<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>yep</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=kerlock@comcast.net href="mailto:kerlock@comcast.net">Mike Hester</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 27, 2006 8:38
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Equipment
cost and partiicpation --adifferent viewpo...</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I think only Troy Newman could take him on word count.....that's
definitely thesis level.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><VBG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-Mike</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Rcmaster199@aol.com
href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 27, 2006 10:03
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Equipment cost and partiicpation -- adifferent viewpo...</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>David,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Are you sure it isn't a Preable to your Masters Thesis in Pattern? Just
busting buddy</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matt</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:59:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dflynt@verizon.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>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 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 will<BR>cause others to
purchase more expensive equipment.<BR>4. You cannot win with
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 don’t
take anything I<BR>say personal or as criticism, even if I use
inflammatory terms such as<BR>roach. I don’t mean to upset
anybody. It is just a discussion.<BR><BR>Let’s start with number
1: If pattern were 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 is a better<BR>instrument than most. So what.
You don't need a Steinway 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 leader 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
don’t 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, let’s say electric is much more expensive than IC
As an example,<BR>I do not have any near term plans to switch to
electric. I’m 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 don’t 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>don’t 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. I’m 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. That’s 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>Let’s 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>world’s 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 Oxai 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? I’m sure everybody
has<BR>examples of being beaten by somebody with a roach. It’s 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. It’s proven all
the time. Except at the worlds. You<BR>won’t see many roaches
in the top ten, but 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>I’ve 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 cat’s meow. These are very light for their size,
fit<BR>perfectly, are engineered well, and use excellent wood. I
don’t really like<BR>the sheeted and painted scratch built Typhoons and
varieties. There is too<BR>much work and too heavy. You don’t
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. Let’s 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 hate 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. It’s 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. That’s 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
don’t 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
don’t 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
talk 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 don’t 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></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>