Now You're Talking . . .: RC Combat Feedback
RC Combat Feedback — Ray Abadie
I just received and read the new issue of MA. Great work as usual! I have some feedback, though. The article criticizing RC Combat misses the mark by a long shot. The fact that the author is a CL flier addressing a subject about which he knows nothing has irritated several of my fellow AMA members. You devoted a whole page to the ramblings of this fellow. Here are some facts.
Aircraft used for Combat are usually unstable, small flight platforms that require constant attention to remain aloft. A flyaway is highly unlikely, though the same cannot be stated of a CL Combat model whose lines have been cut.
Midairs do occur (rather infrequently) as depth perception makes this pursuit more of a game of chance than a certain science. In all cases observed, the light, collapsible structures of the aircraft involved caused the wreckage to drop vertically. Since the flying area is closely policed and is a safe distance away from both pilots and spectators, the risk is minimized beyond that of, say, a Q-500 race where midairs are more common and people are standing between the pylons.
Don't get me wrong. I am not a fanatic. I am a responsible modeler who has been involved in the creation of several clubs, held club office several times, am currently a CD, and a Life Member. For 17 years I have regarded safety as the number one priority and have been a dynamic advocate of the AMA.
The letter was out of place in MA in any forum other than a soapbox corner, not a full page. If the AMA did this as a hint, then I suggest that if all risk is to be taken out of modeling, Racing should cease to be a sanctioned event. See how the Racing community reacts to that.
We all engage in a series of activities in our lives that carry varying degrees of risk. RC Combat is not a game of deranged derelicts; it is recreation (chasing a streamer) for competent pilots who knowingly engage in it. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but we are conscious modelers enjoying our hobby/sport.
Ray Abadie Dallas, Georgia
Fun Float-Flying — Jim Halls
The happy conclusion was that I had a good flight, but I do suggest that float-flying is greatly enhanced if you have someone with you in the bow of the canoe!
Spectators are vital to our sport/hobby. Almost everyone's attention is drawn to a seaplane—a combination of spray, power, and, I have to say it, noise quickens the pulse of the onlookers. Perhaps they think for a few tense moments that the plane will not get off the water or clear the trees at the end of the lake. Excitement. Even the plane's floats in the air lead to an unusual appearance.
Landings generate interest too. I would rather have spectators say, "This I have to see!" The excitement, tension, then a great landing followed by applause to commend the performance.
Now I ask you—do we achieve this public acceptance with our land planes? To be perfectly fair, we do—to a lesser degree. However, we are losing airfields at an alarming rate. My basic pitch is simply to encourage more float-flying.
Coupled with public acceptance seems to be the fact that the boaters, realizing the skill and performance required, have so far kept their distance from me. They motor over to ask all the usual questions, including the kicker, "How can I get into this sport/hobby?" Shorebound spectators also seem to accept the noise factor. They, too, have motor boats, thus strengthening our alliance.
My plea to you is to encourage these water activities as much as possible. Why not start a column? Call it "Fun Float-Flying" or something of that sort. I would be happy to contribute my thoughts with pictures, too—if I can figure out a way to propel a canoe, fly, and take pictures all at the same time.
Jim Halls Johnson, Vermont
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
