>From: "Mark and Jo Gellart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Soaring List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [RCSE] Nostalgia ?
>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:56:10 -0500
>
>I was roaming the www this morning and was at the Dream Catcher site 
>looking
>at what was happening with all the Airtronics kits.  There was a statement
>associated with the Aquila XL kit that said that this ship was only legal
>with a fiberglass hatch and not the clear one as on a normal Aquila fuse.

I had the same thoughts about 2 weeks ago.

I called them and what they said to me was, in the past, the keeper of the 
nostalgia rules was asked if by bringing out a Grand Esprit with a one peice 
molded fiberglass fuselage would be legal, the keeper (Jack something??) of 
the rules said it would not be legal. Because the original had a wood pod 
and fiberglass boom.

So using that as a guide line, they guessed it would not be legal to use a 
clear canopy, when the original kit had a molded fiberglass one.

They said, that's why they offer both and certify the molded fiberglass one 
as being on the original plans.

They said, they felt that it would be misleading if they said anything else. 
The builder would have to work it out with the CD's.

The rules say something about, the original plans, as proof. The original 
plans show a molded fiberglass canopy.

That's one that should be offered for response from the keeper of the 
nostalgia rules.

Dream Catcher said that, the rulling by Jack is one of the reasons they have 
delayed bringing out the Grand Esprit. They feel that the market for a wood 
fuselage would be small and that a one or even two peice fuselage would have 
a much larger market.

I told them that I aggreed and that I'd always buy a fiberglass fuselage 
over a wooden one any day.

Is (Jack ??) on RCSE?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to