<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=343231202-11012005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Ed,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=343231202-11012005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=343231202-11012005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>That happens when you have people designing sequences for
classes they don't fly. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=343231202-11012005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=343231202-11012005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>-Doug</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=343231202-11012005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=343231202-11012005></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Ed
Alt<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 10, 2005 6:09 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Reverse av/RCU
poll<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For perspective, has anyone looked at the '05
Scale Aerobatics (AKA IMAC) Unlimited schedule? The sequences is
essentially a set of different shaped aerial suspenders to display snap rolls
from different perspectives. It's littered with them. Last time I looked
at it, there were 10 snaps and 10 figures. Count your blessings and
don't worry so much about one avalanche!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Signed,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Happy to be flying Masters, not Unlimited in
NJ</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=edbon85@charter.net href="mailto:edbon85@charter.net">Ed Miller</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 4:11
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Reverse av/RCU poll</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>