Letters to the Editor
Forgotten Fliers?
I realize that the key term in the AMA title is “Model,” but is this a good reason to nearly completely ignore those who fly other things? For example, Zagis or other flying wings, or other exotic flying objects?
I noticed a photo of a flying lawn mower (page 170, May 2004, Volume 30, number 5); now just what airplane is this a model of? I have noted only a photo or two of flying wings in the AMA magazine. It seems that many “modelers” look down their noses at such models since they look nothing like any “normal” airplane.
There are quite a number of “airplanes” that really bear little if any resemblance to “real” airplanes; look at some of the “pattern” airplanes or so-called “stick airplanes,” for example. What about those things that people get into the air that are just plain strange? Anyone out there trying to make Leonardo da Vinci’s creations fly?
I guess I thought the AMA was to make the most of what is common to all fliers—getting anything in the air! For just plain fun and a great learning airplane, try a Zagi. Who cares if you crash? Just pick it up, put the battery back in, and throw it back in the air! I admit that there is something cool about flying a miniature airplane, but there is something really cool about just flying!
Ted Miedke via E-mail
F-100 IFR
When I got my April issue of MA and saw the picture of the F-100 and the bent in-flight refueling probe, I had a flashback to my assignment in 1959 to RAF Station Wethersfield in Essex, England, in the 20th Tactical Fighter Wing. We had 75 F-100D aircraft.
Now to the bent IFR probe. While flying a flight of F-100s over the Atlantic, the need to refuel is necessary and the only way to do it is in flight. In those days one of the methods of in-flight refueling was the probe-and-drogue. The tanker would let out a long hose with a funnel receptacle on the end (drogue), and the aircraft had a long probe that would be inserted into the funnel receptacle to transfer JP-4 fuel into the F-100.
During one of these IFRs, the tanker hit an air pocket, causing the fuel hose to whip and, in turn, bend the long probe similar to the shape in your front-page picture. In the process of disconnecting from the tanker, the pilot in the F-100 still needed fuel to make the rest of the distance across the Atlantic, so he requested one more shot at hooking up to get that much-needed fuel. He found that with the probe bent in this fashion, not only was it easier to see the probe now that it was almost at cockpit level, but it was much easier to make the connection. Luckily no damage was done, the transfer of fuel went okay, and off he went to Europe.
I know all of this because it was my job to schedule the replacement of the straight probes with bent ones. The straight probes were then sent to North American Aircraft Co. to be bent and returned to the field for installation on other aircraft. Check it out and you'll see that as strange as it may sound, this is how it happened one day on the way to Europe.
I have been in modeling since I was seven or nine, and now at almost 70 I still build and fly. Thanks for a great magazine and keep up the good work. Keep them flying.
Bill Mackinzie Taneytown, Maryland
Providing Clarity and Education
Upon reaching my one-year AMA membership anniversary, I wanted to say thanks to all the writers and editors of Model Aviation. You have been an enormous help to me in my development as a new RC pilot.
In particular I want to say thanks for including the excellent work of Bob Aberle in Model Aviation. His articles in the “From the Ground Up” series helped this new flier understand so much of the confusing world of RC airplanes and particularly electric airplanes.
His article in the June 2004 issue, “Introduction to Parking Lot Flying,” is another outstanding piece of work. It is clear that Bob has a tremendous amount of technical knowledge, yet he has an uncanny ability to “net it out” for those who are not quite as deeply into the details as we know he can go. He gives exactly what we need to prepare us for the next step. I hope he will do more articles on this growing area of RC flying.
One particularly valuable contribution made in this article is to provide a workable definition of his subject airplanes. So many of the terms we use in RC flying are ill defined and subject to wide interpretation. Bob does an excellent job of defining the range of airplanes he feels are appropriate to this flying venue.
His parameters of less than 16 ounces, with wing loadings of less than 8 ounces and motors of less than or equal to a Speed 300 are very easy to understand and very workable in practical application. I would like to see the manufacturers pick up this definition for the world of smaller outdoor airplanes under a label like “small lot flyers.”
While some may find Bob's parameters restrictive, there is an enormous number of wonderful airplanes that fit into this category. However, by setting these parameters he defines an ability to fly slowly, when appropriate, which is very important in a smaller flying area. Likewise, by limiting the weight, he further suggests a safety margin for a flying site that is not as shielded or controllable as our club flying fields.
This is a definition that I would love to see widely adopted so that manufacturers can more accurately describe their airplanes. The now-ubiquitous “park flyer” term has been seriously overused and is now appearing on some pretty large and heavy airplanes that can reach over 50 mph and really belong on club fields.
An unsuspecting new flier could pick up one of these “park flyers” and feel that the local 300 x 300 parking lot is quite adequate for a flying site. For those who understand this hobby, it should be clear that a new flier should not be flying such a model in such a small space. From a safety point of view, that type of airplane has no business being flown in such an unprotected area.
However, Bob's “parking lot flyers,” “backyard flyers,” and “schoolyard flyers” would fit this space very nicely and pose little hazard to the public, even by a new flier working with a coach.
So I repeat my thanks to MA for publishing such fine and informative articles. And thanks to Bob for helping to advance the hobby through clarity and education.
Ed Anderson Syosset, New York
Slighted in SW Regionals Coverage
I read with interest John Patton's report on the 2004 Southwest Regionals contest in the most recent issue of Model Aviation (June 2004). It was well done both in terms of text and photos with one glaring exception. Very little was dedicated to the SAM RC Old-Timers events. There were no photos whatsoever and very little said in the text reporting.
Many of us as old-timers were the very lifeblood of AMA when it started and got going back in the late '30s. We now fly the same models we flew back then when we were kids, but our old bones cannot take the chasing, etc., anymore that goes with Free Flight. Hence our attraction to RC assist.
We have fun and the fellowship is great. We would like to see more recognition given to SAM RC assist generally and the people who make its contests and events the fun times and successes that they are.
On that point, and getting back to the Southwest Regionals, the man who makes the RC assist portion of this event go is Bob Angus. Many in our hobby know Bob. But what many don't know is that he (with the help of his son, Walter) has been the contest coordinator for the RC assist portion for many years and deserves more recognition in your coverage.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
