<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I’ve been thinking a lot about this
but hadn’t been writing much on this forum… </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Let’s see… pattern planes and
contests… </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> 11
lb event weight limit… </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> Many
folks flying sub 10-lb planes … </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> Guys
building 10 ounce wing panels… (for reference, my Focus I ARF wings came
out of the box at 17ounces each) </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I wonder if there might be a connection between
these three facts / factors… </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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 -</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>And now the discussion is to delete snaps
from ALL our sequences? </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>This doesn’t add up somehow… seems
to me that … </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> -
The maneuvers haven’t gotten nastier. A snap is a snap is a snap. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> -
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. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>- 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. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> 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??? </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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.) </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>But seriously, folks – C'mon, guys
-- this is supposed to be a sequence for MASTERS pilots and associated
equipment... <br>
<br>
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'... <br>
<br>
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... <br>
<br>
This apparently endless second-guessing of sequences - first the unending flap
over the Intermediate snap and now this... is really pretty disheartening. <br>
<br>
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?</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>End of rant. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Rick Wallace </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>AMA L727</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>NSRCA 2972 </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org] <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On
Behalf Of </span></b>Bob Richards<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, January 10, 2005
3:47 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> discussion@nsrca.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: Reverse av/RCU poll</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Nat,</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>I respectfully disagree. </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Forget about the reverse avalanche for a moment. I
find it unacceptable that it is <em><i><font face="Times New Roman">possible</font></i></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.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>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.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>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!</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>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.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>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.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Bob Richards (climbing off my soapbox).</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<b><i><span style='font-weight:bold;font-style:italic'>Nat Penton
<natpenton@centurytel.net></span></i></b> wrote:</span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>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 ??</span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>