Reverse av/RCU poll

[Ed Miller]

A properly constructed legal pattern plane should survive the reverse avalanche. However a properly constructed legal pattern plane may not survive the person behind the sticks trying to perfect that or any other maneuver : ). . A bent wing tube, it could be argued that the flyer did the maneuver incorrectly, but since we are all perfect ( VBG ), we never would do the maneuver incorrectly. Lets say we have an unusual amount of broken airplanes in Masters this year as folks slice and dice their way through the RA. Upside is a Master's round won't take so long ( VBG ). Since the maneuver is done at the lower horizontal base, stage center, are we at risk of that plane finding it's way into the pits or other pilots at the field ?? Anything and everything is possible, Murphy was right. I guess the questionably built planes will be weeded out early and only the strong ( and perhaps overweight ) will survive. Personally I don't like the RA or any snaps for that matter, I see no grace or smoothness in snaps. Grace and smoothness is what originally attracted me to pattern. We voted in this schedule, and even if you voted for the other alternative as did I, I don't see there is much we can do about it at this stage. Hey, '05 could be a banner year for the kit manufacturers and builders !!!
Ed M.  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Richards 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:47 PM
  Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll


  Nat,

  I respectfully disagree. 

  Forget about the reverse avalanche for a moment. I find it unacceptable that it is possible for a schedule to be put in place with a maneuver that breaks current airplanes. And everyone says "suck it up", "get over it", and we have to build new planes. Which, by the way, are now worth less since anyone planning to move up to Masters is not going to want to buy them.

  Having to design/build new planes because the old design does not fly the new schedule very well is one thing, but to have to do it because the current designs simply won't survive is something else altogether. Sure, I could fly a Tipo in the Advanced class if I want. It may not fly the greatest, but it will fly. And it will certainly challenge me. At least I won't have to carry a shovel in my flightbox.

  Sure, in a couple of years, everyone flying Masters will all have planes that will survive. Natural selection will take care of that. BUT, will the sport be better off? I don't think so. Some flyers may be put off by it. But, we only want the best flying Masters, right!

  I'm not saying we should not make the maneuvers less challenging. Heck, we could make the schedule more challenging -- for the pilots, not the planes -- without having to put maneuvers in the schedule that breaks planes.

  I really wanted to get back into pattern this year. Had planned on flying my old Finesse. Looks like I might be better off with my old Cap 21. Then again, maybe not.

  Bob Richards (climbing off my soapbox).


  Nat Penton <natpenton at centurytel.net> wrote:
    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 ??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050110/49618893/attachment.html