[NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace now turned smaller planes andvehicles

[jonlowe at aol.com]

I have a Chrysler Town and Country (rebadged Grand Caravan) with stow 
and go seats.  Never looked back.  Have carried 4, 2 meter airplanes at 
once, with a simple, removable, PVC rack system I plagerized from 
another modeler.  Using the stock coat hooks, I used two clothes hanger 
bars from Walmart for wing racks near the ceiling, and can get three 
sets of wings in bags up there.  I can remove the front part of the 
fuselage rack  and raise the middle two stow and go seats for 
passengers in less than 5 minutes.  I use grey, interlocking 2x2 ft. 
floor pads to cover the carpet when the racks are in place.

For those not familiar with stow and go, the seats fold flat into the 
floor, leaving a flat floor from the tailgate to the back of the front 
seats.  As far as I know, Chrysler products are the only ones that have 
this in minivans. for all of the middle and rear seats.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace now turned smaller planes 
andvehicles

I went to a dealer last week and measured a Dodge Grand Caravan with the
"Stow & Go" seats. More than enough room for a 2M, Maybe even the 
standard
Caravan would be adequate also?

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Miller
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:08 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace now turned smaller planes
andvehicles

>From a practical standpoint what has been going on in auto industry is 
180
degrees to what pattern has done, we have grown BIG, Guppy like 2M 
planes
while cars and trucks are getting smaller.  I've been out recently 
looking
at a replacement ( about 2 or 3 years away ) for my 2001 Astro van 
which
easily fits 2 - 2M planes and could carry 4 just as easily along with a
driver and passenger.  In light of GM and Ford's decision to stop 
producing
minivans and the demise of the Astro van in '05,  it looks like 
domestic
full size vans/pickup trucks or foreign minivans is all that will be 
left.
I chose the Astro in '01 to carry 2 - 2M planes with support gear AND 
it's
ability to tow more than a paperweight.  An Astro van set up like mine
easily tows my 6x12 enclosed trailer with my Harley dresser inside ( 
approx.

2600 lbs )  AND it has also towed an 1800 lb flat trailer with 6 
Harley's on

it over 250 miles several times, figure a total weight of approximately 
5500

lbs.  With tape measure in hand I have been measuring P/U beds and it 
seems
the GM full size "short bed" is 80" from inside the forward wall to the
inside of the tailgate.  To me the fwd minivan offerings, though they 
make
great people and plane movers, cannot tow anything more than 1,000 lbs
reliably over the long haul,  so they are not an option at least for 
me.
Besides, as long as I can I will buy from one of the big 2, I consider
Chrysler a foreign company now.  I'd hate to "downsize" from the 2M 
planes
as they fly much better than their older, smaller counterparts but it 
would
be nice to be able to buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles to 
transport

them.  Is anyone out there using an extended cab ( 2 rear mini suicide
doors ) GM P/U with the standard 6.5ft bed  to transport 2M planes ?? I 
know

the same truck is available with the 8ft but it is really too
looonnnggg.........
Ed M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace


>
>
> Hi Ron,
> I get the message. I also admire Don Quixote.
>
> It's just that I remember a lot of the discussion from back then. 
(almost
> 18 years ago)
>
> For one thing, back when the 2-meter rule was proposed, there was a 
point
> of argument that larger ships would help transform Pattern into more 
of a
> spectator event. Boy I sure am glad that panned out so well!
> We never will be a spectator sport: because we don't televise well. 
It's
> because of the "tiny dot lost in the sky" problem. On the other hand, 
one
> fixed camera mount (maybe 2) can adequately cover a bowling match, 
turning

> that event into a televised money sport. Good for them.
>
> 2 meters was not a magic number. Some guy in Germany ( I really 
should
> remember his name!) had built a 2 meter ship with an OS 61, and even
> though it was generally agreed to be underpowered in the wind, and 
even
> though the 120 four-stroke ships of the day had not yet reached 2 
meters,
> the rule got written that way because it didn't make sense to make
> existing planes illegal. As a result, the dimension was padded or 
rounded
> up a bit. If we always follow that precedent, I guess that means that 
our
> planes can only ever grow in size.
>
> Maybe the people voting on it were all thinking of their aging 
eyesight.
>
> In any case, the question is not how we could implement it. The real
> question is whether the event would benefit. I genuinely don't know,
> though I suspect that greater travel convenience and cost reduction 
could
> only benefit the event.
>
> Back when there was a displacement limit, we built airplanes at sizes
> dictated by the available horsepower. Now, there is a 2-m box and a 
weight

> limit. With either careful wood building or expensive composites the 
real
> limit is the 2-m rule. As we all know, the physics favors the bigger
> airplane for a variety of reasons.This forces everyone to build right 
up
> to the limit, so the only way to make smaller planes competitive is 
to
> make all of them smaller. So now I am back to the original question: 
will
> legislating plane size downward improve participation? Don't answer 
for
> yourself, as many of you have. Put yourself in the shoes of the
> prospective newbie. The newbie is the target.
>
> later,
> Dean
>
> "I wish I was in de land ob cotton....."
>
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>
>
>
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
----


> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from 
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.