[NSRCA-discussion] Equipment cost and partiicpation -- a different viewpoint (LONG)

[Pascoe,Tim [Burlington]]

I've never seen a $2000 set of graphite irons destroyed
'unintentionally' after a bad approach shot. I have seen a $5000
airframe spontaneously re-kit itself due to an unintentional
error.......  ;) Perhaps there is a little more safety in the golf
investment......

Timothy Pascoe 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of David
Flynt
Sent: February 27, 2006 12:35 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Equipment cost and partiicpation -- a
different viewpoint (LONG)

 

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/f00d545b/attachment-0001.html