<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16674" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Shhh John... you are making
sense to me.. <g> Some don't truly understand basic airflow
physics. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> Del</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jgghome@comcast.net href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">John Gayer</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">General pattern discussion</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:46
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
entry in FAI</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>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 {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 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 width="90%" SIZE=4>
_______________________________________________
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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG.
<BR>Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1525 - Release Date: 6/29/2008
3:09 PM<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>