<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV>
<DIV>Jerry and Ed, et al,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Not to belabor the obvious here, Pattern and IMAC models are quite different aerodynamically. Where it makes sense for the IMAC model to behave a certain way in a snap, the same can't be said or shouldn't be said for Pattern models. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regarding tail path during the snap, its appropriate for the Pattern model to inscribe the requisite cone where for the IMAC model its appropriate for the nose to do as Ed suggests.</DIV>
<DIV>It's possible to make a cone shape with rudder-aileron inputs only, except the apex will not be the cg (actually the AC, but thats another matter). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Point taken is that many IMAC people "get" their description but probably an equal number of Pattern people "don't get" ours.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The snap roll is not difficult to neither perform well nor to judge correctly. I do not subscribe to huge elevator input concept to initiate the snap if the model has been designed correctly to begin with. (Here's where the major departure between IMAC and Pattern models surfaces since Pattern models start with a clean slate but IMAC models are limited). Elevator input is a must but only to highly load the wing. Rudder application will do the requisite lift dump on the inboard panel. I also don't subscribe to leading rudder in the snap, as some rather prominent pattern people have suggested, since that trully displaces the model</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In regard to getting any maneuver description to Don for certification, that would be unfair to Don or the Judging Committee for that matter. We (the JC) do not "certify" maneuvers; that's the Contest Board's responsibility. We simply try to clarify poorly written yet approved descriptions. We don't have authority to approve policy only to write it for CB submittal (which every one has) or to clarify it. Sometimes, even clarification gets us in trouble so we really don't have that authority either, but have assumed it in an effort to help the community.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matt</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 7/8/2006 3:09:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, ed_alt@hotmail.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jerry:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It's all on the AMA website in the Flying and Judging Guide for Scale Aerobatics. See section 8.9.3 and 8.9.4 The presentation being referred to is probably from their judging clinics, but you can get the idea from the F&J Guide. I attended one of the first judging seminars that Ray Rose put on and there was plenty of discussion about snaps and the fact that some displacement was inevitable and by itself, not necessarily a cause for downgrade. Yeah, it's a conflict with the other criteria about maintaining maneuver geometry, but I think there can be descriptions written to deal with that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Really big displacements are an indicator of other problems that probably mean that a snap didn't really happen, such as barrel rolling or only partial auto-rotation during the roll. A slow developing snap will exhibit alot of displacement for example. I haven't seen any updated IMAC judging school materials, so whether they still teach that displacements during a snap aren't automatically downgradeable or not is unclear. I think that if you look at what they do have in the F&J Guide, it provides pretty good guidance on how to tell that a snap probably happened at least. It points out stuff like watching what the nose does re. departing from the flight path, not whether the tail is describing a cone shape. You can get the tail to cone just using aileron and rudder alone - that's not a snap. Snaps are tough to deal with in the rules and on the flight line. It's just my opinion, but I think that the Scale Aerobatic rules are better defined in this particular area.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=mailto:JAStebbins@worldnet.att.net href="mailto:JAStebbins@worldnet.att.net">Jerry Stebbins</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">Discussion -NSRCA</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 07, 2006 9:19 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] Snaps</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It would seem that if IMAC has a better "definition" or "presentation" that helps shed some sunshine on this quandry---we should get it to Don, and have him certify it, or refute it. Should be some common ground in there. At least that way there may be more common ground developed to find an approach to getting a definable standard.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>By the way I am an IMAC member and have never seen this presentation,---maybe would have helped my judging perceptions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jerry</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>