<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Buddy:<br>
I think you have it analyzed correctly. The only consideration here
seems to be, really bottom line, what the FAI mandates. And while,
numerically, those folks are far from the majority of the competitors,
they seemingly have a mighty voice. A year or so ago, someone on this
list voiced the opinion that our weight rules were, in effect, decided
offshore, and by trickle down, were put into effect in the AMA classes;
presumably "for our own good." Because, after all, "everybody knows
that the ultimate destination is FAI." I haven yet not seen a cogent
reason why a reasonably priced, competitive airplane, will mean the end
of pattern as we know it. I've seen a lot of dialogue, a lot of
convoluted reasoning, but nothing solid. After all, at the time the
Focus series was introduced, it was exactly what we're talking about.
It is a competitive pattern design, at a competitive price. It was
marketed, and the sky didn't fall. Some folks think change is scary.
Want to talk change? I detailed in a post where, in the space of a
year, airplanes, engines, and radios, (the whole shootin' match) was
rendered obsolete. Now we're faced with the electrics, that could make
dramatic changes in the competition scene. Will pattern end? NO.<br>
The thing that tickles me is is that rumor has it the FAI is
considering changing the weight rule. I can hardly wait; no sooner
than FAI actually does change the weight rule, there will be a whole
lot of these folks stampeding to follow the New Gospel. Whatever it
may be. And even THAT won't be the end of pattern as we know it.<br>
What will be the end is our diminishing numbers. And the assumption
that the ultimate destination for all is FAI Class.<br>
Or so I see it. From this point on, I join Bob Pastorello. In exile.
In his cave!<G><br>
<br>
Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:BUDDYonRC@aol.com">BUDDYonRC@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="midbf.52211040.2f54f141@aol.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name="GENERATOR">
<font id="role_document" color="#8000ff" face="Arial" size="2">
<div>G</div>
<div>Since you indicated that it is OK to let your voice be heard, I
would like to pose a few questions which have aroused my curiosity
while listening to all the very thoughtfully constructed debate on the
weight issues.</div>
<div>1. Since I assume that the positions stated against change are
based on FAI rules being the basis for most top designs being produced
today how could a change in the AMA weight limit effect the basis of
design for FAI, the place where all state of the art designs of today
emanate from as they would be lighter than any AMA increased weight
limit should one be adopted?</div>
<div>2. Doesn't the same argument that is being used today against a
rule change hold true in reverse should FAI go to a higher weight limit
in the future? If FAI weight rules were changed today wouldn't that
make the new designs based on that change illegal unless the AMA
changed it's rules accordingly?</div>
<div>That being the case it seems to me that nothing significant will
happen in regard to a mass change in design concept that will effect
AMA pattern to any great extent if the weight rule is changed to allow
a small increase aimed at reducing cost, among other things since most
all top AMA pilots today are using designs based on FAI rules. </div>
<div>Seems to me that logic gained from the discussion has indicated
that an AMA weight change is not the issue the real rub comes about if
FAI changes their weight rules, am I the only one or does anyone else
see it this way</div>
<div>Buddy</div>
<div> </div>
</font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>