Of course they "forgot" about correcting that error. They are trying to show that the F104 class is gethering a following world wide.

People only have to go to the AHPC website to see the Viper announced as the "F16 - Viper" with the (doctered) picture showing the identifier "F16" in its mainsail. In all associated documents, webpages and pricelisting the design is called an F16. At no single point is the name F104 mentioned.

http://www.ahpc.com.au/p_models.htm

http://www.ahpc.com.au/m_viper.htm

http://www.ahpc.com.au/pdf/viper_price_list.pdf

Would that make the Viper an F16 instead of an F104 ?

I guess we'll get another "ooops, sorry" answer to thet question.

Basically the only thing Greg has confirmed publically is that when you start adding weight to the platform that the "F16-Viper" will at one point satisfy the (expected) F104 ruleset and become F104 compliant.

That is like saying that you can make your F18 "F104-compliant" by taking a knife to your F18 mainsail. The statement itself is true enough but nobody is going to do that in reality.

As extra info : cutting down your F18 mainsail from 17.0 sq.mtr to 14.8 sq. mtr. is enough. Or alternatively, fitting the standard F18 light crewweight jib of 3.45 sq.mtr. and cutting down the mainsail to 15.6 sq. mtr. Especially the latter option is quite attractive as the mainsail will still be very well proportioned (aspect ratio of 4.7: Tru F18 has aspect ratio of 4.3; F16's have 4.4).

AHPC is not going to charge less money for a 135 kg F104-Viper then for a 125 kg F16-Viper. The customer will get 5 kg of resin poured in each hull, with the performance loss thrown in for free, and that is it.

Will you consent to such a thing, as a customer ?

Wouter