There probably won't be any one answer that pleases everyone.
Mike,
I agree. At this point, I don't see any likely outcome that is fair to all. I sympathize with Artemis over the quandary they're in. They went down two design paths (small and large symmetric elevators), not anticipating the possibility of a third form of the rules. A 35 of 37 point rule change could leave them SOL. ETNZ and LR also went down two design paths (small elevators, and large asymmetric elevators, neither with rake adjustment). A full 37 point rule change could leave them disadvantaged. Only Oracle developed small, large symmetric and large asymmetric elevators, with adjustable rudder rake. They will come out even or advantaged in any case. The fairest solution would be to return to the original elevators, but Iain Murray has already stated very clearly that he won't permit that to happen. I wish the jury well in finding an equitable solution within the rules and look forward to its decision.
Originally Posted by catman
Thanks for taking the time to gather all the AC info and post it here. You've made it easy for me to keep up with all of it. Your effort is much appreciated.
Phillip, I've been thinking the same thing. Thanks very much for keeping us all posted.
