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.
Trade Deficit Concern
At a time when our nation has its largest trade deficit ever, I am concerned that even our hobby industry is increasingly dominated by foreign products. Most RC units, engines, and many of the aircraft kits advertised are from foreign nations.
I'd like to reduce my contribution to the trade deficit, although I realize that all balsa and rubber is imported, as is 50% of the petroleum used to make fuel and plastics.
I think it would help if the nation of origin were mentioned in advertising and in all product packaging. It would make product selection easier.
Corum Chan So. San Francisco, CA
Beautiful and Ugly Airplanes — Jim O'Reilly
Boy, is Don Berliner a glutton for punishment! I admire his nerve, though, in sticking his neck out like he did in "Beautiful and Ugly Airplanes" (March 1985 Model Aviation).
And his neck is really out! Lots of folks are going to buy his first-place beauty, the Spitfire. But how did he goof up on the first-place ugly so very badly? The Big Mac "Thud" sure is no beauty, but is it the ugliest aircraft ever hatched? Maybe I'm biased, but I seem to overhear all the time because the local Air Guard is the nationwide transition center for all military pilots wanting to qualify for the F-4. Overhead is maybe one of the F-4's better angles. I think he needed a third category: interesting airplanes. The F-4 certainly qualifies here.
When I tell Berliner which airplane(s) he missed for ugly, he's suddenly going to be filled with remorse. He will be falling on his knees, beating his breast, bowing his head in contrition! He overlooked several, but the biggie is one that makes the "Thud" look like a raving beauty! How could he possibly have overlooked the Messerschmitt Me 323? If the RLM had issued a prize for the ugliest airplane on purpose, the result would have looked better than this accident.
He also overlooked such outstanding lovelies as the Vickers Vildebeest, the Vickers Vincent, and the Kalinin K-7, although I hate to pick on the Russians (they're no challenge!). Also, what about the Junkers Ju 52? Here is a concept so consummately ugly that even when you fair over and round off all the angular and ugly details, you end up with the world's ugliest streamlined airplane, the Ju 52!
Others on Berliner's ugly list which don't appear to belong include the Stuka. This one definitely belongs in the "interesting" category, but perhaps not on the 10 ugliest list. (It is, however, uglier than the Thud!)
My personal champ on the "interesting" list is the Handley Page Heyford (HP Heyford). No way is it on the 10 ugliest list. In fact, it heads up the Beauty/Drag quotient category. So they got the wings on upside down!
As to his beauty list, I like Wacos, but he picked the wrong one. The SRE is so similar to the EQC-6, but those beautiful aft-fuselage lines make all the difference. I'd like to think the designer kept after it until he got it right. I'd hate to hear he messed up those beautiful lines to achieve a six-place cabin.
Other missing beauties: where oh where were the DH Mosquito, the Lodestar, and the Shoestring? The article was immense fun. I sincerely hope he has a follow-up in his bag of tricks!
Jim O'Reilly Wichita, KS
Beautiful and Ugly Airplanes — Robert Wynne
Obviously you and Don Berliner didn't expect to get off without your share of letters beginning, "Sir, how could you...?" Why should I be any different?
First, I did really enjoy the article, and in general I don't disagree too much. Under the photograph of the DH Comet, you ask rhetorically, "Is anything more beautiful?" Well, yes, I do have a suggestion. Have you ever watched a Boeing 747 on final? What could be more exciting than the long, slow, graceful approach of one of these beauties? Coming from Seattle as I do, of course, what else can I say?
Now, for a bit of nit-picking. On page 86 you show a picture of a Waco biplane that you labeled an EQC-6, but called a Waco E. Not so! The plane in the picture no doubt is an EQC-6, but it is not a Cabin E or a Model E. The Waco Model E was a later one first sold in 1939/1940. It differs from the Model C in three important respects. It (Model E) had a flush engine cowl with an adjustable opening at the bottom to allow hot air to exit. It had plywood-covered wings doped and polished to a high gloss. It had no interplane struts between the lower wing and the top of the cabin. This was replaced by flying wires between the wings. Most Model Es were either ARE or SRE; the difference was mainly the engine used.
The first letter of the Waco designation named the engine, the second the wing used, and the third the actual model.
Secondly, I'm not sure the pictured airplane is a Dash-6. From the photo it appears to have the straight-leg landing gear. This would make it a Dash-7. For a while the dash number designated the year of manufacture: Dash-6 was 1936; Dash-7 was 1937.
Now, for the "How could you?" What happened to the Stinson Gull Wing SR-8, the Howard DGA-8, and, later, the Beech Staggerwing? And don't forget the wooden wonders, the Lockheed Vega and Orion, and the Ranger-engined Fairchild F-24.
Oh well, what a dull world this would be if we all agreed on everything all the time. And I enjoyed Berliner's Nieuport Type 24 article in the February issue. If you want more Waco information, I suggest you consult a real expert: Maj. E. J. Millikan USAF (Ret.), 2112 Komo Mai Dr., Pearl City, HI 96782.
Robert Wynne Mercer Island, WA
Beautiful and Ugly Airplanes — Harry A. Farrar
Now that Don Berliner has played Don Quixote, he must have mail like in Miracle on 34th Street. He'll be so busy reading it that we'll never see any more of his fine articles. I certainly admire his courage or insanity.
Needless to say, I'm just another one who has different ideas. I do believe that he did a creditable attempt, but let's face it—there just isn't any "most beautiful" or "most ugly," although he came very, very close on the ugly. There are a lot of beauties and uglies, all first or last.
I just don't understand: Why a Waco C instead of an E, or to my preference S3HD or S3HD-A? Why the DH Comet (a tube) instead of the DH Albatross or Republic Rainbow? Ah, well!
The Spitfire doesn't make it in my book because it is not pretty on the ground. And it would have to be a later Mark with the larger rudder. But it wasn't a bad choice.
To be truly beautiful, it must look great from all angles, in repose and in action, and it must have personality and class. I would opt for an early Stinson Gull Wing, Waco S3HD, or Fairey Fantome (cum Feroce), or maybe the F-14 Tomcat.
Being a 30-year Grummanite, I can't really agree totally with his comments. Let's just call them "pleasingly plump." At any rate, I thank Don for another well-done and entertaining article.
Harry A. Farrar Bethpage, NY
Beautiful and Ugly Airplanes — Bruce Knox
It must have been more than mere oversight that caused the author to ignore an airplane so ugly that a mysterious "force" has to this day discouraged the publication of photographs of it. I believe it was called the F-89 Scorpion. Has anyone ever seen a picture of it in a magazine? Certainly no one has ever made a model of it!
I hesitate to write this letter, because you may be tempted to search for a print of this plane, and I don't want to get us all in trouble with the "Force."
Bruce Knox E. Aurora, NY
Beautiful and Ugly Airplanes — Doug Dahlke
I greatly enjoyed Berliner's article on beautiful and ugly airplanes. Although I would disagree slightly on his choices, mostly he hit the nail on the head and said what needed saying. It is a tour de force that he ever got the article into print!
My input: Although I intensely dislike jets, the XP-80 lines are among the best of the lot, nearly the equal of the Comet. A really pretty bird with elliptical lines, of course, is the DH Mosquito. It has some clutter because it's a twin (and it's harder for a twin to look nice). Another well-streamlined twin is the Martin B-26 with the circular fuselage, etc. Back to singles, the XP-39 was pretty clean.
For sick humor, picture some sort of "nose art" in the form of a mouth on the Bleriot 115! Especially if it were poorly done—by hand—all in white. Gasp!
Doug Dahlke EAA-ville (Oshkosh), WI
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
