[SPAM] Re: Reverse av/RCU poll

[Ed Miller]

How were these numbers arrived at ?? Was testing done and if so how ??
Ed M.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Grow Pattern 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:08 AM
  Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll


  Rick,
          I agreed with all of your note. I would add that,  "A snap is a snap is a snap", might vary according to where it is done in the sky.

  I was recently educated about g-forces. This is what I was told.

  Flying straight and level it's 1 g plus what ever you add with the snap.

  A 45 degrees going down its less than 1 g.

  At top of loop almost no g, like in an avalanche

  Vertical no g

   At the bottom of the loop even with the power off, it's at least 2 g's before you hit it.

  So maybe snaps put different loading on the plane depending upon where they are done and how the plane is preloaded in the first place?

  The real point is, please check your wing-tubes for movement on a periodic basis. Just put the tube in a wing-panel and see if it moves around like a paint-brush in a pot!

  Regards,

  Eric.

  P.S. I've never really seen a vertical down-line snap really snap.


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Lance Van Nostrand 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:54 PM
    Subject: Re: Reverse av/RCU poll


    Rick,
    Awesome.  Straight to the heart.  I laughed out loud at your ending and my wife said, "C'mon, there's nothing about airplanes thats that funny!"
    --Lance

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: rick wallace 
      To: discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 4:47 PM
      Subject: RE: Reverse av/RCU poll


      I've been thinking a lot about this but hadn't been writing much on this forum. 

      Let's see. pattern planes and contests. 

                  11 lb event weight limit. 

                  Many folks flying sub 10-lb planes . 

                  Guys building 10 ounce wing panels. (for reference, my Focus I ARF wings came out of the box at 17ounces each) 



      I wonder if there might be a connection between these three facts / factors. 



      Add to this that there's a renewed emphasis on flying - and scoring  - REAL snaps - as shown in the World champs 2003 and FAI Nats 2004 - so now we have to do - and practice - REAL snaps -



      And now the discussion is to delete snaps from ALL our sequences? 



      This doesn't add up somehow. seems to me that . 

                  - The maneuvers haven't gotten nastier. A snap is a snap is a snap. 

                  - The 2005 Master's schedule's been around along time - proposed in 2002, I think - there was LOTS of time for reflection between then and now. 

      - If the planes can't do the maneuvers, maybe it's because they've gotten too light. <gasp> Or we've temporarily forgotten how to build a plane to do what it's called on to do. 



      BUT. - If the current planes can't do the maneuver (and I'm not convinced that's an issue), the fix shouldn't be to dumb down the maneuvers, it should be to fix the planes. There's room in the 11# weight limit, and techniques aplenty to do just that. Even for ARF wings. 



                  Seems like pattern guys and our toys have always been on the cutting edge of the aerobatics  scene - -until now - are we losing that position???  There are kids (of many ages) flying and hovering and gyrating their little foamies and Funtanas and 32-1/2% Edges all over the place - and even snapping them! I guess our expensive pattern planes are just to good - and too fragile - to do the same maneuvers in a precision manner??? 



      Maybe the next rules change should be a Depron pattern class. maybe with takeoffs optional, and landings = a K5 (or maybe just an automatic 10 - oh yeah, I forgot - we're already there...).  Maybe the hardest maneuver could be a roll (we don't want to overstress the airframes with high - stress maneuvers like LOOPS - the plane might break if someone does too tight a loop at full throttle.) 



      But seriously, folks - C'mon, guys -- this is supposed to be a sequence for MASTERS pilots and associated equipment... 

      If we can't build -- and fly -- such that we can survive a snap, ... maybe the class should be renamed to something a little less presumptuous... maybe 'More Advanced' -- or 'Highly Proficient' -- or 'Striving for Very Good' -- certainly something less assertive than 'MASTERS'... 

      There's ample proof that the sequence is flyable and that properly built equipment will stand up to it. FAI F-05 has a rev A w/ 1-1/2 in it, for heaven's sake... 

      This apparently endless second-guessing of sequences - first the unending flap over the Intermediate snap and now this... is really pretty disheartening. 

      I'm not crazy about the 2005 Masters sequence, but it's flyable and scorable. Let's go fly it as it was proposed, voted on, approved, and accepted -- and maybe pay more attention to the next set of proposed sequences?



      Heading for the shop to strengthen my wings - while staying within the 11# limit -- then to the field to practice flying the 2005 "Not Nearly as Good as FAI but Maybe better than Advanced but Not Sure I can Do this Stuff" class (formerly Masters) sequence. 



      End of rant. 



      Rick Wallace 

      AMA L727

      NSRCA 2972 



      -----Original Message-----
      From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
      Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:47 PM
      To: discussion at nsrca.org
      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/aa8dd8c5/attachment-0001.html