[NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly -and DifferentAerobatic Model Types

[David Lockhart]

Try a 1 roll circle and a 1 roll loop with any current design in say 1998 (save an EMC) - and try them in that order or you'll never get to try the 1 roll loop.  With any design, try a flat rudder turn circle, then try a KE loop. The circle stuff is far less demanding of the airframe.

Yes, the circles can be done smaller and it is harder to do them smaller - try doing a small rolling loop - you will run out of rudder authority and KE power and see far more coupling issues come out sooner trying the small rolling loop.

Dave
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: George Kennie 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 1:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly -and DifferentAerobatic Model Types


  I don't feel that the rolling loop involves the same degree of difficulty as the circle. When you do the circle, and especially when there is a roll reversal required, the skill required to preserve arc geometry, altitude, roll rate, and corrective inputs is greater than the same requirements when incorporated into the loop. The loop is performed closer and is easier to see and can be performed also very large making required corrections more visible.There is also the ability to utilize the gravity assist which you can employ to slow the up-side and allow to assist some of your control inputs on the backside. 
  It is also possible to do the circle much smaller than currently being done, however, control input requirements become much quicker and more extreme and it's much easier to get behind which is why you see them being performed so large,........it's just to slow things down enough to keep up with the compensation requirements. It requires a lot of repetitive exercise to train the brain's ability to accomodate the compensatory acceleration requirement to execute the smaller geometric form.  
  Try a few and you'll see what I mean. 
  Georgie 
  Dean Pappas wrote: 

      I have suggested it, back before the new year, and I'll do it again.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 
      Excerpted from Earl's reply:
      Dean / Bob You're both right on regarding noise footprint. Probably the biggest issue with the large gassers, and not necessarily IMAC. ... Along comes a competition flyer practicing rollers and he becomes the example that the distance is OK, and enforcement becomes even more difficult.  I agree that rollers are neat maneuvers and that they simply don't fit within the "smaller footprint" concept. Dean, I like your proposal that they be replaced with rolling loops - keeps the complexity and solves the distance problem. Have you suggested this to Bob Skinner (F3A Subcommittee Chair)?  We're our own worst enemy - rollers can be flown much tighter, but no one does that - no wow factor! My alerts that the pattern rules don't provide a distance exception for rollers only resulted in a quasi exception. Earl 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
    


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060303/f44ff038/attachment-0001.html