[NSRCA-discussion] Snap

Sun Oct 11 16:03:26 AKDT 2009

So why don’t we use speed as a criteria?  A true snap roll will slow the aircraft significantly.  (It’s at least worth a mention the aircraft should decelerate in the description!)  

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 7:44 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap

You can fake a snap just by adding some elevator and rudder, enough to get the tail to cone around.  Fools a lot of judges.

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

From: Dan <mailto:warrior523 at mchsi.com>  

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

Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 6:14 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap

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

Okay if you say so but what is it if it is not a barrel roll or an axial roll?  Certainly it is a snap, and certainly there is a pitch break but it does not have to come before the rotation it can happen simoultaneously.  I can fly level or vertical (up or down) or at any other angle in between and flip my elevator stick repeatedly from one end of a line to another and my plane does not stall (oops I know I should say the wing or wings do not stall)  The arguement for a pitch break is fascious reguarding our models.  I go ahead and do the bump prior to the snap if that is how the judges at that time want it, but to say that a plane did not snap just because there was not an  initial pitch break does not equal actuality.  

Dan

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

From: Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>  

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

Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:45 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap

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

From: Dan <mailto:warrior523 at mchsi.com>  

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

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  <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> "Vince" Bortone 

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

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 <mailto:donramsey at gmail.com>  Ramsey 

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

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

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20091012/1ee02d1e/attachment.html>