Letters to the Editor
Model Aviation, 5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie, IN 47302
FAC Nationals
I have just received my copy of the April 2003 issue of Model Aviation and, in scanning it, I was pleased to see the coverage of the 2002 Flying Aces Club Nationals at Geneseo, New York was well handled by Fernando Ramos.
It is a plus for Model Aviation to send someone across the country to cover this most interesting event, and Mr. Ramos is certainly one of the best to do this. His experience in the field of stick-and-tissue aircraft is without question, and as a participant in this year’s meet he is aware of the field conditions and effort generated by the contestants.
The magazine coverage is great, and unless you are actually there it is impossible to comprehend the scope of activity going on around you. The variety of model aircraft produced by the contestants and, as depicted in the photographs, borders on the premise that it seems there is no type of aircraft that some modeler has not built and attempted to get flying. This contest should be a must for the young and the older model enthusiast—if not to participate in, then to just observe the activity. There are times when that can be a challenge: just as you may be watching a great scale World War I fighter take to the air, immediately behind you there goes a beautiful twin-engine rubber model. So much to see, and all seems to be taking place every one of the three days and during the quiet evening testing sessions.
The old axiom applies: so much to see, so little time.
The contest is well organized, with Lin Reichel and his staff running registration, posting scores, and resolving the few rule questions. This year I volunteered to help Ross Mayo, who manages and runs the mass-launch events, of which there are many. Ross has the great ability to put things in order and get the various groups organized in flights or heats depending on the event, finding the overall event winner in short order. It was a pleasure to assist him and also to work as a timer when needed. Timing is on the honor system, as this is no cutthroat type of competition. It is not unusual to see one contestant timing another; after all, this is a fun event.
Once again, thanks to Model Aviation for covering the event and thanks to Mr. Ramos for his excellent report.
Fran Ptaszkiewicz Tonawanda, New York
Not for Everyone
In reply to Roger Gonzalez’s comments about “monster” scale aerobatic aircraft [in April’s “Letters to the Editor”], the last time I looked around I thought I was still living in America, land of the free, etc. No, little Johnny or his parents probably can’t afford the size airplane I and a lot of others fly, but as for being turned off from the sport by the price tag, I don’t think so! No one in his right mind starts off with such an airplane, and anyone with any common sense is going to realize that. Where, what, how big, and how much money I decide to spend on an airplane is my choice and should not be restricted because of other people’s financial limits. Are you going to ban the jet guys as well? They spend even more money than we do!
As for safety, go check out the systems in one of these airplanes: dual, independent receivers, multiple servos on almost all control surfaces, PCM radios with fail-safe—the list is endless.
Lastly, no teenager I know in this day and age is going to spend months building an airplane. The key to getting youngsters into this sport is to get them flying as quickly as possible. After a year or two of flying they will most likely gravitate in one particular direction. Young folks these days want action and excitement; aerobatics provides just that—unfortunately scale does not.
Tony Holden Phoenix, Arizona
Don't Know What to Do
This is in reply to and in agreement with Roger Gonzalez’s Letter to the Editor for April 2003. I must agree with him. I am 14 years old and have been trying to get into RC flying for two years now because my parents were attempting to get me into something to occupy my time, and that’s when I discovered RC flying. So I told them about it and thought it was cool too, so they told me to find out how much it would cost.
So I did, and for a good basic trainer it’s almost $400 including support equipment—not a good figure when you come from a low-income family. I mean, if it was cheaper to get into it I would love it, but even for other people I know it’s just not an amount of money that a lot of parents are willing to give out.
To be truthful, I am almost tempted to ask, is it really worth it? I’m getting kind of discouraged, if you might say, because of the price tag.
John Lodge Las Vegas, Nevada
MA an Asset
I keep reading the Editor letters with some awe and interest. There is a lot of “bashing” of the MA magazine. I must admit that at first I didn’t read the MA magazine as much as I read some of the other RC mags that I receive.
The trend that the MA magazine is taking is to be commended. It is hard to cover all aspects of interest to all RCers—or the MA magazine would be the size of a Sears catalog every month—and we know that is not possible. A magazine has to “mix it up” to periodically appeal to the interests of every RCer.
There is nothing wrong with advertising, as that helps pay the bills. Advertising has also let me discover doodads that have made building models easier, show what products are out there, and help me find the best price. There is always something to learn.
I now spend quite a bit of time reading the magazine. I like the photos that are sent in, which help me look at other color schemes. The district reports are also important to me, as they show what other clubs are doing. The reviews and articles are filled with beautiful color photos. Articles that show me yesteryear are also interesting.
I have been an RCer for four years now, after going with a friend to the new club field; he was kind enough to let me fly—maybe three mistakes high. So, it is his fault for this wonderful hobby I have discovered. I am prone to building kits, but ARFs have also gotten me back flying, as in Minnesota our summers are short. I am not an expert, and never will be, as there are more kits that I would love to fly than I will have years to do so.
It is the expanse of this hobby that makes it so fascinating, as well as our small club, which has the best members any club could have. I still read the other articles, whether it is control line, the TOC, or some other gathering. I enjoy reading about what other RCers are into.
So, yes, the MA magazine has taken on some resemblance to other RC magazines, but sometimes changes are good, and the MA mag has definitely made, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. Keep up the good work.
Brian Goldammer Park Rapids, Minnesota
Gaining Perspective
I think your decision to go back to basics is a wise one, and even wiser to put the information on your website for future (and continued) reference. The new modelers (mostly RCers?) who weren’t fortunate enough to grow up with modeling and the returnees to the hobby need a starting point. This used to be hobby shops, but they are now few and far between. Saying this, I hope you plan to cover all areas of the hobby, not just RC. This is critical.
I think many of your readers have drawn wrong conclusions from your surveys, possibly even yourselves. I can believe 96% of the AMA members are involved with RC, but I can also believe that 30–40% are involved with Free Flight (in some form) and maybe 10–15% involved with Control Line. Depending on the questions, the results of a survey can yield misleading information.
Traditional modelers have usually been involved with all forms of modeling: solid models, Control Line, Free Flight, gas and rubber. These models included boats and race cars as well as airplanes. Although most eventually migrate to a particular area of modeling, they don't necessarily lose all interest in the others.
Many of the traditional modelers have ventured into RC (especially electric power), not for the purpose of becoming RCers, but to use RC as an enhancement to their favored interests. For example, most of the larger rubber-powered scale models are easily adapted to electric-powered RC as well as most of the old-time gas-powered Free Flight models.
You have correctly identified the large turnover of members to the new people who have ventured into RC, not the traditional modelers who have been long-time members. It's certainly reasonable to target this group for special attention in an effort to retain some of them. It's easy to understand why many of these potential modelers lose interest.
After purchasing an electric ARF, the challenge is to learn to fly it. This is not very difficult because current equipment is very user friendly and reasonably priced. If the potential modeler doesn't see challenges beyond "learning to fly," you will lose him, because simply flying a model without purpose becomes very boring very quickly.
I don't think the traditional modeler is waning in actual numbers but only as a percentage compared to the new potential modelers. The only way AMA will lose the traditional modeler is if they are driven away or if they pass away. Your coverage of the Flying Aces Club Nationals (Fernando Ramos—author) and your coverage of Brodak's Control Line fly-in indicates the traditional modeler still exists and is still going strong.
The traditional modeler has been, and is, the foundation for AMA. They can be depended upon to renew memberships and support our hobby. Therefore, in your effort to woo new members you should not ignore them or take them for granted and consequently alienate them. If you do, you'll drive them away. If they leave, they won't come back. These are the resourceful, self-motivated individuals who don't need AMA. However, AMA really does need them.
Claude Powell Augusta, West Virginia
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
