Re: [RCSE] AVA vs Bubble Dancer - Buy vs. Build
Well, I don't know the exact definition of woody, but the Ava's wing and tail surfaces are primarily wood with carbon reinforcement. Unless that d-tube doesn't have any sheeting under it, and I'm not submitting mine for surgery. (hmm.., it's unpleasant but I could dig out those smashed tips and look at the inner panels). What the Ava most definitely is NOT is an EXACT copy of a Bubble Dancer, although certainly there is a high level of imitation. I suspect that if you could measure precisely enough, you would find that Mark's Bubble Dancer (as built by Mark) has performance numbers a little bit better than those of the Ava. For one thing, the "foil" shape on the tail is very different. Plus, the Bubble Dancer's tips have d-tube sheeting and the Ava's do not. (I have heard (or perhaps read?) Mark comment on the performance penalty of not sheeting tips a number of times.) Structurally, if I recall correctly the sheeting on the Bubble Dancer is just wood, while there's carbon-kevlar cloth on the outside of the Ava's d-tube. Also, I think the Bubble Dancer uses hefty wood ribs and substantial wood trailing edge where the Ava uses skinny wood with carbon cap strips. Hence the infamous picture of the buckling Ava t.e. on landing. I can tell you that it seems sturdy when it's in one piece but it kind! of crumbles when you break it. Which is ok if you're just going to buy replacement parts. The Ava is built to a high level of workmanship, and I think you'd have to build a Bubble Dancer to nearly the same level if you wanted to exceed the Ava's performance. On the other hand, I think the Ava is close enough that you shouldn't feel handicapped or use it for excuses. It flies very well. Using it for my LSF hour flight felt like cheating. Original message >Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:45:37 -0400 >From: "TJB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [RCSE] AVA vs Bubble Dancer - Buy vs. Build >To: "Ed Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >The AVA is not a woody, so the Bubble Dancer (Mike L won the RES NATS with >his) is the best choice if you want to compete in woody events. > >T >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:34 AM >Subject: [RCSE] AVA vs Bubble Dancer - Buy vs. Build > > >> Lincoln, >> >> Build vs. buy; is it just an economic question? >> >> As we all know, the AVA is almost an exact copy of Mark Drela's Bubble >> Dancer. It is a little bigger and a little heavier, but other than that, >> we >> can consider it the Bubble Dancer ARF. But is it a good value, or is it a >> high priced package? >> >> A group of guys at my club got together and made up Bubble Dancer kits >> this >> past winter, five of them. It included a premade molded fuselage and >> boom. >> To create the kits cost around $310. I don't know how long the build >> took. >> I bought one of the kits, took a look at the build, and sold the kit to >> another club member. I bought an AVA. I am not a builder, and that build >> would have been way over my head. For me the cost of the ARF was cheap >> compared to the time investment to build. >> >> Denny, at www.polecataero.com was selling an EZBD kit for a while for >> $340. >> Based on the work my club members did to create those kits, Denny's kit >> seems very reasonable in price. And he claims it is a faster build. >> Based >> on the quality of his other planes, I would trust a kit from Polecat. >> >> Now, if someone likes the AVA and wants to build it for themselves, then >> build the Bubble Dancer. Based on what I have seen at the field, the >> Bubble >> Dancer is just as much of a super ship as the ARFs that copy it. And, it >> is >> a real "builder's" plane. But it takes a lot of work time to build. If >> building is your pleasure, it is time is well spent. However if you look >> at >> it as time equals money or building time subtracts from other activities, >> then you are doing a make/buy economic decision. >> >> If you take the time to build a Bubble Dancer into account, I agree, the >> AVA, the Topaz, the Soprano and similar ships are a real good value. >> Unless >> you love to build, there is little economic justification to building the >> kit over the available high quality ARFs. If you love to build, then the >> hours spent building are a joy in itself and the money saved is of no >> importance and an AVA offers little val
Re: [RCSE] AVA vs Bubble Dancer - Buy vs. Build
The AVA is not a woody, so the Bubble Dancer (Mike L won the RES NATS with his) is the best choice if you want to compete in woody events. T - Original Message - From: "Ed Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:34 AM Subject: [RCSE] AVA vs Bubble Dancer - Buy vs. Build Lincoln, Build vs. buy; is it just an economic question? As we all know, the AVA is almost an exact copy of Mark Drela's Bubble Dancer. It is a little bigger and a little heavier, but other than that, we can consider it the Bubble Dancer ARF. But is it a good value, or is it a high priced package? A group of guys at my club got together and made up Bubble Dancer kits this past winter, five of them. It included a premade molded fuselage and boom. To create the kits cost around $310. I don't know how long the build took. I bought one of the kits, took a look at the build, and sold the kit to another club member. I bought an AVA. I am not a builder, and that build would have been way over my head. For me the cost of the ARF was cheap compared to the time investment to build. Denny, at www.polecataero.com was selling an EZBD kit for a while for $340. Based on the work my club members did to create those kits, Denny's kit seems very reasonable in price. And he claims it is a faster build. Based on the quality of his other planes, I would trust a kit from Polecat. Now, if someone likes the AVA and wants to build it for themselves, then build the Bubble Dancer. Based on what I have seen at the field, the Bubble Dancer is just as much of a super ship as the ARFs that copy it. And, it is a real "builder's" plane. But it takes a lot of work time to build. If building is your pleasure, it is time is well spent. However if you look at it as time equals money or building time subtracts from other activities, then you are doing a make/buy economic decision. If you take the time to build a Bubble Dancer into account, I agree, the AVA, the Topaz, the Soprano and similar ships are a real good value. Unless you love to build, there is little economic justification to building the kit over the available high quality ARFs. If you love to build, then the hours spent building are a joy in itself and the money saved is of no importance and an AVA offers little value to someone who loves to build. Ed Anderson Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:17:05 -0400 From: Lincoln Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Soaring@airage.com Subject: re: RES vs UNL vs DLG Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> First off, let's put my alleged divinity aside for the duration of this post. People whine too loudly about the super ships in RES. I've beaten some of them with 25 year old pieces of crap. On a good day it doesn't matter that much. Unless you get extra bonus points for landing a pretty ship, you can get the same 100 landing points with an old trainer. I'll admit that on tough days having an Ava improves your chances. However, the Ava is quite a deal. $700 or so. A top of the line unlimited like the Supra is going to run you somewhere between almost twice to almost three times that. If you insist on someone else building the glider, an Ava or similar is quite a deal. I figure it would take me more than 100 hours to build something like that, and it wouldn't be as nice. Would take less time to get a second job flipping burgers and buy the Ava.. If you want to build gliders yourself, well then things are still cheap, but there are so few people who want to do that that kits are hard to find. Remember that these dollars are worth a lot less than the ones we had in the '80s, when as I recall people would spend what I recall as the better part of $300 on a Windsong kit and spend 100 hours BUILDING it. I spent maybe 60 hours building a Cumic back in 1990, and it turned out to be a real dog. Not like the Sagitta wings I'd build before. Actually, I do want to do a little building, but it doesn't make economic sense when I'm working full time. Possibly kits will make a comeback when wages in the rest of the world get close to what they are in the USA. (That's a good thing, by the way, except maybe for the environment.) BTW, although I've flown 2M a LOT, I think 100 inches would have been the better limited size. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
[RCSE] AVA vs Bubble Dancer - Buy vs. Build
Lincoln, Build vs. buy; is it just an economic question? As we all know, the AVA is almost an exact copy of Mark Drela's Bubble Dancer. It is a little bigger and a little heavier, but other than that, we can consider it the Bubble Dancer ARF. But is it a good value, or is it a high priced package? A group of guys at my club got together and made up Bubble Dancer kits this past winter, five of them. It included a premade molded fuselage and boom. To create the kits cost around $310. I don't know how long the build took. I bought one of the kits, took a look at the build, and sold the kit to another club member. I bought an AVA. I am not a builder, and that build would have been way over my head. For me the cost of the ARF was cheap compared to the time investment to build. Denny, at www.polecataero.com was selling an EZBD kit for a while for $340. Based on the work my club members did to create those kits, Denny's kit seems very reasonable in price. And he claims it is a faster build. Based on the quality of his other planes, I would trust a kit from Polecat. Now, if someone likes the AVA and wants to build it for themselves, then build the Bubble Dancer. Based on what I have seen at the field, the Bubble Dancer is just as much of a super ship as the ARFs that copy it. And, it is a real "builder's" plane. But it takes a lot of work time to build. If building is your pleasure, it is time is well spent. However if you look at it as time equals money or building time subtracts from other activities, then you are doing a make/buy economic decision. If you take the time to build a Bubble Dancer into account, I agree, the AVA, the Topaz, the Soprano and similar ships are a real good value. Unless you love to build, there is little economic justification to building the kit over the available high quality ARFs. If you love to build, then the hours spent building are a joy in itself and the money saved is of no importance and an AVA offers little value to someone who loves to build. Ed Anderson > Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:17:05 -0400 > From: Lincoln Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Soaring@airage.com > Subject: re: RES vs UNL vs DLG > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > First off, let's put my alleged divinity aside for the duration of this > post. > > People whine too loudly about the super ships in RES. I've beaten some > of them with 25 year old pieces of crap. On a good day it doesn't matter > that much. Unless you get extra bonus points for landing a pretty ship, > you can get the same 100 landing points with an old trainer. I'll admit > that on tough days having an Ava improves your chances. However, the Ava > is quite a deal. $700 or so. A top of the line unlimited like the Supra > is going to run you somewhere between almost twice to almost three times > that. If you insist on someone else building the glider, an Ava or > similar is quite a deal. I figure it would take me more than 100 hours > to build something like that, and it wouldn't be as nice. Would take > less time to get a second job flipping burgers and buy the Ava.. > > If you want to build gliders yourself, well then things are still cheap, > but there are so few people who want to do that that kits are hard to > find. Remember that these dollars are worth a lot less than the ones we > had in the '80s, when as I recall people would spend what I recall as > the better part of $300 on a Windsong kit and spend 100 hours BUILDING > it. I spent maybe 60 hours building a Cumic back in 1990, and it turned > out to be a real dog. Not like the Sagitta wings I'd build before. > > Actually, I do want to do a little building, but it doesn't make > economic sense when I'm working full time. > > Possibly kits will make a comeback when wages in the rest of the world > get close to what they are in the USA. (That's a good thing, by the way, > except maybe for the environment.) > > BTW, although I've flown 2M a LOT, I think 100 inches would have been > the better limited size. > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
