Reverse av/RCU poll

[Bob Pastorello]

Oh, Bill, the temptation is too great, I cannot resist (lest someone else beat me to the keyboard anyway)....

Had you ever met me in person, you would know rather concretely, that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that there is a pilot in possession of an orifice capable of creating adequate vacumn under ANY FLIGHT CONDITION to make ME vanish...it just ain't gonna happen, no matter how close I stand.... 

The list is now returned to normalcy.

Bob Pastorello
NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Glaze 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:57 PM
  Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll


  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
    www.rcaerobats.net


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: David Lockhart 
      To: 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 
        To: 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 
          To: 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


            -------------- 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/b58b1229/attachment.html