Letters To The Editor
All letters will be carefully considered; those of general interest will be used. Send to Model Aviation, 1810 Samuel Morse Dr., Reston, VA 22090.
Woody's Electric B-24
Finally completed and test flown! This model has the markings of one of the B-24s I flew in Italy in 1944–45 (738 Sq., 454 Gp., 15 AF).
The model has an 83-in. span and weighs 4½ lb. Power comes from four Astro 035 motors swinging three-bladed 8-6 props through 2.5:1 reductions. It's covered with 3/4-oz. clear Micafilm over balsa planking. Paint is Formula U camouflage olive drab and gray.
The ship takes off in about 100 ft. and rates at "believable" speeds. Sure brings back memories to me and my friends!
W.S. (Woody) Blanchard, Jr. Hampton, VA
Morrisey Bravo Tail Recall
As a result of our continuing flight test and demonstration program, we have decided to reinforce the vertical tail surface on the Sig 1/4-scale Bravo (Kit No. RC-57) to better withstand high airspeed and large engine vibration. We are providing all Bravo owners with a free kit containing plans and materials to build the new tail surface. The modification kit also includes an arrowshaft pushrod for more precise control to replace the flexible rudder pushrod originally specified.
All Bravo owners are requested to call Sig toll-free WATS line 1-800-247-5008 or write, specifying the kit purchased; the modification kit will be sent immediately. We recommend Bravos being flown should be grounded until the vertical fin is replaced with the new design.
Sig Mfg. Co., Inc. Montezuma, IA 50171
Guest Editorial — Trainer Controversy
Regarding the guest editorial in the April issue, some may need some lessons in diplomacy because clubs' best pilots said they took a slam against instructors. I apologize — I may have reacted similarly. I don't really consider it a slam. To call someone a good, top-notch flier certainly did single out instructors per se. I have long known that the cream of the crop, just about any activity, profession, sport or job, seldom communicates or teaches fledglings well. A mediocre instructor may, in the matter of being better able to feel themselves in fledglings' shoes; others can't teach.
Regarding rebuttals from aeronautical engineers and experts as to what type of airplane or wing airfoil is preferable in a trainer, let me say I certainly do not claim to be in their league. I do claim to be an observant sociologist, and I definitely do know what I have seen over many, many years: the symmetrical airfoil wing "trainer" is pure murder for the fledgling... and three-channel planes are easier to fly than four-channel planes. To back up what I already knew, I polled both old-timers in the sport and in the business and came up with three-to-one agreement with me.
Jim Waterman San Antonio, TX
Jim Waterman's guest editorial kicked off a flurry of mail to our offices, some writers being highly incensed at it and some (actually, many more) praising the fact that someone was concerned with the beginners' interests. With Waterman having set the stage, we are printing a representative sampling of the pro and con letters that were received.
Robert A. Benjamin — Olympia, WA
Your April guest editorial by Jim Waterman is so squarely on target that I must write and tell him, through you, how strongly I agree with what he is saying. Reading the comments on the sales arguments of neutral-stable, overpowered pseudo-trainers made me wonder whether he had been reading my mind.
I feel that there is yet another factor adding to the problem, which Jim did not mention, though he may have perceived it. I'll call it the "macho factor." It is not unique to model aviation — but is probably a reflection of many of the forces at work on our entire society. I first encountered it back in the escapement and reed days, when the guy who had just gotten his 10-channel rig working well behind a fire-breathing Veco .45 wasted no time telling me that "the rudder won't even turn this here contest job" — as I held my .09-size, compound-escapement ship. I submit that the same mentality appears today in .40-powered, .50-in. "bombs" flown by RCers, beginners and otherwise, who fear the impression that might be made were they to show up with a less demanding machine. I always thought that this was a hobby/sport for individualists, guys who didn't follow the crowd, and who weren't afraid to do their own thing. How come so many feel they have to prove something by building airplanes so hot they almost burn the paint off the wings?
What makes it worse is that the "macho factor" doesn't just prevent a lot of newcomers from learning to fly successfully. I've lost count of the people I've seen flying hot-rock stuff who will never get beyond the white-knuckle, controlled-crash-landing stage, because they are afraid to build an airplane that will allow them to slow down, relax, and develop a set of automatic responses. I'll bet there are a lot of guys out there who would really rather fly an Elder (or whatever) who won't, for fear of the comments that might or might not be made.
As Jim suggests, there is no easy answer. Indeed, a lot of flak will be thrown by the very people caught up in the problem. The only way I can see progress being made is by the one-on-one, devoted model approach Jim and I have committed ourselves to. Hopefully, we have a lot of company.
Robert A. Benjamin Olympia, WA
Larry Parfitt — Alexandria, VA
I don't know what kind of club Jim Waterman is in, but I rather suspect that those he describes as the very best fliers, the highly adept "hot dog" fliers who are so far removed from the beginner that they are incapable of empathy, are probably boiling mad. (Editor: See Waterman's letter in this issue.)
His claim that the laid-back Sunday flier knows more about what a student needs for a trainer than the experienced flier is pure hogwash. Let's lay the blame for students showing up at the field with advanced trainers where it belongs (Waterman hit the major one on the nose): 1) kit manufacturers who advertise "The Ideal Trainer" when in fact it is not a basic trainer; 2) non-flying hobby shop owners/employees who echo the manufacturers' advertising because they don't know any better; 3) a gift from a non-flying family member; 4) the newcomer who feels he can do anything and buys what turns him on. Yes, there are many reasons for the advanced trainer being at the field when a lower-level model would be desirable. Maybe an occasional instructor will recommend an airplane a little too advanced, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
In Waterman's discussion of the ideal model for a first flight, he extols the virtues of the Old-Timer R/C-assist types or a powered sailplane on a calm day. He also recommended lots of dihedral and made the statement that ailerons are an advantage only on an advanced trainer. Gosh, how far behind the times can a person be! I strongly suggest that he rethink the philosophy of training new fliers from the standpoint of aircraft type and configuration.
Here in the Northern Virginia R/C Club, we recommend any stable high-wing, tricycle-gear type of trainer (of the Goldberg Eaglet variety, etc.) with ailerons. We have a written training program for the student to gradually progress as he is capable. After soloing, the new flier must continue to fly under the supervision of a qualified club pilot until he can pass a qualification flight check administered by two qualified club pilots. The qualification flight check consists of: 1) preflight inspection (range check, fueling), 2) engine start and tuning, 3) taxi, 4) takeoff and climb-out, 5) flyby over runway (tracking on a straight line), 6) horizontal figure eights (both directions), 7) inside loop, 8) two Immelmann turns, 9) stall and recover, 10) approach to landing, right to left and left to right, 11) simulated dead-engine landing, 12) final landing. After passing the qualification flight check, the flier is free to fly on his own as a qualified club pilot.
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty of three-channel or four-channel aircraft for beginners. I have been instructing for quite a few years, and I can attest that there isn't any difference in how long it takes someone to learn one way or the other. In the final analysis, if the instructor knows what he's doing, he can impart the knowledge needed to the student, instill confidence in the student, and if he talks to the student on the ground before flight, everything will go quite smoothly in the air.
With regard to exposing the new flier to modest aerobatics occasionally during training, I will stand 100% behind that philosophy of training—and it's certainly not "hot dogging" with a student to do so. Showing a new student how to do loops, rolls, Immelmanns, etc., in the course of his training helps to break the boredom of the otherwise endless rectangles and figure eights. Every student I've had thoroughly enjoyed it, and confidence is built at the same time. Having had the model on its back any number of times and knowing how to recover will materially reduce the element of panic should a gust, glitch, or some other unexpected event flip his airplane over.
The addition of ailerons to a model isn't a problem insofar as weight is concerned. For example, let's look at the Goldberg Eaglet advertised in the April 1985 issue. I'm assuming that the Eaglet shown is the same as listed. The wing area of 450 sq. in., divided by 144, converts to 3.12 sq. ft. The listed flying weight of 48 oz., divided by 3.12, equals a wing loading of approximately 15 oz. per sq. ft. I think we'll agree that a wing loading of 15 oz. makes a pretty good basic trainer. Let's add ailerons. According to my scale, all the extra gear necessary to produce a four-channel Eaglet comes to just about 4 oz., giving a flying weight of 52 oz. and a wing loading of 16.6 oz. per sq. ft. I can assure you that the difference between wing loadings of 15 and 16.6 is insignificant. Even a wing loading of 16.6 is well within an acceptable envelope for a basic trainer's wing loading.
In our club the student success rate has been outstanding—no dropouts to my knowledge. And, yes, the great majority start with "full house" systems. As for hot airplanes, if a student shows up with one, he's told to take it home and hang it up for a year or so until he's ready for it. Frankly, I can't conceive of any instructor being as gross as was implied in the guest editorial. However, people with normal reflexes—under the guidance of a competent instructor—can handle four channels very nicely.
Larry Parfitt Alexandria, VA
Letters to the Editor — Continued from page 113
I must commend you on the April edition of Model Aviation magazine! The articles this month were excellent with a wide range of modeling interests.
The first article I would like to comment on is the guest editorial. I do believe Mr. Waterman expressed the views of the active instructors very well. For those of us who spend most of our flying time teaching others to fly, we know what happens when a student pilot brings out the wrong airplane! It takes twice as long for him or her to learn to fly. I don't believe, however, that a student cannot learn with a ship that has ailerons. Take the Goldberg Eaglet, for example. I sincerely believe that this is probably the best trainer on the market. I have taught lots of folks to fly, and the ailerons are definitely not a hindrance to the learning process. I don't feel we need to go back to the days of the Smog Hog, but I applaud Mr. Waterman's views on keeping things simple for the beginner.
Anthony Stevens Knoxville, TN
Chris Allen — Pittsburg, CA
I am writing in overwhelming appreciation of the guest editorial in the April 1985 issue by Jim Waterman. I really enjoyed it. Frankly, I stand behind him 100%!
Let me explain. My first trainer was a Little Stik with a 6-ft. wing with flat-bottomed airfoil and polyhedral. It had 576 sq. in. of area, and it truly was a basic trainer. It would recover from a full stall in about 10 ft.! When this plane crashed (servo arm for the rudder came off in a turn and left full rudder locked-in), a friend gave me a Box Fly 20. We put the big wing on it, and it flew even better. Loops, spins, and snaps could be flown, yet it was as stable as an Old-Timer.
When the wing broke while I was using it on a glider fuselage, I switched to a no-dihedral, fully symmetrical-airfoil wing with ailerons. Then I needed a larger power plant. I got it, but I wasn't ready for a "second" airplane (as the guest editorial called it). I bumped it about quite a bit. During the winter I fixed it up, and afterwards I could fly much better. However, I was still herky-jerky on the ailerons. It was five times worse when I first switched to ailerons. It took a year, lots of patience, and a really bruised ego to learn how to fly it.
Don't you think that if I had stayed with that basic trainer (which never crashed due to pilot error) I would have had a faster learning session? It's a good thing that I really love RCing, because most greenhorns would have given up a long time ago.
Chris Allen Pittsburg, CA
David C. Lassiter — Aulander, NC
Although I enjoy Model Aviation, I was disappointed, aggravated, and to be totally honest, a little mad after reading the guest editorial in the April 1985 edition. I got the impression that the guest editor is a little envious of the skill level required to fly a Pattern or Racing ship. I was particularly disturbed at the remark that those of us who fly Pattern or Racing models cannot understand the needs of the beginners. All of us had to start somewhere. And most of us were not so successful that our first flying session was totally without mishaps, save breaking a couple of props.
If your hangup is Antic Bipes and Sopwith Pups, fine. Go for it. This sport that we all enjoy covers a variety of aircraft types with varying skill requirements. Once a beginner (and at present I have six trainees) has reached the skill level to competently fly his trainer, then I respect his choice of models, and I continue to assist as long as I think he needs it.
Instructors are not determined by the type of aircraft that they fly. Instructors are born.
David C. Lassiter Aulander, NC
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
