REFLECTOR:Craftmanship

Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:54:29 -0800

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C3C943.23A7D7E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here's a post by Bob Nuckolls on the subject of making decisions in =
component selection that's applicable to a lot of areas of building our =
Velocities.  Food for thought!

Time: 10:04:04 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Choices, choices, choices . . .

--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>

 From time to time, a builder writes to ask, "I got a really good deal =
on this kind of wire, can I use it to wire up my whizzy-giget?" Or, "Why =
should I go out an buy this $high$ connector that takes a special tool =
when this $low$ connector does the same job and installs with a =
soldering iron?" I've been pondering this situation for the past several =
days. Indulge me please while I share some past experiences:

When I was in the 4th or 5th grade, I shared an interest in model =
aircraft construction with a cousin about 5 years my senior. He worked =
in a hobby shop and I think took much of his compensation in store =
stock. His models were all beautifully crafted and flew well. I recall a =
conversation about glue. His personal choice was a product called =
Ambroid while my personal preference was for a less expensive, faster =
drying Testor's model cement.
As I recall, Ambroid sold for perhaps three or four times the price of =
Testors. It also took 12-18 hours to reach full strength.

When you considered the cost of a kit, cost of engine, and hours to =
assemble, and a quest of lowest cost of ownership (lots of =
maintenance-free flying), the difference in $total$ for assembling with =
Ambroid vs. Testors was insignificant. He also covered in silk while I =
used tissue. I suspect there were additional differences in our choice =
materials and techniques wherein I went the $low$ route . . . but in the =
final analysis made little difference in the total cost of our =
respective
projects.

Perhaps it was a moot point in my case; cousin Calvin's models usually =
lived to fly many a mission while my own were not so fortunate. Had any =
of his models
survived to the present time, it's a certainty that they would be the =
finest examples of model construction of that era.

Would we build a model that way today? Epoxy wasn't around then. Nor =
were any form of composite materials.  You had to shrink coverings to =
contour with multiple coats of finish, not with a hot iron. Radio =
control was bang-bang, rudder only, at wide open throttle.  Today it's =
fully three-axis with trims accessory
control channels + throttle.

I open my seminars with a statement to the effect, "You folks are =
building the finest airplanes to have ever flown." This always raises a =
few eyebrows, "Wha-da-ya-
mean? I don't know all that much about it."

I can confidently reply, "Yes, and that's why. You participate on list =
servers to tap the collective gray-matter of the OBAM aircraft =
community. You are attending this seminar to achieve a higher level of =
understanding.

If you break something, it gets replaced.  If a part doesn't work quite =
right, you rebuild it as needed until it does. Unlike those new =
graduates bucking rivets on an assembly line while dreaming about what =
they're going to do after work that evening, YOU are paying attention to =
achieving the very best the community knows how to do.

I'll suggest there is more VALUE in a nicely built RV [or Velocity] than =
ANY spam can irrespective of how nice the paint looks or what =
electro-whizzies are bolted to the panel.  Finally, no two OBAM aircraft =
are built exactly the same way.  Certified airplanes are literally =
carved into regulatory stone of conformance, your airplane can freely =
evolve. OBAM aircraft are by definition at the leading edge of =
performance and value in aviation."

Remember the Jimmy Stewart movie "Flight of the Phoenix"?  The folks =
trying to assemble a man-rated, flying aircraft from a pile of salvage =
were not pleased to discover that their "designer's" previous experience =
was limited to building flying models.  It took some time for folks to =
understand that basic principles of structures and flight were =
interchangeable between the worlds of miniature and full-scale.

I suggest that after you've purchased kit, engine, propeller, brakes, =
and a panel full of whippy radios and instruments, the impact on total =
cost for the-best-we-know-how-to-do versus materials or tools you =
discovered at a garage sale or hardware store is trivial.

My experience at workbench of cousin Calvin stands out my memory as a =
benchmark of Calvin's superior sense craftsmanship.  He chose to build =
in a manner that represented the very best the model building community =
knew how to do.

To be sure, few OBAM aircraft builders are going to be using today's =
techniques and technologies 20 years from now . . . May I suggest we =
should be wary of tools, techniques and materials popularly used 20 =
years ago?  May I further suggest that it's not so much a question of =
"will it work" as "will
it be something you'll look back on 20 years from now as the best we =
knew how to do today?"

Dee and I offer our best wishes for you and yours for the upcoming =
holidays.  We're looking forward to meeting many of you in what promises =
to be a busy seminar schedule for next year. It's always enjoyable and =
gratifying to work with folks building the finest airplanes to have ever =
flown.

     Bob . . .

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C3C943.23A7D7E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Here's a post by Bob Nuckolls on the =
subject of=20
making decisions in component selection that's applicable to a lot of =
areas of=20
building our Velocities.&nbsp; Food for thought!</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Time: 10:04:04 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net">bob.nuckolls@cox.net</A>&gt; Subj=
ect:=20
AeroElectric-List: Choices, choices, choices . . . --&gt;=20
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net">bob.nuckolls@cox.net</A>&gt; =
&nbsp;From=20
time to time, a builder writes to ask, "I got a really good deal on this =
kind of=20
wire, can I use it to wire up my whizzy-giget?" Or, "Why should I go out =
an buy=20
this $high$ connector that takes a special tool when this $low$ =
connector does=20
the same job and installs with a soldering iron?" I've been pondering =
this=20
situation for the past several days. Indulge me please while I share =
some past=20
experiences: When I was in the 4th or 5th grade, I shared an =
interest in=20
model aircraft construction with a cousin about 5 years my senior. He =
worked in=20
a hobby shop and I think took much of his compensation in store stock. =
His=20
models were all beautifully crafted and flew well. I recall a =
conversation about=20
glue. His personal choice was a product called Ambroid while my personal =

preference was for a less expensive, faster drying Testor's model =
cement. As=20
I recall, Ambroid sold for perhaps three or four times the price of =
Testors. It=20
also took 12-18 hours to reach full strength. When you considered =
the=20
cost of a kit, cost of engine, and hours to assemble, and a quest of =
lowest cost=20
of ownership (lots of maintenance-free flying), the difference in =
$total$ for=20
assembling with Ambroid vs. Testors was insignificant. He also covered =
in silk=20
while I used tissue. I suspect there were additional differences in our =
choice=20
materials and techniques wherein I went the $low$ route . . . but in the =
final=20
analysis made little difference in the total cost of our=20
respective projects. Perhaps it was a moot point in my case; =
cousin=20
Calvin's models usually lived to fly many a mission while my own were =
not so=20
fortunate. Had any of his models survived to the present time, it's a =

certainty that they would be the finest examples of model construction =
of that=20
era. Would we build a model that way today? Epoxy wasn't around =
then. Nor=20
were any form of composite materials.&nbsp; You had to shrink coverings =
to=20
contour with multiple coats of finish, not with a hot iron. Radio =
control was=20
bang-bang, rudder only, at wide open throttle.&nbsp; Today it's fully =
three-axis=20
with trims accessory control channels + throttle. I open my =
seminars=20
with a statement to the effect, "You folks are building the finest =
airplanes to=20
have ever flown." This always raises a few eyebrows, =
"Wha-da-ya- mean? I=20
don't know all that much about it." I can confidently reply, =
"Yes, and=20
that's why. You participate on list servers to tap the collective =
gray-matter of=20
the OBAM aircraft community. You are attending this seminar to achieve a =
higher=20
level of understanding. If you break something, it gets =
replaced.&nbsp;=20
If a part doesn't work quite right, you rebuild it as needed until it =
does.=20
Unlike those new graduates bucking rivets on an assembly line while =
dreaming=20
about what they're going to do after work that evening, YOU are paying =
attention=20
to achieving the very best the community knows how to do. I'll =
suggest=20
there is more VALUE in a nicely built RV [or Velocity] than ANY spam can =

irrespective of how nice the paint looks or what electro-whizzies are =
bolted to=20
the panel.&nbsp; Finally, no two OBAM aircraft are built exactly the =
same=20
way.&nbsp; Certified airplanes are literally carved into regulatory =
stone of=20
conformance, your airplane can freely evolve. OBAM aircraft are by =
definition at=20
the leading edge of performance and value in aviation." Remember =
the=20
Jimmy Stewart movie "Flight of the Phoenix"?&nbsp; The folks trying to =
assemble=20
a man-rated, flying aircraft from a pile of salvage were not pleased to =
discover=20
that their "designer's" previous experience was limited to building =
flying=20
models.&nbsp; It took some time for folks to understand that basic =
principles of=20
structures and flight were interchangeable between the worlds of =
miniature and=20
full-scale. I suggest that after you've purchased kit, engine, =
propeller,=20
brakes, and a panel full of whippy radios and instruments, the impact on =
total=20
cost for the-best-we-know-how-to-do versus materials or tools you =
discovered at=20
a garage sale or hardware store is trivial. My experience at =
workbench of=20
cousin Calvin stands out my memory as a benchmark of Calvin's superior =
sense=20
craftsmanship.&nbsp; He chose to build in a manner that represented the =
very=20
best the model building community knew how to do. To be sure, few =
OBAM=20
aircraft builders are going to be using today's techniques and =
technologies 20=20
years from now . . . May I suggest we should be wary of tools, =
techniques and=20
materials popularly used 20 years ago?&nbsp; May I further suggest that =
it's not=20
so much a question of "will it work" as&nbsp;"will it be something =
you'll=20
look back on 20 years from now as the best we knew how to do =
today?" Dee=20
and I offer our best wishes for you and yours for the upcoming =
holidays.&nbsp;=20
We're looking forward to meeting many of you in what promises to be a =
busy=20
seminar schedule for next year. It's always enjoyable and gratifying to =
work=20
with folks building the finest airplanes to have ever=20
flown. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bob . . . </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C3C943.23A7D7E0--