Reverse av/RCU poll

[Nat Penton]

Ok all you masters fliers, quit complaining and take your medicine. Your 
problems with the reverse avalanche are imaginary. Manuever schedules have 
always been designed to bring about enhancement of the pilots and the 
airframes capabilities.

It is not difficult to build an airframe that you cannot tear up. The 
wingtube, for its weight, provides the most strength and rigidity of any 
structural component. Why would you cut it off ??
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Flynt" <dflynt at verizon.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:35 AM
Subject: Reverse av/RCU poll


>I posted the following response on the RCU poll:
>
> When I voted against replacing the maneuver on this poll, I was split
> myself.  On the one hand, the maneuver is challenging and fun, but on the
> other hand I can sense that I may be over-stressing my plane.  I also just
> do not know whether people are not flying it correctly, or whether some
> planes are not built well, or whether this is really such a demanding
> maneuver that everybody's airplane is at risk.  When I placed my vote, one
> thought broke the tie in my mind -- 1) If it is safe for FAI, then it is
> safe for Masters.
>
> So let's talk about that.  Is it really safe for FAI?  (The assumption 
> here
> is that pattern planes for FAI and Masters are not built any differently).
> From reading the NSRCA mail list, I know of that Eric Henderson damaged 
> two
> of his planes flying this maneuver.  I have spoken to another FAI pilot, 
> and
> he is nervous about the maneuver if not flown very slowly, which is
> difficult if your plane does not slow down well.  That could be the case 
> if
> you have a heavy plane with a two stroke for example.  But I am beginning 
> to
> feel that this maneuver is potentially and perhaps absolutely damaging to
> all plug-in wing designs.  I have flown it about 50 times with my Partner,
> and I cannot detect any damage.  But that does not mean that I can 
> practice
> the maneuver another 1000 times and not incur damage.
>
> After reading about what others have to say, and direct discussion, I
> suspect that this maneuver is damaging to most if not all plug-in wing
> models.  I offer this as speculation, but there is already enough evidence
> to support the theory, and we are just getting started.  I am claiming 
> that
> the reverse avalanche is a more damaging maneuver than the snap on a 45
> down, and that it is unacceptably rough on our airplanes.  If anybody has
> data for or against my claim, please speak up.  This is pretty important
> stuff.  I am just as concerned about my competitor's airplanes as I am my
> own.
>
> Oh one last thing, I change my vote on this poll, which means that it is
> exactly tied right now -- 24 to 24.  The next question is, if more people
> start changing their mind like I have, is there any way possible to 
> replace
> this maneuver?  Maybe we will just have to cope with it like the FAI guys
> must.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David Flynt
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.