<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=046493117-27022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.
;-)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046493117-27022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046493117-27022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>David</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>DaveL322@comcast.net<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 27, 2006 9:08
AM<BR><B>To:</B> NSRCA Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Equipment cost and partiicpation -- a different viewpoint
(LONG)<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>David,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Great post.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: "David Flynt"
<dflynt@verizon.net> <BR><BR>> There has been a lot of discussion
about the cost of pattern equipment and <BR>> how it might be the cause
of low participation and low rate of recruiting <BR>> new pilots. There
are several flavors of the claim that I have heard: <BR>> <BR>> 1. If
pattern were not expensive, more rc pilots would participate. <BR>> 2.
Pattern is not necessarily expensive, but there is an impression that
<BR>> you <BR>> must have an expensive plane to win. If we could just
get the message <BR>> across that you do not need an expensive airplane,
then more rc pilots would <BR>> participate. <BR>> 3. It is bad to
spend a lot of money on pattern equipment, because that <BR>> will
<BR>> cause others to purchase more expensive equipment. <BR>> 4. You
cannot win wit! h a low cost airplane (aka roach nothing personal).
<BR>> You need a fancy, expensive airplane to win. <BR>> 5. You should
build your own airplane, preferably using wood, because that <BR>> will
lower your cost. <BR>> 6. Lowering cost is the key to saving pattern.
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I disagree with all of these viewpoints, and I
will argue why I feel this <BR>> way. But first, let me say a couple of
things. 1) I like a bargain and <BR>> value as much as anybody. Nobody
throws money away. Have you ever <BR>> purchased something and paid more
than the retail price because you felt <BR>> that you were cheating the
business? Nobody does that. We all hunt for <BR>> bargains. So low cost
is a great thing. 2) Please dont take anything I <BR>> say personal or
as criticism, even if I use inflammatory terms such as <BR>> roach. I
dont mean to upset anybody. It is just a discussion. <BR>> <BR>>
Lets start with number 1: If pattern we! re not expensive, more rc pilots
<BR>> would participate. <BR>> <BR>> This one is easy. Golf is
arguably at least as expensive as pattern. It <BR>> can be done on the
cheap, but for the most part there are people in every <BR>> corner of
the United States that play golf and spend many thousands on it <BR>>
each year. They buy expensive equipment, pay for lessons, join country
<BR>> clubs, and spend lots of money much more than pattern pilots on
average. <BR>> There are many more golfers than even RC pilots. There is
wealth in this <BR>> country, but even the not so wealthy play golf and
spend big bucks. If cost <BR>> were a barrier, then there would be fewer
golfers than pattern pilots. But <BR>> there are more golfers than
pattern pilots; therefore cost is not a barrier. <BR>> <BR>> Number 2:
Pattern is not necessarily expensive, but there is an impression <BR>>
that you must have an expensive plane to win. If we could just get the
<BR>> message across that you do not need an expensive airplane, ! then
more rc <BR>> pilots would participate. <BR>> <BR>> It is true that
pattern equipment is not necessarily expensive. Probably <BR>> $1000,
depending on the servos is the minimum competitive setup in upper <BR>>
classes, and this could be very competitive. <BR>> <BR>> Let me try
this argument. Consider the piano. How many people play? <BR>> Probably
not very many. A piano can be expensive or inexpensive. You can <BR>> buy
a used piano or an electric keyboard for a few hundred dollars. Now if
<BR>> I offer to give you a Steinway Model D piano, would you give up
pattern and <BR>> start playing piano? You're probably not going to give
up pattern just <BR>> because I subsidize a piano for you. If you were
truly interested in piano, <BR>> you would figure out a way to start
playing. Subsidizing is completely <BR>> unnecessary. The same is true
for pattern. <BR>> <BR>> Now, do you need a Steinway to play well? I
can tell you it i! s a better <BR>> instrument than most. So what. You
don't need a St einway to play the piano <BR>> well. You need to practice
to play well. But let's say you like the way a <BR>> Steinway feels and
sounds, and it makes you happy to have one, and you don't <BR>> mind
spending the extra money on one. Is there something wrong with that?
<BR>> In other words, if you buy a Steinway, do you really think somebody
else who <BR>> is sincerely interested in piano would somehow become
frustrated and never <BR>> play because you can afford a Steinway but
they cannot? That's ridiculous. <BR>> Anybody who is sincerely interested
will play the piano whether or not they <BR>> can afford a Steinway. The
same is true with pattern. <BR>> <BR>> Number 3: It is bad to spend a
lot of money on pattern equipment, because <BR>> that will cause others
to purchase more expensive equipment. <BR>> <BR>> There are a lot of
people on this list that have this philosophy. I think <BR>> it all
started with Dick Hansen. He is the lead! er of the cost crusade. <BR>>
>From talking to him over the years and from reading his posts on RC
<BR>> Universe, he takes this to the extreme: It if cannot be done cheap,
then it <BR>> should not be done at all. Dick is a true leader and
innovator in pattern. <BR>> He has proven over and over that you dont
need to spend a lot of money on <BR>> equipment. This just goes to show
you that if one person spends a lot of <BR>> money on equipment, not
everybody else will. There are a lot of people in <BR>> the cost crusade
camp (maybe we should call them roachies for short), so <BR>> just
because one person spends a lot of money on equipment, evidence <BR>>
suggests that not everybody else will. <BR>> <BR>> Electric is a good
example. Well, maybe less so, because it appears that <BR>> the costs of
electric can compete with the cost of IC. But just for <BR>> argument,
lets say electric is much more expensive than IC. As an example, <BR>! >
I do not have any near term plans to switch to electric. Im just having
<BR>> too much fun with IC, and I now have a 2c pattern ship, and one
with a <BR>> 160DZ. As much as I complain about how difficult it is to
tune a 2c, I am <BR>> interested in it. Electric is also interesting, but
I dont think it scales <BR>> that well. It is great for foamies, but I
still think the batteries and <BR>> motors are on the edge of stability.
65 amps is a lot of current! The <BR>> batteries also scare me because of
cost and fire potential. But mostly, I <BR>> dont really think electric
is all that great and definitely not necessary <BR>> to win. Advocates
for electric say the maintenance costs are much less for <BR>> electric
because of less vibration. Im all for low vibration. It can <BR>> damage
your airframe and servos. But if you get 2000 flights on a composite
<BR>> airframe with a DZ, and you need to service your servo gears and
pots every <BR>> 100 flights, what is the cost difference between
replacing your ! battery <BR>> packs every 100 flights? You can afford to
buy a backup set of servos, and <BR>> then just send them in for service.
And after 2000 flights, you might be <BR>> ready to try a new airframe.
It certainly does not owe you anything after <BR>> 2000 flights. The
point is not whether Electric is good or bad, but that it <BR>> is not
necessary, and not everybody is going to follow and switch to <BR>>
Electric. Thats the point. <BR>> <BR>> Number 4 my favorite topic:
You cannot win with a low cost airplane (aka <BR>> roach nothing
personal). You need a fancy, expensive airplane to win. <BR>> <BR>>
Lets all get on the same page as to what a roach is. A roach is simply an
<BR>> airplane that is hard on the eyes. I am not the founder of the
term. <BR>> Dennis Galloway, a former FAI pilot in California and good
friend of mine <BR>> may have coined the term. He once did an air show in
Santa Maria, and he <BR>> did a knife-! edge pass under a 6-foot high
limbo bar with an old, beat up <BR>> Goldberg Ultimate Biplane. He said,
I may crash, but this old roach owes <BR>> me nothing. He made it under
the bar not just once, but twice. He had not <BR>> planned on doing it
twice, but I did not have the record button turned on <BR>> his video
camera during the first pass. Another typical characteristic of <BR>> an
old roach is that it just never dies. The converse is unfortunately <BR>>
true the brand new expensive airplane is somehow drawn more powerfully to
<BR>> earth to its demise than the roach. It is a cruel twist of fate,
similar to <BR>> having a pretty wife, but an unhappy, short marriage.
<BR>> <BR>> Not all scratch built planes are roaches. In fact, most
are not. Some <BR>> examples are in order: All of the Japanese planes
that are seen at the <BR>> worlds competitions are NOT roaches. These
set the standard of beauty and <BR>> craftsmanship, and are typically
hand crafted from balsa wood. Naruke Hobby <BR>> and Ox! ai airplanes are
not roaches. A good example of a roach is the <BR>> Piedmont Focus or
Focus II, especially one that has seen too many hard <BR>> landings and
has a good deal of hangar rash from throwing it carelessly into <BR>> the
back of a pickup over a couple of years. Perhaps the best example of a
<BR>> roach is the Insight. You would need to work really hard to design
a more <BR>> unsightly pattern plane. But if it flies well, and holds up
well, then it <BR>> is a good pattern plane. <BR>> <BR>> So, can
you win with a roach or inexpensive plane? Im sure everybody has <BR>>
examples of being beaten by somebody with a roach. Its not how the plane
<BR>> looks, it is how it flies, and how well the pilot moves the sticks.
I like <BR>> a fancy French composite plane, but I will be the first to
admit that you <BR>> can win with a roach. Its proven all the time.
Except at the worlds. You <BR>> wont see many roaches in the top ten,
bu! t I speculate that that is because <BR>> the top ten prefer to fly
non-roaches, and they can, so they do. But a <BR>> roach can fly as well
as any plane. Look at the results for the Focus. Don <BR>> Szczur won the
Nats with it. That is a darn good flying roach. <BR>> <BR>> Number 5
-- You should build your own airplane, preferably using wood, <BR>>
because that will lower your cost. <BR>> <BR>> Ive nothing against
wood or saving money. However, saving time can be more <BR>> valuable
than saving money. Also, I feel that there are not enough good <BR>>
choices for wood pattern kits. If there were something that looked like a
<BR>> Znline Oxalys or PL Partner, was constructed out of wood like the
Exclusive <BR>> Modelbau kits, HAD A NOSE RING, then I would buy and
build one. The lazer <BR>> cut EM kits are the cats meow. These are very
light for their size, fit <BR>> perfectly, are engineered well, and use
excellent wood. I dont really like <BR>> the sheeted and painted scratch
built Typhoons and va! rieties. There is too <BR>> much work and too
heavy. You dont need all that sheeting for strength and <BR>> rigidity.
That is just for looks. I would like to see a hogged out light <BR>> ply
fuse that can be covered with transparent film, and no special jigs or
<BR>> finishing techniques required. There is a market for that. EM
should <BR>> produce a pattern kit, or somebody should, but update the
design from the <BR>> Typhoon. A tall, wide fuse is the correct design,
all lazer cut. Built-up <BR>> or foam core wings either one. <BR>>
<BR>> Some math is in order. Lets say you make $100,000 salary per year.
That <BR>> means your time is worth $50.00 per hour. You could do side
work in <BR>> addition to your 40 hours per week, and bring home a lot of
extra money. If <BR>> you spend 200 to 300 hours building one airplane,
then your $150 roach <BR>> really cost you $10,000 to $15,000 to build. I
like building airplanes, but <BR>> I h! ate spending all that time
building because of the math. I simply lose <BR>> too much opportunity
money in the deal. Painting an airframe takes me about <BR>> 60 or more
hours. Its just not worth it. Would you build your own car, <BR>> house,
piano? Very few people do because it consumes too much time. It may <BR>>
lower the cost, but you may lose ten fold in time. Thats why you buy
<BR>> products. You trade money for products because it is cheaper than
making it <BR>> yourself. A $3000 Oxai ARF, is a way better value to me
than building <BR>> myself. Do the math. Even if your time is worth only
$20 per hour, you <BR>> come out way ahead, and you get a much nicer
airplane. <BR>> <BR>> I know people that spend 200 to 300 hours of
their time on real estate <BR>> investments, and flip a home or two each
year for a tidy profit of $50,000. <BR>> That roach could be costing you
$50,000. You might want to boast about how <BR>> much you saved over a
$6000 Naruke Hobby airframe, but to me, you lose <BR>> $50,! 000 dollars
each time you build a roach. Personally, I dont see a big <BR>> future
in scratch building. Do the math. <BR>> <BR>> Number 6: Lowering cost
is the key to saving pattern. <BR>> <BR>> The major expense in pattern
is getting to contests. Going to the Nats <BR>> would probably cost me
$4000 to $5000 in gas, lodging, food, wear and tear <BR>> on my Minivan,
and two weeks of vacation. I can trade the whole experience <BR>> for a
ready to fly Oxai. Attending local contests is just as expensive, <BR>>
except I dont need to burn the vacation time. Attending six local contests
<BR>> costs me $2400: 600 miles average round trip at $3.00 per gallon,
20 mpg = <BR>> $540, $0.10 per mile wear and tear = $360, lodging for 12
nights at $75.00 <BR>> per night = $900, and food out at $100 per event =
$600. Flying a $1000 <BR>> plane versus a $5000 plane is going to help.
If that is what you need to <BR>> do, then there should be little !
excuse for not showing up at a contest. The <BR>> cost crusaders ta lk
about lowering cost of equipment, but completely ignore <BR>> the major
expense of getting to contests. Despite the costs, we get to <BR>>
contests because we enjoy it enough to part with our money. <BR>>
<BR>> I really dont think it is expense that drives people away from
pattern. <BR>> Look at the golf example. There just is not that many that
people who are <BR>> interested in pattern, or rc for that matter. This
could change, but there <BR>> will never be as many pattern pilots as
there are golfers. <BR>> <BR>> Part of the fun with Pattern is playing
with equipment. Whether you fly a <BR>> roach, or a $6000 Naruke
airframe, we all share a passion with the <BR>> equipment. I think that
is why we discuss it so much which power <BR>> technology is best, and
how much it costs, whether it is necessary are <BR>> frequent topics of
interest. In conclusion, I would like to say that it is <BR>> OK to
scratch build, and OK to not. It! is OK to spend very little, and OK
<BR>> to spend a lot. The amount you spend has no impact on the health of
pattern <BR>> and its survival. This is an entirely orthogonal matter.
<BR>> <BR>> If you got this far through my note, I would be interested
to hear what you <BR>> think. Thanks. <BR>> <BR>> David <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>