I don't see the harm in discussing any potential rule changes.
The format that I believe would be most beneficial is this:
1) What is wrong?
2) How might it be addressed via a rule change?
i.e. A6 - The previous rule cycle addressed the scarcity of materials, i.e. condenser paper and made the case for removing the requirement and using film instead. No other change was considered necessary for the class.
Now the proposal was put forth to increase the prop size.
Certainly the existing A6 prop is small and inefficient the way it is. To me that is part of it's appeal.
The proposal has no context of what is wrong or what the increased diameter might fix. Without this, Josh is right - It is unlikely to gain any traction. No one can guess why it was proposed.
One clarification I believe we all need is with regards to VP prop mechanisms. With a BOM rule, are purchased hubs legal? Another one is prop outlines - If I sell them to Don unfinished and Don expends effort sanding them to size/weight, attaching ribs, attaching a spar, and covering them, did Don do enough work to satisfy the BOM rule? (Sorry for picking on you, Don!)
Regards.
Mike Kirda
Received on Thu Jan 07 2016 - 17:12:46 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET