Re: Re: Are there too many Indoor events?

From: William Gowen <wdgowen_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 22:03:10 -0500

Don
Fair enough. OTOH a penny plane VP is what I started with in F1M. I don't
like rubber weight restrictions either but that's the rule so I deal with
it.
On Jan 31, 2016 9:37 PM, "Don Slusarczyk don_at_slusarczyk.com
[Indoor_Construction]" <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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 - 19:03:11 CET