<DIV>Dean,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree 100% about keeping the size down.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought the 2m limit preceded the unlimited displacement. If it did, though, it was by only one rules cycle.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob Richards.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Dean Pappas <d.pappas@kodeos.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Remember that the 2M rule happened in the same stroke as the elimination of displacement limits. The sub-committee realized that displacement was the "real" limit back then, and now we have the situation where sometimes it's 2M, and other times it's weight that is the "real" limit. You know ... I think that means that they got it "right" the first time! It's just rough to be one of those guys up against the weight. Designers ... how about some top-notch designs in a 72" span, designed to go like mad with a muffled 140 2-C or 140 FZ?<BR><BR>Deep in my heart, I still want the planes kept small, for cost reasons.<BR><BR><mailto:d.pappas@kodeos.com><mailto:d.pappas@kodeos.com></BLOCKQUOTE></mailto:d.pappas@kodeos.com></mailto:d.pappas@kodeos.com>