[NSRCA-discussion] Snap

[J N Hiller]

Thank you very much for saving and sharing Dave Lockhart's in depth assessment and explanation. I returned to pattern in 2005, entering intermediate because I didn't want to work at it. Advancing through advanced to masters has required a significantly increase in elevator each time in order to fulfill snapping requirements. I ran out of elevator bevel at about 22 degrees (insufficient) and suffer the inconsistencies described. The other thing I encountered was moving the CG forward helped. It didn't seam logical that increased pitch stability would improve the snap. The only other conclusion I came to was, by reducing the nose and tail weight allowed a quicker pitch response. If this is true the electric guys should have an advantage if the wing is located such that the batteries can be near the CG. I really like pattern. As for judging it is difficult and like flying improves with practice, too bad I fly alone, not much opportunity to observe / judge.
Jim Hiller
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 6:55 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
 
I kept a copy of the following e-mail.  Probably is some years old (~2005).  I believe will help in this discussion.  I hope that Dave Lockhart does not mind since this was already in this opinion group.  I think this could clarify some of the issues we have been discussing.  It is clear to me that snap roll is very difficult to do properly and that is the reason of the high K-factor.  Here is Dave's e-mail:
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091012/5773f943/attachment.html>