[NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace now turned smaller planesandvehicles

Thu Jan 4 09:24:01 AKST 2007

I gotta chime in here with a ditto on the Taurus. I had a Merc Sable ( same 
car) that would hold 2-meter stuff and not blink. Mine had the 200 bhp 
V-6and I got 31.5 mpg on one tank on one of my trips to Muncie. Funny, on 
mine the AC was pretty much inconsequential regarding mileage. Best car I've 
ever owned.When I first got it, I was recording about 24.5 mpg so I pumped 
the tires up to what I would guess was somewhere between 35 and 40 pounds 
and immediately noticed about a 3 mpg increase. In the summer most all my 
running around yielded around 28 mpg. Great car!!!
 I'm no longer all that hung up on buying domestic as there is significant 
international sharing between all the biggies. You buy a Chevvy Malibu and 
you get a Saab. You buy a Ford Fusion and you get a Mazda. Remember that big 
Ford SHO with the big V-block Yamaha? No longer much point.
G.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace now turned smaller 
planesandvehicles

>I went looking for a plane hauling economy car... and ended up with a Ford
> Taurus Wagon.  Has room for a 25% Edge and a 2 meter pattern plane and 4
> assorted smaller planes. (I've had up to 9 planes in it at once, aiming 
> for
> 11 to haul them to the mall show in March)  Careful tucking of the support
> equipment would leave the front passenger seat available if I needed it.
>
> Not a alrge trailer puller, but 25 mpg average in in town and freeway when 
> I
> don't need AC. (AC costs the poor little 4-banger 4 mpg)  I wouldn't pull
> more than 700 lbs with it. (a well designed trailer wouldn't bother 
> freeway
> mileage much....)
>
> Unfortunately Ford has now disontinued the Taurus wagon.  Cadillac makes a
> similar capacity wagon but its rather pricy and I think it looks ugly no
> matter what colr you pick.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85 at charter.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:07 AM
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.5/616 - Release Date: 1/4/2007
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 