Duane,

I'd like to preface my following comments by saying that since I am not a member of any competitive classic pattern association based in the US (for logical reasons - I simply can't attend those events), I am in no way against any particular body. I appreciate the fact that there is an SPA for those who are able to compete in such events organized by it. I also appreciate the fact that the BPA's mantle has been picked up and continued in the form of the CPA to foster interest in the following ~12 year period after the SPA's cut off date.

With that said, I'll make a couple of further comments.

I admit that I used the word "apparently" since the comment was coming from a 2 to 3 year old recollection in previous discussions on the subject. However, while not intending to split hairs, it's not clear to me what constitutes the design of an airplane. Is that date fixed by the moment of inception of the idea? By the first lines jotted down on a napkin? By the first lines drafted on a scale sheet? By the moment the "plans" are actually used to build? By the date such a plan is published (if indeed it is required to be published)? In short, you can see what I'm getting at.

Again, if memory serves, I believe that Hanson's and Brown's conception of the Tipo and, further, the actual flying of a prototype, occurred before the SPA cut off date and began with Prettner's third place F3A Super Sicroly entry in 1973 and second place Curare finish in Switzerland '75. This based on my recollection of what Hanson said in the last couple of years after being posed questions on the matter. In other words, the Tiporare apparently flew before the end of 1975. My memory might falter and it might have been in early 1976 that the actual prototype was flown but I don't believe any particular criterion has been set forth by the SPA to require planes to have flown before the cutoff date - Hanson was evidently busy designing during 1975. The fact that the article and plan was not published until 1980 shouldn't come into question.

With that said, I don't have any particular vested interest in the Tipo being admitted into SPA. I'm just pointing out what I believe are the facts in the matter.

This is indeed extremely inconsistent. A P8 or TT4 that was designed several years after the cutoff date, and no doubt with input from many pilots and builders, is little different from the same evolution of the Super Sicroly. The SS can be thought of as being the forefather of the Curare and the Tiporare 720 (T720). In this sense the Tipo's (not only the T720 but the 750, the 825, the Surpass - specifically designed for 4-stroke 90's, etc.) are to the Super Sicroly no different than what the P7 and subsequent Phoenix designs (including the P10!) are to the P1. The fact that the model name changed over the years compared to the model number is in my opinion of little substance.

But,... if the pilot and Mickey were in agreement in allowing model number changes in any given design evolution - then so it is.

This makes sense since it was indeed 1975 that marked a mid-decade transition to consistent use of retracts and tuned pipes with Prettner himself using both on his '75 Curare entry.

I understand this and agree with the principle set forth.

Here I have to disagree - at least with the part of the "Tipo being a separate design". What does that mean exactly? Is it because Hanson's name is associated with it? We all know that F3A model design is an evolutionary process. One model is based on its predecessor(s) or other similar designs and is therefore not what I would consider "separate". I'd venture that there are in fact very few true original designs. If a P8 is allowed because its predecessor was the P6 then a Tipo should be allowed because its predecessor was the Super Sicroly, never mind the Curare. In fact, the UFO should be allowed because its predecessor was the Dirty Birdy. Many builders and pilots in the know are even hard pressed to tell the difference between a Dirty Birdy and a UFO. There is more than one thread on that specific subject on this forum. Further, if a P8 or a TT4 are allowed, which are no where close to the time window, then the Curare and Dirty Birdy can no longer be considered the "most modern" SPA allowed planes.

Given Mickey's past leniency, if I were to show up with a UFO, he would no doubt make the same concession he made for the P8 pilot. As with the P8, I could provide plenty of post 1976 documentation! I would start with Strasser's Sep 1977 RCM article including his second paragraph which begins:

"Joe Bridi's birds have evolved as have the aircraft of any of the pattern pilots who have been able to hang in there successfully over the years."

I guess I'm just pointing out that, like all organizations, there are inconsistencies which are understandable and acceptable and I applaud the SPA for their hard work and efforts in keeping classic pattern of the pre '76 era alive and well. However, I feel it is important that the SPA also recognize that they are not infallible and that, as is often the case, rules can and will be bent according to the case in question.

The SPA being the more aged organization has been a source of query regarding some of their decision making - which is just natural. The CPA, being a younger organization, is of course also going to be under such scrutiny over the coming years.

David.