Wow, you know, I never even read it that way!
I always knew that to be considered a coconut you had to be over 36" single wing or over 30" multi, so I never even noticed it.
So the only discrepancy was that someone transposed what shoud have read "MINIMUM" and made it "MAXIMUM"?
Other than that the rules are the same, right? will thee be scale judging at all?
Thanks,
Jim
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, joshuawfinn@... wrote:
>
> > Where do we stand on this?
>
> I've got a good set of rules ready to go.
>
> > Joshua, can you describe the inaccuracies of the recent rules?
>
> Yup...have a look at what I'm about to do:
>
> > 1. Recognizable rubber powered scale model, with a max. 36-in wingspan for a monoplane, 30-in wingspan for multi wing.
>
> That's a problem: "with a max. ...". That is not correct, especially since I have never seen a monoplane coconut with a wingspan under 36", and Aronstein's was very nearly twice that.
>
> So the mere fact that we have for quite a while been sending out a set of rules for Coconut that have an error in the very thing that defines a Coconut as such makes me a bit concerned.
>
> The corrected rules are to be sent out with the FAC stuff since we're only doing the mass launch this time.
>
> Good flying,
> Joshua Finn
>
Received on Fri Feb 15 2013 - 13:57:27 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET