Letters to the Editor
5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
E-mail Address Revisions
- An incorrect E-mail address for Rich Porter was published in the August 2001 "It’s Called Control Line" feature in Model Aviation. Rich’s correct address is [email protected].
- Jerry "D" Nelson, who was featured in the August "Focal Point" on page 12, now has a different E-mail address: [email protected].
MA staff
From an "RC widow"
I wish to thank you for your Microhenrys series in Model Aviation magazine. I refer to myself as an RC (Radio Control) widow. My husband is either building, flying, or at club meetings.
His many RC magazines give him great joy and he is constantly reading me funny articles that amuse him and, in turn, amuse me. I must admit I enjoy his hobby; mine can be just as expensive, but the only thing I like about the magazines are your cartoons.
At times, it seems like there is a little widow in [Ed Henry] too. [He] must really listen to all the women to come up with such good comebacks.
There are many good women pilots as well. It would be funny to see the wife show up the husband in flying skill sometime.
Again, thank you for your true-to-life cartoon. It gives me wonderful entertainment and I look forward to it each month.
Gail Schmiedlin Baraboo, Wisconsin
Cost of Radio Control Giants
I am writing about John de Vries’ last Radio Control [RC] Giants column in the June 2001 issue of Model Aviation. First let me say that as a scale modeler/flier in RC, I have really enjoyed the great work he’s done with the column and I’ve often learned something useful from it, even though I don’t fly Giants.
I hate to write disagreeing with John, but some of the complaints he voiced in that final column were so far from reality that I just have to respond. Although he’s absolutely right that it costs around $1,000 to put a Giant Scale airplane into the air, I think he lost perception when complaining about prices of other equipment.
He spoke of buying engines for approximately $15–$25 way back in the old days, and said that they’ve "gone out of sight since then." Fifteen or 25 bucks back then was probably a couple days’ wages for most people.
The same type of engine (much improved and more reliable) now sells for about $40 or $50. That’s about double the price they used to cost, when everything else has gone up around 10 times what it cost back then! Today we buy engines for a couple hours’ salary, not several days’ salary.
And the rubber-powered kits he mentioned that "used to sell for a dollar" are not $30; the old 20- or 24-inch-span kits are still produced by people like Guillows and I see them in hobby shops for around $10 all the time. (I’m not talking about the laser-cut, 30+-inch-wingspan kits that cost $30; they didn’t exist back then.)
If a kit that cost a buck back in the old days now costs $10, it’s about right with inflation. Things today are either priced where they should be or are in many cases way cheaper (look at radios) because of modern technology and labor in Asia.
John’s complaints reminded me of people who complain that gasoline in the US is too expensive at $2 a gallon, when all the experts agree that when inflation is figured into it we should be paying around $4.50 a gallon like much of Europe.
My point is that we’re very lucky to be in this hobby/sport at this great time when we have the best equipment at relatively low prices. I remember wanting to get into RC as a kid in the early 1970s and prices of radio equipment alone kept me out of it.
John’s complaint that a weed-whacker engine is way cheaper than an RC version of the same engine for Giants is also off the mark. I’ve read in countless magazines that the RC versions are balanced and made for RC airplanes. I’ve seen countless warnings about trying to adapt the cheaper garden-tool engines to RC use and shaking your radio equipment into junk.
John is right about the cost of Giant airplanes. It’s simple math; the bigger the airplane, the more wood, glue, covering material, hardware, fuel burned, etc.
I’ve never flown Giants (nor wanted to), but I did some RC flying with 60-inch-span airplanes with .60-size engines. I moved up to these after my .25-engine-powered, 48-inch-span trainers.
These airplanes were costlier to build and operate, and harder to transport and store. I started to miss my .25 engine’s thriftiness and being able to hang a few airplanes up in a small room that I owned.
I ended up selling all my big airplane stuff and started building small 30- to 36-inch-span airplanes. I can hang three in a row in a small room, easily throw one into a small car, they don’t get hangar rash every time I try to take them somewhere, and I can run one all day on less than a quart of fuel.
For the cost of one .60-size airplane I can build three nice .061- or .09-powered airplanes. I can’t even imagine the cost of building and operating a Giant Scale airplane! And I can drive a sports car to the field while the Giant guys have to buy vans or large SUVs to transport their airplanes to the field.
The bottom line is that if you choose to fly the big stuff, you’ve got to be prepared to pay the price. Also, I’ll really miss John’s writing. I wish him well and lots of happy landings.
Lance Novak Studio City, California
Young Newcomers?
The "Mystery Aviator" in the August "Young Newcomers" article by Jack Frost was Roscoe Turner. Although he was a well-known aviation personality in the 1930s, I doubt if many young newcomers recalled his name.
In addition to encouraging young modelers, AMA might meet with more "success" if they concentrated on retirees as a good potential source of active members.
Many, like myself, built and flew models when we were young, but dropped out for years while raising our families. Now retired, we have the time, the basement shop space, and the money to return to modeling. We also are likely to "last longer" than many newcomers.
I liked the "Mystery Aviator" segment in the column and hope it continues, but perhaps the title should be "Newcomers."
John J. Erlinger Bay Shore, New York
Two Sides to the Story
In the "Letters to the Editor," August issue, much was written regarding newcomers being treated poorly by some club members. This is not a new flash; it has been going on since I began flying RC (Radio Control) airplanes in 1972. I’m sure longer than that, and I feel certain it will continue.
I am of that older group one writer mentioned. It is becoming more and more difficult to find good pilots who are willing to take the time to be instructors. I feel I have paid my dues in that category.
I became an instructor shortly after I soloed, merely because I knew a little more than the newcomer. I have been instructing ever since. I believed that someone took his flying time to teach me; therefore, it being only fitting, I should take my precious time to pass it on, so to speak.
I only wish more pilots would feel the same way. I have heard it said many times, "I don’t like to fly somebody else’s airplane." It is true that many club members pay their club dues. A month or so later, a student asked me, "When is the club going to give me my airplane?"
I have trained many pilots with my trainer, furnishing the fuel. Then when one got out on his own, he refused to buy his own fuel. He said it was too expensive, then quit the hobby.
When most teenagers reach 15 to 16, they suddenly discover cars and girls. We don't have an outside chance competing against them. Very few teenagers become longtime modelers.
After many years of married life and all the trials and tribulations that go with it, retirement looms. Now that one-time teenager returns to modeling, joining the next generation of old-timers. Now he has the fun of having teenagers complaining, "Nobody pays any attention to me."
Although young people learn RC modeling much faster, I'll still take the older group. They are more receptive and appreciative of an instructor spending his/her time with them. To every coin or story, there are two sides; let's hear them both.
Richard (Dixie) Yaus San Diego, California
The "Best Hobby"
I'm new to the Radio Control modeling hobby and I would like to say that this is the best hobby I've got. Everyone has been very helpful. I've joined a club and have had nothing but a great time.
I'm 29 and most of the members are older than me, and yet this doesn't cause any problems. If it wasn't for the other members, I'm sure I wouldn't have had as much fun learning how to fly.
I've even brought a 13-year-old to the club to let him experience the hobby. No one ignored him or me. The club I'm in doesn't seem to care about age, gender, race, or religion.
The club also doesn't seem to care about which direction in model aviation you choose. There are race/Pattern, warplane, Giant Scale, aerobatics, and even Electric pilots that fly there. Although I have not seen any park flyers, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be welcomed.
I get the impression that we're there for the fun of flight. I've received a lot of time in training and instruction from a lot of different pilots at the club.
The articles in Model Aviation have also been a great place for information. I can tell the authors really love this hobby and enjoy sharing the knowledge that they have. Keep up the great work.
Danny Walker Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Enjoying Low-cost Flying
After reading the article about Control Line flying and the "Frugal Flyers" discussed in the August 2001 issue of Model Aviation ["It's Called Control Line"], it appears that both the
[Text incomplete]
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
