<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">In a message dated 11/25/2002 11:54:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, billglaze@triad.rr.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Bill,</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">I agree that pattenr designs don't meet the rules of IMAC or TOC. This is because these groups must model full scale designs. My question was not aimed at the modeling community. I wonder why full scale designers don't enlarge pattern designs. Once a full scale pilot flew a 25 foot wingspan Aries, then a model version could be flown in IMAC. But the question is, why aren't pattern designs used in full scale??</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">--Lance</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Lance,<BR>
<BR>
The Ultimate Bipe was designed in a collaborative effort, taking some of the best features of the prototype model, to full scale. That's what i recall Don Lowe talking about many years ago now. <BR>
<BR>
Matt</FONT></HTML>