Reverse av/RCU poll

Mon Jan 10 13:49:26 AKST 2005

I've been thinking a lot about this but hadn't been writing much on this
forum. 

Let's see. pattern planes and contests. 

            11 lb event weight limit. 

            Many folks flying sub 10-lb planes . 

            Guys building 10 ounce wing panels. (for reference, my Focus
I ARF wings came out of the box at 17ounces each) 

I wonder if there might be a connection between these three facts /
factors. 

Add to this that there's a renewed emphasis on flying - and scoring  -
REAL snaps - as shown in the World champs 2003 and FAI Nats 2004 - so
now we have to do - and practice - REAL snaps -

And now the discussion is to delete snaps from ALL our sequences? 

This doesn't add up somehow. seems to me that . 

            - The maneuvers haven't gotten nastier. A snap is a snap is
a snap. 

            - The 2005 Master's schedule's been around along time -
proposed in 2002, I think - there was LOTS of time for reflection
between then and now. 

- If the planes can't do the maneuvers, maybe it's because they've
gotten too light. <gasp> . Or we've temporarily forgotten how to build a
plane to do what it's called on to do. 

BUT. - If the current planes can't do the maneuver (and I'm not
convinced that's an issue), the fix shouldn't be to dumb down the
maneuvers, it should be to fix the planes. There's room in the 11#
weight limit, and techniques aplenty to do just that. Even for ARF
wings. 

            Seems like pattern guys and our toys have always been on the
cutting edge of the aerobatics  scene - -until now - are we losing that
position???  There are kids (of many ages) flying and hovering and
gyrating their little foamies and Funtanas and 32-1/2% Edges all over
the place - and even snapping them! I guess our expensive pattern planes
are just to good - and too fragile - to do the same maneuvers in a
precision manner??? 

Maybe the next rules change should be a Depron pattern class. maybe with
takeoffs optional, and landings = a K5 (or maybe just an automatic 10 -
oh yeah, I forgot - we're already there...).  Maybe the hardest maneuver
could be a roll (we don't want to overstress the airframes with high -
stress maneuvers like LOOPS - the plane might break if someone does too
tight a loop at full throttle.) 

But seriously, folks - C'mon, guys -- this is supposed to be a sequence
for MASTERS pilots and associated equipment... 

If we can't build -- and fly -- such that we can survive a snap, ...
maybe the class should be renamed to something a little less
presumptuous... maybe 'More Advanced' -- or 'Highly Proficient' -- or
'Striving for Very Good' -- certainly something less assertive than
'MASTERS'... 

There's ample proof that the sequence is flyable and that properly built
equipment will stand up to it. FAI F-05 has a rev A w/ 1-1/2 in it, for
heaven's sake... 

This apparently endless second-guessing of sequences - first the
unending flap over the Intermediate snap and now this... is really
pretty disheartening. 

I'm not crazy about the 2005 Masters sequence, but it's flyable and
scorable. Let's go fly it as it was proposed, voted on, approved, and
accepted -- and maybe pay more attention to the next set of proposed
sequences?

Heading for the shop to strengthen my wings - while staying within the
11# limit -- then to the field to practice flying the 2005 "Not Nearly
as Good as FAI but Maybe better than Advanced but Not Sure I can Do this
Stuff" class (formerly Masters) sequence. 

End of rant. 

Rick Wallace 

AMA L727

NSRCA 2972 

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:47 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
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/20050110/7f2f975b/attachment-0001.html