Bill,
I can tell you the reason why three people I know have not flown F1M. It
is the rubber weight restriction and that restriction consequently
mandates a VP. So it is a combination. I like the dimensional specs of
F1M. It is the longer monoplane pennyplane I would like to build. For me
the learning curve for the event is more than a new plane, it is a plane
and VP. VP use to be F1D only thing then it started to get used in more
and more events. I never though of a VP on a AROG back then or even Open
Pennyplane but it is needed in those events so taking on a new event is
little different than it was in times past at least for me. You could
read the rules a few days before the contest and whip up a plane and fly
a new event, you can't really do that in events that need VPs to be
competitive. More development time is needed and test flying sessions etc.
Don
On 1/31/2016 4:48 PM, William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com
[Indoor_Construction] wrote:
> Speaking of events that have low participation - F1M has not
> flourished like I thought it would. I'm certainly not suggesting it be
> culled but it would be nice if more people than Larry Coslick and I
> were flying it. It's one of those rare events with not many rules to
> cramp any creative urges you might have. The models fly great and can
> be as easy or difficult as you want to make them.
>
>
>
--
Don Slusarczyk
Received on Sun Jan 31 2016 - 18:37:54 CET