<div>Dean,</div> <div>I carry my 2 meter airplane in a 2005 Chevy 1/2 ton extended cab pickup with a fiberglass</div> <div>bed cover and it fits with about 1 inch to spare. There is room to carry two airplanes and</div> <div>field equipment, canopy, cooler etc. An unexpected benefit of the fiberglass bed cover is</div> <div>it keeps the airplane surprisingly cool in the summer.</div> <div> </div> <div>tommy s</div> <div><BR><BR><B><I>Ed Miller <edbon85@charter.net></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">>From a practical standpoint what has been going on in auto industry is 180 <BR>degrees to what pattern has done, we have grown BIG, Guppy like 2M planes <BR>while cars and trucks are getting smaller. I've been out recently looking <BR>at a replacement ( about 2 or 3 years away ) for my 2001 Astro van which <BR>easily fits 2 - 2M planes and could carry 4 just as easily
along with a <BR>driver and passenger. In light of GM and Ford's decision to stop producing <BR>minivans and the demise of the Astro van in '05, it looks like domestic <BR>full size vans/pickup trucks or foreign minivans is all that will be left. <BR>I chose the Astro in '01 to carry 2 - 2M planes with support gear AND it's <BR>ability to tow more than a paperweight. An Astro van set up like mine <BR>easily tows my 6x12 enclosed trailer with my Harley dresser inside ( approx. <BR>2600 lbs ) AND it has also towed an 1800 lb flat trailer with 6 Harley's on <BR>it over 250 miles several times, figure a total weight of approximately 5500 <BR>lbs. With tape measure in hand I have been measuring P/U beds and it seems <BR>the GM full size "short bed" is 80" from inside the forward wall to the <BR>inside of the tailgate. To me the fwd minivan offerings, though they make <BR>great people and plane movers, cannot tow anything more than 1,000 lbs <BR>reliably over the long haul, so
they are not an option at least for me. <BR>Besides, as long as I can I will buy from one of the big 2, I consider <BR>Chrysler a foreign company now. I'd hate to "downsize" from the 2M planes <BR>as they fly much better than their older, smaller counterparts but it would <BR>be nice to be able to buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles to transport <BR>them. Is anyone out there using an extended cab ( 2 rear mini suicide <BR>doors ) GM P/U with the standard 6.5ft bed to transport 2M planes ?? I know <BR>the same truck is available with the 8ft but it is really too <BR>looonnnggg.........<BR>Ed M.<BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Dean Pappas" <D.PAPPAS@KODEOS.COM><BR>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:39 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace<BR><BR><BR>><BR>><BR>> Hi Ron,<BR>> I get the message. I also admire Don Quixote.<BR>><BR>> It's just that I remember a lot of
the discussion from back then. (almost <BR>> 18 years ago)<BR>><BR>> For one thing, back when the 2-meter rule was proposed, there was a point <BR>> of argument that larger ships would help transform Pattern into more of a <BR>> spectator event. Boy I sure am glad that panned out so well!<BR>> We never will be a spectator sport: because we don't televise well. It's <BR>> because of the "tiny dot lost in the sky" problem. On the other hand, one <BR>> fixed camera mount (maybe 2) can adequately cover a bowling match, turning <BR>> that event into a televised money sport. Good for them.<BR>><BR>> 2 meters was not a magic number. Some guy in Germany ( I really should <BR>> remember his name!) had built a 2 meter ship with an OS 61, and even <BR>> though it was generally agreed to be underpowered in the wind, and even <BR>> though the 120 four-stroke ships of the day had not yet reached 2 meters, <BR>> the rule got written that way
because it didn't make sense to make <BR>> existing planes illegal. As a result, the dimension was padded or rounded <BR>> up a bit. If we always follow that precedent, I guess that means that our <BR>> planes can only ever grow in size.<BR>><BR>> Maybe the people voting on it were all thinking of their aging eyesight.<BR>><BR>> In any case, the question is not how we could implement it. The real <BR>> question is whether the event would benefit. I genuinely don't know, <BR>> though I suspect that greater travel convenience and cost reduction could <BR>> only benefit the event.<BR>><BR>> Back when there was a displacement limit, we built airplanes at sizes <BR>> dictated by the available horsepower. Now, there is a 2-m box and a weight <BR>> limit. With either careful wood building or expensive composites the real <BR>> limit is the 2-m rule. As we all know, the physics favors the bigger <BR>> airplane for a variety of
reasons.This forces everyone to build right up <BR>> to the limit, so the only way to make smaller planes competitive is to <BR>> make all of them smaller. So now I am back to the original question: will <BR>> legislating plane size downward improve participation? Don't answer for <BR>> yourself, as many of you have. Put yourself in the shoes of the <BR>> prospective newbie. The newbie is the target.<BR>><BR>> later,<BR>> Dean<BR>><BR>> "I wish I was in de land ob cotton....."<BR>><BR>><BR>> Ron Van Putte<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR><BR><BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> __________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com