Snap Article and the K-Factor

[Keith Black]

This is an awesome description. I believe that both Dave's and Earl Haury's
posts should be included in the K-Factor. This is the type of information
that I believe people really want to see in the K-Factor. Certainly I do.
True that it will be a re-run for those on the mailing list, but those not
on the list will benefit and it will increase the K-Factor's value for
recruiting new members.

I know that others are already pushing for more content in the K-Factor, I
think that's great.  This may have already been mentioned, but I feel that
every K-Factor should have at least one "how-to" article, judging article,
and most importantly a flying tip article (maybe one beginner and one
advanced). I know these flying tip articles are tough to come by, but my
experience in pattern thus far has been that there are extensive discussions
and articles on equipment and building but it's very tough to find
discussions on flying techniques. I was disappointed when I joined the NSRCA
that the K-Factor didn't have much in the way of flying tips that I
DESPERATELY needed (and still need). I'm not sure if this is because people
hold this info close to the vest or if most are just drawn to equipment
aspect of the sport. Lately I've been impressed with some of our top caliber
pilots such as Don S, Earl and Dave sharing some of their flying "secrets"
with the list. And when speaking with people in person they all seem more
than willing to give flying advice. So maybe it's simply that we don't focus
on this in our discussions.

I saw a post a while back asking Don S. about doing a monthly article. Let's
also solicit the likes of Dave, Jason, Chip, Sean, Brian Hebert, Earl, etc.
(not trying to leave anyone out, these are just people I know in my limited
exposure). The info these guys can share will improve the caliber of our
sport overall.

Keith Black


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lockhart" <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 10:08 AM
Subject: Long - Snaps, setup, technique, and "tells" (Was Re: Snap
Rolls.....are they legitimate/ RE: displacement during snap rolls
discussion)


> Chris,
>
> I think Bjorn made an extremely good point and analogy comparing the 3 pt
> shot to a snap.  I think snaps are precision manuevers.  I don't think
luck
> with snaps is any different that luck with spin entry/exits or stall turn
> entry/exits.  All are difficult to consistently perform without downgrade
> (especially the snaps), and that is generally reflected in the KFactor
> (oops, another can of worms).
>
> The reason stall turns are often performed conservatively is simple - a
zero
> for a flopped stall turn is death - the scoring is usually so close at the
> top, that a single zero will take a pilot out of the running for the
1,000.
> I would say at the top levels, most pilots are 90+ % to complete a tight
> radius stall turn (the one that appears to rotate on the CG, and is not
> subject to a downgrade).  The same pilots are 99.9% to complete the
slightly
> open radius stall turn that will get the minor downgrade.  If we as a
> pattern community want to see less conservative stall turns, all we need
to
> do is increase the point deduction for the slightly open radius stall
turn -
> the risk has to equal the reward, so to speak.
>
> To specifically answer the 2 questions you posed (my opinions of course) -
> 1)  If it is indeed a true snap (and not a twinkle roll or barrel roll),
> then it does add to the capabilities of the pilot.
> 2)  Until we can achieve a level of consistency in judging snaps, they
> detract from the event.
>
> Now, the long part, including some of the "secrets".
>
> Airplane design -
> In general, in the early/mid 1990s, most designs migrated towards
increased
> pitch stability and damping (which is often but not always synonomous with
> long tail moment).  This was great for groove/lock in corners and lines,
but
> not good snaps - and perhaps not a bad bias considering the relatively low
> number of snaps in the pattern.  The increased pitch stability made it
more
> difficult to setup a plane to do good snaps (and spins).  The same designs
> also generally migrated towards increased yaw stability (actually good for
> snaps, bad for spins, others will not agree).  My personal setups used as
> much as 35 degrees of elevator to achieve consistent stall entries to
snaps
> and spins (and all of the elevator remained during the spin, but not
during
> the snap) and 40 degrees of rudder in spins (ele/rud only spins).  In
recent
> years, the number of snaps in patterns have increased, and the newer
designs
> have shifted towards less pitch stability (and less yaw stability, but
that
> change is a response to the combined rolling/looping and rolling circle
> maneuvers).
>
> Airplane setup -
> This is critical with any design, and when a snap is attempted, a couple
> things can happen -
> - a good snap.
> - a twinkle roll (not a snap).
> - a barrel roll (not a snap).
>
> The majority of the setups I see are not sufficient to consistently
perform
> nice snaps.  Consistently meaning the setup is not very tolerant of
> differing weather conditions (hot vs cold, snapping in/out of relative
> wind), pilot techniques, or entry airspeeds.  I have on more than one
> occasion been asked to check a setup for snaps when the owner of the plane
> was having problems with snaps.  In some instances, I've been able to
> consistently snap a plane with no changes to the setup, but improvements
to
> the setup made it easier for the owner to consistently snap the plane.
The
> below descriptions are generalizations based on my experience flying a
> variety of planes and observing a variety of planes and pilots from a
> variety of perspectives (amazing how much differently snaps look from
> different perspectives).  And, the below does not take into acount the
> effects of wind on track and offer relative descriptions of control throws
> (exact control throws are influenced by design, weight, pilot technique,
> etc).  The most critical setup element is pitch - if enough pitch
authority
> is not available, the break can not be achieved - the adjustment to make
is
> more elevator throw, or a more rearward CG (and if neither work, the
design
> has too much stability in pitch to snap properly).
>
> - The "twinkle" roll - The plane that has too little elevator, a little
bit
> of rudder, and a boatload of aileron.  Very common.  The plane has little
or
> no displacement from track (or the path is an extremely tight barrel)
during
> the "twinkle" and returns to the original track with zero displacement or
> deviation in track.  The rotation rate is probably equivalent to a full
> stick deflection aileron roll (might be marginally higher due to a slight
> assymetry in lift between wing panels caused by the minor amount of rudder
> used).  The tail follows the nose exactly and no "cone" is inscribed.  The
> advantage of flying a "twinkle" roll is that there is very little if any
> loss in track, the entry is non-critical, airspeed loss in the "twinkle"
is
> minimal, and the only variable the pilot needs to concentrate on is
getting
> the wings level at exit.  As with the stall turn, it is a risk/reward
> thing - why risk doing a real snap if the "twinkle" is getting scored?
The
> other benefit of the setup for a "twinkle" is that less elevator throw is
> used, and that makes the plane smoother in all other manuevers.
>
> - The "barrel" roll - this one can be easy to see, or hard to distinguish
> from a snap, and the setup that yields this result is often variable.  A
> very tight diameter barrel roll is hard to distinguish from a good snap
> because it will exhibit a pitching element on entry and the plane will
> displace from track in pitch and yaw during the snap, but will generally
> return to track for full snaps (1, 2, 3....rotations) and generally remain
> displaced of the track (in pitch and yaw) by the diameter of the barrel
for
> 1/2 snaps (.5, 1.5, 2.5 ....rotations).  Very little if any cone
inscription
> is visible after the entry to the barrel.  The large diameter barrel has
the
> same characteristics of tight diameter barrel, but easy to see, simply
> because of the large diameter alone.  Any change in the control inputs
> during the "barrel" are generally very easy to see - because the plane is
> not stalled and responds readily to any change in surface deflection.
> Insufficient elevator to initiate the break is generally the cause of
> barrels.  Adding aileron usually increases the rotation rate, and often
> reduces the diameter.  Adding rudder may reduce the diameter of barrel,
> increase the rotation rate, give the appearance of the inscription of a
cone
> (but it is only in yaw, and not in pitch, and the airplane is not in a
> stalled condition), and may also add the look of a "cartwheel".  The
benefit
> of the "barrel" setup is that less control throw is used (smoother in
other
> maneuvers), the rotation rate is slow (easier to hit exit) and the track
is
> unchanged (but might be dispaced).
>
> - The "good" snap - I hope we know what it is in writing by now (actually
> seeing it takes practice), so just some notes.  Theoretically, the break
can
> occur without displacement in pitch - but this never happens in practice
> (angular acceleration, mass, and other physics properties are
> real.........blame Newton).  A good clean break (very fast elev servo and
> fingers) will reduce the amount of track deviation and displacement in
both
> pitch and yaw.  The rotation rate of the snap will be marginally effected
> (if at all) by low / high rate aileron - ailerons don't work very well
when
> the plane is stalled.
>
> Piloting Technique and more setup -
> To me, a good setup for snaps has a bigger "sweet" spot - the exact entry
> airspeed and exact timing of the control inputs can vary and still yield a
> good snap.  And the good setups "feel" the same whether snapping left or
> right, positive or negative.  I fly with triple rates - normal flying is
rud
> on high, elev and ail on medium.  For spins, everything is on high.  For
> snaps, I use a variety of rates setup to make the variety of snaps feel
> balanced and I attempt to get the snaps from different perspectives in
> different manuevers to "present" the same.  It takes a lot of time to
setup.
> The technique for all types (different rotations in different attitudes)
of
> snaps is similar (lead with elevator, then rudder, then aileron) but the
> timing of each input usually varies a bit on both the addition and removal
> of the inputs.  And each specific snap is usually a little different - I
> "feel" the plane approaching the entry to the snap and try to gauge exact
> airspeed, wind condtions, evaluate what the track is and if I want to
change
> the track, etc.....and then I make very small changes to the addition of
the
> inputs to get the desired effect (ie, I might use more elevator lead to
> change the track in pitch if the plane was diving slightly in pitch track
> prior to the snap, or lower than usual on airspeed).  During the snap
> itself, I watch the progression of the snap and decide if I got the entry
I
> wanted (expected), and if I need to make any changes on the timing of the
> removal of control inputs on the exit of the snap (ie, maybe hold the same
> rudder or imediately go to opposite rudder on the exit to immediately
> correct a deviation in yaw track).  The more I fly, the better I can make
> these adjustments because I seem to see things better, the snaps seem to
> take longer, my fingers seem to move faster, and I better know what the
> mental image of the plane should be at any instant during the snap.
>
> "Tells" and "cheats"
> One of the easiest snaps to judge is the 45 downline snap (airplane is
> upright and executing a single positive snap).  The airplane is front and
> center, and the break in pitch is easy to observe - and it is actually
easy
> to confirm.  Odds are, if you don't see a break, you will see the track of
> the line steepen as the airplane passes through 90 degrees of rotation -
> because the rudder is now "bottom" rudder (and the plane is still flying,
or
> if snapping, the break was in yaw, not pitch), and the track of the plane
> will be steeper than 45 degrees at the finish of the snap.  Kinda of odd
to
> see a 45 downline get steeper after a positive snap??  Big tell, and
pretty
> common to see.  I see the same thing on 1.5 snaps on a 45 downline.  The
> same thing also happens on 45 uplines when the line substantially flattens
> out after the snap, but with an added variable - the flattening may be
> partly due to reduced airspeed and gravity (but the plane will show the
> initial loss in track at the 90 degree point in rotation).
>
> Exits - exits are generally judged more critically than entrances - for
> snaps, rolls, and radii. A "cheat" to help with the exit of a snap is to
> take out elev and rud before the snap is complete - such that all the
pilot
> is doing is completing a roll to level flight, and completing a roll is
> easier than completing a snap - the tell is a substantial change in roll
> rate (rotational inertia exists and for our models, the heavy wing monster
> that appreciably demonstrates this is rare).  This type of cheat is also
> employed on spin exists and on the exit of part and full rolls.  The roll
> rate is slightly reduced as the rolling element nears completion to make
it
> easy to nail wings level.  Most judges will downgrade for the wings not
> being level, fewer will catch the change in roll rate.  The same thing
> applies to corner radii - they are often softer close to the exit to make
it
> easier to hit the line.  The reason the cheats are employed is because
> downgrades are not being applied - "no whistle, no foul".
>
> How do some guys maintain distance during the entire flight (including
stall
> manuevers) when flying in a crosswind?  They don't.  They are just sneaky
at
> hiding the wind drift, and make corrections / allowances where they are
the
> hardest to detect.  Humans having pretty poor depth perception at 150
meters
> also helps.  This past fall, I had a trusted observer stand in the field
> underneath my flight track and was told that the flight track was about
145
> meters, +/- 3 meters (a bit more variation after spins).  And the observer
> was surprised to see how visible the rudder corrections were - as the same
> observer saw far fewer rudder corrections when viewing similar flights as
my
> caller.
>
> Prior to spins and stall turns, you will usually see a very small "cheat"
> into the wind, and then a little drift with the wind allowed immediately
> after the stall manuever, followed by a small "cheat" into the wind to
> return to the original track.  A single 15 degree change in track is easy
to
> see and downgrade.  Very aggressive compensation for wind (difference
> between attitude and track) while technically correct rarely scores well.
> Three 5 degree changes in track are harder to see and harder to downgrade,
> and present nicer (even if not as correct technically).
>
> With snaps - to hide the lateral displacement and yaw track change in a
> snap, the "cheat" is normally opposite the direction of the snap prior to
> the snap entry - 5 degrees nose in before a snap and 5 degrees nose out
> after the snap is harder to detect than simply being 10 degrees off after
> the snap.  And of late, there is no doubt in my mind that being 10 degrees
> off before the snap will earn little or no deduction if the exit of the
snap
> is nailed.  All deviations in roll, pitch, and yaw track should be equally
> downgraded whether before or after the snap - it is a goal that needs to
be
> achieved.  The change in track during a snap can often be hidden (or
> mitigated) to a large extent by wind - this is simply smart piloting by
> choosing to snap into (usually) the wind.  And in the instance of a snap
at
> the end of the box, where the displacement or loss of heading in yaw is
> particuarly easy to see, a more pronounced and aggresive break in pitch ca
n
> be used to minimize the deviation in yaw, as the deviation in pitch is
> harder to see (and thus harder to downgrade).
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
> DaveL322 at comcast.net
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: White, Chris
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:11 PM
> Subject: RE: Snap Rolls.....are they legitimate/ RE: displacement during
> snap rolls discussion
>
>
> Consistent snap rolls.....how much skill....how much luck?
>
> Do I read from the responses that the consensus is that snap rolls are
> precision maneuvers?   I believe that may be true in full-scale aerobatics
> particularly in slower snapping aircraft because you can actually see
> outside and judge entrance timing based on real time entry speed (ASI) and
> judge exit because of roll rate perceived via outside reference directly
> relative to the horizon without any parallax as you would get from our
> ground perspective.   I'm trying to say that the pattern airplanes that
I've
> flown snap differently and usually quickly.   I've seen very good pilots
who
> feel a real sense of accomplishment (or luck) when they hit the snap right
> on....however, I still believe to a degree that it might be a little more
> luck than precision to hit them consistently.  It seems a shame to have a
> pilot miss an exit by 5 degrees to get a 1/2 point hit....particularly
when
> the perspective of a 5 degree bank at 150 meters away could vary with
judges
> and parallax considerations. (Or that a given judge may not see enough
> conical rotation of the tail)
> Please consider that I have nothing but admiration for the FAI pilots in
the
> finals when reading the following: Consider how conservative  stall turns
> were performed during the FAI finals ( yes it was intelligent to fly them
> that way)  you will notice that very few pilots flew great stall turns,
they
> were more like tight wingovers with the reason being obvious....who wants
to
> risk a flopped zero at the level where you have very few points separating
> the standings.   Snap rolls seem to have more risk.
>
> I would love to see the consensus on the following questions:
>
> 1) Do snap rolls add or detract from the legitimacy of judging precision
> aerobatic pilots capabilities?
> 2) Do snap rolls add to the credibility of precision aerobatics?
>
> Respectfully submitted by a new guy,
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
> Behalf Of Bjorn Lehnardt
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 2:04 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Snap Rolls.....are they legitimate/ RE: displacement during
> snap rolls discussion
>
>
> Bob,
>
> A good three point shooter in the NBA has mastered a maneuver that is
> uncontrollable except for the first part, yet few question the validity of
> his skill or it's part in the game.  Figuring out and mastering the
> requirements for proper setup-entry under many different circumstances is
> what makes a three point shot or a snap roll such an interesting part of
the
> game.
>
> I would seem a real shame to say that pattern and pattern flyers are not
> capable is mastering the art and science of the stalled maneuvers.
>
> Snaps are still fairly new to pattern and so growing pains are to be
> expected.  Resistance is natural and will go away with practice.  That
both
> flying practice and judging practice.
>
>
> Bob Pastorello <rcaerobob at cox.net> wrote:
> That is an excellent point, Chris.  And your modesty to not add
> "Intermediate National Champion" to your credentials is noted.
>     The issue of a virtually-uncontrollable maneuver EXCEPT for entry and
> exit, does bring a valid question about it's place in our game.  I think
Ed
> Miller mentioned (sorry if wrong) that longer-duration maneuvers with more
> easily-visible segments have their OWN level of difficulty.
>     In '99, when I was working on the Rules Committee, and we were
designing
> new sequences one of the suggestions in Masters was a Center maneuver, a
> square loop with 2/4 on U/D, 1/2 on horizontal legs.  We were TRASHED for
> even suggesting such a thing!!!
>     The reason I mention that is to consider difficulty and pilot
challenge,
> wouldn't most of us agree that the square loop I describe would be more
> easily judged, and more challenging for the majority of pilots than the
> downline SINGLE snap we have in '05 ???
>
> Since we're in a rules cycle year, maybe this is a good time to rethink
the
> "required elements" of every class, and look more for "what do guys WANT
to
> have in the sequence?"
>
> Great thread starter, Chris.
>
> Bob Pastorello
> NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
> rcaerobob at cox.net
> www.rcaerobats.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: White, Chris
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:49 AM
> Subject: Snap Rolls.....are they legitimate/ RE: displacement during snap
> rolls discussion
>
>
>
> Please excuse me if I'm repeating, or committing a "faux pas" ( I think I
> spelled that right:) ) ....but I am really interested in hearing opinions
to
> the following:
>
> 1) Do snap rolls add or detract from the legitimacy of judging precision
> aerobatic pilots capabilities?
> 2) Do snap rolls add to the credibility of precision aerobatics?
>
> I'm new to the game, but a "stalled" maneuver is a maneuver that is not
> "flown on the wing" .  An overwhelming percentage of the other maneuver
> segments in our patterns are flown on the wing and are able to be judged
> accurately and with a minimum of "impression" influence.  Since the Snap
> Roll it is not "flown" through it is not fully controlled....lack of
control
> indicates somewhat of a wildcard that penalizes capable pilots
experiencing
> a "bad" maneuver.
>
> I have seen many good snap rolls in competition, some done by great
pilots,
> some by new guys.....my question is: Should there be a "wild card"
> allowance?  Is anyone capable of flying consistent snap rolls that are
> consistently judgeable to clear and concise requirements?   I believe I'm
> hearing an overwhelming "NO".  If the answer is no, then maybe they should
> be removed.
>
> I fly RC pattern because in my opinion it is more graceful and precise in
> appearance as compared to IMAC.... not that I don't respect IMAC pilots
> capabilities and enjoy the show.  But, I sometimes I wonder how "Snap
Rolls"
> fit into RC Pattern....and it sounds as if I'm not the only one.   (I like
> to see snaps....I just feel there are variables beyond the pilots control
> which penalize inconsistently)  I think a pilot should be judged on
> control....not inertial physics. (is that a real term????:) )
>
> Just my thoughts and question to the group....respectfully submitted,
> Chris
>
> (as a CFII, airshow nut and pattern guy and whatever other credibility I
can
> throw in:) )
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
> Behalf Of Ed Miller
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:11 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Displacement during snap rolls (was Why is it so quiet?)
>
>
> Seems the never ending snap discussion was beat to death here last year
too.
> This will be long but hear me out. No doubt what I'm about to say will at
> the very least be controversial. That's fine with me as I think we need to
> think outside the box more often. My wife enjoys watching figure skating.
> Being the "supportive spouse", on occasion I will watch for a bit with
her.
> It seems in figure skating, the multiple rotation jumps, triples and even
> quadruple rotation variations is where all the judging ( and viewing )
> emphasis is placed in a skaters routine. It also seems the judging is
> focused on 2 things, the entry to the jump and "sticking" the landing.
> Frankly, those that say they can see every element of the skaters rotation
> are, IMHO, full of blank. It plain happens too fast. I have better
eyesight
> than most, in my younger days I could pick up the stitching and rotation
of
> a baseball thrown at 90mph. I'll admit, some of that sharpness is gone
but,
> I honestly cannot pick up all the rotation elements in a figure skaters
jump
> in real time ( we all can when they replay it in slow-mo ). Ever since the
> snap roll was introduced into precision aerobatics, an oxymoron IMHO, we
> have had the same problems judging snaps as professional figure skating
> judges have judging triple toe loops. I have watched ( and learned some )
> from the real snap masters, aka Lockhart and Pappas, yet, when in the
judges
> chair I look for departure in pitch ( entry ) and "the landing " of the
> maneuver ( exit ) . So, to me, we've introduced snaps into precision
> aerobatics to separate the wanna be pattern jockey hackers like me from
the
> gifted, talented folks like Lockhart, Pappas, Hyde, etc. but in fact what
> we've done is actually dumbed down our judging criteria. These talented
> flyers will find the setup and stick movements to present a maneuver such
> that it defies the laws of gravity. However, most of us are only humans
and
> as judges, only judge what can we realistically see and honestly assess in
a
> snap roll. Most all snap rolls I've seen done and performed rotate at such
a
> speed that again, the exit is the focus. Once in awhile you can pick up
the
> obvious aileron roll exit. There are many more elements of a snap roll
> besides entry and exit yet as I read/delete/read/delete, etc. the
discussion
> we are having here, it boils down to entry and exit positions. The
> ex-masters maneuver of 2 rolls in opposite directions. It is a thing of
> beauty when done properly  takes a lot of time to perform, especially
> compared to our beloved snap rolls, has many more places for the pilot to
> screw up that are EASILY VISIBLE to the judges besides the entry and exit
> points. That's precision aerobatics IMHO. AMA pattern was always smooth
and
> graceful until someone decided as the FAI does, so must the AMA. Some will
> say it's progress, new maneuvers, it's just raising the bar to let the
cream
> rise to the top. I'm on the side that the bar has sunk into the cream.
Maybe
> the some of the lost NSRCA members felt similarly.
> Ed M.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Doug Cronkhite
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 4:33 PM
> Subject: RE: Displacement during snap rolls (was Why is it so quiet?)
>
>
> The rules for family 9.9 are as follows:
>
> "Snap rolls represent one of the greatest challenges to judge. This is
> primarily due to two factors: (1) the "snapping" characteristics of
> different types of aircraft are unique; and (2), snap rolls are a high
> energy maneuver that occur very quickly. Snaps happen so fast, in fact,
that
> is is virtually impossible for a judge to determine the exact order in
which
> events occur, especially at the beginning of the snap. There are no
> criteria, therefore, for seeing nose and wing movement initiated at the
same
> time as with the other autorotation family, Spins."
>
> The rest of the paragraphs deal with snaps not autorotating through the
> complete revolutions and so forth but there is no criteria whatsoever for
> line displacement. This would be impossible to deal with actually since
> aircraft snap so differently from one type to another. A top level
unlimited
> airplane like an Edge, Cap, or Sukhoi displaces very little, but people
> flying lower classes in Decathlons, Clipped Wing Cubs and so forth
displace
> a great deal in a snap. There's just no way to fairly judge with a single
> standard across all aircraft types.
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On
> Behalf Of Dean Pappas
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:15 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: RE: Displacement during snap rolls (was Why is it so quiet?)
>
>
> Thanks Doug,
> You don't happen to have the piece of text in a form that could be pasted
> into this forum, do ya'?
>
> Dean Pappas
> Sr. Design Engineer
> Kodeos Communications
> 111 Corporate Blvd.
> South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
> (908) 222-7817 phone
> (908) 222-2392 fax
> d.pappas at kodeos.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
> Behalf Of Doug Cronkhite
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 4:14 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: RE: Displacement during snap rolls (was Why is it so quiet?)
>
>
> No track downgrade Dean. Since a snap roll is a yaw induced maneuver (or
> should be at least) it's nigh-impossible to actually snap the airplane and
> not displace the line a little. Especially when you consider the low
weight
> and inertia of our airplanes as compared to full scale.
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.