<DIV>The only thing I am a little against and have suggested to rules committee people is.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Define the back of the box. Is it 200 meters, 175 meters etc. I vote to make it a distance, not an approximate. I realize back of box infractions are hard to say, but still define it, and the penalty. Don't leave it as fly around 150meters(or however it is currently stated)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The rest, I agree. Pattern is Pattern.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ed<BR><BR><B><I>Rcmaster199@aol.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>In Pattern:</DIV>
<DIV>There's nothing wrong with the +/-60 degree stage rule and the 150 meter out distance is fine also. </DIV>
<DIV>There's nothing wrong with the 5 kilo max rule. </DIV>
<DIV>There is nothing wrong with the 2x2 meter max rule</DIV>
<DIV>There's nothing wrong with the unlimited engine power rule</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What's the next complaint du jur that ""needs fixing"""? The 42 volt nominal voltage when an electric is involved? Or possibly argue that real radio programmability with rate functions is desirable? Or autopilots and gyros? Or maybe putting an upper limit on prop size because a X" prop on an engine is dangerous? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Interestingly, one could argue that pattern has some similarity to golf in that it's an individual's sport. Many may play golf but a small percentage is good at it and extremely few are pros. C'mon fellas, pattern should be challenging to do well. Actually, more accurately, pattern is just plain tough to do, period. I find that fun. Don't you?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>