<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The only way to have a steady-state high alpha with a low pitch
attitude is to be descending with nose high. Alpha is based on relative
airflow.<br>
<br>
I would like someone to explain how, if the wing, or one panel, is
stalled how the ailerons are continuing to control the direction of
rotation. If there is a stalled wing, then it will be the one with the
"down" aileron as that wing has the higher incidence angle. This
stalled panel would cause a roll contrary to the aileron deflection.
This is actually what happens when you get an oeverweight airplane too
slow and add some surface deflections. It will snap contrary to the
aileron.<br>
As we perform snap rolls in pattern, I do not believe there is any
stall involved at all. The manuver is all "smoke and mirrors". In which
case the rulebook is always right as it defines the maneuver to be
performed. Perhaps flick roll is the better name.<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
<br>
chris moon wrote:
<blockquote cite="midBLU137-W21D84F7B3AF057A94DCE4383AB0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>Thanks Del. <br>
We are actually on the same page. My points were directed more <br>
generally than towards anyone who is posting to this topic. I just <br>
wanted to make it clear that personal preferences are not a judging <br>
parameter and that exaggerated elements in order to please someone who <br>
is looking pretty much only for certain elements of a maneuver rather <br>
than the whole is also wrong. Also, I read posts where people clearly <br>
don't understand the difference between aircraft pitch attitude and <br>
angle of attack. Two very different things. I see time and again <br>
people (yes, me too) get whacked for not showing some silly 40 degree <br>
nose up attitude in order to "prove" the plane stalled before beginning
<br>
a spin. A wing of course is flown by angle of attack and a plane can be
<br>
at a high angle of attack yet a "low" nose high attitude to the ground.
<br>
So, a high angle of attack and a true stall can occur at a relatively <br>
low nose high attitude relative to the ground but how often is it <br>
downgraded or zeroed because the judge does not know the difference <br>
between the two? All of the time. I see and hear it all of the time. <br>
"He could not have stalled because the nose was not high enough" Wrong,
<br>
wrong, wrong.<br>
<br>
This link has some basic info for those who want to read even more:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0165.shtml">http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0165.shtml</a><br>
<br>
I also agree that judging is way better than before in just about every
<br>
respect. We can always make it better of course and these discussions <br>
make some mad and some frustrated but enlighten others. If one does not
<br>
truly understand basic aerodynamics, then they cannot become a good <br>
judge. The concepts of pitch attitude and angle of attack are key to <br>
understanding stalls and snaps so they are key things that we all must <br>
understand. Understanding the difference makes judging these maneuvers <br>
so much easier.<br>
<br>
AMA vs. FAI I also agree completely about having to change gears when <br>
judging these classes back to back at a contest. Even trying to keep <br>
the rules straight for the 2 types is difficult at best.<br>
<br>
I hope as well as others that you can continue participating in pattern
<br>
with us! We need everyone.<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
Del wrote:<br>
> Chris...<br>
> Please!!! don't take this personally directed at/ _you_/ or any
_one <br>
> individual_. The list is a great medium to have intellectually <br>
> stimulating discussion that often is educational.<br>
> Judging is an arbitrary art. Do we all have the same calibrated <br>
> eyeball? No.. But all judges should be seeing and judging the same
<br>
> maneuver with similar downgrades. Are all downgrades going to be <br>
> identical.. Not realistically ~ No.. Is that the best we can do.. <br>
> possibly..? The NSRCA has worked hard with many volunteers over
the <br>
> years trying to enlighten and improve the caliber of judging and
it is <br>
> much better than it was 20 years ago..<br>
> At this stage of evolution when the judges are reduced to nit
picking <br>
> shows how well the judging has improved for the overall big
picture. <br>
> Is it realistic to stop the nitpicking.. It is part of the beast
we <br>
> enjoy to participate in.. Some terminology in the judging guide
could <br>
> be tweaked and improved on for those that like to over analyze.
The <br>
> snap by its very nature if often judged just on the merits of the
snap <br>
> itself which no judge should ever do. Entry and exit are also
worthy <br>
> of their focus. That snap in some cases happens in less than 1
sec. It <br>
> is always going to have disparity in the scores just based on the
fact <br>
> not all eyes see and recognize all the details they need to catch
in <br>
> that sec. let alone feeling burnout or watery eyes etc. that make
a <br>
> judge miss something.<br>
> It is hard to expect all judges to shift gears from FAI to AMA and
<br>
> back again during the same day or same contest. Dwindling numbers
make <br>
> that a reality.<br>
> I will always contend that your mission as a pattern competitor is
to <br>
> show the judges to the best of your ability what the rule books <br>
> describes. As a pilot if you try to change your flying to what one
<br>
> given judge expects your are hurting yourself and your overall <br>
> performance. I guess that is why they still insist on throwing out
<br>
> some judges scores at the major competitions. Wish it weren't so
but <br>
> that is also part of the process.<br>
> I personally didn't read anyone saying they were judging by the
way <br>
> they like it.. I may have missed some posts but what I read, some
were <br>
> showing, for clarification, that some statements being made, where
in <br>
> error and just trying to clarify what the specific rule actually <br>
> states... Not what someone interprets..<br>
> I have always had an issues in FAI judging when 2 pilots flies <br>
> identical maneuvers and one flies consistently 5 degrees off in <br>
> track/heading and the other flies on the rail do they both deserve
a <br>
> 10 if all elements in the maneuver have been done per the rules?
Some <br>
> argue that 1 point / 15 is applied before they get to a 15º
error.. <br>
> others read it to mean that your don't give a down grade till at
least <br>
> 15º of track have been shown. Thankfully in AMA we have the 1/2
points <br>
> to work with.<br>
> So yes you are right that no judge is to judge based on what they <br>
> prefer except when it comes to style and presentation ~ the lower <br>
> criteria for downgrades.<br>
> ~~~ Who gets the better score...? Dean Pappas once told us that
the <br>
> one that hides their corrections the best. That alone is another
art <br>
> /subject. So when judging ~~ do you best to be consistent and fair
to <br>
> all.. When flying ~~ do your best to show the judges you do know
how <br>
> to fly the maneuvers without any detectable errors. Learn to hide
your <br>
> corrections.<br>
> I sincerely hoped I helped Chris. Feel free to comment on or off
list <br>
> as you feel apropos. I still love the sport and what it has to
offer <br>
> but am having to give it up ~~ possibly forever.. only time can
tell..<br>
> Del<br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> *From:* chris moon <mailto:cjm767driver @hotmail.com=""><br>
> *To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion @lists.nsrca.org=""><br>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:15 PM<br>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>
><br>
> Is it not the pilot's responsibility to simply fly the maneuver as<br>
> depicted? Why then must they exaggerate a portion to placate a
judge<br>
> who wants to see it their way? Our judging training materials<br>
> distinctly say not to downgrade just because the maneuver is not
done<br>
> the way you like. The example was one pilot making sharp corners
in a<br>
> square loop vs another making larger more rounded corner. Both are<br>
> correct and should be judged identically but can anyone argue that<br>
> one<br>
> way should be downgraded because it was not the way "you like it"<br>
> Stalls, snaps and spins are no different. Not the way I like it =
so<br>
> what. If it is done correctly it is always a 10. I would think<br>
> that if<br>
> the other judges are consistently giving "normal" scores and I am<br>
> zeroing or giving some nominal score, that there has to be an issue<br>
> going on. Am I the only one who is consistently right in my
thinking<br>
> and everyone else is all wrong? Or, could it be the other way
around?<br>
><br>
> Chris<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Del wrote:<br>
> > It is the "PILOTS" responsibility to fly the maneuver as<br>
> described per<br>
> > the rules. If said pilots chooses to not make it obvious or<br>
> > discernable to the judge then enjoy the score you should be
awarded.<br>
> > Del<br>
> ><br>
> > ----- Original Message -----<br>
> > *From:* chris moon<br>
> > *To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> ><br>
> > *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 5:11 PM<br>
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>
> ><br>
> > George - you have made an excellent point in that the interval<br>
> may by<br>
> > "minuscule" and not overly noticeable to everyone. It is
absolutely<br>
> > wrong for some to claim that you must "show" them as judge an<br>
> > exaggerated pitch up just to satisfy a personal interpretation<br>
> of the<br>
> > maneuver. Just as is is absolutely wrong for those judges to
demand<br>
> > another overly exaggerated pitch up as a stall entry to a spin<br>
> > maneuver. It is never the job of the participant to
exaggerate a<br>
> > portion of a maneuver just to prove it exists, therefore your<br>
> > usage of<br>
> > the term "minuscule" in terms of the time interval between
pitch and<br>
> > rotation is something we need to keep in mind.<br>
> ><br>
> > Chris<br>
> ><br>
> > george w. kennie wrote:<br>
> >> My lip is becoming too painful from biting it, so I think
I'm<br>
> > going to<br>
> >> stick my nose in here somewhere.<br>
> >> I think I'm with Jon on this one.<br>
> >> My logic, however flawed, tells me that if I am flying my
plane<br>
> >> straight and level and I input rudder, no matter how
much, there<br>
> > is no<br>
> >> way that this input will induce a stall to the airframe.<br>
> > Therefore, it<br>
> >> seems to me, that the necessary force required to stall
the main<br>
> >> lifting surface must come from the elevator. It would
further<br>
> > seem to<br>
> >> me that this input must, by it's very nature produce a
pitching<br>
> >> attitude to the fuselage whether positive or negative. So
I<br>
> > would have<br>
> >> to conclude that the attitude "break" referenced by the
rule can<br>
> > only<br>
> >> refer to a "pitch" break and would be impossible to
confuse<br>
> with an<br>
> >> attitude change induced by the rudder seeing that the
required<br>
> > result<br>
> >> is to stall the main wing.<br>
> >> And yes Jon, I agree that it would be necessary to lead
with the<br>
> >> elevator in order to bring about this attitude change
before<br>
> > rotation<br>
> >> is started, however miniscule the interval might be.<br>
> >> Of course I'm still open to hearing other interpretations
and<br>
> their<br>
> >> validations as these observations are strictly opinions.<br>
> >> G.<br>
> >><br>
> >> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> >> *From:* Jon Lowe<br>
> >> *To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 2:10 PM<br>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>
> >><br>
> >> Jim,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I have no clue how you think all three axes can be
initiated at<br>
> >> the same time. You keep forgetting the part of the RULE,
quoted<br>
> >> verbatim below, that says the "fuselage break and
separation from<br>
> >> the flight path" must happen "BEFORE THE ROTATION IS
STARTED". I'm<br>
> >> NOT equating fueselage break to pitch break, it could
break in<br>
> >> pitch and/or yaw, if it doesn't start rotation at the
same time.<br>
> >> If you initiate all three axis at the same time, rotation
WILL<br>
> >> start at the same instant, and that is specifically NOT
permitted.<br>
> >> READ THE RULE! The judge MUST determine if the fuselage
broke and<br>
> >> separated from the flight path first, BEFORE the rotation
started.<br>
> >> If it didn't, he MUST severely downgrade.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Jon Lowe<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> -----Original Message-----<br>
> Klipped 4 reposting<br>
><br>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</mailto:nsrca-discussion></mailto:cjm767driver>
<hr>Earn cashback on your purchases with Live Search - the search
that pays you back! <a
href="http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=earncashback"
target="_new">Learn More</a>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>