You are absolutely correct Duane. Allowing rather extreme modifications to satisfy the needs of OS .91 users but not allowing moderate scaling to allow a .40 size airplane to be powered by a .60 (or even downsizing a .60 size airplane to fly with a .40) makes no sense. I certainly appreciate all you do for SPA, but I am unable to understand the logic here. I'll leave it alone from now on because I truely believe that SPA provides a terrific outlet for those of us who grew up with pattern in the 60's and 70's, but I'd sure appreciate it if the issue could be addressed by the SPA rules committee. If a logical policy is not approved, I'll learn to live with the existing arbitrary illogical policy.

I'm actually on the side of allowing reasonable builder freedom to "customize" their projects (as we did back then). I like the concept of requiring maintenance of at least a "reasonable" (recognizable) likeness of the subject airplane. Virtually everyone makes some modifications, so why not remove the controversy and let the rule book coincide with actual practice? There'd be a lot fewer rants about this issue and we could all move on to becoming better pilots.