<DIV>I don't have actual area measurements to verify my claim, but some casual comparison of the wings of a USA Star, the El Nino (Odessey II wing), and a Smaragd show a significant reduction in wing area as you go from oldest to newest.<BR><BR><B><I>Bill Glaze <billglaze@triad.rr.com></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jerry:<BR>I can find little to fault with your discussion on Snaps. But, a <BR>question: While talking weight, don't we really mean Mass? I realize <BR>you don't want to get into a physics lesson here, but I'm relating to <BR>the idea of wing loading/velocity/ displacement from flight path as <BR>thinking that the typical pattern plane which is designed to do most of <BR>the other maneuvers smoothly, is now being asked to do something that is <BR>rather brutal and outside the normal requirements for the design.<BR>In other words, it almost seems as if we need a separate design to do <BR>(true) snaps well. (as a kind of exaggeration.)<BR>Comments?<BR><BR>Bill Glaze<BR><BR><BR>=====================================<BR># To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>and follow the instructions.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR>Bob Kane<br>getterflash@yahoo.com<p>
<hr size=1><font face=arial size=-1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! Tax Center - <a href="http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html">File online by April 15th</a>