<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">In a message dated 5/13/2003 12:01:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, patterndude@attbi.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subj:<B>RE: F3A Biplanes have a future! </B><BR>
Date:5/13/2003 12:01:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time<BR>
From:<A HREF="mailto:patterndude@attbi.com">patterndude@attbi.com</A><BR>
Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A><BR>
To:<A HREF="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A><BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet </I><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Right on, Eric,<BR>
I do not support any change to our big 2 rules (2m 96dB). Their simplicity and <BR>
elegance have saved pattern from self destruction and provided stability in <BR>
many ways.<BR>
<BR>
The 3rd big rule: 5kg still perplexes me since heavier doesn't fly better and <BR>
building light is hard to achieve for beginners. However, I don't wish to <BR>
reopen that nest at this time.<BR>
<BR>
I'm not sure "living" is the term I'd use for landing a bipe in a crosswind. I <BR>
may have lost a few years doing it.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Lance,<BR>
'<BR>
Plug-in, 2 piece plug-together-to-make-one-piece wings, would be straight forward and light, particularly in the size that these would have to be in (around 650-700sq in each). Bipes will offer new avenues to get creative in design and construction technique. The challenge is there; since when did we pattern people shy away from a challenge?<BR>
<BR>
BTW the new 1000 sq in wing I developed for my Alliance is a 2 piece one piece, and uses a 15" x3/4" carbon tube (half of a PBG carbon spar). 53 flights and no problems due to the spar; plenty strong enough, for a 10# plane<BR>
<BR>
regards,<BR>
Matt</FONT></HTML>