Description Re: Snap rolls (MK clipped for repost)

[Bob Pastorello]

I know... I didn't put the <VBG> after that and meant to.
Interesting how the subtle differences in how we describe the same thing can introduce misunderstanding.

Someone else had suggested a visual to use....Maybe we need an artist to do some simple sketches to illustrate the good, the bad, and the ugly of "snaps" ??

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


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 10:08 PM
  Subject: Re: Description Re: Snap rolls (MK clipped for repost)


  Can't really do that Bobby. The Snap itself is but an element in a larger maneuver. 

  "Yaw Induced displacement in flight path" OR Lateral displacement in flight path" is better verbiage, I agree. That's what was meant

  Matt

  In a message dated 12/30/2004 9:46:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, rcaerobob at cox.net writes:
    Good suggestion, Matt.  But I think it's important to clarify and differentiate "Yaw" displacement (which I interpret as angular deviation in yaw) form "Track displacement" (which I propose to be the overall "sideways" shift of the track of the CG that occurs as a result of the snap).
        To me, those are two different animals;  I say NO angular yaw offset permitted, but lateral TRACK displacement okay...up to how much may be a hair to split by those so inclined.

    Personally, I think we change the Snap scoring to 0 or 10, and be done with it.

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


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
      To: discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 7:40 PM
      Subject: Description Re: Snap rolls (MK clipped for repost)


      I agree Ed, snaps are not that hard to define. And it isn't hard to describe the judging. Several of us (Dean, Dave and Earl to name 3) have tried to do exactly that and all have done a pretty good job. 

      What has been hard, at least the last three times the Snap subject has come up, is to get consensus. Well, forget consensus, try common ground. 

      Let's take a different approach and try to add to the existing description. The existing description includes the following,:
      1- starts with definite break in pitch attitude.
      2- stalled maneuver
      3- tail inscribes cone
      4- CG continues on same flight path as prior to entry.
      5- there are several rulebook things that will zero the maneuver

      Now for some adders:
      1- should any displacement in yaw be allowed before downgrading? How much displacement? Personally I think less than half wingspan (3 feet) is reasonable buffer. (Forget about design differences in Pattern. It's a thorougbred event and designers should have all parameters optimized)
      2- how much displacemnt in pitch should be allowed before downgrading? Again I think less than half wing span (3 feet) is reasonable
      3- how about snap rate? slower, more graceful vs faster, more violent snap- should it be a judged criterion? I believe that fast snaps and slow snaps should have equal footing.

      Not specifically an adder per se',  what about KFactro for these maneuver types, as Ron suggested earlier? Personally, I don't think a change is warranted but is worth looking into to see where folks stand.

      I challenge all who wrote to the earlier thread, to put their creative caps back on and help nail down the snap's description more definitely. Add to my list or start your own. Then lets put it all together and propose it to the Contest Board. IF it passes, then help spread the word to all who are not online.

      MattK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041231/b93fe3a3/attachment-0001.html