Reverse av/RCU poll
Bill Glaze
billglaze at triad.rr.com
Mon Jan 10 17:00:02 AKST 2005
Good Grief, man..........we're lucky we didn't lose YOU!
Bob Pastorello wrote:
> After much reflection, I've recalled that the Hourglass, and the Z,
> were both responsible for many more brief vanishings than airplanes.
> You could HEAR those boxers being sucked up during that bottom
> corner....I'm sure I may have called for an FAI pilot who shall remain
> nameless whose whole slacks outfit vanished....it was frightening to
> witness.
>
> Bob Pastorello
> NSRCA 199 AMA 46373
> rcaerobob at cox.net <mailto:rcaerobob at cox.net>
> www.rcaerobats.net <http://www.rcaerobats.net>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Lockhart <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll
>
> Wayne,
>
> I definitely remember that manuever causing increased "pucker"
> factor - how many wings it broke I'm not sure. The bottom corner
> in an hourglass (or Figure Z) is not much different than the
> bottom corner in a pyramid loop...............hmmmm.....
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wayne Galligan <mailto:wgalligan at goodsonacura.com>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 4:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll
>
> Dave,
>
> Don't forget the hourglass maneuver... wasn't that a culprit
> of many a broken wing?
>
> Wayne G.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll
>
> Bob,
>
> Point taken. And now that it is 2005, that evil avalanche
> is a reality. However - I would submit all the sequences
> have been capable of breaking planes for more than a few
> years now.
>
> A simple Stall turn for example - plane is on the verge of
> flopping - pilot goes to half power, flops anyway, pilots
> gets disoriented, plane is heading for mother earth like a
> meteor, a moment of indecision, then a half roll, plane is
> accelerating faster still and the engine is howling like
> mad, and as the shadow on the ground is getting bigger by
> the instant the pilot panics.....YANK on the elevator and
> POP goes the wing.
>
> Or the simple square loop - pilot gets disoriented with
> wings level and rudder corrections on top of loop, pulls
> corner 3 without reducing throttle, plane is still
> crooked, and throttle is never reduced resulting in a very
> exciting final corner.
>
> I've seen both of the above scenarios - more than once.
>
> I don't think we'd really be happy if the rules legislated
> planes that couldn't hurt themselves. Pattern with combat
> Zagis anyone?? And don't forget the pattern community is
> not immune to individuals that can break an anvil.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Lockhart
> DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> 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/20050111/8d45e5d3/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list