Bill,

Thanks for the clarification with regards to half snaps. Makes perfect sense to me and jives with what I remember from the numerous full scale judges schools I have attended.

Regards,

Anna

OK, I have to make one comment on this. An unloaded snap is not a "cheated" snap. Properly done snaps in full scale are also unloaded, or even excellerated with opposit elevator, in order to retain as much energy as possible.
Even with models, loosing the line through a snap is a result to a great extent of loss of energy through the snap. For a snap to be a snap, the model must be stalled. Unloading elevator after the pitch break does not mean the wing unstalls. In fact if it did stall through the pitch breaK and yaw departure it will stay stalled through the snap even with elevator unlaoded.

I just hate to see anyone limit his flying by taking the "safe" way out and burring snaps. While it'll never be a zero, on difficult snaps such as up or dow lines it also never be a high score either.

I,ml writing an article on snap technique. Doing a well exectued, unoaded snap isnt nearly as hard as you might think. Its a change in technique, and of course a proper set-up of the model. But like anything once you learn it ,its easy. Easier actually for the overall snap than just cornering the sticks IMHO.

I also understood Brian's comments at the Shootout judging refresher to be, he doesn't want to see displacement in a vertical or lateral plane in any snaps except half snaps. He clearly stated the rules currently allow it, but then sounded as if it would be his mission to get rid of that. I firmly and whole-heartedly agree with Will's comments on page one, this would be encouraging if not demanding "cheated snaps".

Fact of life that we all must accept, although we fly "scale" planes in a scale manor, there are differences. In the case of snap departure (i.e. a plane is flying at 100' feet and does 1 pos snap, now it's flying at 105' on the same flight path) our wing loadings and lack of inertia will cause the plane to rise as the sudden pitching is initiated (needed to actually stall the wing abruptly to achieve auto rotation). Some will argue that as the planes rotates through 180 deg (inverted) this positive pitch will now bring the altitude back down to the original altitude. I disagree, too many things have changed in that first 180 degrees, like speed for one, which greatly affects inertia. Now, if my 40% plane weighed 300 lbs, this entire scenario would be different, if the plane did rise, it would be a very minor amount. It would also take far less initial pitch to achieve the stalled wing condition we need (this is because the angle of attack on the wing prior to the snap would have had to be higher to achieve the necessary lift to sustain altitude). Now I really like scale aerobatic planes, but I don't like the thought of a 300lb imac plane.

Ok, now for my disclaimer, I'm no N G near (engineer), can't even spell it, just a guy who like planes and have been flying them for a long time (no I will not disclose). This is my laymen’s interpretation of a whole lot of technical jargon, quote at your on risk, disagree if you like, flame if your insecure about your social status (I wonder if that will serve as a flame deterrent, probably not, so flame away if you like).

One last thing on the original topic, down line and up line snaps, if you ask 100 IMAC flyers how to do them, you'll get at least 80 different answers, 60 are probably not incorrect. There are many different variables, aircraft type, setup (tail heavy? control throws?) wind, elevation (density altitude) , airspeed at the time of the snap. The key is to show the judges all of the criteria. Doesn't matter what you do with the sticks as long as all the criteria are met, pitch and yaw departure, auto rotation for the entire prescribed degrees of rotation, track of the planes CG remains the same after the snap as before. Learning to do good snaps takes lots and lots of practice. Many if not most of the "big names" do them incorrectly and get away with it. The real art some of the best have mastered is doing them on that fine line, where the judge has to ask himself, "am I absolutely sure that the criteria was NOT met?" If I'm not sure, I must give him the score.

Sorry to be so long winded on this. Fredo, welcome to IMAC, good luck to you, I know you'll have a blast. Get hooked up with guys who can critique you and listen to what they are seeing in your snaps, then tweak from there. You'll be fine. By the way, if you run across Steve Corram or Brian Simpson from Perth tell them the US Navy guy says hello and I'm still indebted to them for their hospitality.
Kev

Minor note. The actual rules ONLY require a pitch departure in the proper direction. There is NO requirement for the judges to see a yaw departure. I am not saying that you should or should not have a yaw departure, only that the rules do not require that the judge see one.

Frankly I think there is WAY too much emphasis on snaps now. People are obsessed with them, probably because sequence designers seem to be snap happy, especially at the Shootout. And many judges seem to be overly harsh in judging them. An observation I made both watching AND judging the Invitational class at the Shootout was that snaps were NOT the problem. The single biggest and most consistent error I saw and downgraded for was unequal lines before and/or after the dreaded snaps and other roll elements.

A good example was a half bow tie in one of the Unknowns. Pull to 45, 4 point roll, opposite full roll, push to vertical downline, positive snap, opposite negative snap, pull to 45 up line and more rolls going up. Nearly every single pilot I judged had a displacement on ALL three line segments. Some were minor, but still good for 1 point per leg, 3 points off the total figure. Others were far worse. Many had greater than 2 to 1 displacement on one or more legs, and that's 3 POINTS each!! A couple missed the line after the 4-point/opposite roll which earned them a 4 point hit.

Think about it. In a figure like that if you only had the 2 to 1 displacement on all three legs (which was VERY common) you could not get better than a 4 (2 points off per leg = minus 6 points).

I know that I am going to pay WAY more attention to my line lengths from here on out.

I like this thread. Can't believe I got some big guns involved here. To me it's quite an interesting subject. You guys that are doing the judging on unlimited there are so many snaps in a single maneuver that I think it must be getting hard to keep up. To concentrate on every single one I think is a task of its own specialy if they are one after another.
I think it is true like the Navy guy said. You ask lots of people about the correct way of doing snaps and a lot of them will tell you something different. So after all this discussion here am I doing it all wrong?... releasing rudder prior to stop? Which would mean I'm not completing autorotation. This part really baffles me[&:]. And how could the judge see this anyway? It only takes less than split of a second. I don't really want to cheat but that's the way I taught myself and also from watching other guys. So if it's incorrect I want to know how to do it properly then.
Mike, could you please let us know which magazine can we find your article about snaps?... so I can buy at least 3 copies

Great points by all. I think my use of the word "cheat" is implying maybe too strong of a tone or action. I think getting out of the elevator early does not = cheating. I have been trying to learn this, but just don't have my plane and fingers set up for it yet.

Fredo, getting out of the Rudder is a timing thing. You can do it but must be careful of exactly when. I guess that is my concern, that we are "training" pilots to start with elevator rudder and aileron and finishing with aileron only. Guess it depends on how early in the snap we are encouraging releasing the inputs.
Will

Lets ban all snaps. Positive and negative!

I agree totally on this. I also spent time in the judges chair at the TAS and aresti2004 is correct. Guys were losing major points on things other than the snaps. not hitting the points on point-rolls, varying roll rates, unequal line segments, and other geometric errors were zapping scores more than the snaps by a wide margin. Unfortunately, we have far too much emphasis on snaps. It seems that they are used as a convenient way to inflate K factors.

I witnessed lots of judge confusion on what constituted a valid snap, and that wasn't from inexperienced judges either.

Maybe we should just change the terminology and criteria. Don't call it a snap roll, call it a non-axial roll. [sm=wink.gif]

Just to clarify, what do you guys mean by "too much emphasis on snaps"? If your saying our sequences are too snap dependant, I would agree. If your saying the judges put too much emphasis on snaps, I certainly hope not. The criterea is there, just use it, no more no less, same with line lengths, rolls, loops you name it. I don't see that as too much emphasis.

As for getting out of the rudder, as I said before, doesn't matter what you do with the stick, as long as you show the requirements. Unloading, accelerating, whatever you need to do to make it work, go for it, that's not cheating (although it's refered to as "a cheat" ) it's working to get the highest score possible. Soemtimes you'll blow it, maybe deduction, maybe a zero, but when you nail it, it sure is a good feeling.

Kev

"too much emphasis on snaps"?

I believe what Bill and Steve are saying is the pilot is spending so much time working on snaps that he is missing all the finer points of the sequence. He is loosing a lot of points that should not be missed at that level.

By "too much emphasis", I was actually trying to say that we over-use the snap roll in sequence designs as a way to get K-factors inflated. That is the only reason I can come up with for why we have such "snap-happy" sequences. The sequences often end up "ugly" and don't flow well.

Also, Quist is correct. I am guilty of this too. Spending too much time trying to get the right look on the snap roll and missing the finer points, but that is just the name of the game. In looking over the '06 unlimited sequence proposals, I think there is an average of 10 or 11 snap combinations in the sequences. Seems high. But, you better get them right or else. It won't matter if the miffed snap was centered and the geometry was perfect. But it also shines a spotlight on the need to nail down the criteria on good vs bad snaps.

a little history...the FAI catalog was changed in 2001 and did two things...one, it introduced new figures, and two, it allowed roll placements on figures that previously did not. the impact of this cannot be understated...some of today's figures didn't exist, and more importantly, some of them when broken down would be two or three separate figures, rather than one. Figure 9s and Figure Ns come to mind...they are routinely writtten with stuff on all legs. the idea behind the change was to make full scale more interesting, but it was embraced by imac sequence writers - and the TAS guys - in much the same way as a kid who discovers he can eat ice cream at every meal. arrestedin2004 is referring to what steve said - that sequences are being written with simply too many snaps...the flow and balance of traditional precision has been eclipsed by a snap here and a snap there...often in the same figure. i have been judging unlimited for years, and judging these sequences is just no fun, judging snaps is wearing, and the reason for "lively" discussions between the judge and the pilot. also, like spins, snaps are all or nothing - you either met the criteria of you didn't. that doesn't sit well with pilots (and at least one pilot's wife) who are sure that their method should not only be scored, but scored well. anyway, as i said some time ago, i think the time has come to take a new look at unlimited and start moving backward to sequences that are written with a better mix of maneuvers and with more emphasis on flow.

I like the direction this is going. At the Shootout Quique and I were discussing the same issue of too many snaps. Having both sat in the judges chair and flown the snap happy patterns in our classs, it because really clear. As a judge you find yourself looking at snaps so much that you dont look a closely at the rest of the maneuver as you should. As a pilot as well as in developing new pilot's skills, I think we are becomming so biased toward snaps that other more difficult and import flying skills are being overlooked and lost. There seems to be a loss in the overall quality of rollers as an example. Much harder to do properly, but not as important to the score. At the shootout, in most of our 5 knowns and 5 unknowns there were very few maneuvers that didnt contain at least one snap. Sometimes multiple snap elements.
I like snaps and they are important to be part of our schedules, but IMHO they are becoming too important and over emphasized.

I mean both. First, sequence designers have simply gone snap happy to a fault. In the '06 Unlimited proposals, 2 of the 3 have multiple snaps on 9 of 10 figures. I am sure if they could have there would have been snaps on the rollers as well. The other only has multiple snaps on 8 of 10 figures. This is silly. It shows a lack of imagination on the part of the sequence writer and it places far too much emphasis on the snap roll. When you run the chance of zeroing nearly every figure in your sequence due to the all or nothing nature of a snap roll I think it is time to step back to assess if this is the right direction.

Secondly, the result of design like above is that pilots spend too much time focused on snaps. Judges too are spending all their time worried if they have made the right call and it places a significant burden on the judge to focus in on the snap and perhaps not be paying as much attention to other things.

So, why can't we roll back the snappiness of the sequences?? Beats me, but it seems like they are the new religon in sequence design so you better get them right.

Does not seem so bad in the Knowns, we can practice them and get it down. Otherwise I pretty much agree.
I have noticed that our national unknown program has aligned itself much better to creating sequences that are flyable rather than producing a winner based on survival. Who flies the best is in many cases is not the winner and it does appear to be from making maneuvers over complex like what is being discussed above.

One thing I have noticed though at least in Unlimited: When we get an "easy" unknown on Saturday night, Sunday morning almost alwayse produces more zeros than when handed a harder unknown.
Might be my imagination though.
Will B.

Interesting observation Will. As I think about it, I think my experience has been the same. The "easy" unknowns do produce more zeros.
Why do you think that is?

Hi Mike & Will,

I have noticed the same thing. A "relatively easy appearing" unknown perhaps does not get the deeply dedicated serious concentration before the flight. It's like a feeling of "Oh, that's a piece of cake" sequence -- no problem.! Then when show time arrives the pilot suddenly realizes that what seemed like a "no brainer" was suddenly becoming overwhelmingly difficult to do precisely, accurately, and correctly. My personal philosophy is to design unknowns fairly straight forward and easy to fly (read no zeros), but difficult to fly really good meeting all the judging criteria. Therefore, the best pilot and plane combination working as a team (along with the caller) will usually score well. I have never liked the idea that "whoever gets the least number of zero'd figures", wins the round.

[as a side note: I have been asked by a couple of CD's to design rather tough unknowns for their particular contest for whatever reason, and I accomodated them. I think you flew at one of those a couple of years back. I don't like doing that.]

Fred Johnson, IMAC Vice President

I agree with that line of thought. I have been bitten by hard unknowns for sure, but seems the easy figures tend to have that autopilot feeling about them going in and I get burned. Great example, a 3 turn inside roller that 3 of us at one contest did a great 3.5 inside roller.

In agreement with Fred, I have been wanting to put an inverted 360 aerobatic turn in an unlimited unknown, easy maneuver, but we never get anything that simple, wonder how it would work? I will try it this weekend just to see.
Thanks for the input Fred/Mike

Thanks for the clarification. All good input. I flew a pattern contest this past season. The difference was very interesting, lots of focus on geometry. I think the FAI schedule had only 2, maybe 3 snaps. Still a very difficult sequence to fly well. Mike makes an excellent observation about the rollers. I whole heartedly agree with the fact that it seems to be a lost art, especially with the lower "k" factors for them.

One small push here, if you guys have input for the sequences, please log in to the members only area of www.mini-iac.com and provide some feedback. I can tell you that the board members are watching these type discusions to get a feel for the memberships desires, but it is far outweighed byt the actual coment section on the IMAC web page.

Kev

Some good stuff here guys........... keep it up!

Yea, there are so many beautiful aerobatic figures that could be implemented to IMAC. Just my 2c, I would't mind to see flat turns inverted or upright (with elements in it?) Say, going into the crossbox or from the crossbox using 90degree radius. in the Sportsman and up it would be great. Probably not so hard to judge either as the wings would have to stay level all the way so as the whole aircraft.

fredo...flat turns are interesting, but they are not "legal" - meaning that are not included among the figures that could be made using FAI elements...the ama rules do bind imac to the fai catalog. pattern figures are not created from the fai catalog so they have more latitude in what they can write.

i am among a number of people who do not want to see inflated K factors for certain figures - as was the case a few years ago...but when I read posts like mike's it strains what is "right" when what are arguably the most difficult figures have so little impact on the outcome.

Hmm.. I wasn't aware of that.

I'd really like to see someone come up with a sequence that can test today's unlimited pilots in only 10 figures that doesn't have a lot of snaps. I'd actually prefer to see the sequences get longer.. say 13-15 figures, and only fly them once per round.

Will.. it's funny you mention this.. Mike and I used to look at the Wed Unknown at the TOC as a 'warm-up' kind of sequence.. because they never looked very hard. But often times.. they were challenging on a mental level instead of just a thumb gymnastics level.

Doug is correct. I remember getting a zero in the first round of the Unknown of TOC at least twice. I know Doug remembers my 6 of 8 on an upline in the 2000 TOC. When I got to the 8th poit he said "are you going to stop now?" Simple figure, but didnt concentrate closely enough.