FAI Weight Thread

[Bob Richards]

Yeah, my memory is about as long as my, my,  ........... uh, I forget. :-)
 
Bob. R.


Dean Pappas <d.pappas at kodeos.com> wrote:
Hi Bob,
It all happened at once.
 

Dean Pappas 
Sr. Design Engineer 
Kodeos Communications 
111 Corporate Blvd. 
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
(908) 222-7817 phone 
(908) 222-2392 fax 
d.pappas at kodeos.com 
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:37 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread


Dean,
 
I agree 100% about keeping the size down.
 
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.
 
Bob Richards.


Dean Pappas <d.pappas at kodeos.com> wrote:
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?

Deep in my heart, I still want the planes kept small, for cost reasons.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050224/3d5d7cc8/attachment.html