Letters to the Editor
Ahead of Its Time!
There were a few mistakes in the "Sharper Focus" article about Joe Beshar's Me 163 Komet in the July 2004 Model Aviation.
The most obvious was in the caption for the flight photo, which suggested that it could have been taken in the skies over Germany in 1911! That certainly would have been a surprising sight that year. The correct year was 1944.
In the second paragraph of the article, on page 66, there is a reference to B-117s. That should have read "B-17s."
The fourth paragraph from the bottom on page 67 reads that TAM Manufacturing supplied the tailpipe used in the model. Actually, Joe Beshar fabricated the tailpipe with some help from Bill Stevick of Dively Models.
Also, Val Flores took the large lead photo and Gordon Dickens took the flight shot.
Correction
The telephone number for Harry B. Higley & Sons was incorrect in the August 2004 "Worth a Closer Look" section. The correct number is (708) 755-8774.
The MA staff apologizes for the error.
Memories of Flying for Fun
Much thanks to D.B. Mathews for his "Flying for Fun" columns about Reginald Denny in your July and August issues. It was 1939 when we moved into a duplex on Gower Street between Hollywood and Sunset Boulevard; it didn't take long to discover Denny's Hobby Shop just a few blocks from Gower on Hollywood Boulevard.
One of the big attractions for a 12-year-old boy was the approximately 10-foot-wingspan static scale model of the China Clipper in the front window—this was used in several movies.
Those early years began with rubber-band models, gas, free flight, then CL, thanks to Walker. Now at 76 years of life, I love flying CL Stunt and RC, both of which have come a long way since those early days.
What a disappointment when I returned to Hollywood High for my 50th reunion to find only vacant lots where my model airplane adventures began! But memories were relived thanks to Mr. Mathews and MA.
Gene Haynes Florence, Oregon
(Continuing) "Flying for Fun" column
I just finished reading D.B. Mathews' "Flying for Fun" column in the August issue of MA. It was great reading about the GHQ engine. I am a 78-year-old RC flier, so I go back to the time of the GHQ.
When I was in the eighth grade, I dearly wished to have a gas engine but couldn't afford one. To my surprise, my dad gave me one for Christmas. The GHQ came in two versions: fully assembled for about $10 or in kit form for only $5. Mine was the kit, and after putting it together, I made a test stand on the back porch and tried to start it. The kit came with a flywheel which my dad also provided for me. I wrapped a length of black electrical tape around the flywheel's hub and gave a pull. After some adjusting I actually got it running. It ran great and I was really excited. However, when I attached the propeller it would not start. Nothing I did would get more than a feeble pop. It's not quite true that these engines would never run. As long as the flywheel was on it ran great, but never with a propeller. At the New York World's Fair I came across some guys who were racing boats. Two of them had GHQs in their boats. Of course they had flywheels and ran pretty well. So it is not quite true that the GHQ would never run. But then, flywheels were not too practical to fly aircraft with.
Thanks for a great column which brought back many pleasant memories.
Bob Wright Mesa, Arizona
Fundamentals of Stability
Kudos for trying to help the beginners understand model airplanes. Unfortunately, it is not easy to get it right, so some errors are creeping into the articles.
The "symmetrical" airfoil in the lower half of Figure 12 in "Fundamentals of Stability" [in the August 2004 issue] is shown as a semisymmetrical airfoil.
The statement concerning the location of aerodynamic forces in the last full paragraph on page 40 is generally incorrect, as is the next paragraph. While the center of pressure (CP) is relatively fixed for symmetrical airfoils and some semisymmetrical airfoils for all angles of attack below stall, this is not true for most other types of airfoils and for flat-bottomed and undercambered airfoils in particular at any Reynolds number (RN).
NASA has created the following public Web site for the NACA technical reports: http://naca.larc.nasa.gov. NACA Report 315 from 1930 has the performance data for a large number of airfoils at very low RN, although the airfoils are generally early types. A quick look through Report 315 will give a good picture of the general effects that airfoil shape has on CP movement.
Because flat-bottomed airfoils have an extremely large CP movement, it is possible to have an otherwise stable airplane that will not recover from a steep dive because the CP of the wing has moved too far toward the trailing edge.
Free flighters called that a "nega-dive" back when I was young, and I once reduced the tail incidence on an Esquire (a popular rudder-only RC model back in the 1950s) and had it do a negative-dive into the pit area, which was full of modelers and airplanes. This created a lot of hard feelings even though there were no injuries or damage.
Incidentally, the CP movement is not significantly affected by RN. For example, see NACA Report 502 for the Clark Y airfoil.
Ken McClenahan Lone Tree, Colorado
Chaplain's Corner
This is a model airplane organization—keep religion out of it. If someone needs a spiritual uplift, let them go to their place of worship.
The "Chaplain's Corner" [in the August 2004 "View from HQ" executive director's column] has no place to be in our magazines. Stick to airplanes and the organization, and leave the soul saving to those who like to preach.
As a longtime member, I'm insulted that the powers that be of the AMA would approve such a column.
David B. Shafer Commerce Township, Michigan
Editor's note: Please see this month's "View from HQ" for more about this subject.
Small-Model Dangers
I take significant exception to the following words in Ed Anderson's letter to the editor in the August 2004 Model Aviation: "... 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." (Emphasis added.)
To the contrary, by opening up these boxes of RTF, miniature, radio-controlled aircraft, we also open Pandora's box—and reality!
Moreover, most RC flying (at least in heavily populated areas) was probably being done at an AMA-controlled field, which the AMA endeavors to locate at least three miles apart to prevent radio interference.
Letters
Continued from page 9
But now, with the space necessary for flying drastically reduced and the RTFs generally eliminating the need for a novice flier to feel the need to make contact with an established club, the probability is great that radio-controlled airplanes will be flown haphazardly in small fields anywhere without a thought of the effect of these activities on radio interference!
We will soon be seeing model airplanes falling out of the sky. Both the novice flier in the small lot and the club member at the certified flying field will suffer. Model airplanes flying out of control are a hazard to spectators, passersby, fliers, automobiles, and myriad other entities. Personal and property damage will result, and it will not be restricted to just the model airplanes and the fliers. When this happens, we can expect more restrictive rules and laws—and lawsuits.
As a former forensic (safety) engineer, I say "when" rather than "if" because it has been my experience that if an accident can happen, then it probably will. The only question is how soon will it happen?
And when it does happen, who will be held responsible? The fliers, the dealer?
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
