[SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Snao G's
Bill Glaze
billglaze at triad.rr.com
Sat Jan 29 05:57:02 AKST 2005
Ed:
I like what Mike McConville said:
Somebody asked him how to do a blender. Mike said: "First, start with
someone elses airplane"...................Sort of says it all. Bill Glaze
Ed Alt wrote:
> Actually, I said something a bit incorrect about the blender, as it
> eventually does become an autorotation, so it is in a stalled state
> eventually. Anyway, if you haven't lost one yet you must be doing
> something right! For the most part, if you are flying 3D, you will
> bend or break airplanes more frequently than otherwise.
>
> Ed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Thompson III <mailto:mrandmrst at comcast.net>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 7:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Snao G's
>
> Thank you Ed,
> I stand corrected on the blender, now that you describe the entry,
> I remember it, can't do it right, but I remember it. I guess when
> I'm just out there, slammin' around the sky, I don't realize the
> real stress on the airframe. I must be pretty lucky I haven't
> lost one to breakage yet, at least in the air.
>
> Ken
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Alt <mailto:Ed_Alt at hotmail.com>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 6:28 PM
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Snao G's
>
> Ken:
> Depends on the pilot. Some do Walls at a fairly high
> airspeed. I never did them at anything much more then around
> 40 mph est, but that's a bunch of force right there. It stops
> in a big hurry. I can only guess at the G's, but if you watch
> from the right angle, you can see the wings bend a fair bit on
> a 40% model doing this. Ditto with a Parachute - it just
> depends on what the pilot is willing to attempt. Blenders
> aren't a stalled maneuver, they develop from a rolling
> vertical downline, then at 3D rates you typically slam in full
> down, full aileron one way, full rudder the other, then you
> typically take out some aileron to flatten it out. I have
> seen airplanes come completely apart, sometimes just crack the
> wing sheeting (sounds like a rifle shot) or crack the fuselage
> doing a blender. I never let mine develop for more than a
> couple of rolls at a low power setting coming down. Too risky.
>
> Usually Waterfals are started from a vertical hover and are
> really tame. A really wild variation is a Waterfall started
> from full power level, with a very rapid pitch-up to about 45
> degrees as you yank the power, then hit full down (3D rates
> ocourse) and knock some throttle back in to get enough
> propwash over the tail to force it around as it starts to go
> backwards (same direction really, but the tail & nose
> positions are getting swapped). Timed right, it virtually
> stops in place as it pivots around the pitch axis. It's
> dramatic and you can immediately go into anything else like a
> 3D roller, whatever, where a second ago you were clipping
> along at 90 mph. That's a wing tube bender if you overdo it.
> There's more tricks and variations than this, but there is
> alot of really stressful stuff in the so-called 3D maneuvers.
> I like EFD (Extended Flight Envelope, better, but whatever.
>
> Ed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Thompson III <mailto:mrandmrst at comcast.net>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 5:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Snao G's
>
> Walls I can see the stress, however I understand that the
> correct way to enter a wall is at 1/4 throttle or less.
> I'm not one of those big ego guys, so correct me if I'm wrong.
> Parachutes are more of a controlled fall, from a partial
> wall up high, and Blenders begin from a stalled state. Of
> course when you slam the throttle to push the plane
> through the Blender, that could hurt a bunch.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Ed Alt <mailto:Ed_Alt at hotmail.com>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 5:05 PM
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: Snao G's
>
> Yep, but the transition into it can be stressful.
> Stuff like Walls, Parachutes, Blenders, certain brands
> of Waterfalls put mucho strain in the airframe.
> Ed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Thompson III <mailto:mrandmrst at comcast.net>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Snao G's
>
> Matt,
> I could be wrong, but isn't 3D, by definition,
> done in a constant state of stall? Wouldn't that
> eliminate a lot of the high G's in the maneuvers?
> I wouldn't think the airframe would be in as
> stressed state, when the flying surface is
> depending on prop wash, not air speed, to do it's
> thing.
>
> Ken
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com
> <mailto:Rcmaster199 at aol.com>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Snao G's
>
> If this accelerometer is finding 13 G loads
> generated by a Pattern model snap, a
> relatively low amount really, I imagine that a
> 3D model set up for a full array of stunts has
> to be experiencing double that at least.
>
> Earl could you do any 3D type maneuvers and
> measurements with the Yak?
>
> Very informative discussion BTW, and may
> result in improved more efficient building
> technique, read-- lightest for the desired
> strength.
>
> thanks
>
> matt
>
> In a message dated 1/28/2005 1:32:35 PM
> Eastern Standard Time, d.pappas at kodeos.com writes:
>
> That's proof of stall!
> If the G loading rises suddenly, and then
> holds or droops continuously during the
> roll, then it's probably an accelerated
> barrel.
> If the profile is sudden rise, sudden drop
> to maybe 1/2, then onload, you have a real
> snap.
>
> Yia,
> Dean
>
>
> Dean Pappas
> Sr. Design Engineer
> Kodeos Communications
> 111 Corporate Blvd.
> South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
> (908) 222-7817 phone
> (908) 222-2392 fax
> d.pappas at kodeos.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
> Behalf Of Rcmaster199 at aol.com
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 11:45 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Snao G's
>
> Good point. Once in the stall, the
> model should not see the
> same continued G load. Should drop
> dramatically. If the plane doesn't
> stall to begin with, different story.
>
> Matt
>
> In a message dated 1/28/2005 11:23:25
> AM Eastern Standard Time,
> d.pappas at kodeos.com writes:
>
> Let me add another two cents worth ...
> Earl,
> What is the sampling rate on your
> data logger?
> Can you see if the maximum 13-Gs
> at 100 MPH was sustained for the
> entire half second or so that it
> took to complete the snap,
> or was it a short spike (like 0.1
> second) and then sustained at say
> half of that value, for the rest
> of the snap.
> Of course, if the data logger
> samples once a second, we have
> almost no way of knowing.
>
> Later,
> Dean
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050129/35b530d5/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list