<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>If the 404 snap is positioned correctly, in the reverse avalanche, it
actually begins before the plane reaches the bottom of the loop. I wonder
what the G reading might be if you go a bit too early?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My planes flew both FAI 1.5 horizontal snap with no problems. Then I
flew a bunch of reverse avalanches and hey presto! problems.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The only other avalanche with a snap on the bottom is in the F-05 schedule.
You might say that they are having no problems with the maneuver. Then you might
just consider how many pilots fly F-05 and then compare that small number with
how many will fly 404 this year!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You may well, and many have, that I am not flying the maneuver correctly,
or that my planes are not built right or even designed properly. You may not say
the you were not warned!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Eric.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Rcmaster199@aol.com
href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:37
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Snao G's</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>Speed is the governing factor, since the model's inertia is what changes
in a snap. A loop generates maybe a couple G due to pitch action alone, and it
should be additive to that induced by the snap. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I find it curious but reasonable that the accelerometer indicated the
same value for both a snap at the bottom of a loop as well as one done at
S&L. Two distinct maneuvers done at different times.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wonder how many G's the Wall, Blender or Parachute stunts
generate?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>mattK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/27/2005 6:08:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
divesplat@yahoo.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, if we can slow the rev avalanche down to 70mph then the G's would
only be -7. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This seems to go along with previous arguments that speed is the
key.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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???? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanx Earl. Interesting stuff</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>ed</DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>