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.
Biggin, not Biggen!
I have never written to a magazine before, but I feel that I must write to you to correct an error in Model Aviation, October 1981. On page 20, the superb model of an electric Spitfire is rather spoiled by the new way of spelling Biggin Hill (not Biggen Hill)! As an Englishman living with his family in this great country of yours, I feel that I must point out your error.
No hard feelings, I hope, as you produce a really first-rate magazine which caters to all model fliers. As an ex-member of the SMAE and current member of the AMA, I hope that your readers realize how lucky they are to be sent such a publication. I am not yet a member of a club in the U.S., as I can't spare the greenbacks yet, but I hope to be fully involved shortly. I am too busy spending my money on engines, kits, radio accessories, etc. I had to leave nearly all my gear back in England!
Sorry to be critical, but as Biggin Hill is possibly the most famous Fighter Command airfield in England, I feel that I must point out the error. Incidentally, during the Battle of Britain, Biggin Hill was the base for two Hurricane squadrons, Nos. 32 and 79. Three Spitfire squadrons were based at nearby Hornchurch, Nos. 504, 65 and 74. However, Biggin Hill and Spitfire are interchangeable.
The airfield still is in use for private and club flying, and once a year it plays host to the Biggin Hill Air Show, which is one of the few air shows in England where WWII air birds may be seen. One of the stars of the show is a B-17E which is a flying memorial to the men of the "Mighty 8th" who gave their lives in the skies over Europe.
T. A. Wilson Santee, CA
Editor's reply
Thanks for the correction and for the interesting tidbit of history. It's not surprising, we suppose, that the first to bring this spelling error to our attention was another former Englishman—none other than Geoff Styles, AMA's Flying Sites specialist.
---
Solar Challenger
Fantastic! Your fine article about Dr. MacCready's electric full-size aircraft was certainly appropriate for model plane builders. I no longer have any doubt concerning the argued merits of full wing ribs versus half ribs. And there it was right there in that beautiful photo of the Solar Challenger on the cover of Model Aviation as plain as day.
Thanks for the excellent presentation on this very remarkable sun-powered aircraft.
Dr. Cyrus J. Stow Conyers, GA
---
Dihedral Effect
In the August 1981 issue, Ron Van Putte in the RC Sport/Aerobatics column gave two explanations of dihedral effect with the intent to correct a misconception. However, his correction is flawed. Forces and their resulting moments are what govern the motion of a model. Weight acts in only one direction—down. It cannot cause a side-slip. If, in Fig. 3, the lift forces on each wing panel are oriented perpendicular to each panel (see accompanying sketch), it is seen that the left wing panel has a horizontal component of lift. It is the component that causes the model to move to the right, resulting in a right side-slip.
The right side-slip has the effect of increasing lift on the right wing panel and decreasing the left wing lift. This results in a leveling of the wings, but not the side-slip. The side-slip is noticed by the vertical tail, resulting in a force to the left, swinging the tail to the left, thus diminishing the side-slip.
Bill Bogart San Pedro, CA
Ron Van Putte comments
Unlike most aeronautical engineers, apparently Mr. Bogart and many other people have the impression that side-slip is a skidding motion in the horizontal plane. Actually, it is defined as motion perpendicular to the aircraft plane of symmetry. Consequently, when the aircraft is banked there is a component of the gravity force which is perpendicular to the plane of symmetry, causing a side-slip. Mr. Bogart is correct about the vertical fin diminishing side-slip velocity by using the directional stability of the aircraft.
---
Supermarine S.5 Floats
I noticed, in the plan view of the Supermarine S.5 on page 42 of the October Model Aviation, that the fuselage of the plane is not centered between the floats as are the other float planes. What purpose could that have served?
Chuck McNeal Golden, CO
Response
We posed this question to Don Berliner, who wrote the article about the Schneider Trophy Races. The right float was more outward than the left to counteract the effect of powerful engine torque. Two additional things: the right float was slightly larger than the left, and the floats carried fuel. By the way, we have noticed a small but important error on the drawing: prop rotation actually was counterclockwise (not clockwise, as shown).
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
