Well Joe, you've certainly toned down your presentation of your views on Dave Patrick.

I disagree with your views on the workaround. Certainly this is not the ideal scenario, but there's nothing wrong with the solution. It will work perfectly. When using a light glow motor, it allows the CG to fall into the range necessary without adding any counter-weight to the nose. You'll still need the mod to fall into the 5 3/4 -7" range with these engines. The plane will fly extremely well with this type motor at the mid 13.5-14 range it will come out. The only thing it won't do better than a gas motor is have as much vertical performance, but it should still be plenty adequate except for the most radical 3D vertical maneuvers.

On your other comments, I'm a little confused on some of them:

>> The plane could be considered to have an in-between size and weight.

I'm not sure what that means. There is no such thing as an in-between size that I know of. All manufacturers take liberty with designs and few match exact scales. Dave Patrick is a VERY experienced designer and I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

I still can't understand why you would put a ZDZ60 in this plane. Why would you add a pound to a plane that is at the higher end of it's optimum wing loading with a 2.6/3.2 gasser, and with those engines at 16 pounds it already has rapid unlimited vertical and more than enough power to pull out of a hover with authority...so why rip the plane apart with the ZDZ60...what exactly would it accomplish. As someone else posted in another thread in response to your ZDZ60 suggestion, and I'm paraphrasing, "Even a brick will fly with enough power, but it won't 3D." As I mentioned before, I know you're into 3D, and nothing else, and I know you know that a light wing loading is as important to good 3D as power is, so why would you want to raise the wing loading significantly with no other apparent benefits?

>>It appears to be an experimental model (the wing looks like a cross between an Extra wing and a Funfly wing)

What does that mean? Would you please elaborate on what makes this wing look like a Funfly wing? I just don't see it.

>>that did not come off as planned.

I'm a bit confused here too. You stated earlier that you thought it was a good flying plane. How did it not come off as planned? IMHO, it came off perfectly as planned and its superb flying qualities prove it. I think Dave Patrick's years of producing top performing models over and over again, more than qualifies him to know how a wing should be designed for this type of model. He might not be up on customer service, but I think his qualifications as a designer are above reproach.

>>...it requires the same amount of money for engine and servos that much larger planes do.

I'm afraid you lost me here too. I assume you're talking about something like your H9 33% Cap. Why don't you list the servos you used on each of these two models and tell me how the Extra cost the same. You can optimally equip this plane with 5 Hitec digital servos(+throttle) for $400(and a lot cheaper if so inclined). This is hardly out of line for this size model. As an example, the Extra is about the same size as the AW 29% Edge. The Extra has a bit more wing area, is a bit shorter, and a bit heavier, but the servo requirements are identical. Also, why don't you explain how it uses the same engine as a much larger plane. Exactly which plane are you talking about?

As far as your statements on DP's advertised weights, you are correct, and guess what, most ARFs come out weighing significantly more than advertised, so DP is hardly alone here, though I'm not saying that is an excuse either. I will say that it is refreshing to see manufacturers like H9 coming out with attainable figures on their new offerings.

Bill