Absolutely agree with Mike, Joshua and Chuck.
DD
On 1/7/2016 6:12 PM, mkirda_at_sbcglobal.net [Indoor_Construction] wrote:
> 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
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
Received on Fri Jan 08 2016 - 05:11:13 CET