Reverse av/RCU poll

Mon Jan 10 18:02:16 AKST 2005

Isn't this the same thing after a spin?  I can't tell you how many times my
engine has flamed out after a spin... I think the potential for a flameout
during a maneuver is not a reason to remove it.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Todd Schmidt
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:06 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll

Okay, we can build em stronger, but what about the guys who fly ARF's?  Are
the manufacturers going to change the way they construct their product?

I know there is a lot of what if's, but what if an engine craps right after
the snap, we'll be low and stalled, at least very slow. This could be
another contributing factor to loosing a plane.

Todd Schmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nat Penton" <natpenton at centurytel.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll

> 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 ??
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Flynt" <dflynt at verizon.net>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:35 AM
> Subject: Reverse av/RCU poll
>
>
> >I posted the following response on the RCU poll:
> >
> > When I voted against replacing the maneuver on this poll, I was 
> > split myself.  On the one hand, the maneuver is challenging and fun, 
> > but on
the
> > other hand I can sense that I may be over-stressing my plane.  I 
> > also
just
> > do not know whether people are not flying it correctly, or whether 
> > some planes are not built well, or whether this is really such a 
> > demanding maneuver that everybody's airplane is at risk.  When I 
> > placed my vote,
one
> > thought broke the tie in my mind -- 1) If it is safe for FAI, then 
> > it is safe for Masters.
> >
> > So let's talk about that.  Is it really safe for FAI?  (The 
> > assumption here is that pattern planes for FAI and Masters are not 
> > built any
differently).
> > From reading the NSRCA mail list, I know of that Eric Henderson 
> > damaged two of his planes flying this maneuver.  I have spoken to 
> > another FAI pilot, and he is nervous about the maneuver if not flown 
> > very slowly, which is difficult if your plane does not slow down 
> > well.  That could be the case if you have a heavy plane with a two 
> > stroke for example.  But I am
beginning
> > to
> > feel that this maneuver is potentially and perhaps absolutely 
> > damaging
to
> > all plug-in wing designs.  I have flown it about 50 times with my
Partner,
> > and I cannot detect any damage.  But that does not mean that I can 
> > practice the maneuver another 1000 times and not incur damage.
> >
> > After reading about what others have to say, and direct discussion, 
> > I suspect that this maneuver is damaging to most if not all plug-in 
> > wing models.  I offer this as speculation, but there is already 
> > enough
evidence
> > to support the theory, and we are just getting started.  I am 
> > claiming that the reverse avalanche is a more damaging maneuver than 
> > the snap on a 45 down, and that it is unacceptably rough on our 
> > airplanes.  If anybody
has
> > data for or against my claim, please speak up.  This is pretty 
> > important stuff.  I am just as concerned about my competitor's 
> > airplanes as I am
my
> > own.
> >
> > Oh one last thing, I change my vote on this poll, which means that 
> > it is exactly tied right now -- 24 to 24.  The next question is, if 
> > more
people
> > start changing their mind like I have, is there any way possible to 
> > replace this maneuver?  Maybe we will just have to cope with it like 
> > the FAI
guys
> > must.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > David Flynt
> >
> > =================================================
> > To access the email archives for this list, go to 
> > http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> > To be removed from this list, go to 
> > http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> > and follow the instructions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to 
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to 
> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
>

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.