[NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)
mjfrederick at cox.net
mjfrederick at cox.net
Wed Oct 14 07:54:46 AKDT 2009
Well, coming to a complete stop, turning, and taxiing back to the pits
used to be a judged maneuver. I'd imagine not touching the model during
the flight is probably a throwback to that... Kinda like one of those
funny old laws that was just never removed from the books.
Matt
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Atwood, Mark wrote:
Not to fear… We can use Nov and Dec to discuss the physical
impossibility of maintaining constant roll rates for rolling circles in
the wind, and then save Jan – March for finding center for the Snap,
Opposite 4/8 and Snap, Opposite 4pt in F-11.
And if that doesn’t work, we can always rehash why were explicitly not
allowed to touch the aircraft in flight… Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Bueller???
Mark Atwood
President
Paragon Consulting
office ~ 440-684-3101 ext. 102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com
IT Solution Providers: Custom Software Development. Staff Augmentation.
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Moon
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 9:19 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)
Hey Mark,
I was going to add that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to have to
explain all of this to us....then Jerry posted. :)
You are right, we are making this much more difficult. The real problem
is - we are not going to have this discussion all winter long as usual
since it was brought up in October!
Chris
Atwood, Mark wrote:
So at the end of the day, we don’t really do a snap…ever. I think many
have always known that but this (assuming Sir Budd’s math is correct)
basically ends the debate.
So what we’re doing then in Pattern is trying to emulate the look of a
snap…not actually snap. As such, I have a VERY hard time with the
zeroing of a poor attempt. Downgrade yes, but not the spurious snap
nazi zero. (I’m pretty sure I just set myself up for a few of them)…
This suddenly because a lot easier. It’s like judging a loop. Instead
of trying to draw a circle were trying to make the plane look like it
snapped… and some will do a better job than others. As with the loop
there will be variances… Loops big and small, snaps tight or open,
etc, but at the end of the day, if you recognize the maneuver, it should
probably be scored.
My $0.02
Mark Atwood
President
Paragon Consulting
office ~ 440-684-3101 ext. 102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com <mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>
<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>
IT Solution Providers: Custom Software Development. Staff Augmentation.
<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>
<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of Budd
Engineering
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:13 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
Chris, Vicente, et al.,
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
Angle of attack, alpha or AOA, for the aircraft is the difference
between the flight path angle, gamma, and the aircraft attitude, theta
(assuming the airfoil zero lift angle is essentially aligned with the
aircraft reference datum, which for all practical purposes on our
designs, it is). Reference:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0165.shtml
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0165.shtml> .
Flight path angle is the aircraft trajectory, or in pattern speak,
"track" but along the pitch axis, i.e. climbing or descending. In
level, steady state flight (~1-g), the flight path angle is zero. Which
means that the angle of attack is equal to the aircraft pitch attitude.
If you run the numbers using a reasonable airfoil lift curve slope at a
representative level flight speed for our planes you'll find that our
planes trim out around ~ 0.5 degrees alpha (Lift = Weight = CL * Qbar *
S where CL is the lift coefficient, Qbar is the dynamic pressure, and S
is the reference wing area). This is because of our extremely low wing
loading, it simply doesn't take a lot of angle of attack to generate 1-g
of lift when your airplane only weighs 10 or 11 lbs. Here's the other
part: with the exception of velocity (or airspeed), the equation is
linear, which means that if you double the aircraft weight, for the same
flight speed, you get twice the alpha (again, for 1-g trim). Or if you
kept the weight at say 10 lbs, but cut the wing area in half, the angle
of attack would then double to ~ 1 degree (again, for level, steady, 1-g
flight). Velocity is a little trickier to account for because it's a
non-linear second order function in the lift equation (remember Qbar?
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_pressure
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_pressure> , Qbar = 1/2 * rho *
V**2) where rho is air density and V is the velocity). Essentially, the
lift doubles every time we increase Qbar by 2, or velocity by the square
root of 2 (or 1.414). So if you're flying along in level flight at 60
mph (88 feet per second), and you speed up to 85 mph mph (124.45 feet
per second), you've doubled your dynamic pressure (Qbar) and to stay at
level 1-g flight, you'd have to retrim your plane in pitch to 1/2 of
what your AOA was before (or you'll start climbing). In this case the
AOA would be ~ 0.25 degrees (as would the pitch attitude). One last bit
of info for the point I'm about to make is that the lift curve slope for
our airfoils at the Reynolds Numbers we are operating at is linear out
to around ~15-16 degrees alpha, with separation of lift occurring above
that, closer to 18-20 degrees alpha (Reference:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml)
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29> .
Note that the onset of separation is independent of airspeed, it's
purely a flow angle phenomenon, i.e. you can stall an airfoil at any
airspeed, or attitude (if you can get to a high enough angle of attack).
That's essentially what Chris is saying below.
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
So what does this all mean?
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
If you look at the numbers, for our planes, you can't get to stall from
steady level flight (at any reasonable cruise speed) without inducing a
significant G-loading on the aircraft (which will cause a noticeable,
and very observable, change in the flight path angle), BEFORE the
airfoil stalls.
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
Here's some more numbers to help you connect the dots: from level 1-g
trim flight at 1/2 degree AOA, you'd have to induce nearly 30 g's to get
to ~ 15 alpha, not likely you'd be able to do that without seeing it.
Even starting at 2 degrees AOA (which is a lot for our models), you have
to generate nearly 5-6 g's to reach stall (think you'd notice that?).
Don't believe me? OK answer this: Have you ever quickly but smoothly
from level upright 1-g flight at a normal cruise speed input full aft
stick for a second or two and then release it but no lateral input?
What happens? Unless something is grossly wrong with your airplane
you're likely to see a rapid pitch up and a corresponding change in
flight path angle, probably to something approaching a near vertical
attitude, but not much else. Why? Our planes are so lightly loaded
that only at spin entry and landing speeds can we induce enough angle of
attack to approach stall on the airfoil on the plane without inducing
significant g's and grossly altering the flight path angle (and flight
path angle is what we really see when we're flying at cruise speeds BTW,
not so much the pitch attitude until we're at much lower speeds. That's
because we mentally integrate the velocity vector in our minds but
that's a topic for another time/day). Full scale aerobatic planes (and
to a lessor degree IMAC planes) don't suffer this problem nearly so
badly since their wing loadings and inertia's are much higher (dynamic
stability is somewhat more complex than static stability so I'm not
going to go much further than this on this topic). The bottom line is
this: we're not stalling the wing when we do our snaps, not even a
portion of it (unless you're VERY low on airspeed at entry such as a
spin). We're too lightly loaded to get to stall at any reasonable
airspeed, the airplane will respond too quickly in the pitch axis
resulting in a rapid change in flight path angle, effectively unloading
the AOA during the response.
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
So what are we doing to make the plane present what appears to be a snap
roll when we can't actually be stalling the wing asymmetrically to
induce autorotation like many claim? Lots of control power in pitch and
roll coupled with additional rolling moment induced by dihedral effect
(sideslip driven by rudder input). Pretty much everyone knows that at
higher AOA you can command/control roll with rudder, well that's due to
dihedral effect (roll with rudder), it gets more powerful with a little
AOA. That's where you get the part of the dynamic that visually
emulates a full scale snap roll but physically is quite different (you
can make it look like a full-scale snap, but it really isn't).
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
So the bigger question is should emulating a full-scale snap roll be a
pattern judging criterion or do we even care? (we know what the answer
is for full scale aerobatics and probably IMAC too but we are neither of
these). Until we decide the answer to THAT question, we're really just
debating "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"...
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
OK, it's really, really late out here on the left coast, I've gotta get
to bed. Shoot away.
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
Thx, Jerry
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
Budd Engineering
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml%29>
jerry at buddengineering.com <mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com>
<mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com>
http://www.buddengineering.com <http://www.buddengineering.com>
<http://www.buddengineering.com>
<http://www.buddengineering.com>
<http://www.buddengineering.com>
On Oct 13, 2009, at 8:54 PM, Chris Moon wrote:
<http://www.buddengineering.com>
<http://www.buddengineering.com>
Ahhh. angle of attack is not the same as the aircraft attitude.Websters
defines angle of attack as "the acute angle between the chord of an
airfoil and the line of relative air flow". The relative wind flows
parallel and opposite the direction of the wing's movement through the
air.The wing's attitude as we see it from the ground is NOT the same as
angle of attack. If you are in a vertical climb is the wing stalled?
After all it is 90 degrees ATTUIUDE from your perspective on the ground,
right? But the wing is not stalled because the relative wind is coming
parallel and opposite the direction of flight. You can be in a nose low
descent and stall a wing. Now take a straight and level pass and give
it an instantaneous large amount of up elevator. What happens? First,
the plane continues in the direction it was going (straight ahead) for a
short time, but what is important is that the angle between the relative
wind (straight ahead) and the wing which is now pivoting up increases
until it reaches the critical angle of attack and it stalls. Without
knowing the specifics of that wing design, we can't know when exactly
this will occur, but it can be extremely fast and at a relatively low
ATTITUDE in relation to the ground. Hence, you do not need a high nose
ATTITUDE in order to have a high angle of attack. There are too many
variables for one to say that they need to see a nose high attitude in
order to define a high angle of attack and thus a stall. Remember also,
that different wings have a different critical angle of attack where a
wing will stall. How does anyone know where that angle is without a
wind tunnel and testing? and who am I to say it did not pitch up enough
to stall therefore I giveth the pilot a 5 or zero even though I cannot
possibly know the particulars of the wing that I am watching.
My comment of the 1-2 degrees was to say that we do not know how closely
any particular wing is flying from it's critical angle of attack. If it
is in fact close, a change of only 1-2 degrees can cause a stall. We
are trying to be aerodynamic engineers from the ground and deciding for
ourselves what the angle "should" look like and downgrading accordingly.
Now throw in the conceptual difference between angle of attack and
aircraft attitude, and it is easy to come to the wrong conclusion about
stall or no stall. Are we fling only 1-2 degrees from the critical angle
most of the time, no but the point it that there is absolutely no
aerodynamic requirement for a very nose high ATTITUDE to be a
requirement in order to get a high angle of attack on the wing.
Chris
Vicente "Vince" Bortone wrote: <http://www.buddengineering.com>
Chris, <http://www.buddengineering.com>
<http://www.buddengineering.com>
I am copying from the first sentence FAI rule book: " 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 " The question: Is 1-2 degrees consider a good amount to define
a high angle of attack? <http://www.buddengineering.com>
<http://www.buddengineering.com>
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Moon" <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
<mailto:cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:07:01 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)
I think what this goes back to is the erroneous belief that you need to
see an exaggerated pitch departure or it should be severely downgraded.
Keep reading the maneuver description. It needs "A" pitch break, and
depending on the current aoa (angle of attack) that can be a difference
of just a degree or 2 if you are near the critical aoa. Please don't
tell me guys, you are looking for MORE than a simple exceeding of the
critical aoa and resulting stall. An exaggerated pitch break just to
prove to naysayers that you make a break is wrong, wrong, wrong. It
says it needs "A" break. Please keep re-reading it. Same for spin
entry. It needs to stall, not go 30 degrees nose up to "prove" a stall.
We are getting wound up over a misunderstanding of the mechanics of a
stalled condition. As Don and Verne are alluding to, it really is not
that complicated.
Chris
verne at twmi.rr.com <mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
<mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>
Or you could just write in "DNO".... I always seem to see the break as
in, nose up, tail down, and my 56 year old eyes are lousy. Verne ----
"Vicente "Vince" Bortone" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
<mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote: Verne, Following AMA
description: if we don't see the break is 5 points downgrade. That is
1/2 of the snap roll maneuver. Therefore, if we see the snap roll but
don't see the break the judge has the right to write down 5 points score
assuming that all other components are perfect. Therefore, base on the
rule book the snap roll without a break has a value of 5 points.
Vicente "Vince" Bortone ----- Original Message ----- From: verne @ twmi
. rr .com To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists.
nsrca .org> Cc: "Don Ramsey" <don. ramsey @ suddenlink .net> Sent:
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 2:14:02 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)
Is there anybody involved in this discussion that honestly can't
recognize a snap when they see one? I'm just asking..... Verne ---- Don
Ramsey <don. ramsey @ suddenlink .net> wrote: 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 the 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 expe rt 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 rot ation, 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: Snaps: 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, initiat ed 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 indica tive 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 rotation of 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>
<mailto: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
substantial 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 comple ting 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 eve n 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
<mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> "Vince"
Bortone To: General pattern discussion <mailto: nsrca -discussion at lists.
nsrca .org> 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> <mailto: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 pattern 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. &n
bsp;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
<mailto: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 maneuver. 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
initiat ion to completion. By the time the fourth plane did a snap, you
could start s eeing.... - 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 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 o f yaw, (the yaw proceeds the upcoming
roll) 3. then autorotation at rate faster than it could do an ail eron
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 <http://lists/> . nsrca .org/mailman/listinfo/ nsrca
-discussion _____ _______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists. nsrca .org
http://lists <http://lists/> . nsrca .org/mailman/listinfo/ nsrca
-discussion _______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists. nsrca .org
http://lists <http://lists/> . nsrca .org/mailman/listinfo/ nsrca
-discussion No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <http://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 <http://lists/> .
nsrca .org/mailman/listinfo/ nsrca -discussion
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
___________________________________
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion
mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date:
10/05/09 06:19:00 <http://www.avg.com>
___________________________________ <http://www.avg.com>
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion
mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> Internal
Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date:
10/05/09 06:19:00
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091014/7e6a1aed/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list