Newcomers
Contact
Box 40, St. Peters, MO 63376
During my 30 years as a fifth-grade teacher, I sat down with parents several thousand times for regularly scheduled conferences. As these sessions approached, there were always a few that produced a degree of apprehension, usually because of student performance and/or parental attitude. More often than not, these conferences went swimmingly—or at least without incident.
Sprinkled in were conferences involving excellent, well-adjusted students who never caused a lick of trouble. It seemed, though, that at least once every year, one of those conferences resulted in salvos fired in my direction—out of the blue.
My April column produced two salvos.
The column dealt with the fact that Radio Control (RC) trainers available in the bulk are in the .40 engine-size range. I also referenced the concept that "bigger is better"; larger models tend to be easier to fly because of lower wing-loading, visibility, etc. I also mentioned that there are trade-offs among problems of transport, cost, upkeep, and usability of components in later models.
I sincerely wish that I could print the two letters in their entirety; they are extremely well-written. Unfortunately, one is comprised of two and a half pages of single-spaced type, and the other is five pages, with an additional page of graphs.
Samuel Brauer (S. Norwalk, CT)
Samuel Brauer raises objections to my premise that the current crop of typical trainers in the .40 size are a good choice. He maintains that the kits and the ARFs (Almost Ready to Fly models) in that size range are ill-suited to provide a good platform for teaching the raw beginner how to fly an RC model. He suggests that they:
- are too heavy,
- are too fast, and
- have too little positive stability.
Mr. Brauer also notes that many of the firms producing the models are located offshore, and that the primary motive is "to make a buck, rather than a love of the hobby."
The latter point, as well as a few others in his letter, was addressed in earlier "Newcomers" columns. The quality of ARFs was treated by suggesting that the newcomer check into the construction in a variety of ways. While Mr. Brauer does make reference to the lack of suitability of a .40-size model, the bulk of his comments revolve around the quality of the models offered; I see those as two different issues.
I am led to ponder whether, if the same companies he is concerned about were producing ARFs or kits in other sizes or configurations, the problem he suggests would not still exist. I agree with him wholeheartedly that we must attempt to drive the market toward producing the best, most viable learning tools possible. That's not an easy task, and maybe we're losing that battle. He states that "your (my) tacit approval of these .40-size 'trainers' does more harm than good." If others arrived at that conclusion, then I missed the mark, and I apologize.
It should be noted that Mr. Brauer is a teacher and has worked long and hard at bringing newcomers into our hobby/sport and keeping them; he is to be commended for his concern.
Alan Brown (Watsonville, CA)
The second letter, from Alan Brown, is as beautifully written and articulate as the first. As an aerodynamicist at Lockheed, he delves deeply into the statement I made about "bigger is better" and agrees with that concept completely. However, in his five pages plus graphics, he takes exception with the wing-loading concept I used; obviously, I used a far too simplistic explanation.
I am sending his text along to Model Aviation's staff for their consideration. I must confess that a large portion of the formulas, calculations, and conclusions are beyond my understanding. They do, however, include a vast amount of valuable research on his part concerning our models.
Mr. Brown's comprehensive treatment of the aerodynamics associated with wing loading is similar to a response I received several years ago to a definition of torque in the "Illumination" section. In that case, a letter arrived indicating that I'd missed the mark and described P-factor, as well as torque. When I happened to mention the letter to two aerodynamically knowledgeable members of the AMA Executive Council, I started a full-blown debate on the subject during a meeting break!
Purpose and approach of this column
When this column first appeared, we appealed to all readers to bear in mind that what we were attempting to accomplish was to provide simple, easy-to-understand guides for newcomers. We've tried to indicate what is available, show simple techniques to use, acquaint our new friends with the jargon they will hear at the local flying site, and to generally tell what we are about as "pilots with our feet on the ground." What we have not tried to do is promote any specific program or product.
Mr. Brauer suggests that I have given "tacit approval" to a size or type of model which he feels may not be suitable for trainer purposes; he may be correct in his observation. But the purpose of the column has been to acquaint the newcomer with what is out there, not to create a crusade to change trends.
A month or so after I wrote the April column, I was in a local hobby shop. The salesperson (an experienced modeler) was quite busy. A mother and her teenage son were prowling the aisles looking for a suitable trainer and began to ask questions. I was drawn into the conversation and ultimately spent time with them considering options.
The mother made a very interesting observation: she noted that the vast majority of models designated as "trainers" either had "40" in their name or recommended a .40-size engine. She wondered why the size was so universal.
It was simple to point out that a number of the follow-on (second-level) kits could also use the same engine, radio gear, etc. I was later told that the mother and son purchased a well-known ARF for learning to fly and a kit, in the hopes that the young man would work toward becoming a "modeler," rather than just a "flier" of models.
Will it work out? I hope so. Maybe we'll find out in a few years if the young man applies for an AMA Scholarship as a high school senior!
I must add that I mentioned other options, including Free Flight and Control Line. It became clear rather quickly, though, that RC was where they were headed.
Closing thoughts
The bottom line of this whole column is that we really try to keep things simple. The terms used and the suggestions made are formulated from an experience base accumulated from contact with clubs and individuals. We are also addressing a very wide range of ages and levels of experience.
The purpose of the column has not been to build a tower of information, with the peak being the ultimate technological answer. Rather, we have sought to repeatedly lay a foundation; if you are a longtime reader of this column, you've seen items repeated every couple of years.
Let's end this month by letting the two writers know how much I appreciate the time they took to communicate their concerns. Their thoughts perform a valuable service to the hobby/sport and to me. It's flattering to know that knowledgeable, dedicated "already modelers" read this stuff. More importantly, such responses help to provide a reality check for the information we are providing.
Thank you, gentlemen. I'll watch my Ps and Qs in the future.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
