Thank you Bill. You are always a voice of reason. Could you shed any light
on the Cross Proposal process?
Bill C
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've been following all the discussion carefully. It seems to me that
> almost everyone has missed the point - the point being where we are in the
> rules process.
>
> The original P-18 rules proposal has been voted on and passed. The next
> step (where we are right now) is the period for submitting cross proposals.
> If cross proposals are submitted then they need to be discussed and the
> ICB needs to vote on them at the appropriate time. There is no way to
> defeat the P-18 rules proposal at this time.
>
> After the cross proposal voting is finished then the final vote will
> determine whether or not P-18 becomes some sort of AMA event. The period
> between the interim voting and the final voting is Aug 15 until Sept 15.
> This would be the time to make your case for approving the event or not.
> And obviously it's the time to lobby your ICB member (or all of them) to
> make your wishes known.
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Jake Palmer 82.jake_at_gmail.com
> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I'm going to bow out of this conversation by simply quoting John Kagan
>> from a nearly identical conversation in 2012. The original topic was the
>> evolution of A-6.
>>
>> "The challenge of our activity is to coax the most performance out of an
>> airplane, within a certain set of rules. It should be no surprise that
>> people figure out what works and that the times go up. You can call it a "virus",
>> but it is really just people being successful in what they set out to do.
>>
>> Similarly, there can be a perception that experts ruin the "beginner
>> classes", but an expert is simply someone who does well, and doing well is
>> the whole point.
>>
>> Lastly, different events highlight different building techniques and
>> materials. Any event can be built simply. Every event can get tricky if you
>> want to win.
>>
>> An event where beginners can always be competitive with experienced
>> fliers, is folly. By the very definition, if there is any experience to be
>> gained, then those who have gained it will do better than those who
>> haven't. The only way would be to reduce it to a simple game of chance.
>>
>> An event where "experts" are banned is a paradox. Beginners become
>> experts. Rule: "you can fly this event, but you can never do well in it. If
>> you do, you can't fly it".
>>
>> An event that is "easy for beginners to build" is simply a projection of
>> the rule-maker. Some people think covering with tissue is easier than with
>> film – likely people who know how to cover with tissue. Some people think
>> covering with film is easier than tissue – likely people who know how to
>> cover with film. Some people think solid motorsticks are easier than tubes
>> – likely people who know how to tune a solid stick by sanding in flex.
>> Some people think tube motorsticks are easier than solid ones – likely
>> people who know how to roll a tube. Some people think that fixed pitch
>> props are easier – likely people who know how to make a good flaring
>> fixed pitch prop. Some people think VP's are easier – likely people who
>> know how to make and adjust a VP. About the only thing universally true
>> is that heavier models require less finesse than lighter ones.
>>
>> There are, however, actual ways to bring newcomers into the fold.
>>
>> Example 1: the Pro/Am. Give beginners a boost. They get to experience
>> the fun of Indoor FF without first having to overcome the barriers to
>> entry. Once they have a feel for what is involved, and have the
>> first-hand thrill of seeing their plane in the air, they are hopefully
>> better prepared to continue on their own.
>>
>> Example 2: the LSF model of achievement levels. A fixed set of
>> achievement criteria that stay the same for each beginner, but give a sense
>> of accomplishment for reaching a goal. Level 1 could be: fly 5 minutes
>> indoors with any model. Perform the task in front of the required
>> witnesses, send in a form, and get your name on an online list with a patch
>> or a sticker to advertise your greatness.
>>
>> Example 3: simply expose people to what we do. Nobody I know that flies
>> Indoor FF does so because it was easy. They were attracted by the beauty
>> and grace, and by the challenge. Everybody thinks that Indoor FF is cool.
>> A small slice has the interest, aptitude, and motivation to participate."
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill, I see your point, and it is a good one. But again, I also see a
>>> lot of effort being put forth to make P18 a recognized event. From the
>>> sound of it, it doesn't need to be recognized. It seems like P18 and its
>>> intent will be just fine where it is now....flown locally/regionally for
>>> fun.
>>>
>>> I also don't know your experience with beginners, but most of them I
>>> have worked with really like the idea of a challenge. That's why they
>>> picked up competitive indoor modeling in the first place. To be very
>>> blunt, and very honest, if a beginner perceives indoor to be too hard and
>>> they don't want to step up to the challenge, no matter what events are made
>>> for them, they won't stick with indoor very long.
>>>
>>> Now, that is not to say ALL indoor flying has to be competitive. But if
>>> it isn't competitive, by definition, it doesn't need rules. If people want
>>> to have informal competitions with P18, then a basic set of parameters
>>> should be provided. And that is about all the effort we need to put into
>>> the "rules" for P18.
>>>
>>> It seems, as Joshua ascertained, our efforts would be better off showing
>>> people how to build any and all types of indoor models to have a
>>> significant impact on growing the hobby and sport of indoor flying.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2016, at 2:46 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <<Why would we make the event official if we adopted your proposal? It
>>> would not be possible to keep records, and nobody could win the event at
>>> NATS>>
>>>
>>> On the whole winning is not the point for the beginner. And by the way,
>>> there is plenty of incentive and building and flying to be done by a
>>> beginner before he or she gets to the point that they can do two minutes
>>> three times in one day.
>>>
>>> It is seeing things from the top down that make us think winning and
>>> records are what matters. If we don't have more participants in a few years
>>> it'll be really easy to win and set records all alone.
>>>
>>> Bill C
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Jake Palmer 82.jake_at_gmail.com
>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would we make the event official if we adopted your proposal? It
>>>> would not be possible to keep records, and nobody could win the event at
>>>> NATS.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:17 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure Jake, but at some time in the future it will be an official
>>>>> event. I don't want to see it go the way of EZB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Jake Palmer 82.jake_at_gmail.com
>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just for clarification, the P-18 proposal is to make it a provisional
>>>>>> event. That means it can't be flown as an official event at NATS, and no
>>>>>> records will be kept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That works too. Like I said, I have no dog in this fight, so it's
>>>>>>> all good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is always this option as well....if no records are going to be
>>>>>>> kept, draft a very basic set of rules and let the people that actually fly
>>>>>>> the event drive its evolution. In A6 for example, the people building and
>>>>>>> flying the event thought plastic covering best served the interests of the
>>>>>>> event and competitors. Now any kid building an A6 can legally use a veggie
>>>>>>> bag and have a competitive model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be very honest, if records are not being kept and there is
>>>>>>> effectively no winner, why have rules at all, beyond the size of the model
>>>>>>> and prop?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mean really, that will keep the record hunters away, as there is
>>>>>>> no record to obtain. By eliminating a winner, there is no incentive,
>>>>>>> beyond personal goals, to push the performance of the model. Finally
>>>>>>> without a defined winner, it is truly just for fun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is the case, and we just want a fun event to introduce
>>>>>>> people to indoor, why does it even need to be an official AMA event?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:43 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <<With regards to the max rule, how about a two minute max per
>>>>>>> flight, with 3 maxes getting you into a fly off. For the fly off, increase
>>>>>>> the max by a minute per flight. Once you no longer max but other fliers
>>>>>>> do, you are out of the fly off. This sounds really similar to how outdoor
>>>>>>> glider, P30, and other outdoor AMA events work. I don't see why it
>>>>>>> wouldn't work indoor. If that becomes too easy, set a max time and specify
>>>>>>> flights must be no touch. That'll keep it interesting in Cat 1.>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This totally defeats the purpose of the Max Out rule. You put a
>>>>>>> beginner in a fly off with Jim Richmond and he/she is gonna get creamed no
>>>>>>> matter what the rules. Soon experts will be doing 4 minutes and dominating
>>>>>>> the event. We need to de-incentivize the experts from pushing times up. The
>>>>>>> best way I can think of to do this is to remove the ability for them to
>>>>>>> beat up on all the beginners. They can tie them but they can't beat them
>>>>>>> except the ones who can't do two minutes yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember this is entry level. We are not trying to reinvent the
>>>>>>> wheel. As I've said I don't want to see these things doing 5 minutes. The
>>>>>>> day we do the event has lost it's purpose. Oh and another thing, let's
>>>>>>> borrow a page from FAC and be sure that no records are kept.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that what I am pushing is counter intuitive to the
>>>>>>> competition based indoor mindset. I personally don't care who wins a P-18
>>>>>>> event. It's purpose is to attract beginners not 'win all costs' experts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With regards to the max rule, how about a two minute max per
>>>>>>>> flight, with 3 maxes getting you into a fly off. For the fly off, increase
>>>>>>>> the max by a minute per flight. Once you no longer max but other fliers
>>>>>>>> do, you are out of the fly off. This sounds really similar to how outdoor
>>>>>>>> glider, P30, and other outdoor AMA events work. I don't see why it
>>>>>>>> wouldn't work indoor. If that becomes too easy, set a max time and specify
>>>>>>>> flights must be no touch. That'll keep it interesting in Cat 1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 8:56 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the kind words. I'm hoping that the discussion soon
>>>>>>>> moves from the rational for the event itself and moves to the active
>>>>>>>> discussion about what the rules for the event will be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have yet to see any cross discussion regarding my "Max
>>>>>>>> Out" suggestion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
>>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill C,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You bring up some good points and your responses show thought and
>>>>>>>>> insight into the event. Note that my questions are/were not because I do
>>>>>>>>> not favor the event, but rather to see if another event was being added
>>>>>>>>> just for the sake of it, or if there was a clear rationale.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I might add though that sometimes we underestimate our beginners.
>>>>>>>>> I worked with a student who prior to 2015 had 0 modeling experience. That
>>>>>>>>> young man went to the Kent State contest and broke the Cat2 Jr. F1L record
>>>>>>>>> and flew A6 within a minute of Gowen's time. Good performance in advanced
>>>>>>>>> events is very possible for new fliers, provided they have a decent
>>>>>>>>> mentor. If people who want to fly indoor are having a hard time finding a
>>>>>>>>> mentor they are doing something terribly wrong as everyone I have met in
>>>>>>>>> indoor, including the most competitive experts, are always willing to help.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With luck P18 will serve as a good gateway model---"son, where did
>>>>>>>>> you learn how to do this?"---"I learned it from watching you dad!!!" and
>>>>>>>>> the more advanced events will grow. I for one would love to see 10+ F1Ls
>>>>>>>>> and LPP's in the air at Kent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 4:56 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hear are my thoughts in response to your questions:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <<I can see how P18 would attract new fliers. But then what? Are
>>>>>>>>> they going to fly P18 forever? If the idea of competition in the other
>>>>>>>>> indoor events is a barrier to entry for a lot of people, I would think that
>>>>>>>>> P18 only delays the inevitable.>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Then what" is probably LPP and then what ever they like, maybe
>>>>>>>>> they get to see some scale models flying indoor and get hooked on that..
>>>>>>>>> P-18, if kept at it's entry level operating style should give them
>>>>>>>>> confidence to move. Maybe along the way they win a local contest or two
>>>>>>>>> scoring their P-18 in LPP. By the time the do that They are an indoor
>>>>>>>>> flyer. Something we need more of.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <<I would also like to know what bag of tricks you are referring
>>>>>>>>> to that "ruins" other events. >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The bag of expert tricks is deep and wide not just limited to
>>>>>>>>> building and trimming. Experts also have access to rule changes. Remember
>>>>>>>>> what A-6 was like in the beginning?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <<One just has to be willing to accept the techniques of the
>>>>>>>>> experts and learn them.>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having an airplane they can actually BUILD on their own without
>>>>>>>>> special tools and equipment is crucial. Seeing their own handiwork fly is
>>>>>>>>> something they will not forget. P-18 provides a learning platform that is
>>>>>>>>> accessible to the average Joe. extraordinary candidates will move past it
>>>>>>>>> quickly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <<Again, I get how P18 could get fliers into the indoor scene, but
>>>>>>>>> how do we keep them if they fear competition?>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We provide them an arena in which to gain confidence free from
>>>>>>>>> experts getting scores they can't fathom achieving.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see how P18 would attract new fliers. But then what? Are
>>>>>>>>>> they going to fly P18 forever? If the idea of competition in the other
>>>>>>>>>> indoor events is a barrier to entry for a lot of people, I would think that
>>>>>>>>>> P18 only delays the inevitable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would also like to know what bag of tricks you are referring to
>>>>>>>>>> that "ruins" other events. A mechanized VP prop would be the one thing
>>>>>>>>>> that might give first time builders trouble. But for a weight restricted
>>>>>>>>>> event like LPP or F1L, I just don't see anything out there that is too
>>>>>>>>>> difficult. I think quite the opposite is happening actually. The modern
>>>>>>>>>> LPP being built of carbon fiber is easier to build due to the fact that
>>>>>>>>>> expensive balsa does not need to be graded and tested for stiffness. The
>>>>>>>>>> carbon hub LPP prop that is being more widely used is also not difficult to
>>>>>>>>>> construct. If one simply does some research, they will find that this
>>>>>>>>>> indoor thing while difficult to master, is not difficult to get started
>>>>>>>>>> in. One just has to be willing to accept the techniques of the experts and
>>>>>>>>>> learn them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, I get how P18 could get fliers into the indoor scene, but
>>>>>>>>>> how do we keep them if they fear competition?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 2:47 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The purpose is to attract new indoor flyers. The purpose of the
>>>>>>>>>> Max Out suggestion is to keep it approachable to beginners. I'm not trying
>>>>>>>>>> to discourage anybody from flying the event, just to keep them from ruining
>>>>>>>>>> it. All of the experts' bag of tricks are useless and actually detrimental
>>>>>>>>>> in the event. I don't want to see these things flying for 5 minutes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:40 PM, William Carney <
>>>>>>>>>> wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good point Bill. We don't want this event to attract experienced
>>>>>>>>>>> flyers. We want it to attract raw beginners. There does need to be a
>>>>>>>>>>> balance though. For an event to be considered successful it must have
>>>>>>>>>>> participants. I think a club who has a high number of experts who can Max
>>>>>>>>>>> Out in P-18 might be a club who is having a lot of fun without ruining the
>>>>>>>>>>> appeal of the event to beginners.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Experts can fly this event all they want, but they are not going
>>>>>>>>>>> to 'sour the milk' if all they can do is three maxes. Any real expert or
>>>>>>>>>>> progressing new indoor flyer is going to see quickly that a real LPP will
>>>>>>>>>>> be far superior to a P-18 and will want to build one to compete as such.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some will take many seasons to get there P-18 to do 2 minutes
>>>>>>>>>>> consistently, during which time they are exposed to the sights and
>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere of indoor flying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:17 PM, William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can just make a list of all the people who you
>>>>>>>>>>>> consider too advanced to fly the event and attach that to the rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe you can come up with a rule that anyone who has ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> flown a legal AMA indoor duration model in their lifetime is barred from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the event
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I really don't see that this event has any attraction for
>>>>>>>>>>>> advanced fliers. I've already said that I won't fly it. And that doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> mean that I'm opposed to the event.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016 8:51 PM, "William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction]" <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose that this event be flown as a two minute max event.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No fly offs, no tie breakers. If an contestant wants to get full credit for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his/her efforts they may but the times are scored as an official in LPP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The purpose of this proposal is the remove the incentive of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Experts" from flooding the event and making it unappealing to a true
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginner. If you can get one of these things to fly for two minutes three
>>>>>>>>>>>>> times in one day you are probably ready to tackle a true LPP and then... By
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time a beginner has gotten enough experience to "Max Out" a P-18 he or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> she has set the Indoor FF hook pretty deep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rules, as written, produce an airplane that make two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes a nominal goal. I kike seeing these models fly as they are very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "indoor like" and I've seen their appeal to the public. I just don't want
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to see these things doing 5 minutes. Sure irt can probably be done but that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not the point of the event.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 3:54 PM, rbharlan_at_comcast.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cross proposal window is May 31 to July 15, so now is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to submit any cross proposals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect to submit one to change the prop size max to 6",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of 5.5". There are a lot more 6" props out there than 5.5's, namely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Volare who has six kinds of 6" props.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't checked for a specific cross proposal form at AMA,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and, of course, if I check now, Yahoo will blow away all of this discourse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't want to type it again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What other ideas do you have for the event, Bill?.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 08 2016 - 14:57:57 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET