[NSRCA-discussion] Snap

Sun Oct 11 14:45:47 AKDT 2009

No pitch break = no snap roll.  It's not a matter of anyone's opinion, it's an aerodynamic fact.  If it's truly this hard to judge, they should simply be eliminated.

Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dan 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap

  I know better than to enter this conversation but, but, well here goes.  Don, I agree with your post about the three types of rolls.  If it is not axial and it is not a barrell roll the it is a snap roll.  Some one at some time put in the description of a snap the requirement of a ptich break.  Man has this caused problems.  Now tell me if a plane does a snap roll without a leading pitch break then what roll was it, axial, nope don't think so.  Was it a barrel roll, nope not that either so low and behold it must have been a snap roll.  We have all set in a judging chair and watched snap manuevers and we have flown these maneuvers.  We can all say that we have seen and or flown many true snap rolls that did not have a any visible pitch break, some are judged on our 1 to 10 scale and others at times receive the zero.  In the current Masters sequence the 45 degree downline snap for example.  I have flown that manuever many many times and I have thrown in the "required" pitch bump and I have at times neglected to do the bump, but you know what, in either method the airplane performed a snap roll.

  I have been flying pattern since the late sixties and going all the way back to then I have know and been able to recognize a stall turn and its difference from a hammerhead turn.  I for the life of me it seems that a stall turn is named very aptly.

  Some of us live for the nitpicking discussions of stalls and snaps and wording in maneuver descriptions, others just want a simple description and go out and fly or judge it to our perceived perfection.  Is it any wonder we seem to be decreasing in our numbers. 

  Dan Curtis
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
    To: General pattern discussion 
    Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:47 AM
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap

    Amen....

    Vicente "Vince" Bortone

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
    To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
    Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:33:56 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
    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

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

    _______________________________________________
    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/20091011/60000f2f/attachment.html>