We are in the cross proposal phase but no one has entered such a cross
proposal.
On Jun 19, 2016 9:08 PM, "William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
[Indoor_Construction]" <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bill Gowen,
>
> You are correct. I thought we were in the cross proposal phase. So I was
> cross proposing.
>
> Bill C
> On Jun 19, 2016 5:24 AM, "William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com
> [Indoor_Construction]" <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bill Carney
>> There is nothing in the P-18 rules proposal about this 2 minute max idea.
>>
>> There is also nothing in the rules proposal about a flier being able to
>> score a P-18 flight as an LPP flight. Although a model built to the P-18
>> rules will meet the rules for LPP, allowing a flight in one event to be
>> scored in a different event *after the flight has been made* is not
>> something that is allowed at any AMA contest.
>>
>> For instance if I want to fly a standard class glider in the unlimited
>> event I have to declare this intent *before* the flight is made.
>>
>> How do you propose that these ideas will become part of the P-18 rules?
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 7:00 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary,
>>>
>>> Sure, I'll fly P-18. I even designed a model that meets the provisional
>>> rules. It'll do two minutes most of the time, but not always. In the hands
>>> of beginners I don't see the whole field maxing out. Sure, I'll max out and
>>> put it away and tell any kid who ties me they get free bag of stripped
>>> rubber in the size of their choice or a kit or whatever.
>>>
>>> I can tell this tie thing really has you worked up. I'm sure I can
>>> explain what I am suggesting better. There don't have to be any ties. If a
>>> flyer wants to get credit for flights over two minutes they can, in LPP. If
>>> a tie is so abhorrent to anyone they can place last in LPP instead of
>>> tieing for first in P-18. If they want to do better in LPP then they build
>>> real LPP and the hook is truly set by then.
>>>
>>> Bill C
>>> On Jun 17, 2016 4:19 PM, "Warthodson_at_aol.com [Indoor_Construction]" <
>>> Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That does not solve anything. It is still a pointless event. I have
>>>> been trying to think of an other event where the best you can do is tie. So
>>>> far I can't think of one. Monopoly, Ping-Pong, foot race, crocket, SO,
>>>> spelling bee, dodge ball.
>>>> Bill, will you be flying P-18?
>>>> Gary Hodson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com [Indoor_Construction] <
>>>> Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
>>>> To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 3:44 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: P-18 vs. AMA WS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gary,
>>>>
>>>> I probably never fully explained my proposal. I was too busy having to
>>>> explain what a beginner gets out of a beginner event. My proposal includes
>>>> a provision that if the flyer gets a flight of more then two minutes they
>>>> can score that flight in LPP. What this does is provide a framework for
>>>> them to get to be able to do two minutes with a P-18. Once they can do that
>>>> consistently buy are getting beat in LPP they'll have motivation to build a
>>>> LPP.
>>>>
>>>> Bill C
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Warthodson_at_aol.com
>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been reading all the messages on the P-18 vs. SO subject & I
>>>>> have only one strong opinion: A 2 minute MAX creates a pointless event & I
>>>>> think even a beginner would agree.
>>>>> Gary Hodson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Received on Sun Jun 19 2016 - 19:11:12 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET