dictionary does not make the same distinction he does regarding "grey" and "gray"; notice further that "edcoat" is one word and a common noun; and finally, be aware that neither in England nor in the United States would one say, "The color of the airplane's tires are charcoal gray," but rather, "The color of the airplane's tires is charcoal gray."
I'm afraid Morrison may have spent too much time... worrying about whether he would make that new cowl out of aluminum or aluminium.
Lee Hunt Northridge, CA
More About Small Angles
Referring to the article, entitled "Simple Method for Drawing Small Angles," which appeared in the July 1977 issue of Model Aviation, I feel it is important to have a complete understanding of the concept discussed in order for anyone contemplating the use of this method, to fully appreciate its limitations. What the author has presented in his geometrical construction is obviously a right triangle as seen in the figure below:
Apparently what Mr. Shipp is attempting to convey is the fact that for such a triangle,
Sine (Angle) = R / Base Line (1)
Now, for reasonably small angles, the approximation
Sine (Angle) = Angle (2)
can be used, where Angle is in radians. Since one radian is approximately equal to 57-5/16 degrees, we obtain from equation (1) and the approximation of (2)
Angle = R x 57-5/16 / Base Line (3)
Angle is in degrees.
Now, transposing, we arrive at the basic equation needed for the construction presented, i.e.,
R = Angle (Base Line / 57-5/16) (4)
It is obvious from equation (4) that if the base line is 57-5/16, the equation reduces to R = Angle.
What must be remembered is the fact that this is not an exact solution as implied in the article, but the approximation of equation (2); although sufficiently accurate for small angles. In order to appreciate the amount of approximation involved, I have presented the following table to indicate how the Sine of an angle varies from the value of the angle as the angle increases. In addition, I have calculated the amount of error this approximation would produce.
Angle (degrees) Angle (radians) Sine (angle) Error 5 .087 .087 0% 10 .175 .174 1/2% 15 .262 .259 1% 20 .349 .342 2% 30 .524 .500 5% 90 1.571 1.000 57%
Joel Chesler Malverne Estates, NY
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
