[NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI

Tue Jun 17 11:26:57 AKDT 2008

I'm pretty sure Chris was joking...but I have given up on trying to do snaps
according to the book...soooooo...I'm just gonna try to copy the pilots that
get good scores on snaps...I don't care what they look like as long as they
score well.

Regards

Dave Harmon
NSRCA 586
K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net
Sperry, Ok. 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward, Jim
(US SSA)
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:00 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI

The idea of quizzing judges before a round is patently absurd; where as
applying incorrect judging standards is clearly accepted by many (.although
equally absurd).

Jim

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry
Stebbins
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:25 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI

To all potential judges,pilot and helpers. 

Make a copy of this e-mail and take it with you to the contests, including
the NATS. The CD could not penalize you for "not Judging" if you are removed
at a pilots request. 

What a beautifuly clear way to gain more lesure time at the contests, and
also enhance everyone's desire to sit in the chair for hours due to one
persons opinion.----Thanks Jim :)

My opinion on where this has all degraded to!!!!!!!!!!

Jerry

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Woodward, <mailto:jim.woodward at baesystems.com>  Jim (US SSA) 

To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:38 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI

Chris - I'm with you!  I'm going to "quiz" the judges before my next FAI
round about this, and ask for anyone to be removed if they say, ". you gatta
show me a pitch break." :-)

The AMA definition is a total disaster for snap roll if you ask me.

Thanks,

Jim

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of chris moon
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:15 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI

Is it not the pilot's responsibility to simply fly the maneuver as 
depicted? Why then must they exaggerate a portion to placate a judge 
who wants to see it their way? Our judging training materials 
distinctly say not to downgrade just because the maneuver is not done 
the way you like. The example was one pilot making sharp corners in a 
square loop vs another making larger more rounded corner. Both are 
correct and should be judged identically but can anyone argue that one 
way should be downgraded because it was not the way "you like it" 
Stalls, snaps and spins are no different. Not the way I like it = so 
what. If it is done correctly it is always a 10. I would think that if 
the other judges are consistently giving "normal" scores and I am 
zeroing or giving some nominal score, that there has to be an issue 
going on. Am I the only one who is consistently right in my thinking 
and everyone else is all wrong? Or, could it be the other way around?

Chris

Del wrote:
> It is the "PILOTS" responsibility to fly the maneuver as described per 
> the rules. If said pilots chooses to not make it obvious or 
> discernable to the judge then enjoy the score you should be awarded.
> Del
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* chris moon 
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 5:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
>
> George - you have made an excellent point in that the interval may by
> "minuscule" and not overly noticeable to everyone. It is absolutely
> wrong for some to claim that you must "show" them as judge an
> exaggerated pitch up just to satisfy a personal interpretation of the
> maneuver. Just as is is absolutely wrong for those judges to demand
> another overly exaggerated pitch up as a stall entry to a spin
> maneuver. It is never the job of the participant to exaggerate a
> portion of a maneuver just to prove it exists, therefore your
> usage of
> the term "minuscule" in terms of the time interval between pitch and
> rotation is something we need to keep in mind.
>
> Chris
>
> george w. kennie wrote:
> > My lip is becoming too painful from biting it, so I think I'm
> going to
> > stick my nose in here somewhere.
> > I think I'm with Jon on this one.
> > My logic, however flawed, tells me that if I am flying my plane
> > straight and level and I input rudder, no matter how much, there
> is no
> > way that this input will induce a stall to the airframe.
> Therefore, it
> > seems to me, that the necessary force required to stall the main
> > lifting surface must come from the elevator. It would further
> seem to
> > me that this input must, by it's very nature produce a pitching
> > attitude to the fuselage whether positive or negative. So I
> would have
> > to conclude that the attitude "break" referenced by the rule can
> only
> > refer to a "pitch" break and would be impossible to confuse with an
> > attitude change induced by the rudder seeing that the required
> result
> > is to stall the main wing.
> > And yes Jon, I agree that it would be necessary to lead with the
> > elevator in order to bring about this attitude change before
> rotation
> > is started, however miniscule the interval might be.
> > Of course I'm still open to hearing other interpretations and their
> > validations as these observations are strictly opinions.
> > G.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Jon Lowe
> > *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> > *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 2:10 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > I have no clue how you think all three axes can be initiated at
> > the same time. You keep forgetting the part of the RULE, quoted
> > verbatim below, that says the "fuselage break and separation from
> > the flight path" must happen "BEFORE THE ROTATION IS STARTED". I'm
> > NOT equating fueselage break to pitch break, it could break in
> > pitch and/or yaw, if it doesn't start rotation at the same time.
> > If you initiate all three axis at the same time, rotation WILL
> > start at the same instant, and that is specifically NOT permitted.
> > READ THE RULE! The judge MUST determine if the fuselage broke and
> > separated from the flight path first, BEFORE the rotation started.
> > If it didn't, he MUST severely downgrade.
> >
> >
> > Jon Lowe
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Woodward, Jim (US SSA)
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:37 pm
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > I'm shocked - you are totally wrong here. Do not equate "fuselage"
> > to "pitch" in the reading of this definition. As a judge you
> > should NOT apply a "pitch-assessment" pass/fail criteria to
> > judging FAI snap rolls. It is completely rejected. The plane and
> > therefore "fuselage" must autorotate about the flight axis, which
> > means that the nose and tail of the plane will move in a conical
> > fashion. The pilot can initiate with all 3 axis at one time.
> >
> > It is the responsibility of the judge to determine if autorotation
> > occurred, and not determine how or in what order the pilot did it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jim
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > ] *On Behalf Of
> > *Jon Lowe
> > *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 1:21 PM
> > *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
> > You are correct, as long as there is no roll induced at the same
> > instant. I overlooked that possibility. Not sure how rudder alone
> > will induce the "supposed to be in a stalled condition" though!!
> > There are many attitudes (e.g. 45 down on center) where a judge
> > could not likely see a rudder departure alone first, and thus
> > conclude that departure did not occur before the roll departure
> > started. And a judge might also not see a pitch departure first on
> > a end box upline snap, but he could see rudder first. It is VERY
> > clear that simultaneous roll with either or both of the other axes
> > departures is NOT allowed as others have tried to state here. I
> > did say that pitch and yaw departure could happen simutaneously,
> > in my original post, as long as roll doesn't occur at the same time.
> > Jon Lowe
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JShulman>
> > To: General pattern discussion
> >>
> > Sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:22 am
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
> > Jon,
> > I don't see where it says pitch break? Rudder first will show
> > attitude break and separation from the flight path. So if one uses
> > rudder and elevator first this is also correct.
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> > www.jasonshulman.com
> > www.shulmanaviation.com
> > www.composite-arf.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > ]*On Behalf
> > Of *Jon Lowe
> > *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 12:11 PM
> > *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
> > I suggest people re-read the definition ofsnap-rolls from the
> > FAI sporting code. I did a few minutes ago. Here it is:
> > "5B.7.5. *SNAP-ROLLS*
> > A snap-roll (or flick roll/rudder roll) is a rapid
> > autorotative roll where the model aircraft is in a stalled
> > attitude, with a continuous high angle of attack
> > Snap-rolls have the same judging criteria as axial rolls as
> > far as start and stop of the rotation, and
> > constant flight path through the manoeuvre is concerned.
> > At the start of a snap-roll, the fuselage attitude must show a
> > definite break and separation from the
> > flight path, before the rotation is started, since the model
> > aircraft is supposed to be in a stalled
> > condition throughout the manoeuvre, If the stall/break does
> > not occur and the model aircraft barrelrolls
> > around, the manoeuvre must be severely downgraded (more than 5
> > points). Similarly, axial
> > rolls disguised as snap-rolls must be severely downgraded
> > (more than 5 points).
> > Snap-rolls can be flown both positive and negative, and the
> > same criteria apply. The attitude
> > (positive or negative) is at the competitor's discretion. If
> > the model aircraft returns to an unstalled
> > condition during the snap-roll, the manoeuvre is severely
> > downgraded using the 1 point/15 degree
> > rule."
> >
> > Note that "the fuselage attitude must show a definite break
> > and separation from the flight path, before the rotation is
> > started..." That means that simultaneous pitch and rotation is
> > specifically NOT permitted. I would interpret it as meaning
> > that pitch and yaw could theoretically happen simultaneously,
> > as long as no roll is involved. Sorry Matt, the rules as
> > written do NOT allow actuation in all three axes
> > simultaneously. The rule also states that a constant flight
> > path has to be maintained.
> >
> > Let's face it, the only way to prevent severe downgrading from
> > EVERY judge, not just some judges, is to have a pitch break
> > first. Takes any question away.
> > Jon Lowe
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> > Sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:46 am
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
> > A "Flick" and a "Snap" roll are the same roll in full scale
> > aerobatics parlance and reference material.
> >
> > Do these mean the same thing in model aerobatics? In my view,
> > they do
> >
> > The latest FAI regs allow actuation of the three main axes
> > simultaneously...that is, the regs don't specifically
> > differentiate "Pitch Break" from other deviations. I don't
> > think they specifically require that the model must rotate
> > about it's flight path either, I don't believe (.....plane
> > must rotate in a conical fashion about the fight axis....).
> > The model would probably present the best if that's done, so
> > pilots may want to consider that when executing the maneuver.
> >
> > In my take, a rapid Pitch is desired to preload the wing.
> > Contrary to popular belief, both panels dot not have to stall
> > for a snap to occur. Quite the opposite. Upon rudder
> > deflection, the port panel will practically stall (lift much
> > much less than the other panel) but the starboard panel must
> > be lifting to create the autorotation. If both panels stall,
> > the model will fall out of the sky for a distance and a snap
> > would not occur at the correct moment in time
> >
> > MattK
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Woodward, Jim (US SSA)
> >>
> > To: General pattern discussion
> >
> >>
> > Sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 8:47 am
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I thought the FAI changes explicitly allowed flick rolls? The
> > rule
> > reads, "... fuselage attitude must show a definite break and
> > separation
> > from the flight path."
> >
> > It does not say, "MUST SHOW PITCH BREAK." Please DO NOT
> > ERROUNIOUSLY
> > APPLY A PASS/FAIL MAJOR DEDUCTION initial assessment to the
> > snap roll.
> > Watch the whole maneuver then render your score.
> >
> > A break and separation from the flight path simply means that
> > the nose
> > and tail of the plane must rotate in a conical fashion about
> > the fight
> > axis. Yaw, roll, and pitch can all break at the same moment if
> > that is
> > how the pilot does it.
> >
> > Hey :) some really handsome smart guy wrote some stuff at this
> > link
> > below about snap rolls to help clarify how they are done in IMAC.
> >
> > http://www.mini-iac.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=77
> >
> > thanks,
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get the Moviefone Toolbar
> > .
> > Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get the Moviefone Toolbar
> > .
> > Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get the Moviefone Toolbar
> > .
> > Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> > It has removed 9842 spam emails to date.
> > Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> > Try SPAMfighter for free now!
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's easy to add contacts from Facebook and other social sites
> through Windows LiveT Messenger. Learn How.
> 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1505 - Release Date:
> 6/16/2008 7:20 AM
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____  

Introducing Live Search cashback . It's search that pays you back! Try it
Now
<http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=introsrch
cashback> 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20080617/8fd73076/attachment-0001.html>