<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin-right:0cm;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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……</span></font></p>
<div>
<p><font size=3 color=navy face="Comic Sans MS"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:navy'>Timothy Pascoe</span></font><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>David Flynt<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> </span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>February 27,
2006</span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'> </span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>12:35 PM</span></font><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> NSRCA Mailing List<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Equipment cost and partiicpation -- a different viewpoint (LONG)</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=blue
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>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. ;-)</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=blue
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>David</span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:
36.0pt'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>DaveL322@comcast.net<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, February 27, 2006
9:08 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> NSRCA Mailing List<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Equipment cost and partiicpation -- a different viewpoint (LONG)</span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>David,</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>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></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Great post.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Regards,</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dave Lockhart</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><a
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</a></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>-------------- 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 </span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>