Letters to the Editor - 2003/11

Correction
On page 35 of the September Model
Aviation, it was stated that Stan Holcolmb
received the George Aldrich Memorial
award at the Vintage Stunt Championships.
The award recipient was Stanley Haugarth.
Our apologies for the error.
—MA staff
Helping the New Generation
I want to tell you how wonderful I have
found Bob Aberle’s series, “From the
Ground Up.” Bob has a wonderful knack
for knowing what new fliers like myself
want to know. Bob’s column is now my
first stop when each new issue of Model
Aviation arrives.
I especially love the simple photo
layouts he uses to help me understand parts
and connections that would lose me in a
text-only article. The one on installation of
radio equipment was just fantastic. In fact,
after reading each of Bob’s latest
installments, I find I am better prepared to
read the rest of each month’s issue.
I am pretty new to RC flying. I joined
AMA in February and joined a local club
in March. I have been flying since March.
Since I knew so little when I started, but
was eager to fly, I selected a ready-to-fly
electric package. No radio brands and
models to understand, no servos or ESCs to
pick, etc. I could focus on flying and leave
that stuff until later.
My airplane and I have managed to
survive many of the bumps and bruises that
learning to fly can inflict. Along the way I
have learned about fixing and how things
go together. I have soloed and am really
enjoying my new hobby.
My next challenge is to build the ARF
model that I just received as a Father’s Day
gift. This is a big step for me, and Bob’s
articles have helped give me the confidence
to tackle it.
I may be typical of the new wave of RC
hobbyists. Rather than starting with kits,
we start at the ready-to-go end. In time we
will likely move to the ARF, and perhaps
the kit someday. With Bob’s help and the
guiding advice from the members of my
club, I hope to explore many areas of RC
flying and modeling.
So thanks, Bob, for helping the new
generation of RC fliers get to the next
level.
Ed Anderson
Syosset, New York
Power-Supply Problems
I have found a big error in a column by
Eloy Marez in the September issue. I am
probably only one of several thousand who
has responded to it. In this article he states
that the computer power supply has a red
wire that is +12 volts and a yellow wire
that is +5 volts. This is for an ATX power
supply. Well, the yellow wire is +12 and
the red wire is +5.
I got an AT power supply and all I had
to do was mount the switch (off/on), add
two terminals, put the yellow wire to the
red terminal, put the black wire to the black
terminal, and cut off all of the unused
wires. Outside of the voltages and colors
mixed up, the AT was a lot less fooling
around.
Pat Ryder
Janesville, Wisconsin
Regarding Mr. Ryder’s comments, he
refers to an “AT” power supply, the
predecessor to the “ATX” which is the
subject of my column. It is an “apples and
oranges” comparison and has no bearing
on the original subject. There are other
supplies (NLX and SPX), but the
conversion does not apply to them either—
only the ATX.
However, there is a discrepancy, in that
complete standardization in the computer
industry (surprise!) has not yet arrived. I
checked my supply, which is wired as
described; the sketch of the plug came from
a book at the local library. However, a
supply that a friend asked me to convert
did have the polarity/wire colors reversed.
I was told at a local computer-service
center that it is not uncommon to see this.
I have come up with a simple nonelectronic,
non-technician, no-testequipment
method of determining the
correct wire coloring. I would suggest that
you send any queries to me and I will Email
or mail this method to you ASAP.
I would definitely not recommend Mr.
Ryder’s connections regarding the AT
supply. They are multiple-output devices,
and generally it is not a good idea to
parallel them, which is what he has done.
Obviously his particular AT unit will
accept that, but there is a good possibility
that ATX and even ATs of other makes will
not do so; the results could easily be
sparks and smoke.
The column in question refers to the
ATX computer power supply—not the AT
referred to in the letter. Some differences
are to be expected. Some differences in
ATX wiring have been discovered, and a
simple way of verifying the correct wiring
colors is available from me.
Eloy Marez
2626 W. Northwood
Santa Ana CA 92704
[email protected]
(714) 540-4935
Not Surprising
In regards to the letter in the September
2003 issue from George McAleer, it is not
surprising that picture captions are
sometimes at odds with what seems to be
the proper designation of the aircraft
portrayed. I cite the PT-26 vs. PT-19
discrepancy.
The PT-19 as used in this country by the
Training Command was a two-place opencockpit
low-wing monoplane powered with
a Fairchild inverted six-cylinder engine. The
PT-26 was the same airplane used by the
Canadian Training Command with the
exception that the aircraft needed an
enclosed cockpit for weather protection.
Following World War II, trainers were
sold for low prices and the PT series was no
exception. It is to be noted, however, that
some owners of PT-19s added what was
called a Rowdan canopy, and that made
them look as if they were PT-19s.
Now to the PT-23. It was never a
Howard product, as the Howard trainer did
not meet the requirements for the AAF. The
PT-23 was a variation of the same PT-19
airframe with a 220-horsepower Continental
radial engine.
My PT-23 as well as the PT-23 my
cousin has was a Continental-powered twoplace
open-cockpit low wing. Mine was
built by Aeronca, under license, of course.
It was nice to attempt to have Benny
Howard as the originator, but alas, it was
not so.
David H. Shipton
Delaven, Illinois
Model Transport
Transporting models has been referred to
a couple of times by Dave Brown as related
to airport inspections, etc. Also, I realize
that many modelers, when they buy or sell
completed models, moan and groan about
the cost of shipping and packing. And
rightfully so!
I recently sold a model for $180 only to
find out (to the horror of the buyer) that it
would cost $145 to ship UPS Ground from
the East Coast to North Dakota. It was
because the box was “Oversize 3” (in their
lingo), and thus I would be paying the 150-
pound rate for a 30-pound box.
My daughter (who buys and sells on
eBay all the time) set out to do some
research and came up with some even more
horrible numbers from truckers, forwarders,
etc. Finally, she latched onto Greyhound.
Guess what? The entire box went out to
North Dakota for $43 (including $300
insurance—the max) and got there in 2.5
days—way faster than UPS and less than
one-third of the cost.
Model Aviation, 5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Letters to the Editor
November 2003 9
Continued on page 82
Of course, they don’t deliver to your
door; you have to go to the nearest depot to
pick up the package. But so what? They
have 3,600 depots in the US, and for that
kind of saving you can drive a few miles.
By the way, they notify you upon arrival
and most depots are open 24/7.
Perhaps you would like to share this
little tidbit of info with other modelers.
Maybe there are others, like me, who never
even thought about Greyhound. They have
a Web site (www.greyhound.com), and you
can get an online quote as well as a listing
of their depots with addresses and telephone
numbers and a schedule of the buses for the
route you need.
They do have some package restrictions
(on their Web site) due to the size of the
hatch on the bus. Length max is 68 inches,
and one of the other two dimensions must
not exceed 24 inches. The third dimension
has no restriction. Max weight is 100
pounds.
The entire experience was a delight and
an enormous relief to the buyer—better
service and lower cost.
It led me to wonder if any of this could
apply to the problem that Dave Brown
wrote about; i.e., modelers traveling with
their model boxes to meets. Maybe they
could send the box ahead by Greyhound
and avoid all the airport hassle and potential
excess baggage charges. At Greyhound, no
one was concerned as to whether there
might be residual fuel in the tank or engine,
no sniffers, no dogs, no scanners.
For my money, I think Greyhound is
missing an opportunity by not advertising
in Model Aviation and other magazines.
Perhaps your ad people should get in touch
with them.
On an entirely different subject, I recall
that when you wrote about redesigning MA
sometime last year, you mentioned the
popularity of the “tips, hints, techniques”
rubric and said something to the effect that
it would continue to be a mainstay. I was
happy about that as it is one of the sections
I look forward to.
Indeed, I have a database of many of
these from MA and other magazines that is
most helpful when I’m trying to resolve a
particular problem. But I noticed that this
topic has been dropped since the redesign,
and I do regret that and miss it. No doubt
there just wasn’t space to accommodate
everything, but if it was so popular, as you
suggested, why drop it? I do hope you plan
to resurrect the feature.
Beyond that, I think the magazine is
much improved and I do enjoy reading Bob
Aberle’s series; it’s a great way to get
newer modelers onboard, but even for us
older guys there’s always something to
learn. Thanks for a fine job.
Mark Neumann
Mount Kisco, New York
SP400
Bugatti Swordfish
P-36 Mig 3
XP-55 P-40
DH2
Gus Morfis 1/12
Mosquito Hurricane
Typhoon P-47
P-40 Corsair
Turnkey R/C Designs
Fi-256 . . . . . . . 72”
Stahlwerk . . . . . 52”
Loening . . . . . . 36”
D.A.D.
Jack Lewis 1/12
P-40 P-39
P-51 AD2
Spitfire Hurricane
Free
Catalog
Continued from page 9