<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>Bob,</DIV>
<DIV>I think what keeps biplanes out of it for most people is complexity. Just
not enough advantage right now with the weight restrictions. But who knows with
another couple of pounds allowance? Though I do believe it doesn't take
exotic mateials to build a 2M using your 1.60 or a St and still make weight. NOw
if your talking putting a 4 pound gasser on there, that's another story.</DIV>
<DIV>Jeff</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rcaerobob@cox.net href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">Bob Pastorello</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:55
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Jeff, good points... but... the "big bipe" theory has been tried,
dropped, and nobody blinked. It did NOT work for "pattern" (maybe
somebody can correct me if wrong). How many do you see?</DIV>
<DIV> Regards engine weights - I'd like to run my cheap,
reliable and powerful OS 1.60 and not be burdened by the extra weight
"penalty". So exotic, difficult to buy, awkward to work materials that
are COSTLY must be used on the airframe. No reason to do that except
weight. Period.</DIV>
<DIV> Regards "90 size plane competitive in the first three
classes".... AGREED! My Excelleron will be absolutely competitive -
performance-wise - in Masters, and probably would be in F3A. But I'd bet
a dollar to a donut that it will not WIN, no matter how well I fly with
it.</DIV>
<DIV> The Advanced, Masters, and FAI class ARE - beyond a
shadow of a doubt - SIZE biased.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(The above represents my opinion; quite similar to my post on the
Bud commercial)</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR>NSRCA 199 AMA 46373<BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jeffghughes@comcast.net href="mailto:jeffghughes@comcast.net">Jeff
Hughes</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 7:48
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re:
Rules Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I remember DIck Hanson weighing in (a little pun there) on this
subject. He said if there was no weight limit, he'd be designing a 1,600
square inch biplane to fit the 2M box. It's never ending. Something in the
rules is always the limit that will drive cost to achieve an edge. If
people are worried about cost, a 90 size plane is competitive in the first 3
classes. </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=HankPajari@aol.com
href="mailto:HankPajari@aol.com">HankPajari@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:24
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re:
Rules Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>I agree with Bill. We can keep all the other parameters but
raise the weight limit to allow the use of a gas engine. Besides I already
have a ZDZ40 ;>)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gas engines are powerful, easy to tune, once set you almost
never have to touch the needles, last forever, and are very
reliable. Gives the lower classes one less thing to worry
about. Not to mention gas is one heck of a lot cheaper than
fuel. The initial cost is comparable to a top of the line YS.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If a guy is going to move up to FAI he is probably going to buy a new
rig (every year) anyway so, as long as we stay close to the FAI specs, I
don't see how we are diverging in a drastic way.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But, I am a newbie to pattern and don't know all the arguments for
both sides of the
issue.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>