Ron, are those your fingerprints?

This afternoon the latest Model Aviation hit, and with quite a lot of bemusement I note the guy who began a series on engines has now devoted an entire article to correcting errors seen in the first article.

Ron, our own F4F guy, I see your fingerprints all over these corrections. Did you take the time to straighten our boy out? Or do we have someone else to thank for this?

Ya know, this would be funny--as in really funny--if I wasn't 1) paying for this sort of incompetence, 2) seeing the stuff I really enjoy getting shoved aside to make room for, well, the first article in a series, now being corrected with an article which appears to be of equal length.

The column inches have not been summed, but it looks to me as if being equivalent to several CL Stunt columns. Or the rough equivalent to much anticipated Diva construction article from PTG.

While I have only scanned the correcting-myself-here! article,some of it is delivered in a pouting, woe is me manner which I find mildly annoying.

Bob Hunt, as per usual practice, stepped right up to the plate in his editorial, pulling no punches. Good job. But it represents still more space dedicated to correcting an article that wouldn't make it past most newsletter editors.

I can't do a side by side, I already tossed out last months magazine.

It has really changed since I last received it ten years ago.

Looked it over, read two articles, then out it goes.

The FBI caught a foreign agent by digging in his trash, Americans don't throw out the National Geographic.

Whoever is doing the proof-reading for Model Aviation isn't doing the job. Almost every article this year has had some kind of error, some you have to be reading closely to see but some appear to be from laziness. Look at the caption under the small on page 66 in the July issue; the ME163 didn't fly in 1911.

I'm glad Bob corrected the article on engines but it shouldn't have been necessary, and I doubt it will help retain new members.

>This afternoon the latest Model Aviation hit, and with quite
>a lot of bemusement I note the guy who began a series on
>engines has now devoted an entire article to correcting
>errors seen in the first article.
>
>Ron, our own F4F guy, I see your fingerprints all over these
>corrections. Did you take the time to straighten our boy
>out? Or do we have someone else to thank for this?
>
>Ya know, this would be funny--as in really funny--if I
>wasn't 1) paying for this sort of incompetence, 2) seeing
>the stuff I really enjoy getting shoved aside to make room
>for, well, the first article in a series, now being
>corrected with an article which appears to be of equal
>length.
>
>The column inches have not been summed, but it looks to me
>as if being equivalent to several CL Stunt columns. Or the
>rough equivalent to much anticipated Diva construction
>article from PTG.
>
>While I have only scanned the correcting-myself-here!
>article,some of it is delivered in a pouting, woe is me
>manner which I find mildly annoying.
>
>Bob Hunt, as per usual practice, stepped right up to the
>plate in his editorial, pulling no punches. Good job. But it
>represents still more space dedicated to correcting an
>article that wouldn't make it past most newsletter editors.
>
>Dan
>

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Dan:

It wasn't me! Honest! I wouldn't have touched one silly comment.The article is too funny as it is!Bobby tried his best, but barely scratched the surface of the misconstrued,missleading,and downright wrong ideas in this piece.The only way to fix it is to toss it as the mistake it was,and start over with a new author who knows something about his subject.

Scientific American did this awhile back with an article on the Wright Brothers. The author didn't understand the Wrights' writings. The author's background was in something other than what he was writing about. Scientific American tried again a year or so later with another author.

Gentlemen: I was also astounded that both Mr Hunt and Mr. Granelli caved in to protests from the ever-present small group of "nit-pickers".

As a professional engineer, I have written dozens of technical articles for elctronics technical journals and model aircraft magazines over the past 40 years. There are always those out there who take great delight in writing LETOED, whether to a magazine editor or a newspaper editor, and explaining something like: "HA! GOTCHA!" And these same people know perfectly well what the author had in mind, even though perhaps the author did not explain his point in sufficient detail to be understood by all readers.

I think the best defense should have been for Mr. Hunt and Mr. Granelli to respond to letters of protest via personal communications, and not involve the 500,000 (is that about right?) members of AMA.

My Dear Doctor,

I certainly hope you are not referring to my comments as in any way being astounded that Bob and what's-his-name bowed to pressure. They got what they deserved, Mr. Hunt being far more gracious and forthcoming about it than was W-H-N.

While I did not read first article, correction article was begun from mere curiosity and it quickly became so amusing I read the whole thing. True, some of the stuff may be referred to as nit-picking. But there were some *really big* whoppers in there.

I do not know current AMA membership levels. But my guess is that your figure is off by a factor of three. As in way too high...

Mr. Dan. I took a wild guess on current AMA membership. This was based on the very long string of AMA numbers appearing on R/C planes pictured in the magazines. I neglected to consider the "6-month" factor: wherein, many R/C people get an AMA number, and "6-months" later they are out of the hobby.

My recent post seemed to echo your own opinion, and therefore my response was probably unnecessary.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-04 AT 02:28 AM (CDT)
 
>Gentlemen: I was also astounded that both Mr Hunt and Mr.
>Granelli caved in to protests from the ever-present small
>group of "nit-pickers".
>
>As a professional engineer, I have written dozens of
>technical articles for elctronics technical journals and
>model aircraft magazines over the past 40 years. There are
>always those out there who take great delight in writing
>LETOED, whether to a magazine editor or a newspaper editor,
>and explaining something like: "HA! GOTCHA!" And these
>same people know perfectly well what the author had in mind,
>even though perhaps the author did not explain his point in
>sufficient detail to be understood by all readers.
>
>I think the best defense should have been for Mr. Hunt and
>Mr. Granelli to respond to letters of protest via personal
>communications, and not involve the 500,000 (is that about
>right?) members of AMA.
>
>Floyd

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Dr Spark:Floyd,if I may:

In writing an article for a journal as a P.E.,I'm sure your submission was subject not only to editors technically competent in your field,but to pre-publication peer review.After this kind of vetting,the remaining errors are "nits",or they fall into the area of philosophic disagreement.This was not the case in this instance.The errors here were fundamental in nature,and the author showed a profound ignorance of the mechanics,physics,and chemistry of a working engine of any kind,.010 or 350 c.i.d.,two or four stroke cycle,diesel,or rubber band.

The article(series)purports to be a primer for those new to model engines.Anyone new to the subject would be led hopelessly astray by this claptrap.A primer must have the basic terminology and the basic functioning correct or it is of no use.If the student doesn't know what is correct,he'll never figure out what's wrong.

Bob Hunt was a good editor of F.M.,and is a good editor of M.A.,but it was a mistake to call on one of his F.M.people to do this article.It was not properly vetted and it shows,big time;had it been it would never have made it to print.

I also must disagree with idea of keeping the critiques personal.The people most affected by these errors are the "newbies"to which the article was addressed.A series of E-mails between critics and criticized does nothing to address the misinformation already published.

I agree on the article being misinforming. I taught internal combustion theory, 2 stroke, 4 stroke, gas and Diesel for 6 years at a very prestigious tech college in St. Louis and I couldn't understand parts of it and had to laugh at the way it was presented. It was as though he was aiming it at 5th graders, who probably already knew the info. But he did correct his errors, but I'm sure he lost his audience for the most part.

>This afternoon the latest Model Aviation hit, and with quite
>a lot of bemusement I note the guy who began a series on
>engines has now devoted an entire article to correcting
>errors seen in the first article.
>
>Ron, our own F4F guy, I see your fingerprints all over these
>corrections. Did you take the time to straighten our boy
>out? Or do we have someone else to thank for this?
>
>Ya know, this would be funny--as in really funny--if I
>wasn't 1) paying for this sort of incompetence, 2) seeing
>the stuff I really enjoy getting shoved aside to make room
>for, well, the first article in a series, now being
>corrected with an article which appears to be of equal
>length.
>
>The column inches have not been summed, but it looks to me
>as if being equivalent to several CL Stunt columns. Or the
>rough equivalent to much anticipated Diva construction
>article from PTG.
>
>While I have only scanned the correcting-myself-here!
>article,some of it is delivered in a pouting, woe is me
>manner which I find mildly annoying.
>
>Bob Hunt, as per usual practice, stepped right up to the
>plate in his editorial, pulling no punches. Good job. But it
>represents still more space dedicated to correcting an
>article that wouldn't make it past most newsletter editors.
>
>Dan
>

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Dan:

I feel I must retract part of what I said in my second post in this string.None of the errors were corrected by the so called "revisitation" article.

I went back and really read the second(the "correction" to the first)article carefully instead of just scanning,as I had originally.I then took up highlighter intending to mark the most egregious passages re the errors in the first article.I ended with almost the whole sodden mess in red with only one half page at the end that was clear(and that wasn't very good,it just had no glaring errors).Most of the errors in the initial article were addressed,but,the corrections were equally wrong.The author simply has no basic grasp of the fundamentals of I.C.engine operating cycles.

The whole thing is a sad attempt to wriggle out of responsibility for,and to justify,the misstatements,and downright falsities of the first go'round.Sadly and once again,I must say that the piece and it's follow-up show a profound ignorance of the theory and operation of the internal combustion engine.

Bob hunt is a good editor and also a nice guy,but I still have to ask,why not call on some one with the credentials to do this subject properly? As it is,many column inches have been wasted on three installments of useless trash.these same inches could have been put to much better use(and I DON'T mean product revues).

Ron,

Will you please just quit it! I didn't read the first article, scanned the correction article. Now you're saying that I have to go back and actually read both of them? Woe is me.

Hunt would be receptive to your input. He might not like it, but the man has a reputation for working at details until they come right.

I didn't read the first article, so I was not misinformed. I started to read the second article (after seeing the posts here) but the writing style is so opaque I gave up after about three paragraphs. I would guess that both articles have been inacessable to most readers and therefore have done little harm other than taking up space. It seems quite clear that both articles were unreviewed and unedited either for content or clarity. Not good for an organization called an Academy.

>Ron,
>
>Will you please just quit it! I didn't read the first
>article, scanned the correction article. Now you're saying
>that I have to go back and actually read both of them? Woe
>is me.
>
>Hunt would be receptive to your input. He might not like it,
>but the man has a reputation for working at details until
>they come right.
>
>Dan

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Dan:

Go back and read all three.It's a hoot.

Sadly though,it's also a textbook illustration of the manner in which misinformation becomes gospel,something seemingly SOP in our hobby.For instance the idea that Schneurle ported engines are "high speed engines" or "piped engines have to be run at high RPM"(OOPS sorry I forgot:RPMS),or"long stroke engines have more torque".The problem isn't confined to engines,it extends to materials and structures and aerodynamics.

We have a lot of knowlegeable people but,unfortunately,most of the articles out there are not written by them.The writer of this trash is,I'm sure,a good RC pilot.If he'd said "I don't know why it works ,but this is the way I do it",I'd have no quarrel.Everyone likes to know the reason for a phenomenon.But before you can analyze a sophisticated system,you need to have a firm grasp of the basics.Read the majority of replies to engine or structural posts on this forum,you see a few well reasoned replies,and the rest are of the "I don't believe",or "I think" type.

Sorry,didn't mean to go off on a rant.
(My snit is in the shop and my blue funk is low on gas.)

> We have a lot of knowlegeable people but,unfortunately,most
> of the articles out there are not written by them.

So get writing. It doesn't help anyone to sit there and
laugh smugly at other people's efforts to understand and explain.
Does it?

>Dan:
>
>Read the majority of replies to engine or structural posts on this
>forum,you see a few well reasoned replies,and the rest are
>of the "I don't believe",or "I think" type.
>

>Ron B.

Big snip...

Ron,

Somehow your comment, specifically as it relates to engines, rings a distant bell. Hmmmm, whatever could this be construed to be in reference to? Well, a lot of posts and a lot of us. Of course. Still a good idea to keep it in mind...

Some of our discussions have precious little room for "I don't believe," or "I think" sorts of responses, especially when discussing physical facts, proven and provable and repeatable engine operation. (Only as a hypothetical example, don'chaknow.)