Pattern Box Rules (discussion)

[Tom Simes]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:05:20 -0500
<rcaerobob at cox.net> wrote:

> My TAKE....If a box change is 'needed', let's make the thing SMALLER. 
> That would drive us to fly SLOWER, require less POWER, and the
> airplanes would not have to be 2M...
> 
> Plus, a smaller box presents a smaller noise footprint, permits faster
> rounds, easier judging, and farther distances between center overlaps
> for collision avoidance.
> 
> Changing the box size smaller COULD have a lot of benefits!!!!

If the box dimension that was reduced was the depth, rather than the
angle, then the above would be true AND it might encourage a return to
smaller, less expensive models (since flying closer in would allow the
planes to be seen better by the pilots and judges).  Smaller aircraft in
turn could also reduce costs, complexity, nullify much of the weight /
size debate, reduce the emphasis on absolute expert building skills...

You may be onto something!

-- 
Tom

_____________________________________________________________________

       |  ,  |               Tom Simes
---------(@)---------        AMA 230068
        --|--                NSRCA 3830
          '                  nsrca at shinymetalass.com
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.