[NSRCA-discussion] Equipment cost and partiicpation -- a different viewpo...

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

David,
 
When I saw "LONG" I took a peek. I didn't read it I must admit, not wanting  
to break my own rule on long messages on this list. BUT I was so impressed 
with  the length of your message, I had to send you a note of commendation. BG
 
Are you sure it isn't a Preable to your Masters Thesis in Pattern? Just  
busting buddy
 
Matt
 
 
In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:59:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
dflynt at verizon.net writes:

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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060227/3775850a/attachment-0001.html