<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Technically isn't a Rev avalanche snap just a negative level snap at the speed at which you entered?<br>
Or is it a SNAO?<br>
<br>
<br>
Gray Fowler<br>
Principal Chemical Engineer<br>
Composites Engineering</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Ed Deaver <divesplat@yahoo.com></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">01/27/2005 05:07 PM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to discussion</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To: discussion@nsrca.org</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc: </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject: Re: Snao G's</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3>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. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>So, if we can slow the rev avalanche down to 70mph then the G's would only be -7. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>This seems to go along with previous arguments that speed is the key.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>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???? </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>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.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>Thanx Earl. Interesting stuff</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>ed</font>
<br><font size=3><br>
<b><i><br>
Earl Haury <ehaury@houston.rr.com></i></b> wrote:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">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.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Flat and level pos snaps @ (nominally) 100mph = 13G, dropping the speed to 70mph = 7G. (A normal pull to vertical @ 100mph = 7G.)</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">An Avalanche with a neg snap at the top measured -5G @ 50mph.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">A Rev Avalanche with a pos snap at the bottom measured 13G @ 95mph. (Masters maneuver - intentionally flown fast.)</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">An Avalanche from the top (push - F05) with a neg snap and a half at the bottom measured -14G @ 90mph. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">(I normally measure around 5G on upline and downline snaps with my Partner.)</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">All snaps were executed with rapid / high degree elevator lead and % reduction of elevator during rotation.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">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).</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Earl</font>
<br>
<br>