[NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

rcmaster199 at aol.com rcmaster199 at aol.com
Tue Oct 13 17:24:34 AKDT 2009


 Hmmmmm!



Don you told me that before. "If it's not a barrel and not an axial, it's a snap" 



Hell what about when they lead the sucker with rudder? Don't laugh....I've sat the chair in the F3A Nats Final and had finalists do that in front of me. I guarantee that the pilots didn't score zeroes from all the judges. 



Damn....and I promised myself not to get into this again for the upteenth time. Where's RVP with that downwind turn. Or was it downhill turn with the lights off?



MattK



 






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

From: Don Ramsey <don.ramsey at suddenlink.net>

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

Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2009 1:23 pm

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)



  
                                        
    
Vince,
    
 
    
What about the next sentence in the FAI definition, “If the  stall/break does not occur and the  model aircraft barrel rolls
    
around,  the manoeuvre must be severely downgraded (more than  5 points).” 
    
    
    
 
    
How about if the break does not show and the model does NOT barrel roll around.  Do you still downgrade by 5 or more points?  I don’t know what the intent of th
e rule was  but I can tell you for a fact that the judges that only score FAI in Europe do  not downgrade it by 5 or more points.  I  believe they use the “If it’s not a barrel and not an axial roll then it’s  probably a snap, so judge it that way” because they have been instructed in the  past to do it that way.  
    
 
    
Don
    
 
    
 
    
rom: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente  "Vince" Bortone

  Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:10 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)
    
    
    
 
    
    
Matt,
    
 
    
I am copying the  snap description from the current FAI and AMA manuals.  I don't see the  AND you mention in the FAI rule book.  
    
See the important  portion in bold.   I see that the AMA description is better in this respect.  You are  correct in regard the downgrade in FAI.  5 or more points if you  don't see the break and the model barrel rolls. Therefore, what is the  downgrade in FAI if the judge does not see the break and there  is autorotation?  I will say 5 points since it says 5 or more points  if the model barrel rolls.  Again, 
it appears that AMA down  grad descriptions are better.  
    
 
    
FAI:
    
SNAP-ROLLS
    
A  snap-roll (or flick roll/rudder roll) is a rapid autorotative roll where the  model aircraft is in a stalled
    
attitude,  with a continuous high angle of attack
    
Snap-rolls  have the same judging criteria as axial rolls as far as start and stop of the  rotation, and
    
constant  flight path through the manoeuvre is concerned.
    
At the start of a snap-roll, the fuselage attitude must show a  definite break and separation from the
    
flight path, before the rotation is started, since  the model aircraft is supposed to be in a stalled
    
condition throughout the manoeuvre, If the  stall/break does not occur and the model aircraft barrelrolls
    
around,  the manoeuvre must be severely downgraded (more than 5 points). Similarly,  axial
    
rolls  disguised as snap-rolls must be severely downgraded (more than 5 points).
    
Snap-rolls  can be flown both positive and negative, and the same criteria apply. The  attitude
    
(positive  or negative) is at the competitor’s discretion. If the model aircraft returns  to an unstalled
    
condition  during the snap-roll, the manoeuvre is severely downgraded using the 1 point/15  degree
    
rule.
    
 
    
AMA:
    
0ASnaps: A  Snap roll is a simultaneous, rapid autorotation in the pitch, yaw and roll axes  of flight in a stalled wing attitude. The following criteria apply: 
    
1. Since  the maneuver is defined as a stalled maneuver, initiated by a stall of the wing  induced by a rapid change in pitch attitude, the nose of the fuselage must show  a definite break in pitch attitude from the flight path in the direction of the  snap (positive or negative) while the track closely maintains the flight path.  The lack of a discernable pitch break is downgraded by 5 points. Large  deviations from the flight path, indicative of a delayed stall, are to be  downgraded using the 1 point per 15-degree rule for each axis of the excursion  before stall. For example, it the model pitches 15 degrees nose up and the  wings rotate 15 degrees before the stall, the maneuver should be downgraded 1  point for pitch and 1 point for roll. 
    
2. The track  visualized as the path of the Center of Gravity (CG) should closely follow the  geometric flight path of the maneuver while the nose and tail auto rotate  through opposite helical arcs around the flight path. Lack of these helical  arcs (or coning) is indicative of an axial roll and is scored zero. 
    
3. If a  stall does not occur and the model barrel rolls, the score is zero. A barrel  roll can be identified when the CG, the nose, and tails scribe the same helical  path through the required rotation20of the maneuver 
    
4. Snap  rolls have the same judging criteria as axial rolls as far as start and stop of  rotation, constant flight path through the maneuver and centering on lines. 
    
5. If the  model returns to an unstalled condition during the maneuver, such that the  autorotation is not visible and the model rolls or barrel rolls to complete the  maneuver, it would be downgraded using the 1 point per 15 degree rule. 
    
6. Airspeed  is not a criteria which should be used to judge this maneuver. The wing of the  model is stalled during this maneuver; therefore a significant decrease in  speed may occur and is not a cause for downgrade. 
    


  

  Vicente "Vince" Bortone

  

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

  From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>

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

  Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:47:30 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

  

  ? 
    
    
While speaking with Don  Ramsey about the nuances of judging snaps at a recent contest I found that he  agreed with my interpretation of the FAI snap rule. The severe downgrade should  only be applied if there is no break AND there is no autorotation (this is  exactly what the rule says). Basically, lack of a break is not subst
antial  grounds for the severe downgrade in FAI. If the break is not seen and  autorotation still occurs at some point during the roll the one point per 15  degree rule applies. Since the snaps happen so fast, for me it's usually not  more than 1 or 2 points unless it was blatantly obvious that the plane rotated  a while before the snap truly began. It's the same as if you stop the snap  before completing the rotation and do an axial roll to finish. This nonsense of  people being so quick to apply a severe downgrade has gone too far. One element  of a maneuver (because I can't think of any sequence that has just a snap roll)  should not ruin a whole flight, or even that one maneuver unless it just wasn't  a snap. I like the idea of "if it's not a barrell roll and not an axial  roll, it's probably a snap."
    
    
    
 
    
    
    
Matt
    
        
    
----- Original Message  ----- 
    
    
    
From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
    
    
    
To: General pattern discussion 
    
    
    
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:12 PM
    
    
    
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert  Snap Judge (TIC)
    
    
    
 
    
    
    
I believe that  the current downgrade is severe. 
 AMA 5 points.  FAI 5 or more points  if my memory is correct.  
    
 
    
In local contest  I have been using 3 points downgrade.  I know that is wrong but it  has been my best way for me to take into account the break issue.   It used to be zero and it was changed to 5 points (IMAC still a 10  points downgrade or nada).  Therefore, Ron is correct.  Probably  makes sense to go 2-3 points downgrade if the judge can not see the break  before rotation.    

  

  Vicente "Vince" Bortone

  

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

  From: "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>

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

  Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:51:00 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

  

  Ron makes valid observation which I came to many years ago at the TOC when

  Mr. Bill graciously funded for full scale pilots like Patty Wagstaff do demo

  flights to entertain us.   The one thing that I came away with in  comparing

  full scale to our airplanes is the speed of the snap/rotation.  In the  full

  size aerobatics types that I observed there was plenty of time to see the

  nose pitch and then after somewhat of a hesitation yaw and rotate.  In our

  p
attern planes, especially when using a snap switch, it all gets to be a

  blur due to sheer speed.  I have no solution to this issue but to MAKE the

  pilots show a break by having severe downgrades.  Otherwise the concept of  a

  snap will be ignored.  Yes it's hard to see which makes it incumbent on  the

  pilot to present it to the judges.  

  

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

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of

  ronlock at comcast.net

  Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:26 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

  

  Here is a description that shows technically correct snap execution, and

  valid, consistent judging is possible.

  

   

  

  (Half of the District One guy need not read this, they have already heard

  it)   <G>

  

   

  

  At a small airport airshow, one of demos was an in-trail formation of four

  full scale AT-6 Texans.   As each plane got to stage center, it did a  single

  positive snap roll. Spectators saw four snap rolls in a row, about 5 seconds

  apart.

  

   

  

  The flight of four went around, and repeated the m
aneuver.  Some  spectators

  are getting bored - even a pattern guy could get bored with a string of 8

  nearly identical maneuvers.   And then, they did it yet again!!

  

   

  

  What's in this for us?   The snap maneuver by each AT-6 appeared to take a

  second or so, from initiation to completion.

  

  By the time the fourth plane did a snap, you could start seeing....

  

  -  there is a nose pitch up,  

  

  -  then a yaw, 

  

  -  then plane rolled in direction of yaw,

  

  -  plane returned to straight and level flight.

  

   

  

  By the time the flight came around for another four snaps, you could see

  more details..

  

  -  there is a nose pitch up,  (somewhat sudden, at least sudden for  an AT-6)

  

  -  then a large amount of yaw, 

  

  -  then rapid roll in direction of yaw, (rolling faster than it could with

  ailerons) 

  

  -  plane returned to fairly close straight and level, nose slightly high.

  

   

  

  By the time the flight positioned for yet another four snaps, (Yawn,

  spectators headed for cotton candy) the four distinct elements of the snap
=0
A
  roll maneuver were easy to see, and there was time to evaluate (judge) each

  element.

  

  1.    there is a nose pitch up,  (somewhat sudden, at least  sudden for an

  AT-6, with little rise in altitude)

  

  2.   then large amount of yaw, (the yaw proceeds the upcoming roll)

  

  3.   then autorotation at rate faster than it could do an aileron roll)

  

  4.   plane returns to level flight track, with nose lowering to level  flight

  attitude.

  

   

  

  We can all be expert Snap Roll Judges!   Ahhh, at least for AT-6 snaps.

  

   

  

  What I take from all of this-

  

   

  

  The problem is not snap descriptions.   It's the application of them;

  observation, discrimination and judging of elements in the split second

  observation time we have.  Is the task beyond reasonable expectations of

  most of us as a judging community?   I suppose we will continue work  started

  over 10 years ago to improve in these areas.

  

   

  

  In the meantime, shall we reduce the impact of inconsistent judging of snaps

  by limiting the downgrade of the snap portion of a maneuver to say..two

  points2?

  


   

  

  Ron Lockhart

  

   

  

  

  _______________________________________________

  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
    
    
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: 10/13/09  06:35:00
    
    
     
    _______________________________________________  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/20091014/5d219216/attachment.html>


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list