<!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 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dave,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Don't forget the hourglass maneuver... wasn't
that a culprit of many a broken wing?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wayne G.<BR></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=DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</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 3:32
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Reverse av/RCU poll</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bob,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I've seen both of the above scenarios - more than once.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>