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

[George Kennie]

Wow David!!!!!,
In addition to Dave L's observations I would have to add that you're way too
intelligent for my level of participation on this forum.
I had to look up "orthogonal", but in general, I really related to the logical
approach to your analytical assessment.
I would also submit that "saving pattern" may not be exactly the problem confronting
the sport as a whole.
My feeling is that the individual who becomes engrossed in this endeavor must first
become overcome with a specific "VISION"! Without "vision", an individual is
unempowered to embark upon any enterprise, whether it be the Steinway, the
Calloway's, or the Pinnacle. I have felt, for some time, that the reason the sport
flyer exhibits such disdain for the practice of pattern is the lack of "vision"
conceptually.The "vision " to embrace the concept sometimes goes further than just
head knowledge and appears to involve, at least to some degree, specific personality
traits or characteristics which may prevent the gestation of the "vision" in the
first place.
I have also observed that the average sport flyer misses the idea of sequential
maneuvering, only thinking in terms of singular maneuvers at a time. To illustrate
this,  I have a friend whose favorite phrase is "I can do that!", in responce to a
suggested maneuver and insists that all he needs is a caller ( he won't memorize the
sequence), and yet when I stand behind him and call out the sequence he constantly
gets behind in his preparation for the upcoming maneuver because he is thinking
uni-manueverably instead of sequentially. The "vision" isn't there yet. Is he the
next generation? Possibly, but not until he receives the vision IMHO. To this
particular individual, cost is not an obstacle and I know tons of guys who have the
means, but the "vision" is missing.
Now, if you try to explain the "vision" to one of these individuals you may end up
with a few missing teeth or worse as it insults their intellect. So, for me, there
seems to be an intangible hurdle to overcome that creates great frustration within my
psyche.
The interesting thing about the "vision" is that it can be quite different in it's
intensity for different individuals. Additionally, the "vision" can wax and wane. I'm
sure you know guys that are currently flying pattern that are just happy to be
participating and are doing so at a lower intensity level of "vision" while others
are on fire and are constantly thinking of ways to improve their execution
techniques.In some cases the "vision" may be driven by selfish motives while in
others the impulse may be driven by pure servitude.
In any case, the "VISION" needs to be there and having it will always overpower
monetary issues.
Nothing else matters except the "VISION"

Just conversation, guys.
G.

David Flynt wrote:

> 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 with 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 don’t take anything I
> say personal or as criticism, even if I use inflammatory terms such as
> roach.  I don’t mean to upset anybody.  It is just a discussion.
>
> Let’s start with number 1:  If pattern were 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 is a better
> instrument than most.  So what.  You don't need a Steinway 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 leader 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 don’t 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, let’s say electric is much more expensive than IC.  As an example,
> I do not have any near term plans to switch to electric.  I’m 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 don’t 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
> don’t 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.  I’m 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.  That’s 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.
>
> Let’s 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
> world’s competitions are NOT roaches.  These set the standard of beauty and
> craftsmanship, and are typically hand crafted from balsa wood.  Naruke Hobby
> and Oxai 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?  I’m sure everybody has
> examples of being beaten by somebody with a roach.  It’s 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.  It’s proven all the time.  Except at the worlds.  You
> won’t see many roaches in the top ten, but 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.
>
> I’ve 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 cat’s meow.  These are very light for their size, fit
> perfectly, are engineered well, and use excellent wood.  I don’t really like
> the sheeted and painted scratch built Typhoons and varieties.  There is too
> much work and too heavy.  You don’t 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.  Let’s 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 hate 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.  It’s 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.  That’s 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 talk 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 don’t 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