Snap Article and the K-Factor

[Lance Van Nostrand]

Keith,
I agree.  By the powers vested in me I pronounce you consigned editor of a 
KFactor article summarizing the viewpoints of those that should know.  the 
KFactor is our publication and we are the ones that make it better.  You are 
a good writer and can do a great job.  What do you say?
--Lance

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Black" <tkeithb at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Snap Article and the K-Factor


> 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.
> 

=================================================
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.