[NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint Presentations
vicenterc at comcast.net
vicenterc at comcast.net
Mon Jul 3 06:42:00 AKDT 2006
In the take off, I would say that the plane broke and did an snap in the first snap. It appears that in the last part the pilot decided not to bail the snap and just rolled. Therefore, it is a zero since the maneuver was called double snap take off. I will do the same since it was close to the mother earth. The other tape is not as clear so it is difficult to judge.
Just my opinion if I were judging.
Vicente Bortone
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "George Miller" <glmiller3 at cox.net>
>
>
> Am I missing something here? Those just don't look like snap rolls to me!
>
> G
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Woodward"
> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'"
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 7:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint Presentations
>
>
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > http://www.aircraftstudiodesign.com/pittspython/gallery.php
> >
> > Regarding snaps, take a look at this video page of the new Pitts bi-plane.
> > There are links to a "vertical snap" video, and a "double snap" on take
> > off
> > video. The angle of each video is great. The pilot is kind enough to
> > have
> > the smoke on during the takeoff snaps. These videos just demonstrate to
> > me
> > that the model community is getting way too picky in trying to state that
> > the plane must do "x" before it does "y" to receive max points. In a
> > practical sense the closer the pilot is to getting a 10 or
> > "maintaining-track" during a snap, the closer he is to getting a zero or
> > at
> > least severely downgraded, primarily because the judges are instructed to
> > look for an over exaggerated criteria of "pitch-break" first. The loop of
> > pilot control input, plane's reaction, and judge perception (or grading of
> > maneuver observation based on this staggered snap judging criteria), is
> > different for each skill level of pilot and skill level of judge. Also,
> > the
> > judging criteria seems to lock in a particular single sequence of
> > transmitter usage (IE, elevator first then other inputs). Does that mean
> > that any pilot that uses a snap button - which inputs all control inputs
> > at
> > once, automatically receives a severe downgrade? Should there be a rule
> > to
> > outlaw snap buttons? Also, the faster the pilot can input the elevator
> > then
> > other controls, correspondingly reduces the effect the judges are
> > instructed
> > to look for (IE, pitch break first). Also, there seems to be a belief by
> > some that you cannot perform a good snap roll without deviating the line -
> > (IE, someone states "...I know it was a snap because you had to correct
> > the
> > line afterward). Thus, to my reading, there exists conflicting
> > judging/scoring criteria for this maneuver. What is also neglected in the
> > current definition is that where it states 'speed of the snap is not a
> > judging criteria' (seemingly intented to protect folks who want to perform
> > a
> > docile slowly rotating snap) however - judges are quick to say - "...pilot
> > uses is too much aileron". Is 45 degrees of aileron throw too much?
> >
> > I personally like what has happened to clarify the spins and hope a
> > similar
> > approach can be taken or is underway with the snap definition. My opinion
> > has changed a bit on this particular topic as I started flying sequences
> > that require more of these maneuvers to be done. If you spend a lot of
> > time
> > practicing them on straight lines, 45s, and looping maneuver (avalanches),
> > the conversation quickly moves from theoretical to practical. The snaps
> > in
> > these two video links would be severally downgraded or zeroed according to
> > the precision aerobatics definitions. Food for thought. Not about me,
> > just
> > about the snap definition and critera.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jim W.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Don Ramsey
> > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 6:27 PM
> > To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint Presentations
> >
> > A slow roll is acceptable.
> >
> > DR
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ed Miller"
> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 3:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint Presentations
> >
> >
> >> Concerning the Master schedule 1/2 loop with full roll out. Is a slow
> >> roll
> >> acceptable on the full roll out or must it be a fast axial roll ??
> >> Ed M.
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Don Ramsey"
> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> >> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 11:54 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint Presentations
> >>
> >>
> >>> Adam,
> >>>
> >>> 404-2: The stall turn must be in the direction of flight.
> >>> 404-7: The humpty is defined as 1/4 roll up and 3/4 roll down.
> >>> That's
> >>> 3/4 down and not 3 of 4.
> >>> 404-12: Slow roll should be a minimum of 3 seconds
> >>> 404-18: AMA rule on snaps is on page 78 of the rulebook. You can get
> >>> to
> >>> the rulebook through the judging site where the Powerpoint presentations
> >>> are
> >>> found. But in a nutshell:
> >>> 1. Since the maneuver is defined as a stall maneuver (initiated by a
> >>> rapid
> >>> stall of the wing induced by a change in pitch attitude), the nose of
> >>> the
> >>> fuselage should show a definite break from the flight path in the
> >>> direction
> >>> of the snap (positive or negative) while the track closely maintains the
> >>> flight path. The track visualized as the path of the Center of Gravity
> >>> (CG)
> >>> should ideally follow the geometric flight path of the maneuver while
> >>> the
> >>> nose and tail autorotate through opposite helical arcs around the flight
> >>> path. A snap that does not show a break and stall to initiate the snap,
> >>> but
> >>> does enter a stalled attitude during the maneuver is severely
> >>> downgraded.
> >>>
> >>> So
> >>> * lack of a definite break of the nose is not a zero but severe
> >>> downgrade
> >>> * track of CG should ideally follow the geometry of the maneuver for max
> >>> points
> >>> Other Points:
> >>> * Barrel roll or axial roll is a zero
> >>> * Speed of snap is not a judging criteria
> >>> * Airspeed may decrease in the snap with no downgrade
> >>> * If model is roll to a finish the downgrade is applied using 1 pt per
> >>> 15
> >>> degree rule.
> >>>
> >>> Don
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Adam Glatt"
> >>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> >>> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:29 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint Presentations
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Good stuff, Don. These are very helpful for learning a schedule that
> >>>> you don't fly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a few questions about judging Masters that I recommend should be
> >>>> answered on the presentation.
> >>>>
> >>>> 404-2: Does the stall turn itself have to rotate in the upwind
> >>>> direction?
> >>>> 404-7: There seems to be an option here, but 2of2 has the same name as
> >>>> 1of2, though the Arrestis are different.
> >>>> 404-12: What is the rule book definition of 'slow?'
> >>>> 404-18: The rulebook definition/description of a snap?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Adam
> >>>>
> >>>> Don Ramsey wrote:
> >>>>> For those who may be judging Advanced, Masters, P-07 and especially
> >>>>> F3A wednesday judges for F-07 there are PowerPoint presentations on
> >>>>> the NSRCA judging page
> >>>>> http://www.nsrca.org/competition/judging/judging.htm. Look for the
> >>>>> link near the bottom of the Judging Home Page.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060703/c6d801e2/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list