[NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin

Mon Oct 22 21:13:44 AKDT 2007

John
You scored a 10. People who don't see the logic in your statement need to 
read it again - and AGAIN.                     Nat

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Lowe" <jonlowe at aol.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin

> Hmmm, then with the current rules that state we must have a pitch break
> first, it would be impossible to score a ten!  One wing is not going to
> have separated flow until it also breaks in yaw and roll.  Hence having
> simultaneous rotation in all three axis is a better rule, and one hell
> of a lot easier to judge.
>
>
> Jon Lowe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nat Penton <natpenton at centurytel.net>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 9:34 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin
>
>
>
> 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
>
> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>
> 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
> isn’t 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, it’s 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
>
>
>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
> http://mail.aol.com
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 