<!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></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Troy, Troy...I want YOU to "feel the love" -- Feel
THIS... ;|;, <VBG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Seriously, though - he's right...I still believe a
snap is not a precision, controlled maneuver that demonstrates pilot skill and
capability. At least not with the downgrades and judging guidelines for
snaps as they ARE.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Troy touched on an element that
others have brought up before also....maneuvers should be difficult to do WELL,
but easy to judge EFFECTIVELY !!!! I'm not sure any maneuver with Snaps
meets that criteria. But it's just my opinion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As for attacking sequence design
with Vigor...well, I've already had my Cialis, so I'm good to GO
!!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR>NSRCA 199 AMA 46373<BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </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=troy_newman@msn.com href="mailto:troy_newman@msn.com">Troy A.
Newman</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 6:28
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Snao G's</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its OK Ed....To pick on Bob a little in fun He
didn't like the P-01 with the 1.5snap in horizontal either. That is about the
same time He started flying Masters again. I love you Bob and just using you
to illustrate a point. The critics of the horizontal snaps in FAI back in 2000
complained about the possible breaking of the models back then too. Not Bob
I'm just joking with him a little....But this was the discussion of the list.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On another note I'm glad to see Earl put some
real numbers with. And I want to say I'm not a fan of the Reverse Avalanche. I
think its a poor choice of maneuver. In fact I have been sitting in the judges
chair for many years and I don't think I have ever seen a 10 or even flown a
10 on a regular avalanche...I may have score a 10 once of twice but I
don't think I ever flew one. So the question is if we can't do the regular one
right then why are trying to do this one that is really impossible to complete
as a 10. The curve at the bottom and all. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On another note the pilot that minimizes the
downgrades will get the best score and as a result He will win. So the game
still works. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I don't think its a plane breaker but I do think
we can better. This is why I'm now involved in the sequence survey stuff for
the NSRCA. I hope that we will get the same vigor out of the guys that have
volunteered (Bob included) that we have here on the list. We will make life
much easier in choosing good sequences...This is the goal and plan of attack I
am putting together right now. Should have some info out first of next week.
We have a contest this weekend and I have been at the field practicing all day
today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Troy</FONT></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=divesplat@yahoo.com href="mailto:divesplat@yahoo.com">Ed Deaver</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 4:07
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Snao G's</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Earl Haury <ehaury@houston.rr.com></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Flat and level pos snaps @ (nominally)
100mph = 13G, dropping the speed to 70mph = 7G. (A normal pull to vertical
@ 100mph = 7G.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>An Avalanche with a neg snap at the top
measured -5G @ 50mph.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A Rev Avalanche with a pos snap at the bottom
measured 13G @ 95mph. (Masters maneuver - intentionally flown
fast.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>An Avalanche from the top (push - F05) with a
neg snap and a half at the bottom measured -14G @ 90mph. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(I normally measure around 5G on upline and
downline snaps with my Partner.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All snaps were executed with rapid / high
degree elevator lead and % reduction of elevator during
rotation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Earl</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>