Reverse av/RCU poll

[John Pavlick]

Yep, them old planes was built like a Harley 45. You boys are flying some
whimpy stuff now, that's why yer breakin <censored>. Glue them wings
t'gether and 'glas 'em good. Whatta ya need to use the throttle fer anyway
'cept landin' and takin' off?
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com


  -----Original Message-----
  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of Bob Pastorello
  Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 9:04 PM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll


  Oh, wait.........that was ME when I was in FAI..... OMG.....

  Then there was a guy whose theory was "small is better" on the
Hourglass.... Well, he had this SL1 SMOKIN' through the pattern, and at that
speed, it was apparent we were in for a REAL treat.  I was calling for
him....if I recall, the Hourglass was a mid-entry.
      Anyway, he's streaking to center, pulls to the up angle, NEVER got off
the power on the first radius, and it was TIGHT.  I still remember thinking
I saw the nose touch the tail as it went around that corner.  He was bound
and determined to make 'em all match, so yee HA, that bottom corner was just
amazing to witness.  He didn't pop a wing tube, but I remember his retracts
pulling out.  They came out about halfway and then snapped back up.
      Man, that was glorious to see....in subsequent flights, the pilot
remembered to pull back on the throttle.

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


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Bob Pastorello
    To: discussion at nsrca.org
    Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:42 PM
    Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll


    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 ??


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050111/94f031fc/attachment.html