<!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 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Your P-51 fetish is showing again =)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-Mike</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=gfowler@raytheon.com href="mailto:gfowler@raytheon.com">Gray E
Fowler</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:47
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion]
Cost-participation-or some such stuff</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I have never flown non
turnaround pattern. When I first got in to pattern I saw all the comments
flyin' around about how turnaround kills attendance. To this day I cannot
figure out why the older guys (which if you flew non turn around you were
either very young then or old now) wank so much about this change. Perhaps the
decline of pattern from its heyday has more to do with with other RC interest
than stinkin' turnaround changes. When I was young, we had 3 TV channnels, and
when MASH came on EVERYONE watched, unless Nixon was giving us a speech, which
was on all 3 channels, in that case we were all screwed.....Would MASH be so
popular today competing with 150 other channels, INCLUDING "The Food
Channel????!!!!!" I think not! Learn how to make a quiche......or
MASH. As you can see this is quite a quandary.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>I will say that when I first investigated pattern and
found out everyone had $550 engines instead of my $99 two stroke-I was
flabergasted. I still might be.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>To
me turnaround is the coolest and not the problem.....when does this argument
end? I would guess in another 10 years, because at that time all that flew NON
turnaround will be dead or quit due to age.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>When I started Ed Hurt was flying Masters at age
75......He told me alot but NEVER told me that turnaround
sucked........</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Billion Dollar
Batteries, Electric gear motors, $650 engines and pristine "works of art"
scare the average sport flyer (by showing/thinking they cannot do that) much
more than turnaround......</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>Scenario #56.....Sport flyer thinking about pattern......Lets see, No
problem with powerplants costing 5-15X of my OS.45, just won't feed the kids
for a week, 300 hours to build and paint a flying master piece, and of course
$2500 for that kit -semi arf deal, then I gotta learn turnaround too!!!! No
WAY.....Dealing with the French for the plane was bad enough, now I gotta
learn turnaound too????...I am out for sure......</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2><BR>Now I am off in search of the perfect P-51
lookin'pattern plane.............I think that that bottom air scoop makes for
better Knife Edges, increases rudder authority, slows the plane down better,
increasing smoothness and gracefulness (thus increasing scores), makes snap
entrances better, AND better throttle response (far superior to ANY electric).
I conducted these tests myself, collected data so I know I am right. I cannot
believe that the rest of you have not seen the wisdom of a P-51 pattern plane.
No wonder you find turnaround so difficult.<BR><BR>Gray Fowler<BR>Principal
Chemical Engineer<BR>Composites Engineering</FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>