[NSRCA-discussion] Lance deserves an answer . . .

[Atwood, Mark]

 Agree on both counts.  It hits the proverbial nail, and I'm numb.

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Kane
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:19 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lance deserves an answer . . .

This is well stated, and at least as far as I am concerned you hit the nail on the head about trying to force a description that does not describe what is being flown.

Most of us are numb to the whole snap discussion at this point.

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


--- On Mon, 10/19/09, Lance Van Nostrand <patterndude at tx.rr.com> wrote:

> From: Lance Van Nostrand <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Suggested New Snap Roll (BrakeRoll)Description
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 12:09 AM
> 
> Did anyone see this post earlier?  I saw the
> conversation progress and just want to know if this was such
> a bad idea that it wasn't worth acknowleging....
> 
> --Lance
> 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: patterndude at tx.rr.com
> > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:18:10
> > To: General pattern discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap
> Roll (Brake
> > Roll)Description
> > 
> > Given all the natural differences among planes and
> styles it seems clear that some are applying personal
> criteria that can't universally be applied. Also, its very
> possible many of the snaps generally accepted as good may
> not be autorotations at all (especially on uplines and other
> angles or positions where the forces are far from straight
> and level), so why does the definition try to define
> something we don't do?
> > 
> > How about if we just make this simple to judge and
> boil it down to this: A "snap", for maximum points, is a
> rapid rotation where the fuselage makes a clear break in
> heading from its track for the duration of the roll but the
> general track does not change.
> > 
> > If the track barrel rolls, it is the wrong manuver it
> is downgraded 10. If the heading does not remain deviated
> for the entire roll it is downgraded 1 pt per 15
> > 
> > Lance
> > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Keith Black <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:03:41
> > To: General pattern discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Suggested New Snap
> Roll (Brake Roll)
> > Description
> > 
> > How about this definition:
> > 
> > A snap-roll (or break roll) is a rapid autorotation
> roll where the
> > model aircraft is in a stalled
> > attitude, with a continuous high angle of attack.
> > 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, If the stall/break
> does not occur
> > and the model aircraft barrel rolls
> > around, the maneuver 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 maneuver is
> severely downgraded
> > using the 1 point/15 degree
> > rule. 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 maneuver is
> concerned.
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Martin X. Moleski,
> SJ
> > <moleski at canisius.edu>
> wrote:
> >> Vicente,
> >> 
> >>> Thanks for the suggestions.
> >> 
> >> De nada.
> >> 
> >>> Remember that I write in Spanglish so I am
> >>> sure that there are more mistakes. Read and
> read again.
> >> 
> >> Me gusta mucho. ;o)
> >> 
> >> Marty
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2444 - Release
> Date: 10/18/09 09:04:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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