[NSRCA-discussion] Snap

[Don Ramsey]

It seems we sometimes get caught up in the name of a maneuver.  The
description always takes preference over the name.  Some examples: double
Immelmann without rolls is not a double Immelmann if it doesn't have the
rolls, stall turn may not really be a stall turn, our snap into a spin is
not really a snap into a spin but that's what we call it because we define
it that way.  The question is, why is the snap any different?  In essence,
the description now says it is a pitch break, followed by. and ideally the
model follows the track of the geometry of the maneuver.  It may not be a
snap but that's what we call it.  My biggest concern is what we now have is
a maneuver that with 5 judges is likely to get an 8, 0, 7, 0, 9.  That's not
what we need.  One element of a maneuver should not determine who wins the
NATS or a local contest.
 
Don
 
 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rjo626 at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:46 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
 
     I am not wrong. I've done it. With a tail heavy airplane with too much
elevator throw. Before I knew how to fly, 
my father would hold the radio down so that I could pull the elevator stick
back to do a loop. I pulled back all at
once instead of gradually. The Sportmaster did a TRUE snap roll in straight
and level flight. Scared the bejeezum
out of both of us! No aileron; no rudder.
 
     Later!
            RJO
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.9/2428 - Release Date: 10/11/09
06:39:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091012/106b286d/attachment.html>