Reverse av/RCU poll

[Doug Cronkhite]

Ed,
 
That happens when you have people designing sequences for classes they don't
fly. 
 
-Doug
 
 


  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 6:09 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll


For perspective, has anyone looked at the '05 Scale Aerobatics (AKA IMAC)
Unlimited schedule?  The sequences is essentially a set of different shaped
aerial suspenders to display snap rolls from different perspectives.  It's
littered with them. Last time I looked at it, there were 10 snaps and 10
figures.  Count your blessings and don't worry so much about one avalanche!
 
Signed,
Happy to be flying Masters, not Unlimited in NJ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ed Miller <mailto:edbon85 at charter.net>  
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll

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  <mailto:bob at toprudder.com> 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/20050111/8c097e77/attachment.html