<html><body>
<DIV>I suggest that we stop this discussion IMAC vs Pattern. Both groups have the same interest and love for RC acrobatics. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=signature id=signature>--<BR>Vicente "Vince" Bortone</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Courtney, Gary Ray" <grcourtney@tva.gov> <BR><BR>> Does that include you? <BR>> <BR>> gary <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message----- <BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward, <BR>> Jim (US SSA) <BR>> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:04 AM <BR>> To: General pattern discussion <BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> <BR>> Gary, <BR>> <BR>> Where do you think IMAC got a lot of its top flyers? (drum roll) <BR>> disenfranchised pattern guys fill the ranks. <BR>> <BR>> Thanks, <BR>> Jim <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message----- <BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Courtne
y, <BR
>> Gary Ray <BR>> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:07 AM <BR>> To: General pattern discussion <BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> IMAC-- It was once said( person unnamed) "the IMAC influence is what's <BR>> wrong with pattern" <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Gary <BR>> <BR>> <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 Woodward, <BR>> Jim (US SSA) <BR>> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:48 AM <BR>> To: General pattern discussion <BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> <BR>> Guys, <BR>> <BR>> I thought the FAI changes explicitly allowed flick rolls? The rule <BR>> reads, "... fuselage attitude must show a definite break and separation <BR>> from the flight path." <BR>> <BR>> It does not say, "MUST SHOW PITCH BREA
K." Pl
ease DO NOT ERROUNIOUSLY <BR>> APPLY A PASS/FAIL MAJOR DEDUCTION initial assessment to the snap roll. <BR>> Watch the whole maneuver then render your score. <BR>> <BR>> A break and separation from the flight path simply means that the nose <BR>> and tail of the plane must rotate in a conical fashion about the fight <BR>> axis. Yaw, roll, and pitch can all break at the same moment if that is <BR>> how the pilot does it. <BR>> <BR>> Hey :) some really handsome smart guy wrote some stuff at this link <BR>> below about snap rolls to help clarify how they are done in IMAC. <BR>> <BR>> http://www.mini-iac.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=77 <BR>> <BR>> thanks, <BR>> Jim <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message----- <BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ken <BR>> Thompson <BR>> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 10:47 PM <BR>> To: Ken Thompson
; Gene
ral pattern discussion <BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> <BR>> How'd I do? <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Ken Thompson" <KTHOMPSON56@SATX.RR.COM><BR>> To: "General pattern discussion" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 7:39 PM <BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > That would be the first part...after that better be the tail forming a <BR>> <BR>> > cone, or else...no it wouldn't be a snap;-) <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> > From: "JShulman" <JSHULMAN@CFL.RR.COM><BR>> > To: "General pattern discussion" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 6:35 PM <BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >> Ken, <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Would you say th
at if
the plane breaks in pitch it is a snap? <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Regards, <BR>> >> Jason <BR>> >> www.jasonshulman.com <BR>> >> www.shulmanaviation.com <BR>> >> www.composite-arf.com <BR>> >> <BR>> >> -----Original Message----- <BR>> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ken <BR>> >> Thompson <BR>> >> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 7:36 PM <BR>> >> To: General pattern discussion <BR>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> LOL!!! I'll be waiting in the wings to read the comments :-) <BR>> >> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >> From: "JShulman" <JSHULMAN@CFL.RR.COM><BR>> >> To: "General pattern discussion" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 6
:22 PM
<BR>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >>> Must be even closer to the Nats... after this is Spins...lol. <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> Are we talking shoulder rolling or straight rolling? <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> Regards, <BR>> >>> Jason <BR>> >>> www.jasonshulman.com <BR>> >>> www.shulmanaviation.com <BR>> >>> www.composite-arf.com <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> -----Original Message----- <BR>> >>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ken <BR>> >>> Thompson <BR>> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 7:24 PM <BR>> >>> To: johnfuqua@embarqmail.com; General pattern discussion <BR>> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> >>>
<BR>&g
t; >>> <BR>> >>> How can it be a snap if no pitch or break is shown? <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> And yes...I know this comment is setting up a serious discussion :-) <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >>> From: "John Fuqua" <JOHNFUQUA@EMBARQMAIL.COM><BR>> >>> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 6:18 PM <BR>> >>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>> For those FAI pilots at the Harvest contest this weekend who took <BR>> the <BR>> >>>> position that the airplane need no longer show pitch or break to <BR>> enter <BR>> >>>> the <BR>> >>>> snap I invite you to para 5B.7.5 of the FAI rule book. Looks to me <BR>> <BR>> >>>> lik
e <BR>
> >>>> the <BR>> >>>> only change is that a zero is no longer appropriate but a mandatory <BR>> >>>> downgrade of more than 5 points is. <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>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. <BR>> >>> Checked by AVG. <BR>> >>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1503 - Release Date: <BR>> >>&g
t; 6/1
4/2008 <BR>> >>> 6:02 PM <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. <BR>> >>> Checked by AVG. <BR>> >>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1503 - Release Date: <BR>> >>> 6/14/2008 <BR>> >>> 6:02 PM <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>> >> No virus found in this incoming message. <BR>> >> Checked by AVG. <BR>> >> Version: 7.5.
524 /
Virus Database: 270.3.0/1503 - Release Date: <BR>> 6/14/2008 <BR>> >> 6:02 PM <BR>> >> <BR>> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. <BR>> >> Checked by AVG. <BR>> >> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1503 - Release Date: <BR>> 6/14/2008 <BR>> >> 6:02 PM <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>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <
BR>>
; http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>