Please justify ??
04-17-2007 | 07:05 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please justify ??
Can anyone justify why a simple jet can cost sooo much, when theres larger frames with more wood and prolly design curves are cheaper ?
Take a look that the photos !
The jet ia about $800 dollars and the 3D plane is less than 500 dollars but bigger
Take a look that the photos !
The jet ia about $800 dollars and the 3D plane is less than 500 dollars but bigger
04-17-2007 | 07:20 PM
#3
My Feedback: (22)
RE: Please justify ??
Well, there's a few reasons that I can think of:
1. Cost of molds, there are far more molds to be made for a jet than most aerobatic airplanes. Most aerobatic airplanes are limited to a cowl and wheel pants for fiberglass parts. Molds are expensive to make, that cost finds it's way into the kit.
2. Limited market, for every one jet that is sold, there are probably 10 or more aerobatic airplanes sold. Look back to point number 1, that means that the cost of the molds being divided into the kits has to be higher per aircraft than if it was an aerobatic prop job. This is probably the reason that even an ARF wood built jet like you show above is so much more money. Limited market......
3. Structure, there is typically more composite materials used in the jets, not always, but typically.
4. Time to produce. Fiberglass models are still layed up by hand, not computer built. In an aerobatic airplane, all the wood is laser cut, die cut etc. Yes it still has to be assembled, but so does the jet. There is probably far more time involved in assembling a jet kit at the factory than a Yak 54.
5. Finishing methods, if you're comparing an ARF to an ARF, painted jets, be it in the mold or out of the mold is more expensive than plastic iron on film. Probably more time consuming too.
If you compare a giant scale plane from Composite ARF or 3W, you'll be hard pressed to find a $500 one, they are up there with the cost of jets.
Heck, you really wanna see expensive, look at some of the new 2M pattern planes, they are as much or more than jets with 1/4 of the pieces.
That's not to say that jets are a good deal, some of them are certainly very expensive for what you receive compared to others, but I think part of the cost of a composite jet is in the idea that they are sort of the "ferrari" of the RC world, and you pay for that priviledge, it may not be right, but it is what it is.
Just my 2 cents anyway
1. Cost of molds, there are far more molds to be made for a jet than most aerobatic airplanes. Most aerobatic airplanes are limited to a cowl and wheel pants for fiberglass parts. Molds are expensive to make, that cost finds it's way into the kit.
2. Limited market, for every one jet that is sold, there are probably 10 or more aerobatic airplanes sold. Look back to point number 1, that means that the cost of the molds being divided into the kits has to be higher per aircraft than if it was an aerobatic prop job. This is probably the reason that even an ARF wood built jet like you show above is so much more money. Limited market......
3. Structure, there is typically more composite materials used in the jets, not always, but typically.
4. Time to produce. Fiberglass models are still layed up by hand, not computer built. In an aerobatic airplane, all the wood is laser cut, die cut etc. Yes it still has to be assembled, but so does the jet. There is probably far more time involved in assembling a jet kit at the factory than a Yak 54.
5. Finishing methods, if you're comparing an ARF to an ARF, painted jets, be it in the mold or out of the mold is more expensive than plastic iron on film. Probably more time consuming too.
If you compare a giant scale plane from Composite ARF or 3W, you'll be hard pressed to find a $500 one, they are up there with the cost of jets.
Heck, you really wanna see expensive, look at some of the new 2M pattern planes, they are as much or more than jets with 1/4 of the pieces.
That's not to say that jets are a good deal, some of them are certainly very expensive for what you receive compared to others, but I think part of the cost of a composite jet is in the idea that they are sort of the "ferrari" of the RC world, and you pay for that priviledge, it may not be right, but it is what it is.
Just my 2 cents anyway
04-18-2007 | 06:31 AM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Santo Domingo, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
RE: Please justify ??
ORIGINAL: jclittle
My wife is stunning and costs me about $50,000 per year. My 3 jets are awesome and cost me $24,000 - makes this hobby is a relative bargin
My wife is stunning and costs me about $50,000 per year. My 3 jets are awesome and cost me $24,000 - makes this hobby is a relative bargin
JAJAJAJAJAJA.......Also jets don't talk back.
Alex
04-18-2007 | 07:15 AM
#13
RE: Please justify ??
ORIGINAL: bahamadude
Can anyone justify why a simple jet can cost sooo much, when theres larger frames with more wood and prolly design curves are cheaper ?
Take a look that the photos !
The jet ia about $800 dollars and the 3D plane is less than 500 dollars but bigger
Can anyone justify why a simple jet can cost sooo much, when theres larger frames with more wood and prolly design curves are cheaper ?
Take a look that the photos !
The jet ia about $800 dollars and the 3D plane is less than 500 dollars but bigger
you buy them at the wrong place............
04-18-2007 | 07:27 AM
#14
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Oxford, MS
RE: Please justify ??
ORIGINAL: jclittle
My wife is stunning and costs me about $50,000 per year. My 3 jets are awesome and cost me $24,000 - makes this hobby is a relative bargin
My wife is stunning and costs me about $50,000 per year. My 3 jets are awesome and cost me $24,000 - makes this hobby is a relative bargin
You are getting off cheap!
04-18-2007 | 07:32 AM
#15
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
From: glasgowScotland, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Please justify ??
bahamadude
I have recently finished putting together a Foxjet and it is of wooden construction similiar to many aerobatic ARTF models with the construction beefed up a bit to handle the higher speeds which jets are usually flown at. It also comes with aluminium main wheels and brakes and a nose oleo leg and aluminium wheel which will no doubt add to the cost.
In the UK the model costs £400 which is less than most small jets. I would imagine it would be much less than $800 in the US as most imports from China usually are cheaper in the US than the UK (No VAT). For instance the Nitro Models Pusher Bobcat is around $150 in the US but is £150 in the UK which is equivalent to $300 at current exchange rates.
Unfortunaltely most jets are sold in much smaller numbers than aerobatic models and this will also have a bearing on the final cost. It's just one of those things, I think BVM models are overpriced but a lot of people buy them, so the final decision is always in the prospective purchaser's hands. If most buyers think the model is not worth the money word will soon get round.
John
I have recently finished putting together a Foxjet and it is of wooden construction similiar to many aerobatic ARTF models with the construction beefed up a bit to handle the higher speeds which jets are usually flown at. It also comes with aluminium main wheels and brakes and a nose oleo leg and aluminium wheel which will no doubt add to the cost.
In the UK the model costs £400 which is less than most small jets. I would imagine it would be much less than $800 in the US as most imports from China usually are cheaper in the US than the UK (No VAT). For instance the Nitro Models Pusher Bobcat is around $150 in the US but is £150 in the UK which is equivalent to $300 at current exchange rates.
Unfortunaltely most jets are sold in much smaller numbers than aerobatic models and this will also have a bearing on the final cost. It's just one of those things, I think BVM models are overpriced but a lot of people buy them, so the final decision is always in the prospective purchaser's hands. If most buyers think the model is not worth the money word will soon get round.
John
04-18-2007 | 08:01 AM
#16
RE: Please justify ??
Justify the cost? Of course you cannot. That's why a Baby Boomerang (intro?) costs twice as much as the equivalent prop driven jobby of the same size. Nice flyers, but they are certainly nothing special construction wise, just another chinese ARF. Suppliers charge what they think we are prepared to pay. So we only have ourselves to blame because we keep buying the things. - John.
04-18-2007 | 10:23 AM
#17
RE: Please justify ??
Jeremy,
Few more you can add on the lists...
Time of R&D and testing....
Jet require a lot of customer support after sale..
Few more you can add on the lists...
Time of R&D and testing....
Jet require a lot of customer support after sale..
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
Well, there's a few reasons that I can think of:
1. Cost of molds, there are far more molds to be made for a jet than most aerobatic airplanes. Most aerobatic airplanes are limited to a cowl and wheel pants for fiberglass parts. Molds are expensive to make, that cost finds it's way into the kit.
2. Limited market, for every one jet that is sold, there are probably 10 or more aerobatic airplanes sold. Look back to point number 1, that means that the cost of the molds being divided into the kits has to be higher per aircraft than if it was an aerobatic prop job. This is probably the reason that even an ARF wood built jet like you show above is so much more money. Limited market......
3. Structure, there is typically more composite materials used in the jets, not always, but typically.
4. Time to produce. Fiberglass models are still layed up by hand, not computer built. In an aerobatic airplane, all the wood is laser cut, die cut etc. Yes it still has to be assembled, but so does the jet. There is probably far more time involved in assembling a jet kit at the factory than a Yak 54.
5. Finishing methods, if you're comparing an ARF to an ARF, painted jets, be it in the mold or out of the mold is more expensive than plastic iron on film. Probably more time consuming too.
If you compare a giant scale plane from Composite ARF or 3W, you'll be hard pressed to find a $500 one, they are up there with the cost of jets.
Heck, you really wanna see expensive, look at some of the new 2M pattern planes, they are as much or more than jets with 1/4 of the pieces.
That's not to say that jets are a good deal, some of them are certainly very expensive for what you receive compared to others, but I think part of the cost of a composite jet is in the idea that they are sort of the "ferrari" of the RC world, and you pay for that priviledge, it may not be right, but it is what it is.
Just my 2 cents anyway
Well, there's a few reasons that I can think of:
1. Cost of molds, there are far more molds to be made for a jet than most aerobatic airplanes. Most aerobatic airplanes are limited to a cowl and wheel pants for fiberglass parts. Molds are expensive to make, that cost finds it's way into the kit.
2. Limited market, for every one jet that is sold, there are probably 10 or more aerobatic airplanes sold. Look back to point number 1, that means that the cost of the molds being divided into the kits has to be higher per aircraft than if it was an aerobatic prop job. This is probably the reason that even an ARF wood built jet like you show above is so much more money. Limited market......
3. Structure, there is typically more composite materials used in the jets, not always, but typically.
4. Time to produce. Fiberglass models are still layed up by hand, not computer built. In an aerobatic airplane, all the wood is laser cut, die cut etc. Yes it still has to be assembled, but so does the jet. There is probably far more time involved in assembling a jet kit at the factory than a Yak 54.
5. Finishing methods, if you're comparing an ARF to an ARF, painted jets, be it in the mold or out of the mold is more expensive than plastic iron on film. Probably more time consuming too.
If you compare a giant scale plane from Composite ARF or 3W, you'll be hard pressed to find a $500 one, they are up there with the cost of jets.
Heck, you really wanna see expensive, look at some of the new 2M pattern planes, they are as much or more than jets with 1/4 of the pieces.
That's not to say that jets are a good deal, some of them are certainly very expensive for what you receive compared to others, but I think part of the cost of a composite jet is in the idea that they are sort of the "ferrari" of the RC world, and you pay for that priviledge, it may not be right, but it is what it is.
Just my 2 cents anyway
04-18-2007 | 04:22 PM
#19
RE: Please justify ??
I think it has more to do with what Boomerang 1 wrote. It's a marketing issue. Anyone who'd been around jets more than a few years knows that taking the prop off a given plane magically ups its value by double. Even a wood-kit jet is going to cost more than a prop-driven wood kit of the same or higher amount of stuff in the box.
It's similar to when you order a flower arrangement for an anniversary party at $12 per pot. That exact same arrangement in the exact same pot will cost $40 if you tell the florist that it's for a wedding. That florist knows that people will abide being 'bent over' when they're paying for wedding eccoutrements.
Smart companies use this psychology to their advantage. Often times, the higher-priced item is assumed to be the superior item. Though this is often not the case, it's a useful consumer tendency for a company willing to market products that way. Also, everyone has seen those guys walking around like a proud father because he just plunked down umpteen thousand dollars on an ARF jet (that someone else assembled). That kind of mentality doesn't go unnoticed by manufacturers. In fact, you don't have to look far to see manufacturers offering their used ARFs (whose total price of components might be 5k) for umpteen thousand dollars to try to boost the perceived value in the minds of consumers who might be potential customers down the line. That way, they can say, "Look what a good investment this is!"
At the end of the day, it's all about what a customer is willing to pay. People might be willing to spend 3k on an airframe offered by a company who pays a Chinese manufacturer to build it. That manufacturer may turn around and sell the same item out of the back door for $1500. When the customer sees that, the first company is kinda screwed because suddenly, that item is only worth $1500 in the customer's mind. I think we've seen examples of this a lot lately in this facet of the hobby.
04-18-2007 | 04:44 PM
#21
RE: Please justify ??
Shawn,
Never mind.....
What the F you know right?
Never mind.....
What the F you know right?
ORIGINAL: YellowAircraft
So the customers are paying for the after-sale support in advance?
I think it has more to do with what Boomerang 1 wrote. It's a marketing issue. Anyone who'd been around jets more than a few years knows that taking the prop off a given plane magically ups its value by double. Even a wood-kit jet is going to cost more than a prop-driven wood kit of the same or higher amount of stuff in the box.
It's similar to when you order a flower arrangement for an anniversary party at $12 per pot. That exact same arrangement in the exact same pot will cost $40 if you tell the florist that it's for a wedding. That florist knows that people will abide being 'bent over' when they're paying for wedding eccoutrements.
Smart companies use this psychology to their advantage. Often times, the higher-priced item is assumed to be the superior item. Though this is often not the case, it's a useful consumer tendency for a company willing to market products that way. Also, everyone has seen those guys walking around like a proud father because he just plunked down umpteen thousand dollars on an ARF jet (that someone else assembled). That kind of mentality doesn't go unnoticed by manufacturers. In fact, you don't have to look far to see manufacturers offering their used ARFs (whose total price of components might be 5k) for umpteen thousand dollars to try to boost the perceived value in the minds of consumers who might be potential customers down the line. That way, they can say, "Look what a good investment this is!"
At the end of the day, it's all about what a customer is willing to pay. People might be willing to spend 3k on an airframe offered by a company who pays a Chinese manufacturer to build it. That manufacturer may turn around and sell the same item out of the back door for $1500. When the customer sees that, the first company is kinda screwed because suddenly, that item is only worth $1500 in the customer's mind. I think we've seen examples of this a lot lately in this facet of the hobby.
ORIGINAL: tamjets
Jeremy,
Few more you can add on the lists...
Time of R&D and testing....
Jet require a lot of customer support after sale..
Jeremy,
Few more you can add on the lists...
Time of R&D and testing....
Jet require a lot of customer support after sale..
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
Well, there's a few reasons that I can think of:
1. Cost of molds, there are far more molds to be made for a jet than most aerobatic airplanes. Most aerobatic airplanes are limited to a cowl and wheel pants for fiberglass parts. Molds are expensive to make, that cost finds it's way into the kit.
2. Limited market, for every one jet that is sold, there are probably 10 or more aerobatic airplanes sold. Look back to point number 1, that means that the cost of the molds being divided into the kits has to be higher per aircraft than if it was an aerobatic prop job. This is probably the reason that even an ARF wood built jet like you show above is so much more money. Limited market......
3. Structure, there is typically more composite materials used in the jets, not always, but typically.
4. Time to produce. Fiberglass models are still layed up by hand, not computer built. In an aerobatic airplane, all the wood is laser cut, die cut etc. Yes it still has to be assembled, but so does the jet. There is probably far more time involved in assembling a jet kit at the factory than a Yak 54.
5. Finishing methods, if you're comparing an ARF to an ARF, painted jets, be it in the mold or out of the mold is more expensive than plastic iron on film. Probably more time consuming too.
If you compare a giant scale plane from Composite ARF or 3W, you'll be hard pressed to find a $500 one, they are up there with the cost of jets.
Heck, you really wanna see expensive, look at some of the new 2M pattern planes, they are as much or more than jets with 1/4 of the pieces.
That's not to say that jets are a good deal, some of them are certainly very expensive for what you receive compared to others, but I think part of the cost of a composite jet is in the idea that they are sort of the "ferrari" of the RC world, and you pay for that priviledge, it may not be right, but it is what it is.
Just my 2 cents anyway
Well, there's a few reasons that I can think of:
1. Cost of molds, there are far more molds to be made for a jet than most aerobatic airplanes. Most aerobatic airplanes are limited to a cowl and wheel pants for fiberglass parts. Molds are expensive to make, that cost finds it's way into the kit.
2. Limited market, for every one jet that is sold, there are probably 10 or more aerobatic airplanes sold. Look back to point number 1, that means that the cost of the molds being divided into the kits has to be higher per aircraft than if it was an aerobatic prop job. This is probably the reason that even an ARF wood built jet like you show above is so much more money. Limited market......
3. Structure, there is typically more composite materials used in the jets, not always, but typically.
4. Time to produce. Fiberglass models are still layed up by hand, not computer built. In an aerobatic airplane, all the wood is laser cut, die cut etc. Yes it still has to be assembled, but so does the jet. There is probably far more time involved in assembling a jet kit at the factory than a Yak 54.
5. Finishing methods, if you're comparing an ARF to an ARF, painted jets, be it in the mold or out of the mold is more expensive than plastic iron on film. Probably more time consuming too.
If you compare a giant scale plane from Composite ARF or 3W, you'll be hard pressed to find a $500 one, they are up there with the cost of jets.
Heck, you really wanna see expensive, look at some of the new 2M pattern planes, they are as much or more than jets with 1/4 of the pieces.
That's not to say that jets are a good deal, some of them are certainly very expensive for what you receive compared to others, but I think part of the cost of a composite jet is in the idea that they are sort of the "ferrari" of the RC world, and you pay for that priviledge, it may not be right, but it is what it is.
Just my 2 cents anyway
So the customers are paying for the after-sale support in advance?
I think it has more to do with what Boomerang 1 wrote. It's a marketing issue. Anyone who'd been around jets more than a few years knows that taking the prop off a given plane magically ups its value by double. Even a wood-kit jet is going to cost more than a prop-driven wood kit of the same or higher amount of stuff in the box.
It's similar to when you order a flower arrangement for an anniversary party at $12 per pot. That exact same arrangement in the exact same pot will cost $40 if you tell the florist that it's for a wedding. That florist knows that people will abide being 'bent over' when they're paying for wedding eccoutrements.
Smart companies use this psychology to their advantage. Often times, the higher-priced item is assumed to be the superior item. Though this is often not the case, it's a useful consumer tendency for a company willing to market products that way. Also, everyone has seen those guys walking around like a proud father because he just plunked down umpteen thousand dollars on an ARF jet (that someone else assembled). That kind of mentality doesn't go unnoticed by manufacturers. In fact, you don't have to look far to see manufacturers offering their used ARFs (whose total price of components might be 5k) for umpteen thousand dollars to try to boost the perceived value in the minds of consumers who might be potential customers down the line. That way, they can say, "Look what a good investment this is!"
At the end of the day, it's all about what a customer is willing to pay. People might be willing to spend 3k on an airframe offered by a company who pays a Chinese manufacturer to build it. That manufacturer may turn around and sell the same item out of the back door for $1500. When the customer sees that, the first company is kinda screwed because suddenly, that item is only worth $1500 in the customer's mind. I think we've seen examples of this a lot lately in this facet of the hobby.
04-18-2007 | 05:05 PM
#22
RE: Please justify ??
Tam,
Read my post, and tell me which parts of it are incorrect. If you don't find any, then you should assume I know something. You should also think about minding your manners, too. Believe it or not, you lose business when you behave this way. More than a few would-be customers of yours have decided not to buy from you after reading your comments like these. Every time you pop off like that, you make yourself look like a puny, immature person. I think you know you only hurt yourself, your reputation and your business when you act this way on the net.
Besides, people don't like ITG's (Internet Tough Guys). They're never quite as bold in person, are they? No--in person, they're as sweet as molasses pie... Contrary to what you've told me, you don't OWN RCUniverse, and my commentary here is no less appropriate than anyone's else--so stop displaying this kind of hubris in here. Now, if you have anything else to add to this thread, I suggest you knock off the unnecessary personal crap.
Read my post, and tell me which parts of it are incorrect. If you don't find any, then you should assume I know something. You should also think about minding your manners, too. Believe it or not, you lose business when you behave this way. More than a few would-be customers of yours have decided not to buy from you after reading your comments like these. Every time you pop off like that, you make yourself look like a puny, immature person. I think you know you only hurt yourself, your reputation and your business when you act this way on the net.
Besides, people don't like ITG's (Internet Tough Guys). They're never quite as bold in person, are they? No--in person, they're as sweet as molasses pie... Contrary to what you've told me, you don't OWN RCUniverse, and my commentary here is no less appropriate than anyone's else--so stop displaying this kind of hubris in here. Now, if you have anything else to add to this thread, I suggest you knock off the unnecessary personal crap.
04-18-2007 | 05:12 PM
#23
My Feedback: (22)
RE: Please justify ??
ORIGINAL: YellowAircraft
I think it has more to do with what Boomerang 1 wrote. It's a marketing issue. Anyone who'd been around jets more than a few years knows that taking the prop off a given plane magically ups its value by double. Even a wood-kit jet is going to cost more than a prop-driven wood kit of the same or higher amount of stuff in the box.
It's similar to when you order a flower arrangement for an anniversary party at $12 per pot. That exact same arrangement in the exact same pot will cost $40 if you tell the florist that it's for a wedding. That florist knows that people will abide being 'bent over' when they're paying for wedding eccoutrements.
I think it has more to do with what Boomerang 1 wrote. It's a marketing issue. Anyone who'd been around jets more than a few years knows that taking the prop off a given plane magically ups its value by double. Even a wood-kit jet is going to cost more than a prop-driven wood kit of the same or higher amount of stuff in the box.
It's similar to when you order a flower arrangement for an anniversary party at $12 per pot. That exact same arrangement in the exact same pot will cost $40 if you tell the florist that it's for a wedding. That florist knows that people will abide being 'bent over' when they're paying for wedding eccoutrements.
Awesome, so can I have an ARF Yellow Aircraft F15 for half price then since the price was only magically up'd by double then? Tell you what, we'll call it an anniversary present instead of an early wedding present if that helps.
04-18-2007 | 05:25 PM
#24
RE: Please justify ??
LGM,
As I just stated to you in a reply to your PM, your editing of my comment about people paying for after-sale care in advance doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You told me that it was because people were complaining about it being an attack on Tam? That's silly, to be polite. It was a FAIR and polite response to a comment he made. Much like your reply to my post, right? I made a statement, you called me on it. If you consider that an attack, then perhaps you might want to go and edit some of Tam's comments to me all over this section.
As I just stated to you in a reply to your PM, your editing of my comment about people paying for after-sale care in advance doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You told me that it was because people were complaining about it being an attack on Tam? That's silly, to be polite. It was a FAIR and polite response to a comment he made. Much like your reply to my post, right? I made a statement, you called me on it. If you consider that an attack, then perhaps you might want to go and edit some of Tam's comments to me all over this section.
