Corrections
In the October 2004 issue, the captions
for the two nose-block photos in Gene
Smith’s “Free Flight Sport” column were
reversed.
In the 2004 Special Issue, the photo on
the bottom left corner of page 176 in D.B.
Mathews’ “Flying for Fun” column was
incorrectly identified. The model was Randy
Winter’s Fancy Foam Models Extra. Also in
the Special Issue, on page 20 in the upper
left-hand corner, Jason Bauer was
mistakenly identified as Peter Bauer.
Our apologies for the errors.
—MA staff
Not Enough Zeros
In my letter to Model Aviation, which
appeared in the Special Issue, I
inadvertently indicated that the top rpm of
the GHQ engine was less than 100. It should
have read “ ... less than 1,000 rpm.” The
error was my typo.
August R. Freda
Bradford, Pennsylvania
Calling Interference
I’m glad to see that my letter [Small-
Model Dangers] in the October 2004 issue
of Model Aviation had created some interest
and controversy. I think that the subject of
RC model airplane flying vs. radio
interference needs to be discussed and acted
upon.
Mr. Taylor’s comments (in the Special
Issue of Model Aviation, 2004) are
interesting. He’s correct, of course, that
when I lost my airplane to interference I did
not discover the source. However, neither
had I blamed the loss on a park flyer or RTF
purchases. I was merely pointing out that I
had been the victim of radio interference
and that I expect it to happen to others.
As he suggests, I may have to find a new
hobby soon. After 72 years of building
model airplanes, my fingers and sight are
less accurate than they were in 1932.
I think Mr. Taylor may be correct also
when he extolls the joys of indoor flying.
Unfortunately, there is no suitable place
available in my area that I know of, at
present. And I wonder if he has ever had the
thrill of seeing one of these big models
floating majestically and silently along in
the sky!
I do know what I am talking about when
it comes to potential liability. I’ve testified
in court as an expert almost 100 times in
some 3,200 investigations. Even though I
am an engineer, I’ve learned about “deep
pockets” and shared liability, and I’ve seen
how entities (companies and/or people) that
seemed blameless to me were brought into
suits and required to pay disproportionate
damages because of some arcane quirk of
the law.
Mr. Anderson’s letter in the same issue
of Model Aviation tends to follow my line of
thinking more closely. I do have to take
exception with him, however, on the issue
of what type of radio system one is most
likely to use with the aforementioned park
flyers and ARFs.
As I write this letter I have been perusing
two other model airplane magazines I
subscribe to, and while I agree that of those
small airplanes that do come with a radio,
most seem to come with a 27 MHz system,
the number of those so supplied is quite
limited compared to the total selection in the
field.
27 MHz radios do have the advantage,
price-wise, but since the majority of these
small airplanes come without any radio, can
we complacently assume that their owners
(who, in my aged mind at least, have spent
an inordinate amount of money for someone
else to build their airplanes) will select a
radio based primarily on the lowest price?
I agree with Mr. Anderson that
manufacturing of 27 MHz radios intended
for surface use who limit the power radiated
from the antenna would be taking one
positive step to reduce the overall radio
interference problem.
While I also like his idea of being able to
reduce the power of a transmitter by use of a
power setting switch, I fear that such a
safety device would rarely be used, because
the user would have to be using it purely
altruistically. Indeed, he would be placing
his own airplane in greater jeopardy of
being interfered with by some other
transmitter.
John W. Juechter
East Greenwich, Rhode Island
Target Practice
It was with great interest that I read [Doc
Mathews’] column appearing in the
November issue of Model Aviation
regarding attempts by the United States
Army to develop a radio controlled aerial
target drone for target practice by the
military.
I do recall the days of the late ’40s when
my brother and I attended the Illinois
National Guard summer training camps as
part of the 33rd Division, 698th Gun
Battalion duty. The first time I saw one of
the Radio Controlled Aerial Targets (RCATs)
as they were called, at the two-week
summer exercises at Camp Claybanks,
located near Muskegon, Michigan, I was
totally fascinated!
His column fully described the airplanes
and electronic equipment used at that time
in great detail! I was amazed that the control
of model aircraft had progressed as well as
it had up to that time.
My brother and I watched in amazement
as we observed the airplanes gaining
momentum for their takeoff on the circular
runways constructed for the unusual but
effective launch method. One item of
interest not mentioned in the column was
the fact that these target airplanes had an
operational parachute that would deploy
when struck by a shell.
While attending the summer training
exercises at Camp Claybanks, Michigan,
and later at Upper Red Lake, Minnesota, we
aimed our quad mount 50-caliber machine
guns on the drones in an effort to disable
one. They traveled easily at 150 plus miles
per hour in a zigzag fashion so as to test our
abilities.
It was at this time that my brother, PFC
Alfred Mostardo, was in control of one of
the guns mounted on one of the “Half-
Tracks.” On one of the passes, the drone
performed a snap maneuver high above the
sand cliffs overlooking Lake Michigan.
My brother fired a burst of 50-caliber
rounds striking the R-CAT squarely in the
center, sending the airplane into a spin in
the lake. The parachute did not deploy! We
later were told that the price of each of the
drones was approximately $3,800—the
price of a Buick Century in 1948.
My brother and I are now both retired
and avid radio control model airplane
enthusiasts. Al lives part-time in Mesa,
Arizona, and I live in San Diego, California.
We would like to say that our experience in
the Guard with RCATs is partly due to our
continued interest in radio controlled model
aviation. Thank you for retrieving that bit of
history for us.
Anthony V. Mostardo
Spring Valley, California
Benefits of Competition
I always enjoy [Bob Hunt’s] column in
MA. I was raised in the ’50s in Fort Wayne
IN and model airplanes were a big deal. I
even worked in a hobby shop and flew CL
on the weekends. I was never very good but
I did enjoy it.
Well, I retired in 1999 and decided to get
back to the hobby of my youth. I found a
CL club here in Minneapolis (Piston
Poppers), joined, and resumed flying. The
members have really been very helpful to
me. I’m still not very good but that’s beside
the point. I really enjoy model aviation.
Our club has a contest in August. I have
entered twice in the Beginners’ category and
still have difficulty with the Beginner’s pattern. I look at competition a little
differently, I suppose. I challenge myself to
do the best I can, I challenge myself to
overcome the nervousness that comes when
you’re the only one flying. And when I
inevitably crash or do a figure 9, as they say
in the Piston Poppers, I’m always given
words of encouragement.
My point is that competition, regardless of
how it’s presented, is good for developing
skills and moving to the next level.
I want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed
the special edition issue of MA which
featured the 2004 Nats. I enjoy reading
about all the different forms of modeling. I
think this issue should be an annual event: a
special edition featuring the Nats.
Competition—it’s what has pushed the
airplane from the Wright Flyer to what it is
today. And look at what it has done to our
hobby!
Mike Moylan
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Building/Repairing Skills Lacking
Although I have been in RC since the
’70s and have built practically all my
aircraft since I started, I have really been
enjoying the beginners’ articles in the
magazine. These articles have a lot of good
information that anyone can learn from,
whether you have been flying for 1 month
or 20 years. A lot of this we learned initially
and then forgot or we never learned the
right way in the first place.
Recently a situation arose at the field
which raised some concern in my mind. The
club instructor was complaining that he had
no time to build, as he had so many repairs
to do for his students. Now correct me, but
isn’t it the aircraft’s owner’s responsibility
to repair his own aircraft?
It seems that the advent of ARFs has led
to the total demise of those who can build or
repair. Also I have seen pilots with damaged
aircraft say they will throw out an airframe
with only moderate damage rather than
repair it because they don’t want to be
bothered with repairs.
This isn’t all bad, as I have gotten a lot
of good parts from these airframes.
Essentially these people are spending $200
to replace an airplane that could be repaired
with $20 or less in epoxy super glue, a little
balsa, and covering.
ARFs are a definite benefit as far as
getting people started flying and for those
who don’t have the time or talent to build,
but the skills to repair these aircraft need to
be developed and retained.
As for me, I will keep building from
plans, and I, for one, will never have an
airplane on the flightline that is exactly
like someone else’s.
Jack Pfaller
Rockledge, Florida
Honoring the Wrights
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003,
Frank Rende and I launched my 1903
electric Wright Flyer at exactly 10:35 a.m.
at the KVMA field in Sidney, Maine. At the
exact same time, Peter Flanagan and Robert
Baker launched their two Piper Cubs at the
Skystreakers field in New Gloucester,
Maine.
All of these flights were to
commemorate the original flight of the
Wright brothers. Pete and I both thought it
would be unique to participate in this
historical event at exactly the same time to
the minute one hundred years later.
The weather at the time at both fields
was a light freezing drizzle and very little
wind. Frank and I are retired but both Peter
and Robert had to take a vacation day in
order to be at the field to re-enact this event.
I only found out about the flight of Peter
and Bob at an August Fly In at New
Gloucester, Maine, while talking to Peter.
We thought you might be interested in
our flights and hope many other fliers did
the same thing even if they made their
flights at exactly 10:35 a.m. local time. MA
Paul Flohn
Monmouth, Maine
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/01
Page Numbers: 9,197
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/01
Page Numbers: 9,197
Corrections
In the October 2004 issue, the captions
for the two nose-block photos in Gene
Smith’s “Free Flight Sport” column were
reversed.
In the 2004 Special Issue, the photo on
the bottom left corner of page 176 in D.B.
Mathews’ “Flying for Fun” column was
incorrectly identified. The model was Randy
Winter’s Fancy Foam Models Extra. Also in
the Special Issue, on page 20 in the upper
left-hand corner, Jason Bauer was
mistakenly identified as Peter Bauer.
Our apologies for the errors.
—MA staff
Not Enough Zeros
In my letter to Model Aviation, which
appeared in the Special Issue, I
inadvertently indicated that the top rpm of
the GHQ engine was less than 100. It should
have read “ ... less than 1,000 rpm.” The
error was my typo.
August R. Freda
Bradford, Pennsylvania
Calling Interference
I’m glad to see that my letter [Small-
Model Dangers] in the October 2004 issue
of Model Aviation had created some interest
and controversy. I think that the subject of
RC model airplane flying vs. radio
interference needs to be discussed and acted
upon.
Mr. Taylor’s comments (in the Special
Issue of Model Aviation, 2004) are
interesting. He’s correct, of course, that
when I lost my airplane to interference I did
not discover the source. However, neither
had I blamed the loss on a park flyer or RTF
purchases. I was merely pointing out that I
had been the victim of radio interference
and that I expect it to happen to others.
As he suggests, I may have to find a new
hobby soon. After 72 years of building
model airplanes, my fingers and sight are
less accurate than they were in 1932.
I think Mr. Taylor may be correct also
when he extolls the joys of indoor flying.
Unfortunately, there is no suitable place
available in my area that I know of, at
present. And I wonder if he has ever had the
thrill of seeing one of these big models
floating majestically and silently along in
the sky!
I do know what I am talking about when
it comes to potential liability. I’ve testified
in court as an expert almost 100 times in
some 3,200 investigations. Even though I
am an engineer, I’ve learned about “deep
pockets” and shared liability, and I’ve seen
how entities (companies and/or people) that
seemed blameless to me were brought into
suits and required to pay disproportionate
damages because of some arcane quirk of
the law.
Mr. Anderson’s letter in the same issue
of Model Aviation tends to follow my line of
thinking more closely. I do have to take
exception with him, however, on the issue
of what type of radio system one is most
likely to use with the aforementioned park
flyers and ARFs.
As I write this letter I have been perusing
two other model airplane magazines I
subscribe to, and while I agree that of those
small airplanes that do come with a radio,
most seem to come with a 27 MHz system,
the number of those so supplied is quite
limited compared to the total selection in the
field.
27 MHz radios do have the advantage,
price-wise, but since the majority of these
small airplanes come without any radio, can
we complacently assume that their owners
(who, in my aged mind at least, have spent
an inordinate amount of money for someone
else to build their airplanes) will select a
radio based primarily on the lowest price?
I agree with Mr. Anderson that
manufacturing of 27 MHz radios intended
for surface use who limit the power radiated
from the antenna would be taking one
positive step to reduce the overall radio
interference problem.
While I also like his idea of being able to
reduce the power of a transmitter by use of a
power setting switch, I fear that such a
safety device would rarely be used, because
the user would have to be using it purely
altruistically. Indeed, he would be placing
his own airplane in greater jeopardy of
being interfered with by some other
transmitter.
John W. Juechter
East Greenwich, Rhode Island
Target Practice
It was with great interest that I read [Doc
Mathews’] column appearing in the
November issue of Model Aviation
regarding attempts by the United States
Army to develop a radio controlled aerial
target drone for target practice by the
military.
I do recall the days of the late ’40s when
my brother and I attended the Illinois
National Guard summer training camps as
part of the 33rd Division, 698th Gun
Battalion duty. The first time I saw one of
the Radio Controlled Aerial Targets (RCATs)
as they were called, at the two-week
summer exercises at Camp Claybanks,
located near Muskegon, Michigan, I was
totally fascinated!
His column fully described the airplanes
and electronic equipment used at that time
in great detail! I was amazed that the control
of model aircraft had progressed as well as
it had up to that time.
My brother and I watched in amazement
as we observed the airplanes gaining
momentum for their takeoff on the circular
runways constructed for the unusual but
effective launch method. One item of
interest not mentioned in the column was
the fact that these target airplanes had an
operational parachute that would deploy
when struck by a shell.
While attending the summer training
exercises at Camp Claybanks, Michigan,
and later at Upper Red Lake, Minnesota, we
aimed our quad mount 50-caliber machine
guns on the drones in an effort to disable
one. They traveled easily at 150 plus miles
per hour in a zigzag fashion so as to test our
abilities.
It was at this time that my brother, PFC
Alfred Mostardo, was in control of one of
the guns mounted on one of the “Half-
Tracks.” On one of the passes, the drone
performed a snap maneuver high above the
sand cliffs overlooking Lake Michigan.
My brother fired a burst of 50-caliber
rounds striking the R-CAT squarely in the
center, sending the airplane into a spin in
the lake. The parachute did not deploy! We
later were told that the price of each of the
drones was approximately $3,800—the
price of a Buick Century in 1948.
My brother and I are now both retired
and avid radio control model airplane
enthusiasts. Al lives part-time in Mesa,
Arizona, and I live in San Diego, California.
We would like to say that our experience in
the Guard with RCATs is partly due to our
continued interest in radio controlled model
aviation. Thank you for retrieving that bit of
history for us.
Anthony V. Mostardo
Spring Valley, California
Benefits of Competition
I always enjoy [Bob Hunt’s] column in
MA. I was raised in the ’50s in Fort Wayne
IN and model airplanes were a big deal. I
even worked in a hobby shop and flew CL
on the weekends. I was never very good but
I did enjoy it.
Well, I retired in 1999 and decided to get
back to the hobby of my youth. I found a
CL club here in Minneapolis (Piston
Poppers), joined, and resumed flying. The
members have really been very helpful to
me. I’m still not very good but that’s beside
the point. I really enjoy model aviation.
Our club has a contest in August. I have
entered twice in the Beginners’ category and
still have difficulty with the Beginner’s pattern. I look at competition a little
differently, I suppose. I challenge myself to
do the best I can, I challenge myself to
overcome the nervousness that comes when
you’re the only one flying. And when I
inevitably crash or do a figure 9, as they say
in the Piston Poppers, I’m always given
words of encouragement.
My point is that competition, regardless of
how it’s presented, is good for developing
skills and moving to the next level.
I want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed
the special edition issue of MA which
featured the 2004 Nats. I enjoy reading
about all the different forms of modeling. I
think this issue should be an annual event: a
special edition featuring the Nats.
Competition—it’s what has pushed the
airplane from the Wright Flyer to what it is
today. And look at what it has done to our
hobby!
Mike Moylan
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Building/Repairing Skills Lacking
Although I have been in RC since the
’70s and have built practically all my
aircraft since I started, I have really been
enjoying the beginners’ articles in the
magazine. These articles have a lot of good
information that anyone can learn from,
whether you have been flying for 1 month
or 20 years. A lot of this we learned initially
and then forgot or we never learned the
right way in the first place.
Recently a situation arose at the field
which raised some concern in my mind. The
club instructor was complaining that he had
no time to build, as he had so many repairs
to do for his students. Now correct me, but
isn’t it the aircraft’s owner’s responsibility
to repair his own aircraft?
It seems that the advent of ARFs has led
to the total demise of those who can build or
repair. Also I have seen pilots with damaged
aircraft say they will throw out an airframe
with only moderate damage rather than
repair it because they don’t want to be
bothered with repairs.
This isn’t all bad, as I have gotten a lot
of good parts from these airframes.
Essentially these people are spending $200
to replace an airplane that could be repaired
with $20 or less in epoxy super glue, a little
balsa, and covering.
ARFs are a definite benefit as far as
getting people started flying and for those
who don’t have the time or talent to build,
but the skills to repair these aircraft need to
be developed and retained.
As for me, I will keep building from
plans, and I, for one, will never have an
airplane on the flightline that is exactly
like someone else’s.
Jack Pfaller
Rockledge, Florida
Honoring the Wrights
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003,
Frank Rende and I launched my 1903
electric Wright Flyer at exactly 10:35 a.m.
at the KVMA field in Sidney, Maine. At the
exact same time, Peter Flanagan and Robert
Baker launched their two Piper Cubs at the
Skystreakers field in New Gloucester,
Maine.
All of these flights were to
commemorate the original flight of the
Wright brothers. Pete and I both thought it
would be unique to participate in this
historical event at exactly the same time to
the minute one hundred years later.
The weather at the time at both fields
was a light freezing drizzle and very little
wind. Frank and I are retired but both Peter
and Robert had to take a vacation day in
order to be at the field to re-enact this event.
I only found out about the flight of Peter
and Bob at an August Fly In at New
Gloucester, Maine, while talking to Peter.
We thought you might be interested in
our flights and hope many other fliers did
the same thing even if they made their
flights at exactly 10:35 a.m. local time. MA
Paul Flohn
Monmouth, Maine