Greetings,

If you'd allow me to speak my piece from halfway around the world, when it's only likely that I'll only ever turn up and compete in an SPA event in the States as a once-in-a-lifetime fun experience...

Taking it to 1980 would allow two-stroke ships designed for rear exhaust .60 two-stroke engines with the pipe running along the top of the fuselage, like the Magic and Arrow (the rear-exhaust successors of the Curare and Atlas respectively) and possibly, from the Japanese stable, the Skymaster. I don't know which year the Skymaster appeared, it may have come after 1980.

These ships have a following but, to my mind, they were kind of an interim solution to the packaging problem of how to neatly design a fuselage around tricycle retracts and a tuned pipe. In my opinion, the most elegant solution arrived when ships appeared with the pipe running down the bottom of the fuselage and the nose gear retracting next to the header, like the Cosmos, Aurora, Atlanta, Summit III, LA-1 etc. I don't know when those appeared, but I doubt any of them were seen before 1983. When they did appear though, they were still very much in the spirit of the 1970's designs and still pretty much the same size - fuselage lengths being stretched, but wingspan remaining within two or three inches of the earlier designs.

Of course, at the same time other designers went the way of simplicity with taildragger gear and much simpler design, like Prettner with the Calypso and Matt with the Joker and Saphir, and since those were also originally designed for piped .60 two strokes and had wingspans below 70 inches, we all love them too, don't we?

My guess is that, when powered with .90 four-strokes or electric power and fitted with modern lightweight fixed landing gear as allowed by the current SPA rules, Atlases, Curares, Auroras, Skymasters and Jokers can pretty much compete against each other despite having been originally designed over a decade apart - especially given the latitude the SPA allows in modifying the original design. Of course the Kwik Fly's and similar models from the late '60's would be outclassed, but it seems to me they're just as outclassed against the 1970's Atlases, Curares, Phoenices etc. under the current SPA rules.

Myself, I would like to see a venue for pretty much anything designed to compete in F3A powered by a .60 two-stroke. That includes all the designs people in this forum love. Of course I don't insist that they actually be powered with .60 two-strokes. My guess is that much of the SPA's success is owed to the fact that most people today want a powerplant that is more flexible and easier to handle on the ground and in the air than a piped .60 two-stroke, and allowing .90 four-strokes and electric power has encouraged people to invest in building models, practicing and competing in the SPA.

As far as retracts are concerned, why not leave it to individual choice and allow them if the original design had them? Retracts were only an advantage in the days of fixed piano wire tricycle gear; they're not necessarily an advantage in this era of lightweight, airfoiled carbon fibre fixed taildragger gear. A Curare with a modern lightweight taildragger gear probably has the advantage versus another Curare with a tricycle retract setup, so it can't be argued that allowing retracts increases the cost and complexity of competing. A competitive pilot would probably go for fixed gear; it would probably be the nostalgics who want to fly a ship like it was flown back in the day that would go for retracts.

Myself, I'd build a ship with retracts and a piped two stroke .60, try and compete that way and see how I do with a setup that's pretty much like how these planes were set up back in the day. I'm sure anyone building the same design with a .90 four-stroke or electric power, and lightweight fixed gear, would have an easier time of building, practicing and flying, and beat the crap out of me in a contest. But I don't mind, in the end it's all about having fun!

With best regards,

George