[NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin
Mark Atwood
atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Mon Oct 22 07:21:35 AKDT 2007
It would seem from all that I¹ve read on this discussion...that getting a
³10² on this maneuver is not technically possibly. There seem to be
mutually exclusive criteria in play. This has been the conundrum from the
get go...that we as a group can¹t decide on what the maneuver SHOULD be,
much less figure out how to properly ³view² it and its many erroneous
manifestations.
Personally, I think we¹re spending way too much time critiquing the entry,
and not enough effort critiquing the exit. My eye, and aerodynamic
understanding is not good enough for me to zero many snaps or spins on the
entry...most get to the snap stage within a 1/4 rotation (about .01sec it
seems) but MANY seem to cheat the exit. Especially in spins, often rolling
the last 3/4 of a roll. That to me is both a more egregious error, and also
far less in ³debate² and therefore a better place to put emphasis, provided
that a ³Snap² was entered reasonably at the beginning of the maneuver.
-M
On 10/22/07 10:34 AM, "Nat Penton" <natpenton at centurytel.net> wrote:
> That part of pitch change that occurs prior to reaching the stall AOA is not a
> snap, therefore that part should be downgraded using 1 point per degree
> criteria. " Untill the wing stalls it is not a snap"
>
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>
>>
>> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>
>> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:59 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The only problem with simultaneous initiation in all 3 axis is that it is a
>> guarantee that the beginning of the roll was not in a stalled condition,
>> i.e. not an autorotation. Therefore, that part of the roll isn¹t a snap and
>> should be downgraded using 1 point per degree criteria. Then the trick
>> becomes determining just when the autorotation actually did commence while
>> the airplane is already rolling quickly, primarily due to aileron and to a
>> degree rudder. Until the wing stalls, it¹s not a snap. The main thing
>> that you can hope for in a real snap roll that relates to precision is that
>> you get the correct number of degrees of roll caused by autorotation in a
>> stalled condition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Nat Penton
>> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:34 AM
>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem we have is not understanding snap dynamics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rudder, elevator and aileron are EQUALLY important to the snap.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Visionalizing the S & L up/rt snap we see that aileron makes a critical
>> contribution to reaching the lead wing stall AOA ( due to rud ).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To be a thing of beauty ( ahem, 10 ) the break will need to be initiated
>> simaltaneously on all axis. Nat
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Earl Haury <mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:54 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also agree with the comments of Jon and John. Chris's observations are
>>> also valid and I'd like to expand on his thoughts a bit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember, we use contestant judging - so it's a pretty good bet that if the
>>> judge isn't capable of judging a snap correctly, it's also unlikely that
>>> person can perform one correctly as a pilot. I'll bet that often the judge
>>> "requiring" a huge "break" is the same person flying them with a snap
>>> switch, or dual rates, set to maximum travels for all axis. They just chop
>>> power and pull the switch or stuff the sticks into the corner. Generally
>>> this results in a three axis track departure of some 15 to 30 degrees (as a
>>> barrel roll), now interpreted as a "break", before flow separation occurs
>>> on the lagging wing and a snap actually occurs. These excessive control
>>> inputs also bury the snap and make it totally ugly. However - these folks
>>> are doing what they think is required for a snap, so it must be right. (A
>>> lot of these never snap and are total barrel rolls.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So - the education process is better focused on the pilot than the judge,
>>> and both will benefit (as will we all). As John points out - each full
>>> scale will have different snap characteristics. Same with pattern
>>> airplanes, and each situation may vary (45 deg lines, vertical up -down,
>>> level, avalanche, etc.). Snaps take a good set-up and skill to fly well, as
>>> well as being a fun part of pattern. Flyers who take the time to determine
>>> just what set-up up and technique their airplane needs to snap well
>>> shouldn't be penalized by those (pilot judges) who don't. However, this
>>> whole issue might slip away if those who've figured out how to do decent
>>> snaps would take the time to share with those that haven't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Earl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: chris moon <mailto:cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:01 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jon and John are correct in their comments.
>>>> To add something - I think the problem is that many of us "cater" to the
>>>> judges who do not judge these maneuvers correctly. There is no
>>>> requirement to over exaggerate the break in order to do the maneuver,
>>>> however many do just that as a defensive tactic against the judge who
>>>> refuses to judge correctly. The problem is the JUDGE - not the pilot.
>>>> I don't advocate changing the schedules or K factors as a work around
>>>> for poorly informed judges. We are much too politically correct and
>>>> accept the zeros from them if we don't do it "their" way. If you
>>>> compete regularly, you know who they are and cater your maneuver to
>>>> accommodate their lack of ability in the chair. Sorry for the rant, but
>>>> we are talking about fixing things the wrong way for the wrong reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John Ford wrote:
>>>>> > Jon,
>>>>> > Hear, hear.
>>>>> > Couldn't have said it better!
>>>>> > I also share the opinion that in the case of the snap (or the spin
>>>>> > entry for that matter), our judging standards don't judge actual
>>>>> > flight characteristics of the particular plane, and we are asking
>>>>> > pilots to exagerate the break because that is what we agreed we wanted
>>>>> > to see all the time, not because every plane should show it naturally.
>>>>> > Maybe we are sitting on this bed of nails because for many people, the
>>>>> > mystery and controversy of the break is more attractive than
>>>>> > aerodynamic reality?
>>>>> > I've done lots of snaps in full-sized planes and there are as many
>>>>> > break styles as there are airplane designs. Some older/larger planes
>>>>> > require that you slow up and reef back almost to the buffet before
>>>>> > mashing the rudder, others are so touchy that a modest tap on the
>>>>> > rudder with only a hint of pitchup will send the beast thru 150
>>>>> > degrees of autorotation before you can think about it. In both cases,
>>>>> > believe me, it was a true snap roll, but in the first case, you may
>>>>> > have seen some break, but in the latter, it would have looked like
>>>>> > everything happened at the same time around all 3 axes. I'm sitting in
>>>>> > the thing, and I can't tell!
>>>>> > Essentially the same comments for spin entry, in agreement with Jon's
>>>>> > comments.
>>>>> > I'll judge by the rules of the CD, but I do it with a bit of a
>>>>> > shoulder shrug, I suppose.
>>>>> > John
>>>>> >
>>>>> > */JonLowe at aol.com/* wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The age old problem of what a "break" is in a snap was solved at
>>>>> > the Don Lowe Masters a couple of years ago. They defined it as a
>>>>> > "simultaneous departure in all three axis". There you saw graceful
>>>>> > snap entries, clearly defineable as a snap. At the IMAC Tuscon
>>>>> > shootout, they had had the pitch departure requirement, and most
>>>>> > were pitching what looked like 45 degrees (was probably 25
>>>>> > degrees), before they entered the snap. Break, pause, enter snap.
>>>>> > Ugly as hell. At a pattern judging seminar I went to this year, we
>>>>> > sat around for half an our trying to decide what a "pitch break"
>>>>> > was. We finally decided that if you saw anything at all, it was
>>>>> > ok. But beware of IMAC judges crossing over, unless they have been
>>>>> > retrained. I got some 5's this year this year, because they didn't
>>>>> > see a large break.
>>>>> > As regards spin entries, there are too many spin entry nazis IMHO.
>>>>> > The rule book clearly defines downgrades for entries. In my book,
>>>>> > if they don't break any of those rules, (wing coming over before
>>>>> > the nose passes thru horizontal, not stalled, weathervaning,
>>>>> > etc.), I don't downgrade for the entry. Too many people want to
>>>>> > add their own definition to the rules about how an entry "should"
>>>>> > look, and tell you they downgraded or zeroed you. When you ask
>>>>> > them what specific rule you violated, they say it "didn't look
>>>>> > right". Some of these same people will coach you to "cheat" at the
>>>>> > entry to get a pretty one, dumping up elevator to get the nose to
>>>>> > fall thru, which really breaks the stall. Unfortunately, all
>>>>> > airplanes do not enter the same way, and some entries are not
>>>>> > pretty, but they don't break the rules. Maybe, as well as teaching
>>>>> > what isn't correct, we ought to teach what ISN'T downgradeable in
>>>>> > some of these manuevers.
>>>>> > Jon
>>>>> > In a message dated 10/21/2007 8:50:52 AM Central Daylight Time,
>>>>> > patterndude at tx.rr.com writes:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Ron,
>>>>> > Your idea caused me to stop and think. I'm wondering if it
>>>>> > would really help, however. If a pilot "in the hunt" screws
>>>>> > the landing (K=1) he's now "out of the hunt" on that round.
>>>>> > Scores are often very compressed at local contests so even if
>>>>> > we reduce the KF, a bad score on any manuver is usually enough
>>>>> > to do mortal damage.
>>>>> > --Lance
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> > *From:* Ron Lockhart
>>>>> > *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>> >
>>>>> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:34 AM
>>>>> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Eliminating is one solution - a price that comes with that
>>>>> > solution is lack of practice doing and judging snaps-
>>>>> > which is desirable for some in AMA classes, and for sure
>>>>> > for those looking ahead to F3A.
>>>>> > An in between thought - reduce the K factor considerable
>>>>> > for snap and spin maneuvers.
>>>>> > That leaves them in the schedules, provides flying and
>>>>> > judging practice on them, but reduces the
>>>>> > impact of the imperfect judging of them on round scores.
>>>>> > Ron Lockhart
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> > *From:* BUDDYonRC at aol.com
>>>>> > *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> >
>>>>> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:44 AM
>>>>> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging
>>>>> >
>>>>> > My cents worth on the subject.
>>>>> > Snaps and Spin entry seem to cause much of the problem.
>>>>> > Why do we continue to repeat trying to solve a problem
>>>>> > that most agree is controversial at best and
>>>>> > impossible to judge consistently on an equal basis?
>>>>> > Seems that the best solution is to eliminate these
>>>>> > from the schedules and pick maneuvers that more suit
>>>>> > Precision Aerobatics and their ability to be judged
>>>>> > correctly by everyone not just those who have advanced
>>>>> > to the top of the super judge platform.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Buddy
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Jon Lowe
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> > See what's new at AOL.com
>>>>> > and Make AOL Your
>>>>> > Homepage .
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > __________________________________________________
>>>>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>>>>> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>>> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop
>>>> by today!
>>>> <http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Oct
>>>> WLtagline>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20071022/a2a36855/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list