Snao G's

[Troy A. Newman]

Its OK Ed....To pick on Bob a little in fun He didn't like the P-01 with the 1.5snap in horizontal either. That is about the same time He started flying Masters again. I love you Bob and just using you to illustrate a point. The critics of the horizontal snaps in FAI back in 2000 complained about the possible breaking of the models back then too. Not Bob I'm just joking with him a little....But this was the discussion of the list. 

On another note I'm glad to see Earl put some real numbers with. And I want to say I'm not a fan of the Reverse Avalanche. I think its a poor choice of maneuver. In fact I have been sitting in the judges chair for many years and I don't think I have ever seen a 10 or even flown a 10 on a  regular avalanche...I may have score a 10 once of twice but I don't think I ever flew one. So the question is if we can't do the regular one right then why are trying to do this one that is really impossible to complete as a 10. The curve at the bottom and all. 

On another note the pilot that minimizes the downgrades will get the best score and as a result He will win. So the game still works. 

I don't think its a plane breaker but I do think we can better. This is why I'm now involved in the sequence survey stuff for the NSRCA. I hope that we will get the same vigor out of the guys that have volunteered (Bob included) that we have here on the list. We will make life much easier in choosing good sequences...This is the goal and plan of attack I am putting together right now. Should have some info out first of next week. We have a contest this weekend and I have been at the field practicing all day today.

Troy
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ed Deaver 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:07 PM
  Subject: Re: Snao G's


  So, if I am interpreting these numbers(realize only one day and flight) correctly.  Beings the straight and level pos snap at 100mph(not unusual speed) was -13G's and the Rev avalance at approximately 95mph was -13G's, then the forces are about the same.  

  So, if we can slow the rev avalanche down to 70mph then the G's would only be -7.  

  This seems to go along with previous arguments that speed is the key.

  My question is, if the G's on flat and level snaps are approximately the same, with approx equal speeds, as the rev snap, then why hasn't FAI pilots been breaking planes with the 1.5snapopp 4/8????  

  Before anyone says it, I have seen many of these 1.5 snaps flown with some speed, so they weren't just puttputt into it.

  Thanx Earl.  Interesting stuff

  ed


  Earl Haury <ehaury at houston.rr.com> wrote:
    FWIW, I took a quick look at some snap G's yesterday. Equipment was a Quique YAK (140 size) fitted with an Eagle Tree Systems datalogger with G sensor. I only gathered data from one flight - so take that into consideration.

    Flat and level pos snaps @ (nominally) 100mph = 13G, dropping the speed to 70mph = 7G. (A normal pull to vertical @ 100mph = 7G.)

    An Avalanche with a neg snap at the top measured -5G @ 50mph.

    A Rev Avalanche with a pos snap at the bottom measured 13G @ 95mph. (Masters maneuver - intentionally flown fast.)

    An Avalanche from the top (push - F05) with a neg snap and a half at the bottom measured -14G @ 90mph. 

    (I normally measure around 5G on upline and downline snaps with my Partner.)

    All snaps were executed with rapid / high degree elevator lead and % reduction of elevator during rotation.

    I may look at this further as the mood strikes. As expected, controlling speed into snaps is easier on your airplane. None of the observed loads (in my opinion) should damage a well constructed aerobatic model (wouldn't want to ride in it though).

    Earl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050128/75cb9c44/attachment.html