<!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 6.00.2800.1476" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks to all who responded. There were many
good thoughts on why IMAC seems to be more attractive than pattern these
days. I don't think either group has a lock on being nicer guys and
putting on a better contest, it has to be something in the formula. I like
IMAC from the standpoint there is no weight limit resulting in more rugged
airplanes that require less maintenance. The gas engines are more user
friendly and provide excessive power without a lot of engineering and expensive
fuel. No one wins because they have a better engine. Less emphasis
on the box relaxes the pilots. But probably the biggest thing they have
going for them is the fact that the larger airplanes are better at doing what we
want to do. The 40%ers fly huge maneuvers at what seems a low
constant speed with constant radii on top and bottom of very straight
vertical lines. They are much less susceptible to wind.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Having said all this I plan to get back into
pattern and the reason is I believe the electric power system will overcome many
of my current complaints about pattern. I also agree that the arrival
of many ARFs will be good for pattern. It will be interesting to watch but
I think pattern will be making a comeback without any major changes in the
rules and specs for the airplanes. I'd still like to see an unlimited
aerobatic model airplane. Picture an optimized 3 meter pattern plane
with a DA 150. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards, Jim O</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>