Re: Idea for a New Event

From: Nick Ray <lasray_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:13:07 -0500

Back to Evan's idea.

After playing with the numbers, it looks like the proposed rules would
favor a very heavy model. Say 10g with maybe 5g of rubber. I'd imagine
these would look like a cross between an IMS and a FROG. I could see this
working reasonably well. The only downside I see with this approach is that
we would potentially have models of vastly different weights and speeds
flying at the same time. Once a few people figure out the optimal weight
and rubber ratio, that would likely be less of a problem.

Regards,

Nick

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Don DeLoach ddeloach_at_comcast.net
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> That's a fair point Jake. Sorry if I offended.
>
> DD
>
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Jake Palmer 82.jake_at_gmail.com
> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Don,
>
> You might find indoor flyers to be friendlier if you were a little more
> humble, and a little less insulting.
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Don DeLoach ddeloach_at_comcast.net
> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Have you actually executed a bottom-up plan to find flying sites, then
>> contacted the decision makers at those sites to inquire about
>> use/rental? If not, then you cannot conclude there are no flying sites.
>>
>> I have considerable experience with this and can help anyone who has the
>> will to learn.
>>
>> You also need to be putting the right people on your site search
>> program. No offense but most Indoor flyers are not the right personality
>> type.
>>
>> DD
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 18 2016 - 06:13:08 CET