The Right Direction?
Let me start off by saying I am one of the
“few” who read Model Aviation almost from
cover to cover! And for the most part, am
satisfied with the final results—nice color,
interesting topics, etc.
But you will probably agree with me that
the majority of AMA members’ complaints
boil down to the comment “don’t want the
magazine.” So by trying to improve the
magazine, you are on the right path.
[Bob Hunt’s January 2003] column
stated that 96% of AMA members are
involved in RC in some fashion and later
stated something to the effect that the
majority of new members dropping AMA
was just that—new members! I believe these
observations are correct—and see that
happening in our area and heard about it in
other regions also.
Now to where I disagree: “ … there is
not much to write about for the casual ARF
or RTF modeler.” If (and that’s a big word)
the majority of modelers dropping out are
“newbies,” maybe we (Model Aviation)
should be focusing more in that area! Also if
96% of AMA members are RC oriented,
shouldn’t a greater emphasis be placed in
that area?
Of the total AMA membership, perhaps
90% or greater (I’m guessing here) are
“sport fliers” (to use that term without a
definition is easy huh?). Maybe MA should
focus more in that area also.
It really bothers me when I hear or read
so many modelers “just throw the magazine
away”—there is so much to learn if one
would just give it a try!
The article on “Airplanes and the Wind”
was great, as was the article on prop
selection a couple of months ago, so keep
plugging away. Maybe I can generate some
interest via the Web to get guys to read this
stuff!
Jerry Festa
Huntsville, Alabama
I was shocked to learn that the “vast
majority of AMA members … are sport
fliers.” And further pleased to see that you
recognize it. I regard myself as a sport flier,
who will build as necessary to acquire
hardware.
Your publication usually commands
about 20 minutes of my attention and I often
wonder why I bother with that. (Too bad
you don’t offer membership without the
magazine.) I am not being critical of the
many fine articles and information, they just
don’t have much interest for me. I think
your analysis is right on, and I am
encouraged to see the future you are
working on.
When I was a kid, in the forties, I used to
build “models.” And years ago I tried wet
RC flying and found it lacking for me. Sure
I admire the good work those fellows do, but
it just doesn’t interest me. Then I found RC
soaring.
I especially like slope soaring. Electric
sailplanes are great for finding thermals. I
will build kits and even from scratch to get a
good sailplane but I have not yet found the
courage to put out for those expensive
competition models. That’s probably
because I am not interested in competition. I
just want to have fun.
I don’t consider myself to be a “modeler”
and I don’t build “models.” I am a flier who
knows his hardware through first person
experience. Your editorial makes a lot of
sense to me and I look forward to seeing
where it leads.
Bill Pike
Amherst, New York
Your January 2003 editorial certainly has
struck a chord; for years I have been
complaining (to other fellow modelers)
about AMA’s lack of understanding of the
readership of its official publication.
I agree in your assessment that 96% of
your membership involves RC; however,
does the staff know what percentage of that
involves Scale, and in the last several years,
Giant Scale? The lack of significant
construction articles for the past two
decades covering that segment vs. the
amount of articles dedicated to CL and FF
must be 80 to 1, and when an RC
construction article is printed, it involves
some kind of Mud Duck type of aircraft.
Has anyone from AMA visited a flying field
in the last 10 years?
I agree that the proliferation of ARF
types has encouraged many to join the
hobby; however, I do not see the “traditional
modeler” waning as you assessed, not even
statistically. The “traditional modelers” are
being overlooked by a monopolized model
industry for not filling their pockets since
the traditional modeler does not spend as
much money, since we take longer on a
project, and scale models live longer, and
because for the most part we are the ones
that support the smaller manufacturers.
In this new era of fast food, and even
faster communications, new fliers cannot
conceive in their minds spending a year
building a classic model such as a Fleet or a
WACO from a kit, or to sit in front of a
table and “waste” a month cutting the parts
for a plans built project.
I believe it is up to the AMA to bring
back that spirit, to bring to your readers
through construction articles the joy of
creating and flying one’s own creation,
articles on how to cover a model—not in
“fast plastic covering” but in traditional
covering materials suited to the type—
articles on how to paint, articles on how to
gather information for that scale project, the
list goes on.
And finally, there is another monster
lurking—that of the super large, get a
second mortgage on your home if you want
to fly, aerobatic models such as the one on
your cover. The AMA has to take a step, and
limit the size of these monsters with engines
powerful enough to power a man carrying
ultralight aircraft, for safety reasons, for the
spirit of the organization, and for the
younger generations.
I have seen it, time and time again—
potential new members get discouraged at
local fly ins by the price tag of these models;
no young modeler can afford them, nor a
parent trying to keep his son/daughter with
his/her mind occupied in something
creative, and away from the perils of today.
You’re headed in the right direction, I
congratulate you on a much needed course
change, and your January Extra 300
construction article shows a great future;
just don’t over shoot the runway.
Roger Gonzalez
Miami, Florida
Consumer Responsibility
I read, with interest, in the January ’03
issue of Model Aviation Steve Wilson’s
letter to the editor. Steve’s concern was that
the AMA demonstrated no leadership by not
exposing and putting pressure on
manufacturers and marketers who put out
inferior products. It seems that Steve has a
basement full of them. In the same issue
Bob Kopski (Radio Control Electrics) wrote
about electric ARFs “X” and “Y” that fell a
little short to say the least. This is not a new
problem and it is one that is not that difficult
to overcome.
In 1946 I was 12 years old (OK, do the
math) and was ready to buy my first engine.
I went to the local hobby shop and asked for
a recommendation. The shop owner
recommended an Ohlsson .23 that he had in
the case for $16.50. I asked him about the
Thor .29 that America’s Hobby Center
advertised for $12.95. The dealer said that
he had never seen a Thor .29 so he could say
nothing good or bad about it.
The dealer had a vested interest in his
inventory so I wrote off his advice. I worked
most of the summer cutting neighbors’ grass
using a reel type lawn mower (totally boy
powered); I made 50 cents a lawn.
I learned three major things from my
Thor: 1) how to flip a prop, always
expecting it to fire, which it seldom did; 2)
that the Thor was not reliable enough to put
in an airplane; and 3) most important, on a
Model Aviation, 5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Letters to the Editor
Continued on page 139
April 2003 9
04sig1.QXD 1.24.03 9:36 am Page 9
major investment ask others what they use
and know works.
My dad felt so sorry for me that he gave
me a partial advance ($5.00) on my next 2
months allowance and helped me to talk
the hobby shop owner into allowing me to
pay off the balance at 50 cents a week. The
dealer’s final words, as we left the shop,
were that if I failed to make my payment
each Friday, a big fellow would be at my
house on Saturday to pick up the engine
and do “bad things” to me. I paid off the
engine ahead of schedule. The O&R .23
ran great.
When I decided to buy my first Control
Line kit, I talked it over with the hobby
shop owner. He said he had sold several
kits; however, he knew of none that had
been successfully flown. On our next trip
to Jacksonville, I asked at the hobby shop
for advice. Since I had no instructor and
had never seen a Control Line airplane fly,
they suggested a Comet Flicker.
The Flicker was unique in that it had
flaps on the wings and a fixed horizontal
stabilizer. In flight the airplane appeared to
go up or down with almost no change in
attitude. This made it almost impossible to
stall and flyable with the underpowered
ignition O&R .23.
My friend and I both learned to safely
get a Control Line airplane off the ground
and back down without ever seeing anyone
else fly one. The Flicker could not be
looped or even do a wingover. For an
experienced pilot or a student pilot with a
good instructor, it was a dog. However, for
me and my friend it was just the ticket.
I’ve written all of this to say that there
has always been a wide variety of quality
associated with any type of products in the
marketplace. Over the years I have
purchased few model products that did not
reach or exceed my expectations. I’ve
looked or asked to find what others are
having success with or used my experience
to evaluate the product before purchasing
it.
If you have a need to be the leader of
the pack with the latest and greatest, and
plan to get it sight unseen from a mail
order house, expect to have a few Thors in
your basement.
Don Wolfe
Saint Augustine, Florida
Pluses and Minuses
I did a double take a few days ago upon
retrieving the 02/03 MA from my mailbox.
“When did I start a subscription to an
aviation art magazine?” I asked myself
before recognizing an old friend in new,
very evocative clothes. I hope to see more
of the same in the future.
MA is the most comprehensive
magazine of its kind and I enjoy reading
every column. I like the recent additions
(Paul Bradley and Dave Robelen in
particular) very much, and am glad to see
product reviews appearing from time to
time. Also, I like not having to deal with
overwrought graphic design that often
makes reading copy difficult, if not
impossible.
Two things need improving. One, the
specifications provided with model
construction articles is pitiful. Take a look
at specs shown with such articles in RC
Modeler. (I E-mailed this concern to you
over a year ago, but no change so far.) Two,
the specifications provided with product
reviews is likewise insufficient. Take a look
at info for product reviews in RC Report.
They’re tops!
Frank Korman
Dallas, Texas
MA or no MA?
I am writing in regard to the letter from
Victor Stuhr from Seattle, Washington in
the February edition of Model Aviation. I
believe that Mr. Stuhr speaks for a
significant segment of AMA members.
Most, if not all, of the people I fly with
are exclusively Radio Control enthusiasts.
Most, if not all, of the members in the clubs
I know only take their AMA memberships
in order to be able to fly at club fields,
because, let’s face it, you need insurance to
fly at club fields, and AMA is basically the
only game in town.
If Model Aviation is a “benefit,” then
why is there a price of $3.50 conspicuously
placed on each and every issue of the
magazine? This price tag says to me that
this magazine is an “extra” that we are
billed for, in excess of our insurance,
instead of a benefit that goes along with
said insurance.
[AMA’s Special Services Department]
further states that some organizations
include such “benefits” to their members
and use the United States Tennis
Association as an example. To me, this is
much like comparing apples to oranges, as
tennis is basically an exclusively
competitive sport, which needs a set court
to play on and cannot be practiced without a
competitive partner.
Flying model airplanes needs no real set
environment, doesn’t need to be
competitive, and can be practiced anywhere
there is a safe amount of room and can be
enjoyed in the company of others or alone.
Most of the people I know in the RC
community could not care less about
whether the AMA staff has a comfy office
in Muncie, a national flying site to show
off, or whether or not there are national
contests.
Nearly all of us merely enjoy the
company of friends on a sunny weekend
afternoon. Nearly all of us enjoy the
freedom of being able to go to the field for
an afternoon of fellowship and fun and
that’s about it.
Why not give us the opportunity to put
Continued from page 9
Edition: Model Aviation - 2003/04
Page Numbers: 9,141
Edition: Model Aviation - 2003/04
Page Numbers: 9,141
The Right Direction?
Let me start off by saying I am one of the
“few” who read Model Aviation almost from
cover to cover! And for the most part, am
satisfied with the final results—nice color,
interesting topics, etc.
But you will probably agree with me that
the majority of AMA members’ complaints
boil down to the comment “don’t want the
magazine.” So by trying to improve the
magazine, you are on the right path.
[Bob Hunt’s January 2003] column
stated that 96% of AMA members are
involved in RC in some fashion and later
stated something to the effect that the
majority of new members dropping AMA
was just that—new members! I believe these
observations are correct—and see that
happening in our area and heard about it in
other regions also.
Now to where I disagree: “ … there is
not much to write about for the casual ARF
or RTF modeler.” If (and that’s a big word)
the majority of modelers dropping out are
“newbies,” maybe we (Model Aviation)
should be focusing more in that area! Also if
96% of AMA members are RC oriented,
shouldn’t a greater emphasis be placed in
that area?
Of the total AMA membership, perhaps
90% or greater (I’m guessing here) are
“sport fliers” (to use that term without a
definition is easy huh?). Maybe MA should
focus more in that area also.
It really bothers me when I hear or read
so many modelers “just throw the magazine
away”—there is so much to learn if one
would just give it a try!
The article on “Airplanes and the Wind”
was great, as was the article on prop
selection a couple of months ago, so keep
plugging away. Maybe I can generate some
interest via the Web to get guys to read this
stuff!
Jerry Festa
Huntsville, Alabama
I was shocked to learn that the “vast
majority of AMA members … are sport
fliers.” And further pleased to see that you
recognize it. I regard myself as a sport flier,
who will build as necessary to acquire
hardware.
Your publication usually commands
about 20 minutes of my attention and I often
wonder why I bother with that. (Too bad
you don’t offer membership without the
magazine.) I am not being critical of the
many fine articles and information, they just
don’t have much interest for me. I think
your analysis is right on, and I am
encouraged to see the future you are
working on.
When I was a kid, in the forties, I used to
build “models.” And years ago I tried wet
RC flying and found it lacking for me. Sure
I admire the good work those fellows do, but
it just doesn’t interest me. Then I found RC
soaring.
I especially like slope soaring. Electric
sailplanes are great for finding thermals. I
will build kits and even from scratch to get a
good sailplane but I have not yet found the
courage to put out for those expensive
competition models. That’s probably
because I am not interested in competition. I
just want to have fun.
I don’t consider myself to be a “modeler”
and I don’t build “models.” I am a flier who
knows his hardware through first person
experience. Your editorial makes a lot of
sense to me and I look forward to seeing
where it leads.
Bill Pike
Amherst, New York
Your January 2003 editorial certainly has
struck a chord; for years I have been
complaining (to other fellow modelers)
about AMA’s lack of understanding of the
readership of its official publication.
I agree in your assessment that 96% of
your membership involves RC; however,
does the staff know what percentage of that
involves Scale, and in the last several years,
Giant Scale? The lack of significant
construction articles for the past two
decades covering that segment vs. the
amount of articles dedicated to CL and FF
must be 80 to 1, and when an RC
construction article is printed, it involves
some kind of Mud Duck type of aircraft.
Has anyone from AMA visited a flying field
in the last 10 years?
I agree that the proliferation of ARF
types has encouraged many to join the
hobby; however, I do not see the “traditional
modeler” waning as you assessed, not even
statistically. The “traditional modelers” are
being overlooked by a monopolized model
industry for not filling their pockets since
the traditional modeler does not spend as
much money, since we take longer on a
project, and scale models live longer, and
because for the most part we are the ones
that support the smaller manufacturers.
In this new era of fast food, and even
faster communications, new fliers cannot
conceive in their minds spending a year
building a classic model such as a Fleet or a
WACO from a kit, or to sit in front of a
table and “waste” a month cutting the parts
for a plans built project.
I believe it is up to the AMA to bring
back that spirit, to bring to your readers
through construction articles the joy of
creating and flying one’s own creation,
articles on how to cover a model—not in
“fast plastic covering” but in traditional
covering materials suited to the type—
articles on how to paint, articles on how to
gather information for that scale project, the
list goes on.
And finally, there is another monster
lurking—that of the super large, get a
second mortgage on your home if you want
to fly, aerobatic models such as the one on
your cover. The AMA has to take a step, and
limit the size of these monsters with engines
powerful enough to power a man carrying
ultralight aircraft, for safety reasons, for the
spirit of the organization, and for the
younger generations.
I have seen it, time and time again—
potential new members get discouraged at
local fly ins by the price tag of these models;
no young modeler can afford them, nor a
parent trying to keep his son/daughter with
his/her mind occupied in something
creative, and away from the perils of today.
You’re headed in the right direction, I
congratulate you on a much needed course
change, and your January Extra 300
construction article shows a great future;
just don’t over shoot the runway.
Roger Gonzalez
Miami, Florida
Consumer Responsibility
I read, with interest, in the January ’03
issue of Model Aviation Steve Wilson’s
letter to the editor. Steve’s concern was that
the AMA demonstrated no leadership by not
exposing and putting pressure on
manufacturers and marketers who put out
inferior products. It seems that Steve has a
basement full of them. In the same issue
Bob Kopski (Radio Control Electrics) wrote
about electric ARFs “X” and “Y” that fell a
little short to say the least. This is not a new
problem and it is one that is not that difficult
to overcome.
In 1946 I was 12 years old (OK, do the
math) and was ready to buy my first engine.
I went to the local hobby shop and asked for
a recommendation. The shop owner
recommended an Ohlsson .23 that he had in
the case for $16.50. I asked him about the
Thor .29 that America’s Hobby Center
advertised for $12.95. The dealer said that
he had never seen a Thor .29 so he could say
nothing good or bad about it.
The dealer had a vested interest in his
inventory so I wrote off his advice. I worked
most of the summer cutting neighbors’ grass
using a reel type lawn mower (totally boy
powered); I made 50 cents a lawn.
I learned three major things from my
Thor: 1) how to flip a prop, always
expecting it to fire, which it seldom did; 2)
that the Thor was not reliable enough to put
in an airplane; and 3) most important, on a
Model Aviation, 5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Letters to the Editor
Continued on page 139
April 2003 9
04sig1.QXD 1.24.03 9:36 am Page 9
major investment ask others what they use
and know works.
My dad felt so sorry for me that he gave
me a partial advance ($5.00) on my next 2
months allowance and helped me to talk
the hobby shop owner into allowing me to
pay off the balance at 50 cents a week. The
dealer’s final words, as we left the shop,
were that if I failed to make my payment
each Friday, a big fellow would be at my
house on Saturday to pick up the engine
and do “bad things” to me. I paid off the
engine ahead of schedule. The O&R .23
ran great.
When I decided to buy my first Control
Line kit, I talked it over with the hobby
shop owner. He said he had sold several
kits; however, he knew of none that had
been successfully flown. On our next trip
to Jacksonville, I asked at the hobby shop
for advice. Since I had no instructor and
had never seen a Control Line airplane fly,
they suggested a Comet Flicker.
The Flicker was unique in that it had
flaps on the wings and a fixed horizontal
stabilizer. In flight the airplane appeared to
go up or down with almost no change in
attitude. This made it almost impossible to
stall and flyable with the underpowered
ignition O&R .23.
My friend and I both learned to safely
get a Control Line airplane off the ground
and back down without ever seeing anyone
else fly one. The Flicker could not be
looped or even do a wingover. For an
experienced pilot or a student pilot with a
good instructor, it was a dog. However, for
me and my friend it was just the ticket.
I’ve written all of this to say that there
has always been a wide variety of quality
associated with any type of products in the
marketplace. Over the years I have
purchased few model products that did not
reach or exceed my expectations. I’ve
looked or asked to find what others are
having success with or used my experience
to evaluate the product before purchasing
it.
If you have a need to be the leader of
the pack with the latest and greatest, and
plan to get it sight unseen from a mail
order house, expect to have a few Thors in
your basement.
Don Wolfe
Saint Augustine, Florida
Pluses and Minuses
I did a double take a few days ago upon
retrieving the 02/03 MA from my mailbox.
“When did I start a subscription to an
aviation art magazine?” I asked myself
before recognizing an old friend in new,
very evocative clothes. I hope to see more
of the same in the future.
MA is the most comprehensive
magazine of its kind and I enjoy reading
every column. I like the recent additions
(Paul Bradley and Dave Robelen in
particular) very much, and am glad to see
product reviews appearing from time to
time. Also, I like not having to deal with
overwrought graphic design that often
makes reading copy difficult, if not
impossible.
Two things need improving. One, the
specifications provided with model
construction articles is pitiful. Take a look
at specs shown with such articles in RC
Modeler. (I E-mailed this concern to you
over a year ago, but no change so far.) Two,
the specifications provided with product
reviews is likewise insufficient. Take a look
at info for product reviews in RC Report.
They’re tops!
Frank Korman
Dallas, Texas
MA or no MA?
I am writing in regard to the letter from
Victor Stuhr from Seattle, Washington in
the February edition of Model Aviation. I
believe that Mr. Stuhr speaks for a
significant segment of AMA members.
Most, if not all, of the people I fly with
are exclusively Radio Control enthusiasts.
Most, if not all, of the members in the clubs
I know only take their AMA memberships
in order to be able to fly at club fields,
because, let’s face it, you need insurance to
fly at club fields, and AMA is basically the
only game in town.
If Model Aviation is a “benefit,” then
why is there a price of $3.50 conspicuously
placed on each and every issue of the
magazine? This price tag says to me that
this magazine is an “extra” that we are
billed for, in excess of our insurance,
instead of a benefit that goes along with
said insurance.
[AMA’s Special Services Department]
further states that some organizations
include such “benefits” to their members
and use the United States Tennis
Association as an example. To me, this is
much like comparing apples to oranges, as
tennis is basically an exclusively
competitive sport, which needs a set court
to play on and cannot be practiced without a
competitive partner.
Flying model airplanes needs no real set
environment, doesn’t need to be
competitive, and can be practiced anywhere
there is a safe amount of room and can be
enjoyed in the company of others or alone.
Most of the people I know in the RC
community could not care less about
whether the AMA staff has a comfy office
in Muncie, a national flying site to show
off, or whether or not there are national
contests.
Nearly all of us merely enjoy the
company of friends on a sunny weekend
afternoon. Nearly all of us enjoy the
freedom of being able to go to the field for
an afternoon of fellowship and fun and
that’s about it.
Why not give us the opportunity to put
Continued from page 9
Edition: Model Aviation - 2003/04
Page Numbers: 9,141
The Right Direction?
Let me start off by saying I am one of the
“few” who read Model Aviation almost from
cover to cover! And for the most part, am
satisfied with the final results—nice color,
interesting topics, etc.
But you will probably agree with me that
the majority of AMA members’ complaints
boil down to the comment “don’t want the
magazine.” So by trying to improve the
magazine, you are on the right path.
[Bob Hunt’s January 2003] column
stated that 96% of AMA members are
involved in RC in some fashion and later
stated something to the effect that the
majority of new members dropping AMA
was just that—new members! I believe these
observations are correct—and see that
happening in our area and heard about it in
other regions also.
Now to where I disagree: “ … there is
not much to write about for the casual ARF
or RTF modeler.” If (and that’s a big word)
the majority of modelers dropping out are
“newbies,” maybe we (Model Aviation)
should be focusing more in that area! Also if
96% of AMA members are RC oriented,
shouldn’t a greater emphasis be placed in
that area?
Of the total AMA membership, perhaps
90% or greater (I’m guessing here) are
“sport fliers” (to use that term without a
definition is easy huh?). Maybe MA should
focus more in that area also.
It really bothers me when I hear or read
so many modelers “just throw the magazine
away”—there is so much to learn if one
would just give it a try!
The article on “Airplanes and the Wind”
was great, as was the article on prop
selection a couple of months ago, so keep
plugging away. Maybe I can generate some
interest via the Web to get guys to read this
stuff!
Jerry Festa
Huntsville, Alabama
I was shocked to learn that the “vast
majority of AMA members … are sport
fliers.” And further pleased to see that you
recognize it. I regard myself as a sport flier,
who will build as necessary to acquire
hardware.
Your publication usually commands
about 20 minutes of my attention and I often
wonder why I bother with that. (Too bad
you don’t offer membership without the
magazine.) I am not being critical of the
many fine articles and information, they just
don’t have much interest for me. I think
your analysis is right on, and I am
encouraged to see the future you are
working on.
When I was a kid, in the forties, I used to
build “models.” And years ago I tried wet
RC flying and found it lacking for me. Sure
I admire the good work those fellows do, but
it just doesn’t interest me. Then I found RC
soaring.
I especially like slope soaring. Electric
sailplanes are great for finding thermals. I
will build kits and even from scratch to get a
good sailplane but I have not yet found the
courage to put out for those expensive
competition models. That’s probably
because I am not interested in competition. I
just want to have fun.
I don’t consider myself to be a “modeler”
and I don’t build “models.” I am a flier who
knows his hardware through first person
experience. Your editorial makes a lot of
sense to me and I look forward to seeing
where it leads.
Bill Pike
Amherst, New York
Your January 2003 editorial certainly has
struck a chord; for years I have been
complaining (to other fellow modelers)
about AMA’s lack of understanding of the
readership of its official publication.
I agree in your assessment that 96% of
your membership involves RC; however,
does the staff know what percentage of that
involves Scale, and in the last several years,
Giant Scale? The lack of significant
construction articles for the past two
decades covering that segment vs. the
amount of articles dedicated to CL and FF
must be 80 to 1, and when an RC
construction article is printed, it involves
some kind of Mud Duck type of aircraft.
Has anyone from AMA visited a flying field
in the last 10 years?
I agree that the proliferation of ARF
types has encouraged many to join the
hobby; however, I do not see the “traditional
modeler” waning as you assessed, not even
statistically. The “traditional modelers” are
being overlooked by a monopolized model
industry for not filling their pockets since
the traditional modeler does not spend as
much money, since we take longer on a
project, and scale models live longer, and
because for the most part we are the ones
that support the smaller manufacturers.
In this new era of fast food, and even
faster communications, new fliers cannot
conceive in their minds spending a year
building a classic model such as a Fleet or a
WACO from a kit, or to sit in front of a
table and “waste” a month cutting the parts
for a plans built project.
I believe it is up to the AMA to bring
back that spirit, to bring to your readers
through construction articles the joy of
creating and flying one’s own creation,
articles on how to cover a model—not in
“fast plastic covering” but in traditional
covering materials suited to the type—
articles on how to paint, articles on how to
gather information for that scale project, the
list goes on.
And finally, there is another monster
lurking—that of the super large, get a
second mortgage on your home if you want
to fly, aerobatic models such as the one on
your cover. The AMA has to take a step, and
limit the size of these monsters with engines
powerful enough to power a man carrying
ultralight aircraft, for safety reasons, for the
spirit of the organization, and for the
younger generations.
I have seen it, time and time again—
potential new members get discouraged at
local fly ins by the price tag of these models;
no young modeler can afford them, nor a
parent trying to keep his son/daughter with
his/her mind occupied in something
creative, and away from the perils of today.
You’re headed in the right direction, I
congratulate you on a much needed course
change, and your January Extra 300
construction article shows a great future;
just don’t over shoot the runway.
Roger Gonzalez
Miami, Florida
Consumer Responsibility
I read, with interest, in the January ’03
issue of Model Aviation Steve Wilson’s
letter to the editor. Steve’s concern was that
the AMA demonstrated no leadership by not
exposing and putting pressure on
manufacturers and marketers who put out
inferior products. It seems that Steve has a
basement full of them. In the same issue
Bob Kopski (Radio Control Electrics) wrote
about electric ARFs “X” and “Y” that fell a
little short to say the least. This is not a new
problem and it is one that is not that difficult
to overcome.
In 1946 I was 12 years old (OK, do the
math) and was ready to buy my first engine.
I went to the local hobby shop and asked for
a recommendation. The shop owner
recommended an Ohlsson .23 that he had in
the case for $16.50. I asked him about the
Thor .29 that America’s Hobby Center
advertised for $12.95. The dealer said that
he had never seen a Thor .29 so he could say
nothing good or bad about it.
The dealer had a vested interest in his
inventory so I wrote off his advice. I worked
most of the summer cutting neighbors’ grass
using a reel type lawn mower (totally boy
powered); I made 50 cents a lawn.
I learned three major things from my
Thor: 1) how to flip a prop, always
expecting it to fire, which it seldom did; 2)
that the Thor was not reliable enough to put
in an airplane; and 3) most important, on a
Model Aviation, 5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Letters to the Editor
Continued on page 139
April 2003 9
04sig1.QXD 1.24.03 9:36 am Page 9
major investment ask others what they use
and know works.
My dad felt so sorry for me that he gave
me a partial advance ($5.00) on my next 2
months allowance and helped me to talk
the hobby shop owner into allowing me to
pay off the balance at 50 cents a week. The
dealer’s final words, as we left the shop,
were that if I failed to make my payment
each Friday, a big fellow would be at my
house on Saturday to pick up the engine
and do “bad things” to me. I paid off the
engine ahead of schedule. The O&R .23
ran great.
When I decided to buy my first Control
Line kit, I talked it over with the hobby
shop owner. He said he had sold several
kits; however, he knew of none that had
been successfully flown. On our next trip
to Jacksonville, I asked at the hobby shop
for advice. Since I had no instructor and
had never seen a Control Line airplane fly,
they suggested a Comet Flicker.
The Flicker was unique in that it had
flaps on the wings and a fixed horizontal
stabilizer. In flight the airplane appeared to
go up or down with almost no change in
attitude. This made it almost impossible to
stall and flyable with the underpowered
ignition O&R .23.
My friend and I both learned to safely
get a Control Line airplane off the ground
and back down without ever seeing anyone
else fly one. The Flicker could not be
looped or even do a wingover. For an
experienced pilot or a student pilot with a
good instructor, it was a dog. However, for
me and my friend it was just the ticket.
I’ve written all of this to say that there
has always been a wide variety of quality
associated with any type of products in the
marketplace. Over the years I have
purchased few model products that did not
reach or exceed my expectations. I’ve
looked or asked to find what others are
having success with or used my experience
to evaluate the product before purchasing
it.
If you have a need to be the leader of
the pack with the latest and greatest, and
plan to get it sight unseen from a mail
order house, expect to have a few Thors in
your basement.
Don Wolfe
Saint Augustine, Florida
Pluses and Minuses
I did a double take a few days ago upon
retrieving the 02/03 MA from my mailbox.
“When did I start a subscription to an
aviation art magazine?” I asked myself
before recognizing an old friend in new,
very evocative clothes. I hope to see more
of the same in the future.
MA is the most comprehensive
magazine of its kind and I enjoy reading
every column. I like the recent additions
(Paul Bradley and Dave Robelen in
particular) very much, and am glad to see
product reviews appearing from time to
time. Also, I like not having to deal with
overwrought graphic design that often
makes reading copy difficult, if not
impossible.
Two things need improving. One, the
specifications provided with model
construction articles is pitiful. Take a look
at specs shown with such articles in RC
Modeler. (I E-mailed this concern to you
over a year ago, but no change so far.) Two,
the specifications provided with product
reviews is likewise insufficient. Take a look
at info for product reviews in RC Report.
They’re tops!
Frank Korman
Dallas, Texas
MA or no MA?
I am writing in regard to the letter from
Victor Stuhr from Seattle, Washington in
the February edition of Model Aviation. I
believe that Mr. Stuhr speaks for a
significant segment of AMA members.
Most, if not all, of the people I fly with
are exclusively Radio Control enthusiasts.
Most, if not all, of the members in the clubs
I know only take their AMA memberships
in order to be able to fly at club fields,
because, let’s face it, you need insurance to
fly at club fields, and AMA is basically the
only game in town.
If Model Aviation is a “benefit,” then
why is there a price of $3.50 conspicuously
placed on each and every issue of the
magazine? This price tag says to me that
this magazine is an “extra” that we are
billed for, in excess of our insurance,
instead of a benefit that goes along with
said insurance.
[AMA’s Special Services Department]
further states that some organizations
include such “benefits” to their members
and use the United States Tennis
Association as an example. To me, this is
much like comparing apples to oranges, as
tennis is basically an exclusively
competitive sport, which needs a set court
to play on and cannot be practiced without a
competitive partner.
Flying model airplanes needs no real set
environment, doesn’t need to be
competitive, and can be practiced anywhere
there is a safe amount of room and can be
enjoyed in the company of others or alone.
Most of the people I know in the RC
community could not care less about
whether the AMA staff has a comfy office
in Muncie, a national flying site to show
off, or whether or not there are national
contests.
Nearly all of us merely enjoy the
company of friends on a sunny weekend
afternoon. Nearly all of us enjoy the
freedom of being able to go to the field for
an afternoon of fellowship and fun and
that’s about it.
Why not give us the opportunity to put
Continued from page 9
