[NSRCA-discussion] Snap

[Ed Alt]

Doing a wiffle roll isn't very different than throwing a wiffle ball.  You use it when control isn't considered all that important, but going through the motions is, i.e., if you don't know how to throw a baseball and get it to break over the plate, then it's OK to pretend with the toy ball.  So, to judge a wiffle roll for maximum points, ignore everything except whether it stopped on the same exact track as entered, and what the starting/ending bank angles were.  It's easy!

Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: J N Hiller 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap


  Exactly how will a wiffle be described in the maneuver judging criteria? How many point downgrade?

  Jim

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ed Alt
  Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:34 AM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap

   

  Don:

  I don't agree with that. You need to see a distinct pitch break and yawing action to accompany the pitch break, otherwise there is no real evidence that autorotation occurred. "Tail coning" alone is not even a reliable indicator of a snap.  You can easily cheat that to sell a "snap".   A snap is a stalled wing, autorotation maneuver. Also, the tendency to downgrade snaps because of any line displacement goes entirely against the physics of what must occur in order for a real snap roll take happen.  I think we should have a rule that most clearly accounts for the physics of what must occur for it to be a real snap, or just take them of sequences entirely.  And of course, educate judges and pilots accordingly.  Also, when you're a judge, don't be afraid to zero or severely downgrade a wiffle snap, or whatever is being presented to you if it's not a real snap. Especially don't be afraid of zeroing snaps when it's a big name trying to sneak a snap cheat in front of you.

   

  Regards,

  Ed

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


  From: Don Ramsey 

  To: 'General pattern discussion' 

  Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:01 AM

  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap

   

  Ok, how about this for the snap?  “If its not a barrel roll and not an axial roll, it’s a snap.” Maybe have the coning of the tail in the description. This eliminates about 90% of the judging differences.

   

  Don

   

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
  Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 8:09 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question (warning 4 letter word)

   

        I think changing the judging criteria, just for the snap part of the manuever, would suffice.

        --- On Sat, 10/10/09, John Ferrell <jferrell13 at triad.rr.com> wrote:

         

        ? 

        I believe "We could fix most of that, by assigning a low K to snap maneuvers" is the only appropriate solution. If you cast them out, it is giving up. 

         

        John Ferrell  W8CCW
         
       

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.9/2427 - Release Date: 10/10/09 06:39:00


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20091011/6b3d0b39/attachment.html>