President's Perspective
Dave Brown AMA president
I THINK what attracts many of us to this wonderful world of aeromodeling is the fact that the possibilities of model aviation are seemingly endless. The advances in technology are really amazing when you look back just a relative few years ago. I can't claim to have experienced the entire spectrum of evolution in our hobby, but I have surely seen a lot, and the parts before my time were as breathtaking as those I have seen come about.
Model aviation has been at the forefront of technology since Leonardo da Vinci sketched his spiral helicopter and flew a model of it. Later, Alphonse Penaud built the models that the Wright brothers used in their experimentation preceding their success at Kitty Hawk.
It should be noted, for the sake of my fellow bucketites, that the Wright Brothers developed and built their aircraft in Ohio. The rivalry between Ohio and North Carolina is becoming more intense as 2003 approaches!
As full-scale aviation developed, few airplanes flew that were not first tested as models. Rubber models were king until a guy named Bill Brown provided a gas engine to a competitor named Max Bassett, who immediately turned the sport on its head.
Not long after that, another couple of brothers married the latest in ham radio technology to a model airplane and created what we now call Radio Control (RC).
The Control Line (CL) came about when the need arose to be able to fly in smaller areas. Invented by Olie St. Clair or Jim Walker—depending on which version of history you read—soon Bob Palmer, J.C. Yates, and later George Aldrich had those newfangled models doing loops and flying inverted!
RC development continued with some of the craziest systems being tried. If you consider RC to be "remote" control, you would have to consider the "sound" control model of Jim Walker one of the wildest.
Somehow the system, later called the Galloping Ghost, had to be the most unbelievable, yet it worked quite well. I suspect that if the typical RC modeler of today were to see a working Galloping Ghost system, he would suspect someone was pulling his leg!
The development of reeds brought about true multichannel control and allowed us to fly many model types that couldn't be flown with earlier technology. Low-wing airplanes actually became common!
Competition provided the incentive for more development, and early analog proportional equipment started to appear when people such as Don Brown (one of those Browns in this game) and Dunham pushed the envelope. Not too long after, guys such as Hal Bonner and Phil Kraft made the digital proportional equipment king.
Once we had the simultaneous proportional radio equipment, advancement became exponential. Helicopters soon followed, along with pylon racing and many other performance events. The advancements were not limited to RC; Control Line and Free Flight (FF) saw great leaps in performance. A few technologies were banned—usually those with great levels of danger—but the technologies that were pursued increased performance immensely.
Power was an area that was affected greatly. Engine classes that began producing one-quarter horsepower increased to three horsepower. As engine performance increased, typical models got larger. I still remember the first really big RC model I saw: it was a large airplane made from cardboard and powered by a .60 engine with a "reduction drive."
Little did I know what the future would hold for these big models. Soon, large RC models became popular, and converted small implement gas engines were the rage. Most of these were lumbering old "beasts," but they attracted a large (no pun intended!) following.
The Tournament of Champions (TOC) was the first event that used large models in a really competitive atmosphere, and that event started the development of even larger and much more powerful airplanes. These have become quite common today, and I keep looking at what can be bought off-the-shelf and wishing I had it when I was competing at the TOC.
It's funny when I think about all the attempts I've seen to increase performance. Some of them worked, but many of them failed. What never failed, however, was the continued advancement. It doesn't seem all that long ago when I was asked if I thought a true model turbine would ever be built, and I expressed doubts. Shows you how clear my crystal ball is!
Time and technology march on and create a few real questions in the process. Although we all benefit from the advancements in technology, we also bear the cost. That cost is not limited to financial; it can be reflected in terms of survival.
The incidents of September 11 have left our country on an increased security status, which will continue for a long time into the future. It has left us vulnerable to regulation, unthinkable just eight months ago. In short, we could find ourselves regulated out of business unless we use our heads.
We all should be able to recognize the potential misuse of the technologies we have available to us. In many ways, we are our own worst enemy. A recent article in one of the model magazines outlined the use and availability of autopilots, as well as one that could easily be connected to a GPS (Global Positioning System) to provide navigational capability.
At a recent trade show, a turbine-engine manufacturer included in the brochure that his was handing out the fact that the engine had potential for weapons.
The crowning thing I saw was an article, written by a modeler, in a major business/news magazine which outlined how easy it was to defeat these million dollar defense systems using the relatively cheap technology available off-the-shelf for model aircraft!
President's Perspective
These types of articles are scary, and they could very well result in our finding our activity severely restricted by the government. I have to think of that old Pogo quote: "We have met the enemy and he is us." We need to wake up and think about the effect of our writings. While pointing out these potentials may seem cool to the writer and may seem obvious to the true modeler, this type of article is harmful to our sport.
I received a scary call from a man who obviously didn't know much about aeromodeling. He asked me a lot of questions about how to equip a model airplane with an autopilot. I wasn't able to get his name, but I was very careful about what I said.
These technologies are wonderful, and they give us great amounts of freedom to experiment, but the question isn't whether we can; the question is whether we should. I can think of only a narrow legitimate use of coupling a navigation system to an autopilot in a model airplane, but I can think of myriad illegitimate uses.
The second question is whether or not we should allow the freedom to create technologies that threaten our very right to fly model airplanes. I truly believe that our sport is teetering on the brink, and that we could find ourselves subject to federal regulation if we do not wake up and think about the consequences of not regulating ourselves.
On the West Coast, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has already gotten a written opinion from its attorneys that it has the right to regulate model aircraft. I will admit that I think they picked the wrong section of the regulations to base this on—Part 91—but the mere fact that they are seeking this type of information is of concern.
I guess the basic question is whether we should lay low and wait for the "boot to drop," hoping that it won't, or whether we should become proactive and initiate discussion with the FAA at the top levels in an effort to ensure that any regulation that may be enacted has our input to soften its effect on our sport.
My opinion, and that of the AMA Executive Council as determined in a telephone conference-call meeting, is that we are better served by being proactive than sitting around waiting to see if they drop that boot. As such, we are working on scheduling a meeting with the FAA to discuss this, the type of threat to society that the government will not long allow.
And why would we even consider it? The model would be out of our sight for most of its flight. What fun is that? To prove we can do it? Let's get a serious dose of "real" here and decide now to be responsible with our ideas and application of technology for the good not only of our own hobby/sport, but also for the well-being and safety of John Q. Public out there, who might be the victim of one or more equipment failures or innocent miscalculations.
If we do not police ourselves on these points, we will certainly be policed in the near future by bureaus that have far more clout than does the AMA, if you get my drift.
Products like the FMA Direct Co-Pilot are wonderful examples of inspired thinking that can enhance the enjoyment of our beloved hobby/sport. But be advised that products like these don't necessarily make you a better pilot; they make you appear to be a better pilot. Use them for training purposes until you are ready to take complete, unenhanced control of the model and fly it smart. To rely on them for all of your flying is, in my humble opinion, depriving yourself of the joys of the total flying experience.
So many of our modern conveniences are designed to do the job for us. Is that what we really want? Being part of the "machinery" provides a reward of the senses that is hard to describe to those who have been desensitized from such personal involvement.
Employ things that make the learning curve safer and easier, but be certain to eventually get down to the "real" thing. You'll find a type of enjoyment that you might not even have known existed!
As for the first concern of not posing any sort of threat to society, that should be number one on our minds all of the time. And the reason for the current security concern should be indelibly etched in our hearts forever.
You will no doubt have an opinion on the preceding. If you want to express it to me personally, send mail to Box 68, Stockertown PA 18083; send e-mail to [email protected]; and if you need to yell at, or, speak with me, my telephone number from nine to five is (610) 614-1747. MA
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
