Actually training schools love them, as sales still indicate.
From: Chris Barker [mailto:ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 9:45 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Engineer, was FrankenCamera
Ken
Yes, as I was writing my post, I thought of the cheapness of the airframe.
I suppose that's because no one really likes them :-)
Good luck to these chaps.
Chris
On 18 Dec 2010, at 15:13, Ken Norton wrote:
> Agreed, Chris. The 172 would seem to be an unlikely candidate, except
> the idea is to create a powerplant replacement for an existing
> airframe that can take it. This is actually rather smart as those
> things are essentially disposable. I'm more likely to think they will
> succeed by focussing on just the powerplant than try to compete
> against the entire industry with a soup to nuts airframe that will
> take decades to bring to market.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
_____
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3323 - Release Date: 12/18/10
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|