Re: what is difficult in building indoor duration

From: Yuan Kang Lee <ykleetx_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:55:14 -0000

Jake,

This is a good point. One consequence of no BOM rule may be that components will cost more. This would be a bad consequence.

But at the same time, perhaps a cheaper wing will be available from Sam and Joe of San Diego.

On the other hand, the time required to build a F1D from scratch is high, and time spent is money spent to a lot of people. 25 or 30 hours to build a F1D is a high opportunity cost. This opportunity cost is also a barrier.

-Kang

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Jake Palmer <82.jake@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a hypothetical. What if the BOM rule went away and some of the top
> competitors began selling components? Treger sells his hub for about $100.
> Let's say Schramm started selling wings for $150, and prop blades for $100
> a pair. Now you need to spend $350 to build one plane. You need several
> backup models to compete. That means I need to invest $1400 in models to be
> competitive. Is that going to spur interest in the hobby or will it just
> scare away the average guy like myself that can't afford to risk a $350
> model on every flight?
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Yuan Kang Lee <ykleetx_at_...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Don,
> >
> > Please don't agree with me !!!! LOL ...
> >
> >
> > --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Don DeLoach <ddeloach@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree Kang.
> > >
> > > Don DeLoach
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Oct 17, 2012, at 2:59 PM, "Yuan Kang Lee" <ykleetx_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So if there's no advantage in Treger's hub, why not allow it to be
> > purchased and used?
> > > >
> > > > --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Jake Palmer <82.jake@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I tend to agree with Mike. While I certainly appreciate the elegance
> > of
> > > > > Treger's hub, I don't think it offers any performance advantages
> > over an
> > > > > older style hub.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:29 PM, mkirda_at_
> > > > > <mkirda_at_>wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would have to disagree on composites being out of reach, Nick.
> > > > > > A foot of carbon could make a lifetime of hubs and costs ~$5. Add
> > > > > > laminating epoxy and balsa rather than Rohacell and you have an
> > easy carbon
> > > > > > yoke in just two layup steps. All you need is a Food Saver.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not convinced that the Treger design is any better though-
> > There are
> > > > > > some torsional stresses that might be better dealt with using Lutz
> > > > > > Schramm's design for example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > Mike Kirda
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Nick Ray <lasray@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think the ease of construction has a great deal to do with the
> > > > > > materials
> > > > > > > involved. A Brown / Kagan style hub is well within the range of
> > average
> > > > > > > indoorist. Most of the materials can ordered from A2Zcorp or even
> > > > > > scavenged
> > > > > > > locally. However, composite hubs like Treger, Tyson and Sandborn
> > have
> > > > > > built
> > > > > > > require substantially more involved manufacturing processes.
> > > > > > > All three use formed fiberglass tubes and carbon layup screw
> > holders. The
> > > > > > > vacuum bagging process alone is cost prohibitive for many
> > people. One has
> > > > > > > to make 6 or 7 composite hubs to break even when compared to the
> > cost of
> > > > > > > buying them from Treger. Maybe someone would like to produce V/P
> > kits
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > the base components are formed and then sent out with assembly
> > > > > > > instructions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If F1D keeps moving in the direction of using more and more
> > composite
> > > > > > > technology we are going to be in the same situation as F1B
> > within the
> > > > > > next
> > > > > > > ten years. I am for not placing materials restrictions on the
> > models, but
> > > > > > > at the same time I think that for many competitors, particularly
> > juniors
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > may have to decide how we would like to go forward with regard
> > to the BOM
> > > > > > > as the models become more intricate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nick
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Wed Oct 17 2012 - 14:55:15 CEST