Letters to the Editor - 2003/06

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 covered 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 that there is not any type of aircraft that
has ever been produced 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,
as 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 and
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 put together in flights or heats
depending on the event and finding the overall
event winner in short order. It was a pleasure
to assist him and also work as a timer when
needed.
Timing is an honor thing as this is no cut
throat 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, P.C.M. 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 in to
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 or agreement with Roger
Gonzalez’s Letter to the Editor for April 03. I
must agree with him. I am a 14 yr old who has
been trying to get into RC flying for 2 years
now because my parents were attempting to
get me in something to occupy my time and
that’s when I discovered RC flying. So I told
them about it and I thought it was cool too so
they told me to find out how much it would
cost.
So I did and for a good cheap 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
started into it I would love it, but even for
other people I know it’s just not a little
amount of money that a lot of parents are
willing to give out.
To be truthful I am almost tempted to say
is it really worth it? I’m getting kinda
“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 we would receive monthly would
be the size of a Sears catalog, and we know
that is not possible. A magazine has to “mix it
up” to periodically appeal to the interest of
every RCer.
And there is nothing wrong with
advertising, as that helps pay the bills.
Advertising has also let me purchase
“doodads” that have made building models
easier, or let me see what products are out
there, and let 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
know what other clubs are doing. The reviews
and articles are littered with beautiful, color
photos. Articles that show me “yesterday” are
also interesting as well.
I have been an “RCer” for 4 years now,
after going with a friend to the new club field,
and he was kind enough to let me fly ovals,
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
it.
It is the expanse of this hobby that makes
it so fascinating, as well as our small club,
who are 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 web site 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.
Model Aviation, 5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Letters to the Editor
Continued on page 191
June 2003 9
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 from
solid models to Control Line to 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 E-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 E-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 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, selfmotivated
individuals who don’t need AMA.
However, AMA really does need them. MA
Claude Powell
Augusta,