[NSRCA-discussion] Equipment cost and partiicpation -- a different viewpoint (LONG)
David Flynt
dflynt at verizon.net
Mon Feb 27 08:32:54 AKST 2006
Sounds fun. I'd choose an old beat up Steinway and an 8 iron. I could not
stand the thought of making a big divot in a shiny new Steinway. ;-)
David
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
DaveL322 at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:08 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Equipment cost and partiicpation -- a
different viewpoint (LONG)
David,
My guess is you may be uniquely qualified to provide advice on what club
should be used to hit a golfball off a Steinway to an elevated green between
150 and 175 meters away? <G>
Great post.
Regards,
Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Flynt" <dflynt at verizon.net>
> There has been a lot of discussion about the cost of pattern equipment
and
> how it might be the cause of low participation and low rate of
recruiting
> new pilots. There are several flavors of the claim that I have heard:
>
> 1. If pattern were not expensive, more rc pilots would participate.
> 2. Pattern is not necessarily expensive, but there is an impression
that
> you
> must have an expensive plane to win. If we could just get the message
> across that you do not need an expensive airplane, then more rc pilots
would
> participate.
> 3. It is bad to spend a lot of money on pattern equipment, because
that
> will
> cause others to purchase more expensive equipment.
> 4. You cannot win wit! h a low cost airplane (aka roach nothing
personal).
> You need a fancy, expensive airplane to win.
> 5. You should build your own airplane, preferably using wood, because
that
> will lower your cost.
> 6. Lowering cost is the key to saving pattern.
>
>
> I disagree with all of these viewpoints, and I will argue why I feel
this
> way. But first, let me say a couple of things. 1) I like a bargain and
> value as much as anybody. Nobody throws money away. Have you ever
> purchased something and paid more than the retail price because you
felt
> that you were cheating the business? Nobody does that. We all hunt for
> bargains. So low cost is a great thing. 2) Please dont take anything
I
> say personal or as criticism, even if I use inflammatory terms such as
> roach. I dont mean to upset anybody. It is just a discussion.
>
> Lets start with number 1: If pattern we! re not expensive, more rc
pilots
> would participate.
>
> This one is easy. Golf is arguably at least as expensive as pattern.
It
> can be done on the cheap, but for the most part there are people in
every
> corner of the United States that play golf and spend many thousands on
it
> each year. They buy expensive equipment, pay for lessons, join country
> clubs, and spend lots of money much more than pattern pilots on
average.
> There are many more golfers than even RC pilots. There is wealth in
this
> country, but even the not so wealthy play golf and spend big bucks. If
cost
> were a barrier, then there would be fewer golfers than pattern pilots.
But
> there are more golfers than pattern pilots; therefore cost is not a
barrier.
>
> Number 2: Pattern is not necessarily expensive, but there is an
impression
> that you must have an expensive plane to win. If we could just get the
> message across that you do not need an expensive airplane, ! then more
rc
> pilots would participate.
>
> It is true that pattern equipment is not necessarily expensive.
Probably
> $1000, depending on the servos is the minimum competitive setup in
upper
> classes, and this could be very competitive.
>
> Let me try this argument. Consider the piano. How many people play?
> Probably not very many. A piano can be expensive or inexpensive. You
can
> buy a used piano or an electric keyboard for a few hundred dollars.
Now if
> I offer to give you a Steinway Model D piano, would you give up
pattern and
> start playing piano? You're probably not going to give up pattern just
> because I subsidize a piano for you. If you were truly interested in
piano,
> you would figure out a way to start playing. Subsidizing is completely
> unnecessary. The same is true for pattern.
>
> Now, do you need a Steinway to play well? I can tell you it i! s a
better
> instrument than most. So what. You don't need a St einway to play the
piano
> well. You need to practice to play well. But let's say you like the
way a
> Steinway feels and sounds, and it makes you happy to have one, and you
don't
> mind spending the extra money on one. Is there something wrong with
that?
> In other words, if you buy a Steinway, do you really think somebody
else who
> is sincerely interested in piano would somehow become frustrated and
never
> play because you can afford a Steinway but they cannot? That's
ridiculous.
> Anybody who is sincerely interested will play the piano whether or not
they
> can afford a Steinway. The same is true with pattern.
>
> Number 3: It is bad to spend a lot of money on pattern equipment,
because
> that will cause others to purchase more expensive equipment.
>
> There are a lot of people on this list that have this philosophy. I
think
> it all started with Dick Hansen. He is the lead! er of the cost
crusade.
> >From talking to him over the years and from reading his posts on RC
> Universe, he takes this to the extreme: It if cannot be done cheap,
then it
> should not be done at all. Dick is a true leader and innovator in
pattern.
> He has proven over and over that you dont need to spend a lot of
money on
> equipment. This just goes to show you that if one person spends a lot
of
> money on equipment, not everybody else will. There are a lot of people
in
> the cost crusade camp (maybe we should call them roachies for short),
so
> just because one person spends a lot of money on equipment, evidence
> suggests that not everybody else will.
>
> Electric is a good example. Well, maybe less so, because it appears
that
> the costs of electric can compete with the cost of IC. But just for
> argument, lets say electric is much more expensive than IC. As an
example,
! > I do not have any near term plans to switch to electric. Im just
having
> too much fun with IC, and I now have a 2c pattern ship, and one with a
> 160DZ. As much as I complain about how difficult it is to tune a 2c, I
am
> interested in it. Electric is also interesting, but I dont think it
scales
> that well. It is great for foamies, but I still think the batteries
and
> motors are on the edge of stability. 65 amps is a lot of current! The
> batteries also scare me because of cost and fire potential. But
mostly, I
> dont really think electric is all that great and definitely not
necessary
> to win. Advocates for electric say the maintenance costs are much less
for
> electric because of less vibration. Im all for low vibration. It can
> damage your airframe and servos. But if you get 2000 flights on a
composite
> airframe with a DZ, and you need to service your servo gears and pots
every
> 100 flights, what is the cost difference between replacing your !
battery
> packs every 100 flights? You can afford to buy a backup set of servos,
and
> then just send them in for service. And after 2000 flights, you might
be
> ready to try a new airframe. It certainly does not owe you anything
after
> 2000 flights. The point is not whether Electric is good or bad, but
that it
> is not necessary, and not everybody is going to follow and switch to
> Electric. Thats the point.
>
> Number 4 my favorite topic: You cannot win with a low cost airplane
(aka
> roach nothing personal). You need a fancy, expensive airplane to
win.
>
> Lets all get on the same page as to what a roach is. A roach is
simply an
> airplane that is hard on the eyes. I am not the founder of the term.
> Dennis Galloway, a former FAI pilot in California and good friend of
mine
> may have coined the term. He once did an air show in Santa Maria, and
he
> did a knife-! edge pass under a 6-foot high limbo bar with an old,
beat up
> Goldberg Ultimate Biplane. He said, I may crash, but this old roach
owes
> me nothing. He made it under the bar not just once, but twice. He had
not
> planned on doing it twice, but I did not have the record button turned
on
> his video camera during the first pass. Another typical characteristic
of
> an old roach is that it just never dies. The converse is unfortunately
> true the brand new expensive airplane is somehow drawn more
powerfully to
> earth to its demise than the roach. It is a cruel twist of fate,
similar to
> having a pretty wife, but an unhappy, short marriage.
>
> Not all scratch built planes are roaches. In fact, most are not. Some
> examples are in order: All of the Japanese planes that are seen at the
> worlds competitions are NOT roaches. These set the standard of beauty
and
> craftsmanship, and are typically hand crafted from balsa wood. Naruke
Hobby
> and Ox! ai airplanes are not roaches. A good example of a roach is the
> Piedmont Focus or Focus II, especially one that has seen too many hard
> landings and has a good deal of hangar rash from throwing it
carelessly into
> the back of a pickup over a couple of years. Perhaps the best example
of a
> roach is the Insight. You would need to work really hard to design a
more
> unsightly pattern plane. But if it flies well, and holds up well, then
it
> is a good pattern plane.
>
> So, can you win with a roach or inexpensive plane? Im sure everybody
has
> examples of being beaten by somebody with a roach. Its not how the
plane
> looks, it is how it flies, and how well the pilot moves the sticks. I
like
> a fancy French composite plane, but I will be the first to admit that
you
> can win with a roach. Its proven all the time. Except at the worlds.
You
> wont see many roaches in the top ten, bu! t I speculate that that is
because
> the top ten prefer to fly non-roaches, and they can, so they do. But a
> roach can fly as well as any plane. Look at the results for the Focus.
Don
> Szczur won the Nats with it. That is a darn good flying roach.
>
> Number 5 -- You should build your own airplane, preferably using wood,
> because that will lower your cost.
>
> Ive nothing against wood or saving money. However, saving time can be
more
> valuable than saving money. Also, I feel that there are not enough
good
> choices for wood pattern kits. If there were something that looked
like a
> Znline Oxalys or PL Partner, was constructed out of wood like the
Exclusive
> Modelbau kits, HAD A NOSE RING, then I would buy and build one. The
lazer
> cut EM kits are the cats meow. These are very light for their size,
fit
> perfectly, are engineered well, and use excellent wood. I dont really
like
> the sheeted and painted scratch built Typhoons and va! rieties. There
is too
> much work and too heavy. You dont need all that sheeting for strength
and
> rigidity. That is just for looks. I would like to see a hogged out
light
> ply fuse that can be covered with transparent film, and no special
jigs or
> finishing techniques required. There is a market for that. EM should
> produce a pattern kit, or somebody should, but update the design from
the
> Typhoon. A tall, wide fuse is the correct design, all lazer cut.
Built-up
> or foam core wings either one.
>
> Some math is in order. Lets say you make $100,000 salary per year.
That
> means your time is worth $50.00 per hour. You could do side work in
> addition to your 40 hours per week, and bring home a lot of extra
money. If
> you spend 200 to 300 hours building one airplane, then your $150 roach
> really cost you $10,000 to $15,000 to build. I like building
airplanes, but
> I h! ate spending all that time building because of the math. I simply
lose
> too much opportunity money in the deal. Painting an airframe takes me
about
> 60 or more hours. Its just not worth it. Would you build your own
car,
> house, piano? Very few people do because it consumes too much time. It
may
> lower the cost, but you may lose ten fold in time. Thats why you buy
> products. You trade money for products because it is cheaper than
making it
> yourself. A $3000 Oxai ARF, is a way better value to me than building
> myself. Do the math. Even if your time is worth only $20 per hour, you
> come out way ahead, and you get a much nicer airplane.
>
> I know people that spend 200 to 300 hours of their time on real estate
> investments, and flip a home or two each year for a tidy profit of
$50,000.
> That roach could be costing you $50,000. You might want to boast about
how
> much you saved over a $6000 Naruke Hobby airframe, but to me, you lose
> $50,! 000 dollars each time you build a roach. Personally, I dont see
a big
> future in scratch building. Do the math.
>
> Number 6: Lowering cost is the key to saving pattern.
>
> The major expense in pattern is getting to contests. Going to the Nats
> would probably cost me $4000 to $5000 in gas, lodging, food, wear and
tear
> on my Minivan, and two weeks of vacation. I can trade the whole
experience
> for a ready to fly Oxai. Attending local contests is just as
expensive,
> except I dont need to burn the vacation time. Attending six local
contests
> costs me $2400: 600 miles average round trip at $3.00 per gallon, 20
mpg =
> $540, $0.10 per mile wear and tear = $360, lodging for 12 nights at
$75.00
> per night = $900, and food out at $100 per event = $600. Flying a
$1000
> plane versus a $5000 plane is going to help. If that is what you need
to
> do, then there should be little ! excuse for not showing up at a
contest. The
> cost crusaders ta lk about lowering cost of equipment, but completely
ignore
> the major expense of getting to contests. Despite the costs, we get to
> contests because we enjoy it enough to part with our money.
>
> I really dont think it is expense that drives people away from
pattern.
> Look at the golf example. There just is not that many that people who
are
> interested in pattern, or rc for that matter. This could change, but
there
> will never be as many pattern pilots as there are golfers.
>
> Part of the fun with Pattern is playing with equipment. Whether you
fly a
> roach, or a $6000 Naruke airframe, we all share a passion with the
> equipment. I think that is why we discuss it so much which power
> technology is best, and how much it costs, whether it is necessary are
> frequent topics of interest. In conclusion, I would like to say that
it is
> OK to scratch build, and OK to not. It! is OK to spend very little,
and OK
> to spend a lot. The amount you spend has no impact on the health of
pattern
> and its survival. This is an entirely orthogonal matter.
>
> If you got this far through my note, I would be interested to hear
what you
> think. Thanks.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060227/3c0c7efd/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list