Reverse av/RCU poll

[Grow Pattern]

David,
             Here is some of what I posted in response to your note.

"There was one thought put forward that the wing-tubes that were being used were not strong enough. That raises the question, "Where would you get a stronger ali-tube?" I could not find any.  I had fitted CF wing tubes and the damage moved out to the tip of the tube. Joe Lachowski's planes BTW are at or just over 10 lb. He has very strong wings, (Guerin built and proven), so the tube decided to bend instead.

What is not at the forefront is that the reverse avalanche is "rarely" flown, relatively speaking. I saw it in FAI F-05 for the first time this year. How many FAI pilots actually fly the finals schedule with any degree of regularity? I do now know that some wing fatigue has been experienced already in this class by guys who are so good that i have to believe that they are flying it correctly,.

Now we have put it in a Masters schedule and with little or no experience we will be pulling a snap at the bottom of an already G-inducing maneuver. 

I am not surprised that there is mixed reaction to it because for some it is still just on paper. For others it has not been a problem and may never be. 

Many believe that it is just not being flown properly. The flaw in this thinking is that it does not cater for the folks who do fly it "improperly".  No other maneuver that I know of will punish the plane or the pilot with in-flight damage if they are just a little off in their execution. 

What did surprise me was that the AMA contest board did not fully process the emergency "fix" proposal.  It was not accepted for due process. This was decided between the AMA competition department and the AMA Contest board chairman. Therefore it was never published, or sent to the AMA contest board for consideration and a recorded vote. They have a pre-proposal process that I can't find written down anywhere. It does allow the Chairman/AMA to reject a proposal before it reaches the AMA contest board.

That's probably a bigger issue than the snap itself?

Regards,

Eric."

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Flynt" <dflynt at verizon.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 1:35 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050110/f6250de3/attachment.html