<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A properly constructed legal pattern plane
should survive the reverse avalanche. However a properly constructed legal
pattern plane may not survive the person behind the sticks trying to perfect
that or any other maneuver : ). . A bent wing tube, it could be argued that the
flyer did the maneuver incorrectly, but since we are all perfect ( VBG ),
we never would do the maneuver incorrectly. Lets say we have an unusual amount
of broken airplanes in Masters this year as folks slice and dice their way
through the RA. Upside is a Master's round won't take so long ( VBG ). Since the
maneuver is done at the lower horizontal base, stage center, are we at risk of
that plane finding it's way into the pits or other pilots at the field ??
Anything and everything is possible, Murphy was right. I guess the questionably
built planes will be weeded out early and only the strong ( and perhaps
overweight ) will survive. Personally I don't like the RA or any snaps for that
matter, I see no grace or smoothness in snaps. Grace and smoothness is what
originally attracted me to pattern. We voted in this schedule, and even if
you voted for the other alternative as did I, I don't see there is
much we can do about it at this stage. Hey, '05 could be a banner year for the
kit manufacturers and builders !!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed M. </FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=bob@toprudder.com href="mailto:bob@toprudder.com">Bob Richards</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 10, 2005 3:47
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Reverse av/RCU poll</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Nat,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I respectfully disagree. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Forget about the reverse avalanche for a moment. I find it unacceptable
that it is <EM>possible</EM> 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob Richards (climbing off my soapbox).</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Nat Penton <natpenton@centurytel.net></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Ok
all you masters fliers, quit complaining and take your medicine. Your
<BR>problems with the reverse avalanche are imaginary. Manuever schedules
have <BR>always been designed to bring about enhancement of the pilots and
the <BR>airframes capabilities.<BR><BR>It is not difficult to build an
airframe that you cannot tear up. The <BR>wingtube, for its weight, provides
the most strength and rigidity of any <BR>structural component. Why would
you cut it off ??<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>