Snap Rolls.....are they legitimate/ RE: displacement during snap rolls discussion

[Tim Taylor]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Archie Stafford 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:49 AM
  Subject: RE: Snap Rolls.....are they legitimate/ RE: displacement during snap rolls discussion


   

  I do not necessarily think they should be setup to prepare someone for FAI, however I do think they need to progress and become more difficult every rule change cycle, 



  ........................................................

   In masters maybe, watch the total K factors and make sure the progression flows from the lowest class to the highest.

  ............................

  Think about this a minute, we've just gotten the latest batch of lower class fliers moving up into a harder class and you want to make the next class even harder than it was before? Doesn't make sense to me. :)









  more Advanced and Masters than Sportsman and Intermediate.  I do think the schedules are more complicated, but I remember reading a few years ago in the K-Factor, I believe it was Frank Granelli, forgive me if I am wrong about how today's Advanced pilot fly many of the same maneuvers that were frown on a world stage in the late 70's and early 80's.  

   

  I do believe Sportsman should remain very basic that any capable sport airplane should be able to fly the maneuvers and fly them well, and the same for intermediate.  I think the only maneuvers that sport planes have a problem with in those classes are the vertical maneuvers from a pure lack of power.  There are not many 40 sized designs with a good .46 on the front that can do point rolls on an upline, I'm sure there are exceptions, but for the most part your average .40 sized Extra with a .46 is going to run out of energy near the top of any extended vertical climb.

   

  I think most of the people in the upper classes enjoy the challenge.  And even the new maneuvers are not really that new, they are just a modification of something that has been done in the past.  The new Avalanche in masters is a perfect example. It is not that much more difficult than a standard avalanche, yes it takes some more practice and changes in how you perform the snap, but the fact that it happens at the bottom of the loop instead of the top makes a big difference.  





  A few years ago at the nats, the first year in masters with the 1 ½ snap down, most of the pilots had major problems with this maneuver, but 3 years later after flying it and practicing it more and understanding how to perform the maneuvers most of the people I saw flying Masters this year at the NATS, no matter where they finished were reasonably comfortable with this maneuver and most of the ones that did have problems were flying it correctly, but looked more like the plane wasn't setup correctly, using too much rudder, or aileron or whatever, but the pilots were comfortable with the maneuver.  

   

  I believe the first two classes should definitely be reasonable for a good sport airplane to fly the sequences, then a somewhat larger jump to Advanced, because lets be honest.  With the number of reasonable priced 2M designs out today, if someone sticks with it until Advanced then they are probably going to purchase a true "pattern" plane.  Even if it is a 2 year old RTF plane from another pilot who has purchased a new airplane.    

   

  I do not think that Masters should prepare someone for FAI specifically, but it should definitely be the hardest class of AMA pattern.



  Masters flows into FAI very well if you want it to or not.



    Most of what we do will always follow what FAI does.  It only makes sense for the AMA pattern rules to follow what FAI does in terms of aircraft and powerplants allowed.  This does not mean that we have to follow exactly what they do for maneuver choice.  I think even snap rolls can be flown and flown well consistently, just like spins, the problem we have now is no one knows what everyone is looking for.  Some judges want to see more break than others, some want them slower, when neither of these is a true criteria. The key is to make sure everyone looks for the same things and pilots know exactly how to perform the maneuvers. If it is written that you must show a 15 degree break, then put it in there for the pilots to know what to fly.  They can be flown anyway that we want to fly them, but the key is to make sure everyone is looking to fly them the same way.  Even if it means at the NATS or some judging seminar having someone fly a snap roll and then saying "OK, this is a snap, whether judge A thinks so or not, this is what we are calling a snap roll, you may not agree with it, but by definition, this is what we are saying is a snap roll."  To eventually get everyone on the same page as to what to look for.

   

  Arch

   


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

  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Pastorello
  Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:26 AM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: Snap Rolls.....are they legitimate/ RE: displacement during snap rolls discussion

   

  Dave, as always, thoughtful input....thanks!

      I, for one, (and perhaps the ONLY one) would like to know pure and simple from the majority of folks playing AMA pattern....a yes or a no to this question...

   

      "Should the progression of classes within AMA precision aerobatics be designed to prepare a person for the FAI class?"

   

  I would like to have this question put to all pattern fliers, and let the answer shape the design of our sequences.  Period.

      (I know this is a good example of " be careful what you ask for ", but has it ever been asked??)


  Bob Pastorello
  NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
  rcaerobob at cox.net
  www.rcaerobats.net

   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041230/c7656470/attachment-0001.html