The Haught Corner
Ya Gotta Have a Plan
A new price schedule has been instituted for our full-size plans. The price structure had not been modified in many years; postal rate increases and inflation were not factored in, and plan sales became a money-losing proposition.
Plans are now grouped by category according to the number of square feet in each plan. Thus a small model like Bill Warner's Aerodactyl is at the low end of the scale (A pricing), while a larger model involving multiple plan sheets (like Bob Kopskis's Revolt) costs more (D pricing).
The pricing is simply a matter of combining the square feet of the plan with the cost of shipping and handling. Some have questioned the price of a relatively simple model like the Thing, but the complexity of the design is not a factor in pricing; it costs just as much to reproduce plans for a simple model as it does a complex airplane of equal size.
The hundreds of plans in our listing also create special storage and handling problems. While we strive to maintain a full list of plans dating back to our first issue (July 1975), the age of the plan masters and the low sales volume of some designs has made special pricing necessary for those rarely-asked-for models (seen with an asterisk in our list).
A painful-to-my-ego example would be my own Candle in the Wind design from the April 1976 issue. Like most plans, it sold in a burst when first published, but folks haven't been beating down our doors to order it in recent years. So it falls into the "special pricing" (B*) category. Plan number is 138, and cost is $20. Order today!
So if you're looking for something from the mid-1970s or so, chances are it will still be available, but at a higher rate than a current plan.
At some point we hope to be able to convert all plans to CD-ROM, which may allow a more favorable price structure and save wear and tear on the plan masters. But for now, this represents our best effort to control costs.
Please understand that this is not an attempt to make plan sales a "cash cow." Rather, it's an attempt to make the plan sales operation cost-effective—the same goal we have for all parts of AMA.
As a side note: We occasionally get calls or letters from modelers looking for plans that date to the American Aircraft Modeler days. We do not have the masters to these plans—and their condition would be rather poor in most cases by now—so they are not available.
Just the FACs
Apologies to Bob Clemens and Penny Bates, who assisted Bill Warner with photo coverage of the FAC Nats in the December issue. Credit for their work was inadvertently omitted from the event report.
The Survey Says... One More Time
Council recently passed a measure calling for a Model Aviation readership survey, to be published in an upcoming issue. While there were a few questions about the magazine in the recent demographic survey, this will be a stand-alone discussion about our publication.
We need to know your likes and dislikes. What do we do well? What do we need to improve? What should we do more of or less of? How should things like contests, product reviews, ARFs, fun-flys, technical articles, beginner programs (and any other components you can think of) be a part of our monthly coverage?
Think about what you'd like to see from us; talk it over with your fellow modelers; and let us know when the survey is printed. We value all constructive criticism of this publication.
The Nats
The Executive Council recently faced some difficult decisions regarding the 1995 Nationals. It became apparent that in the time remaining it simply wasn't possible to guarantee top-quality sites for all disciplines within a reasonable distance of Tri-Cities. So while some events will remain at Tri-Cities, other sites and times will be used for some events. Ed McCollough's District XI Report (page 172) has a look at the anticipated Nats structure.
Contact the Competitions Department for more information, and please be extra-nice to Steve Kaluf and his staff as they work hard to pull off a complex assignment.
While this may be somewhat of a blow to those who wanted to bring a unified Nats back to the Pacific Northwest, there are a couple of good things that can come from making the best of this situation:
- Involvement of AMA Special Interest Groups (SIGs) will almost certainly increase. This should allow each Nats segment to be the ultimate "flier's contest"—tailored to each discipline, with support provided by AMA. The number and quality of the fliers in attendance should increase and further enhance the quality of the competition.
- The increased SIG involvement can also help ease the Nats' transition into the type of contest it will likely be at Muncie in 1996 (and beyond): a more "spread out" event, with heavy involvement from SIGs and volunteers, and with AMA providing the site and some support. AMA's Nats overhead would be significantly reduced, so the cost of staging a Nats would not be prohibitive.
I was an observer at the Council meeting where the Nats issues were debated, and I can report that there were no snap judgments made; nothing was done without careful, considered discussion.
It's just one man's opinion, but I really believe that Council is due a great deal of credit for their handling of this difficult issue. I don't see how a better solution could have been worked out in the time available. It will be difficult enough as it is to get a multivenue Nationals accomplished in the few months left before summer.
Planning and executing a Nats is a complicated process—much more so than it may appear to be. So many variables about sites, hotels, weather, staffing, and equipment must be considered and factored into selecting a spot for our midsummer madness. You can't just throw a dart at a map in May and say, "this is it."
The solution reached may not be seen in some corners as ideal, but this Corner isn't one of those.
Jim Haught Managing Editor
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
