February 2001 9
5151 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Letters to the Editor
Correction
The Radio Control helicopter Curtis
Youngblood is shown holding on page 61 of
the December 2000 issue was mistakenly
identified as a Raptor. The model is a Vigor.
Our apologies.
MA staff
Park Flier Frequencies
I am deeply concerned with the
proliferation of the so-called “backyard or park
fliers.” I make reference to the advertisement
in the October 2000 issue of Model Aviation,
page 124, and other publications such as Radio
Control Modeler, Model Airplane News, et. al.
These are Radio Control model airplanes
regardless of their size and power. There is
no mention of the necessity for prevention
of frequency interference if flown in close
proximity to authorized flying sites. The
fact that they are Electric hides their
existence from serious modelers.
Last week I was in the Seattle area. My
son and I were at an AMA sanctioned flying
club site. There was frequency interference
on channel 48. One airplane went into the
tree-lined perimeter and two others crashed
in a marsh area adjacent to the runway.
During a walk through the staging area, we
did not find any radios that were turned on.
Further investigation revealed that there was
one of these park fliers approximately 200
yards away, using a soccer field for flying.
When questioned, the flier was not
aware of the potential for causing a crash.
He stated that his airplane had been acting
“funny,” but he did not know why.
The AMA, of all people, should be
watching very closely what the industry is
doing. It would appear, however, that you
are not inasmuch, as you printed their ad
without any mention of frequency control.
Hobby shops do not inform potential
buyers of the hazard, and the magazines print
the ads without any mention of the risks
involved. The results could be disastrous.
Dale E. Singleton
Sun Lakes, Arizona
(Editor’s note: Please refer to the
sidebar in this issue’s “Newcomers”
column by Bob Underwood, which
addresses the preceding issue.)
Likes District VI Report
How interesting and exciting to read
Chuck Foreman’s District VI report. For
those of us who fly direct-control models, it
was refreshing to see a Vice President giving
his time and column to Control Line flying.
Contrast his page, 153, November 2000,
with Don Krafft, District I report. Splendid
Who are They?
The Academy of Model Aeronautics
History Program needs help putting
names with the faces in this photo.
Those who have been named are
Johnnie Clemens (far left); Leon Shulman
(second from left); Al Lewis (third from
left, standing); Walt Good (second from
right); and Chet Lanzo (far right).
If you can identify any of these other
men, please contact AMA librarian Rich
LaGrange at (765) 287-1256, ext. 506, or
by E-mail: [email protected].
pictures, but who are the persons, and
especially, what is the engine? It certainly is
special to rate three pictures. I read the page,
150, November 2000, twice, and still do not
have an inkling of what the pictures
illustrate or who the persons are.
Thank heavens Model Aviation has both
Mike Keville and Bill Boss as columnists. They
make the scene for at least one person who is not
totally enamored with Radio Control.
David H. Shipton
Delavan, Illinois
Focal Point
I would like to commend Model Aviation
on the “Focal Point” section of the
magazine. It is a great way to start reading
the magazine, and right at the beginning.
There has been so much commercial
advertising of the type of models such as the
Cap/Extra/Laser/Stinger, that many
newcomers get the idea that this is the way
most models are today.
“Focal Point” shows a broad spectrum of the
hobby with all kinds of models. Everything from
rubber power to turbine jets. It lets the reader
know that there is something for everyone.
Keep up the good work; the magazine
is fantastic.
Jim Hainen
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Microhenry’s Fan
I enjoy the Microhenry’s in Model
Aviation.
As a member of the Northeast R/C
Model Club, we find we have our own
micro Ed. I thought that Ed Henry might
need someone as a model for his cartoons.
We have just the man for the job. He is
fellow AMA member Ed Rodgers. He is an
all-around nice guy.
Stan Orlowski
Saugus, Massachusetts
Continued on page 174
Indoor Guidelines
Several months ago you posted some
guidelines concerning safety issues for
Indoor flying. These proposals were very
simple and well-thought-out, and everyone
could live by them.
Then you posted these new proposals, and
I am shocked. I’ve been flying Indoor for over
three years now and, from experience, can say
that these new proposals hurt the intelligence
of the Indoor modeler. I realize you need
rules, but three and a CD [Contest Director]?
Where did this come from?
This is not a requirement for any other
branch of this hobby which I have been part
of for the last 45 years. I’ve been flying
jets/turbines for years, and except for a
sanctioned contest, I don’t require a CD
present when a couple of my friends get
together to smoke the skies at a 180 knots,
and it proposed that I need a CD when I go
into the gym to hold my hand.
Also, classifying flying sites and weights
of aircraft allowed to fly in each class
facility is next to unreal.
I’ve seen people flying a five-ounce aircraft
in an indoor soccer facility, that needed to be
somewhere else, and I fly a large Bleriot that
can weigh up to 14 ounces, that flies very
gentle and is extremely maneuverable. I’ve
flown it looking through a one-inch monocle
TV screen, including Figure Eights and takeoff
and landings staying head-down all the time,
with no real problem.
Flying sites and aircraft sizing don’t
always go hand in hand. Let’s stick with
your earlier published guideline, not
something that wants to shut the hobby
down before it starts.
I personally do not like the idea of the
indoor racing, although it’s great for crowd
appeal. Most of the pilots I fly with get too
serious and most can’t fly for a hill of beans
anyway. The little models look great, but
either need to be smaller or carry a couple of
more batteries to go a little bit faster.
Again, I applaud the folks trying to come
up with something, but we need to step back
and get real. Over the years, I’ve seen things
come and go, but this is one segment of the
hobby that is about to bust wide open; give
it a chance before we choke it with
restrictive rules, such as just published.
Ed Couch
North Richland Hills, Texas
The AMA Safety Committee had the
following response:
AMA has approved simple guidelines for
Indoor operations. It is intended to observe
operations for some time before imposing
any changes. The proposed guidelines (new)
are intended to stimulate thought in this
area for the future.
The skill of the pilot makes all the difference
in the world as to what model can be flown in a
given site. A skilled pilot can fly a heavier and
faster model on a basketball court, whereas
novices can’t fly such a model safely.
Since we have so many novices getting
involved in Indoor Radio Control, the skill
factor needs to be considered.
Hi-starts
[Mike Garton’s RC Soaring] article on
hi-starts in the July 2000 edition of Model
Aviation is excellent work.
The amount of effort put into assembling
the information and photos resulted in a
very comprehensive and informative review
of all aspects of available products. An
extensive list of vendor addresses and Web
sites topped it all off well.
Keep up the good work.
Kirt Blattenberger
Loveland, Colorado
Food for Thought
As with any organization, the AMA does
not do things that every member will agree
with and/or approve of.
Often people complain about both state
and federal government organizations, which
have their imperfections. Now compare these
to other world governments. Most people
would agree that we live in the best country,
which is a result of good government.
So you have to look at AMA in the same
light. Members can and do make changes come
about. Each member has a District Vice
President listed in Model Aviationmagazine.
Please write and express your concerns. Your
VP votes on issues and sets association policies.
Karen Saunders
Niceville, Florida
174 M ODEL AVIATION
Continued from page 9
