[NSRCA-discussion] Snap Rolls

[Bob Kane]

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
I had planned on videotaping some snaps also, but it sounds like you have done the work already.  . . . .     I would love to see these also.


>   ----- Original Message
> ----- 
>   From: 
>   Bill 
>   Glaze 
>   To: General
> pattern discussion 
>   
>   Sent: Friday,
> October 23, 2009 8:13 
>   PM
>   Subject:
> [NSRCA-discussion] Snap 
>   Rolls
>   
> 
>   I'm sure that most,
> of not all, of you folks 
>   think this subject has been beaten to death, and it
> has--almost.  
>   But--
>   After reading Jerry
> Budd's posting, and the 
>   endorsement by Ron van Putte, I've been considering
> Jerry's postulate about 
>   our airplanes not actually stalling the wing, for the
> factors he 
>   mentioned.  While it almost seems like heresy, both
> of these 
>   aforementioned well-known R/C competitors are quite
> qualified to speak within 
>   the boundaries of this subject.
>   Now, having taped many
> hours at the Nats, I have 
>   been mulling over the subject of Jerry's posting, and
> I decided to put my 
>   resultant DVD's on my TV, and just take a close look
> at these snap-rolls, 
>   which I did.  The TV is a large-screen (60")
> diagonal HD set, and when I 
>   replayed these maneuvers, I got a surprising
> result.  Appearances 
>   close-up indicated visually to me that Jerry seemed to be
> spot-on correct, 
>   probably for just the reasons mentioned by him; the
> airplanes seemed to be not 
>   even close to a stalled condition.  Realize that I
> had a huge advantage 
>   over the judges; I was using from 20x to 30x (variable)
> magnification, and 
>   viewing on the large screen with a very sharp picture was
> a further 
>   advantage. I also had time to play and replay them
> at different speeds, 
>   which I did ad nauseum. 
>   I was also impressed
> with how good the snaps 
>   looked when filming; I could hear myself on the sound
> track saying things like 
>   "impressive", "beautifully precise"
> and other superlatives, while I was 
>   filming, and before  I had a chance to inspect them
> with 
>   slow-motion.  Understand:  they still 
> looked good on the 
>   screen, but:
>   I found upon close
> inspection in slow motion many 
>   examples of no discernable break, one example of a
> competitor using just a 
>   small amount of up elevator before beginning rotation,
> then instantly relaxing 
>   it.  Many seemingly used no elevator at all, but
> used rudder, sometimes 
>   in the roll direction, and at least one in the opposite
> direction of the 
>   roll.  One showed a very small amount of yaw at the
> end of the snap, 
>   possiblly indicating a slight over-use of rudder; still
> no sign of 
>   elevator.  There was little or no noticeable
> "coning" as heretofore being 
>   a qualifing factor in a snap. The rotation simply
> didn't show coning, in 
>   nearly all cases.  There were many different
> techniques used, and 
>   some used seemingly different inputs in snaps
> for 45 deg. climbs, 
>   descending lines, and level attitudes.  Few of those
> I filmed seemed to 
>   use any elevator at all.  As a qualifier, all these
> contestants were 
>   Master's and F.A.I., and, having a pretty good idea
> of who the high-risers 
>   were, I generally filmed those who I felt would have a
> larger impact at the 
>   podium at the end of the day.  Not all the actors
> were the bright stars, 
>   though; I had a good cross-section.
>   Having spent hours in
> this analysis, (just ask my 
>   wife) I did come to one conclusion:  even though
> these snaps looked 
>   beautiful, and certainly must have pleased the judges,
> still and all they 
>   varied from the rule book  requirements, as I
> understand 
>   them.
>   Now, I could think of a
> few ways to achieve the 
>   control combinations required:  ATV, Flight
> Conditions, excessively large 
>   control displacements, etc.  Just as I was trying to
> think how it was 
>   handled, I very fortunately read Brian Hebert's
> interview with Albert and A.C. 
>   Glenn.  Apparently, I was a giant step behind what
> is going on.  
>   (I'm used to that.)  I suggest that to
> complement this essay, you turn to 
>   the interview in the new Model Aviation; it's an
> eye-opener and ties in 
>   nicely.
>   I'm beginning to
> wonder if Lance van Nostrand's 
>   and Dave Ramsey's statements concerning rules and
> maneuver descriptions 
>   shouldn't be re-visited.  Although judgement on
> that subject rightly will 
>   be resting with other people than me..
>   Thanks for your
> patience, both of you out there 
>   who aren't asleep.  In case you hadn't
> noticed, I'm very deeply 
>   interested in Pattern.
>   Bill Glaze
>   AMA 2221
>   NSRCA 2388
>   
>   
> 
>   _______________________________________________
> 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