<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1515" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=250021816-03072006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Yea, that
double snap on take-off surely wasn't a complete double
snap.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=250021816-03072006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=250021816-03072006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Jim, just
remember Andersonville and you'll be fine. Your Aggressor snaps fine, just make
sure you use elevator and rudder (and I think lower rate aileron) in the
whole snap and it'll look good. IMAC and Pattern are 2 different
events.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P><FONT
size=2>Regards,<BR>Jason<BR>www.jasonshulman.com<BR>www.shulmanaviation.com<BR>www.composite-arf.com</FONT>
</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>vicenterc@comcast.net<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, July 03, 2006 10:42
AM<BR><B>To:</B> NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint Presentations<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>In the take off, I would say that the plane broke and did an snap in the
first snap. It appears that in the last part the pilot decided not
to bail the snap and just rolled. Therefore, it is a zero since the
maneuver was called double snap take off. I will do the same since it
was close to the mother earth. The other tape is not as clear so it
is difficult to judge.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just my opinion if I were judging. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Vicente Bortone </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: "George Miller"
<glmiller3@cox.net> <BR><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Am I missing
something here? Those just don't look like snap rolls to me! <BR>>
<BR>> G <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Jim
Woodward" <JIM.WOODWARD@SCHROTH.COM><BR>> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'"
<NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 7:30
AM <BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint Presentations
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Hi Guys, <BR>> > <BR>> >
http://www.aircraftstudiodesign.com/pittspython/gallery.php <BR>> >
<BR>> > Regarding snaps, take a look at this video page of the new
Pitts bi-plane. <BR>> > There are links to a "vertical snap" video,
and a "double snap" on take <BR>> > off <BR>> > video. The angle
of each video is great. The pilot i! s kind enough to <BR>> > have
<BR>> > the smoke on during the takeoff snaps. These videos just
demonstrate to <BR>> > me <BR>> > that the model community is
getting way too picky in trying to state that <BR>> > the plane must
do "x" before it does "y" to receive max points. In a <BR>> >
practical sense the closer the pilot is to getting a 10 or <BR>> >
"maintaining-track" during a snap, the closer he is to getting a zero or
<BR>> > at <BR>> > least severely downgraded, primarily because
the judges are instructed to <BR>> > look for an over exaggerated
criteria of "pitch-break" first. The loop of <BR>> > pilot control
input, plane's reaction, and judge perception (or grading of <BR>> >
maneuver observation based on this staggered snap judging criteria), is
<BR>> > different for each skill level of pilot and skill level of
judge. Also, <BR>> > the <BR>> > judging criteria seems to lock
in a part! icular single sequence of <BR>> > transmitter usage (IE,
elevator first then other inputs). Does that mean <BR>> > that any
pilot that uses a snap button - which inputs all control inputs <BR>>
> at <BR>> > once, automatically receives a severe downgrade?
Should there be a rule <BR>> > to <BR>> > outlaw snap buttons?
Also, the faster the pilot can input the elevator <BR>> > then
<BR>> > other controls, correspondingly reduces the effect the judges
are <BR>> > instructed <BR>> > to look for (IE, pitch break
first). Also, there seems to be a belief by <BR>> > some that you
cannot perform a good snap roll without deviating the line - <BR>> >
(IE, someone states "...I know it was a snap because you had to correct
<BR>> > the <BR>> > line afterward). Thus, to my reading, there
exists conflicting <BR>> > judging/scoring criteria for this maneuver.
What is also neglected in the <BR>> > current ! definit ion is that
where it states 'speed of the snap is not a <BR>> > judging criteria'
(seemingly intented to protect folks who want to perform <BR>> > a
<BR>> > docile slowly rotating snap) however - judges are quick to say
- "...pilot <BR>> > uses is too much aileron". Is 45 degrees of
aileron throw too much? <BR>> > <BR>> > I personally like what
has happened to clarify the spins and hope a <BR>> > similar <BR>>
> approach can be taken or is underway with the snap definition. My
opinion <BR>> > has changed a bit on this particular topic as I
started flying sequences <BR>> > that require more of these maneuvers
to be done. If you spend a lot of <BR>> > time <BR>> >
practicing them on straight lines, 45s, and looping maneuver (avalanches),
<BR>> > the conversation quickly moves from theoretical to practical.
The snaps <BR>> > in <BR>> > these two video links would be
severally downgraded or! zeroed according to <BR>> > the precision
aerobatics definitions. Food for thought. Not about me, <BR>> > just
<BR>> > about the snap definition and critera. <BR>> > <BR>>
> Thanks, <BR>> > Jim W. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > -----Original Message----- <BR>> > From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Don Ramsey
<BR>> > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 6:27 PM <BR>> > To: NSRCA
Mailing List <BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint
Presentations <BR>> > <BR>> > A slow roll is acceptable.
<BR>> > <BR>> > DR <BR>> > <BR>> > ----- Original
Message ----- <BR>> > From: "Ed Miller" <EDBON85@CHARTER.NET><BR>>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>>
> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 3:49 PM <BR>> > Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] PowerPo! int Pre sentations <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> >> Concerning the Master schedule 1/2 loop with full roll
out. Is a slow <BR>> >> roll <BR>> >> acceptable on the
full roll out or must it be a fast axial roll ?? <BR>> >> Ed M.
<BR>> >> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >> From: "Don
Ramsey" <DON.RAMSEY@COX.NET><BR>> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
<NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >> Sent: Sunday, July 02,
2006 11:54 AM <BR>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint
Presentations <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >>>
Adam, <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> 404-2: The stall turn must
be in the direction of flight. <BR>> >>> 404-7: The humpty is
defined as 1/4 roll up and 3/4 roll down. <BR>> >>> That's
<BR>> >>> 3/4 down and not 3 of 4. <BR>> >>> 404-12:
Slow roll should be a minimum of 3 seconds <BR>> >>&g! t; 404-
18: AMA rule on snaps is on page 78 of the rulebook. You can get <BR>>
>>> to <BR>> >>> the rulebook through the judging site
where the Powerpoint presentations <BR>> >>> are <BR>>
>>> found. But in a nutshell: <BR>> >>> 1. Since the
maneuver is defined as a stall maneuver (initiated by a <BR>>
>>> rapid <BR>> >>> stall of the wing induced by a
change in pitch attitude), the nose of <BR>> >>> the <BR>>
>>> fuselage should show a definite break from the flight path in
the <BR>> >>> direction <BR>> >>> of the snap
(positive or negative) while the track closely maintains the <BR>>
>>> flight path. The track visualized as the path of the Center of
Gravity <BR>> >>> (CG) <BR>> >>> should ideally
follow the geometric flight path of the maneuver while <BR>> >>>
the <BR>> >>> nose and tail auto! rotate through opposite
helical arcs around the flight <BR>> >>> path. A snap that does
not show a break and stall to initiate the snap, <BR>> >>> but
<BR>> >>> does enter a stalled attitude during the maneuver is
severely <BR>> >>> downgraded. <BR>> >>> <BR>>
>>> So <BR>> >>> * lack of a definite break of the nose
is not a zero but severe <BR>> >>> downgrade <BR>>
>>> * track of CG should ideally follow the geometry of the
maneuver for max <BR>> >>> points <BR>> >>> Other
Points: <BR>> >>> * Barrel roll or axial roll is a zero <BR>>
>>> * Speed of snap is not a judging criteria <BR>> >>>
* Airspeed may decrease in the snap with no downgrade <BR>> >>>
* If model is roll to a finish the downgrade is applied using 1 pt per
<BR>> >>> 15 <BR>> >>> degree rule. <BR>>
>>> <BR!>> & gt;>> Don <BR>> >>> <BR>>
>>> <BR>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>>
>>> From: "Adam Glatt" <ADAM.G@SASKTEL.NET><BR>> >>>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:29 AM <BR>> >>>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PowerPoint Presentations <BR>>
>>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>> Good stuff,
Don. These are very helpful for learning a schedule that <BR>>
>>>> you don't fly. <BR>> >>>> <BR>>
>>>> I have a few questions about judging Masters that I
recommend should be <BR>> >>>> answered on the presentation.
<BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> 404-2: Does the stall
turn itself have to rotate in the upwind <BR>> >>>>
direction? <BR>> >>>> 404-7: There seems to be an option
here, but 2of2 has the sa! me name as <BR>> >>>> 1of2, though
the Arrestis are different. <BR>> >>>> 404-12: What is the
rule book definition of 'slow?' <BR>> >>>> 404-18: The
rulebook definition/description of a snap? <BR>> >>>>
<BR>> >>>> -Adam <BR>> >>>> <BR>>
>>>> Don Ramsey wrote: <BR>> >>>>> For those
who may be judging Advanced, Masters, P-07 and especially <BR>>
>>>>> F3A wednesday judges for F-07 there are PowerPoint
presentations on <BR>> >>>>> the NSRCA judging page
<BR>> >>>>>
http://www.nsrca.org/competition/judging/judging.htm. Look for the <BR>>
>>>>> link near the bottom of the Judging Home Page. <BR>>
>>>>> <BR>> >>>>> Don <BR>>
>>>>> <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------! --
<BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>>
_______________________________________________ <BR>>
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>>
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>>
>>>>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>>
>>>>> <BR>> >>>>
_______________________________________________ <BR>> >>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> >>>>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >>>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>>
>>>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>
_______________________________________________ <BR>> >>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> >>>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> >>
_______________________________________________ <BR!>> & gt;>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> >>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> >
<BR>> > _______________________________________________ <BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
_______________________________________________ <BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>