Reverse av/RCU poll

[T&C Brown]

Yep, sure do.....most impressive thing I seen in a while.  Unbelievable the plane held together.

T-Bone
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: steven maxwell 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 8:25 PM
  Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll



   Does anyone remember Pete Collinson flying 2003 nats finals when he had trouble starting his engine and only had like 4 minute to get a 7 minute flight in, all down lines done at full throttle hour glass with snaps center all at full trottle if a wing should have ever broke it was then, he is still flying that plane did at the Nats this year if fact, as he lost his primary plane in midair which was the one that didn't start in 2003.
   Steve Maxwell

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: David Lockhart 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org
    Sent: 1/10/2005 8:27:50 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/20050111/0994088c/attachment.html