[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

[Dr Mike]

My response to all this change is expensive is that the stuff cost just as
much 20-30 years ago as it does today-in real money.  Aviation is the very
essence of change, otherwise ride a horse drawn buggy.  In the case of
electrics, because of the change to electrics, expect the costs of flying to
actually go down.  The mentality being expressed here is that change is too
expensive, thereby handicapping the sport.  I disagree.  A commitment to
this sport at a reasonable level requires the cost of time, effort, thought,
etc, and money.  Once again, I will  point out that many top level
competitors have chosen economically priced planes, equipment, etc and won,
repeatedly.  They won because of all the other factors, not because they
spent the most money.  Those that think they need the best, most expensive
gadget need to rethink.  Change, in fact, creates more jobs, sales, etc.  

 

This request to raise the weight limit- a weight limit set decades ago when
the powers that be never imagined anyone could build a 2 meter airplane that
would perform to the level it does- set it to give a large allowance for a
variety of designs-now the weight limit has become restrictive and in a
sense punitive.  This a big reason that biplanes are not in the mix, not
because they failed-it is because they have been abandoned because of the
weight restriction.

 

No one is required to build an 11 or 12 lb airplane.  It certainly doesn't
guarantee a single trophy nor does it render the competitor obsolete if he
chooses to stay with a lighter airplane.  

 

Money is not the issue because people will spend what people will spend and
they can't blame the rules for that.

Many opposed to this have chosen to go the more expensive route because that
is what they want to do not because it is more competitive.  My issue is not
with AMA or the AMA flyers, however, my appeal is to the FAI international
committee.  I believe they lost their vision after Ron Chidgey left.

 

It is what it is.

Mike 

 

 

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

 

Mark this is the best description of cost resulting from change I've seen.
During my years in engineering management I found about 90% of the
department activity / cost was not design related but documentation,
planning and implementation of changes. Inventory match-up and run-out was
always expensive for both our distributors and vendors. Millions wasted on
continual and questionable changes.

 

Jim

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:33 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

 

Lol.just your pride.

 

I think what's missing from this discussion is the simple truth that
"Change" costs money in a sport where stable rules allow us to standardize
around them.   Occasionally, a new technology inserts "change" without any
rule change.   4-Strokes did that a while back (although that was really the
result of a rule change too to allow double displacement to "even up" the
gap between 4-strokes and 2-strokes) and we had a few years of turmoil and
cost escalation as everyone slowly abandoned their .61 long strokes and
moved to 4 strokes.  But the "Cost" wasn't just a new motor.  

 

It was all the costs involved with LEARNING how to successfully run and
outfit the new motor.  New pipe designs. A myriad of header designs and
header braces, new fuels (more expensive 30%), Soft mounts, and several
years of RAPID airplane evolution as we learned just how much a 4-stroke can
pull.  Also the motors evolved rapidly at first until everything started to
stabilize again.     

 

We had a brief period there where there was some stability, and some cost
stability as well.  Stores like Central had confidence to stock Hatori
Headers and pipes, 17x12 props, and a truckload of YS parts.  You didn't
need to own quite as much back up equipment because it was likely that you
could borrow a spare header/plug/o-ring/whatever as most people were running
the same or similar setups. 

 

Change not only directly affects the consumer, but indirectly affects them
as well, when the supply chain takes a beating on unsold inventory, they
have to make up for that with the new inventory that is selling.  Not to
mention they don't HAVE inventory because they can't risk overstocking a
fad. 

 

The cost of change is massive.   R&D up and down the entire product line.
Everything from new artwork for ads to training on how to repair stuff.

 

Bottom line, Change can be good.   But unnecessary change is just expensive.


 

Currently we're going through another technology change cycle with electric.
We're probably about 2/3rds of the way through it, to where we're starting
to see that stability return.  Motors aren't evolving quite as quickly, most
have settled on 5s 5000 20C+ batteries in some form, low cost options for
parts have started to come into the mix, and aircraft designs and SIZE
(Volume, not length and width which has been stable at the limits for 15
years) is also stabilizing.  The Bipes were tried and mostly failed, etc.
ESC's are well "baked" and coming down in weight. Stable rules have brought
in competition for most parts which has brought the prices down on almost
everything especially  motors and batteries (notice Hacker and TP no longer
have a lock on the market and as such can't begin to command the prices they
once did - also, they no longer NEED the prices they once did as much of
their R&D costs have been recovered).    On and on.

 

A major rule change (weighing without batteries, increasing the weight to
12lbs, etc) will start a lot of that process over again.   I know, I
know.it's an AMA rule not an FAI rule.  But SOME of the same will occur, and
there are downsides to not being aligned with FAI.

 

The current rule on the table allows for a variance without changing the
goal.  The goal is a 5Kg airplane.  If you're a beginner, you get some
slack. but you still know your goal.   If the goal is the same, the idea is
we'll avoid that evolution and just provide some leeway for those that need
it for whatever reason.  Costs, used equipment, beginner building skills,
whatever.   

 

I COULD see an argument for a larger variance.   I originally proposed a
full lb for Sportsman, 8oz for Intermediate and 4oz for Andvanced.  idea
being that you would slowly have to work into compliance.   But I think the
thought there was that too many would have to change planes to change
classes.   So the current proposal has approx a 4oz variance for the bottom
3 classes.

 

 

 

Mark Atwood

Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President

5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 

Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102

mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/> 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100824/a5e48852/attachment.html>