[NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap Roll(BrakeRoll)Description

Fri Oct 16 08:32:35 AKDT 2009

Depends on how strong the wind is

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap Roll(BrakeRoll)Description

  Isn't better to snap into the wind to avoid displacement when there is cross wind (almost always in contests)?  

  Vicente "Vince" Bortone

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
  To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 11:24:00 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap Roll(BrakeRoll)Description

  I found that the direction of the snap was better one way over the other also. 

  That "what ever works" part is what we need to remember when writing rules and quit trying to include how to fly the airplane in the maneuver description.

  Jim Hiller

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of John Pavlick
  Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 9:01 AM
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap Roll(BrakeRoll)Description

        I do positive snaps on the Avalanche and I got a few 9's at the NAT's so apparently it doesn't pinch it too much. LOL

        I'm working on practicing it both ways to see what looks better. I guess it depends on the airplane. Some just don't like to do negative snaps and others will really mess up the loop geometry if you do a positive snap. Like everything else, whatever works for you is best.

        It's snowing here too. :)

        John Pavlick

        --- On Fri, 10/16/09, frank <frankjuliei at comcast.net> wrote:

        From: frank <frankjuliei at comcast.net>
        Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap Roll (BrakeRoll)Description
        To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
        Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 11:25 AM

        Woudn’t that pinch the loop ?  For the sake of my example,   let’s use a  positive snap.  Don’t know if my point about judging  this maneuver is clear.  Flying weather is ,well, not the best ( 35 degrees and flurries) so I’m rehearsing with a stick plane.LOL. 

        F.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
        Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 11:04 AM
        To: General pattern discussion
        Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap Roll (BrakeRoll)Description

              Frank,

               In the Advanced Avalanche you don't have to push (negative snap) - you can pull if you prefer. 

              John Pavlick

              --- On Fri, 10/16/09, frank <frankjuliei at comcast.net> wrote:

              From: frank <frankjuliei at comcast.net>
              Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap Roll (Brake Roll)Description
              To: "' General pattern discussion '" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
              Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 10:45 AM

               In the current Master’s sequence, the Avalanche with 1 ½  snap (from the bottom)-  The model is inverted and flies the first half of the outside loop.  The aircraft is  supposed to pitch up (pull) for the break, then perform the 1 ½  snap roll.  In the Advanced Sequence  Avalanche with a single  snap , the aircraft is  inverted at the top, but the pilot has to pitch (push)  before  the roll. In both situations, it seems likely  that  judges will have to look hard to see the break because of the altitude/location/climb of the model, no?. 

              Frank

------------------------------------------------------------------

              From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
              Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 9:43 AM
              To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
              Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap Roll (Brake Roll)Description

              Jerry Budd explained pretty well the fact that pattern planes are so lightly loaded that a large amount of force in pitch must exist to cause a stall. Stalls, accelerated and/or assymetric, I don't think are what happens in a pattern snap.

              I believe an assymetry in lift does however. Think of the the wing as two halves (fancy that) where one sides lifts the equivalent of its whole area and the other side only a small percentage. Neither panel is stalled per se....one simply lifts less than the other. Yaw will induce the differential lift once the wing has been loaded in pitch. Assymetric lift will cause the wing to autorotate in roll axis.....we accelerate that autorotation with ailerons (duh!!). Some planes will snap with yaw command alone once pitch loading has happened. Most pattern planes will not because, as Jerry pointed out, it doesn't take a whole lot of lift to keep a pattern plane flying

              My 2c

              MattK

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Martin X. Moleski, SJ < moleski at canisius.edu >
              To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
              Sent: Fri, Oct 16, 2009 6:43 am
              Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap Roll (Brake Roll) Description

              Keith Black wrote: 
              > How about this definition: 

              > 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 maneuver ... 

              That what Vicente (and others) are arguing is a bad 
              definition for our purposes. 

              I agree with those who want to remove all references to 
              stalling from the definition of the maneuver. 

              The model must depart (break away) from all three 
              axes. Saying that the first departure must be separated 
              from the other two does not make good sense to me. 

              Demonstrating the kind of "stall" that leads to a 
              spin entry is very different from the assymetric stall 
              required for autorotation--at least in my own understanding 
              of what accelerated stalls are like. 

                Marty 
              _______________________________________________ 
              NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
              NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
              http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

              -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

              _______________________________________________
              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/20091016/1cf0ebb6/attachment.html>