Spins -- Final Chapter

[excelpoint]

Goto agree with Paffy. Although form the Vid(which is hard to tell with no ground perspective) I would say your downwind spin did not really stall. You did have a slight break but then the plane flattens out bringing the wing below its critical angle of attack(about 16-18 degrees I think) therefor the plane is no longer stalled. On the upwind spins the little pop up you do would not score as a stall if I were judging you. Again you do stall the plane momentarily but then it flys out the other side before being forced into a spin. Also as Paffy stated it is definately not a zero if the wing and nose dont drop at the same time just a downgrade.

[KrisW]

Again, guys, its a matter of perspective. NO downwind spin stops going forward. it's an impossible situation due to the tailwind.

Paffy,. without a simultaneous wing drop there is NO spin. they must be simultaneous. .5 points per 5 degrees of deviation in WHICH direction??? and for how long? 1000 feet?

If you do not get a break on the drop through, you NEVER stalled a wing, and it's a zero, because anythign else is forced. How forgiving the judges are will determine if you get a downgrade or a zero. I stated this in the video (about 4 times if I recollect). Some judges will be forgiving, some will not. Most (like me) will give you .5 points/5 degrees, for a little while. You fly more than 2-3 plane lengths, it never autorotated and it's a zero. The second you start compromising on this criteria, is when you have problems, and you guys like to compromise it seeems. There is no compromise. It either spun, or it did not. simple as that.

OH. .and did you notice the tail hanging out while in cross wind? I wonder what THAT is . . .. . I certainly didn;t rudder to make it hang out, in either direction, and it did it, plainly and consistently, int he same direction no matter which heading the plane was on.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by excelpoint
	Goto agree with Paffy. Although form the Vid(which is hard to tell with no ground perspective) I would say your downwind spin did not really stall. You did have a slight break but then the plane flattens out bringing the wing below its critical angle of attack(about 16-18 degrees I think) therefor the plane is no longer stalled. On the upwind spins the little pop up you do would not score as a stall if I were judging you. Again you do stall the plane momentarily but then it flys out the other side before being forced into a spin. Also as Paffy stated it is definately not a zero if the wing and nose dont drop at the same time just a downgrade.

The popup is a stall, end of discussion. You may not like it, but the plane is totally stalled at that point, with zlmost zero airspeed and as can be seen the wing falls through and spins nicely. . in a REAL autorotation. The only reason it's used is because 90% of people judging can't tell when the plane is stalled, so it's necessary to hold their little hands and SHOW them the break in spades. It's pitiful that it is necessary at all, and a very strong statement as to the horrible ability of most judges in IMAC. With the popup you get a clean break, WITH wing tip drop at the same time, and it does not fly through, it falls through. I'll take the 1 point deduction so that the guy sitting behind me KNOWS the plane stalled. If I ever went into a spin flat, he'd be saying I flew into it because he didn't see the break. I've had zero airspeed breaks into spins zeroed because no one is able to comprehend this. Again. our judge training SUCKS.

You want to improve upon this video. . make your own. THEN. . take it and shove it down the throat of every beginner judge in IMAC, because that is the only way it's ever going to get better.

[excelpoint]

Kris, if you dont like being criticised please do not post this type of stuff and state comments are welcome. I never stated I wanted to improve the video, I just stated what I saw, and to me it looked like the plane flew forward after the popup. As I said thats just what I saw. I never also stated I dont like the popup. If you re read what I wrote it says" Again you do stall the plane momentarily but then it flys out the other side before being forced into a spin" Again you misread Paffy's statement, never was it said that if the plane does not stall it is not a zero. You can stall a plane with out dropping a wing. If the nose falls straight through the horizon with out a wing dropping say from an initial nose up attitude of 45 degrees to a nose down attitude of 45 degrees before autorotation starts the that would be a 9 point downgrade, thats fairly straight forward as per the rules. problems will occur when judges start trying to modify the judging criteria to suit themselves. If all judges just followed the criteria instead if trying to modify it we would seem some sort of uniformity in judging. Just remember people are allowed to disagree with your technique, some of us may actually know what we are talking about.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by excelpoint
	Kris, if you dont like being criticised please do not post this type of stuff and state comments are welcome. I never stated I wanted to improve the video, I just stated what I saw, and to me it looked like the plane flew forward after the popup. As I said thats just what I saw. I never also stated I dont like the popup. If you re read what I wrote it says" Again you do stall the plane momentarily but then it flys out the other side before being forced into a spin" Again you misread Paffy's statement, never was it said that if the plane does not stall it is not a zero. You can stall a plane with out dropping a wing. If the nose falls straight through the horizon with out a wing dropping say from an initial nose up attitude of 45 degrees to a nose down attitude of 45 degrees before autorotation starts the that would be a 9 point downgrade, thats fairly straight forward as per the rules. problems will occur when judges start trying to modify the judging criteria to suit themselves. If all judges just followed the criteria instead if trying to modify it we would seem some sort of uniformity in judging. Just remember people are allowed to disagree with your technique, some of us may actually know what we are talking about.

I never said I minded criticism. I mind bad criticism.

[paffy]

Kris, I think it's a shame that you create a nice video and then spoil it by information in direct opposition of what the rulebook says.

If you don't like the rules, propose a change. The rules are not clear on when does the deducting start. I'm aware of two camps. One starts deducting from the AoA just prior to break (like the post above suggests), the other starts deducting from where the attitude of the plane falls through horizontal.

So let's say most planes stall at around 12° AoA (not 45° !!). That should create a 1 - 1.5 point discrepancy between the two camps. Definitely better that way than one judge giving 0 and other 7.5 in my opinion. Every full scale spin video from professional pilots (with commentaries) I've seen shows:

a) power off
b) keep altitude by feeding in elevator (until it buffets real hard)
c) stall (nose falls straight down)
d) rudder in the direction of the spin (split second after the nose starts falling)
e) autorotation

That's why I prefer to give pilot until the plane gets horizontal to initiate the autorotation, but I would change that practice, if the rulebook became more specific.

Popups - not necessary on properly setup plane, but better than nothing. Most of the time, it will bring at least a deduction for change in flight path on entry. It's hard to do a pop-up without the plane climbing somewhat. If the plane doesn't have enough pitch authority to keep the wings beyond stall AoA to begin with (hence the need for the pop-up), it's quite possible that after the pop-up, it will simply fly out of the stall (like harrier to normal flight transition) and then spirals in instead of autorotating.

Bottom line (IMHO) is - work on your elevator travels and experiment with CG, before you try to master a questionable "pop-up into a spiral" maneuver.

The expression "ZERO airspeed" and "stall/spin" should never be used in the same sentence. You could say groundspeed, but that's not really relevant to anything. Again - refer to rulebook. This was plaguing pattern rules for years, where they wanted the plane "to stop".

Guess what - if planes would stall at ZERO airspeed, we wouldn't need runways. We could simply slow it down to ZERO and touch down...

P.

[paffy]

OMG Kris !!!!!!!!!

How can you quote a single sentence from the rulebook, without quoting the one following it ?

Your quote:
"when the aircraft stalls, the nose will fall and at the same time the wing tip will drop in the direction of the spin."
The next sentence in the rulebook:
Failure to achieve this should be considered a “forced entry” and downgraded 0.5 points per 5 degrees of deviation.

Yet you go on how this is an automatic ZERO. I would understand for someone who never read the rulebook to argue like that, but you obviously did - WTH ????

If you want to argue, argue that we're effectively judging the attitude this way, not the flight path at that moment (which the rulebook is not clear on)

P.

[TeamFlatout]

What if you enter the spin on knife edge? Is that considered a zero or a .90210 downgrade followed by a 1/2 point upgrade for entering the spin on knife edge?

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by TeamFlatout
	What if you enter the spin on knife edge? Is that considered a zero or a .90210 downgrade followed by a 1/2 point upgrade for entering the spin on knife edge?

I all depends on the bribe amount....

[TeamFlatout]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	I all depends on the bribe amount....

hahaha

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	OMG Kris !!!!!!!!! How can you quote a single sentence from the rulebook, without quoting the one following it ? Your quote: "when the aircraft stalls, the nose will fall and at the same time the wing tip will drop in the direction of the spin." The next sentence in the rulebook: Failure to achieve this should be considered a “forced entry” and downgraded 0.5 points per 5 degrees of deviation. Yet you go on how this is an automatic ZERO. I would understand for someone who never read the rulebook to argue like that, but you obviously did - WTH ???? If you want to argue, argue that we're effectively judging the attitude this way, not the flight path at that moment (which the rulebook is not clear on) P.

All right, Paul let's "Discuss" this glaring shortcoming of the rules.

On the one hand we have a clear statement of what constitutes a proper Spin entry .simultaneous nose and wing tip drop. Then right after it someone adds in "but it's okay not to do this and we'll allow a downgrade of .5/5 until you manage to spin the plane"

Herein lies the entire problem with judging Spin entires, an ambiguity that has the 2nd scoring criteria negating most of the First.

If we are going to allow.5/5 for the non-spin portion of flight after the nose drops through the horizon, for how long will we allow the plane to fly on this descending, and stalled, flightpath until we finally zero the manuver? It's conceivable that the plane could actually land before it ever spins.

The entire basis of a spin is to show a stalled departure from level flight, with resulting autorotation. Without adhering very closely to the Simultaneous nose and wingtip drop criteria, we are then allowing pilots to never show this departure as it should be shown. The followup rule only encourages us to forego strict adherence of the simultaneous requirement, in favor of allowing the flyer to basically do whatever he wants, for as long as he wants, and then present what he thinks will be acceptable.

As I stated in my first reply, Most judges will cut the pilot a break and utilize the .5/5 downgrade for MINOR infractions of the "Simultaneous break" clause, up to a certain distance of forward, stalled flight. This includes the "45 up and down" referenced as a 9 point deduction. But, at some point we all have to say "Enough" and then zero the manuver for taking too long to show the proper wing drop into an autorotation. No one has stipulated how far this is to be .. 3 plane lengths, 100 feet, or until the plane lands.

This is why I hold very closely to the first part of the rule. The plane must have simultaneous wing and nose drop, otherwise, technically, it should be zeroed. The "fudge factor" of allowing the plane to mush forward, and downward, until the wingtip drops into the spin is very short for me, no more than 2-3 plane lengths. I figure, if the flyer cannot get the wing to drop in within that short a period of flight, he is no longer even close to what a spin would be, and deserves to have the manuver zeroed.

"Failure to achieve this should be considered a “forced entry” and downgraded 0.5 points per 5 degrees of deviation. "

Someone should have re-thought the verbage of that line, because there is a big difference between a "forced Entry" (such as a snap) and a "Delayed Entry". A "Delayed Entry" more closely describes what is actually happening, and shows a clear difference between the usual Forced Entry we see and an entry that is merely delayed because the wingtip did not properly drop in simultaneous with the nose. Clearing up that ONE word would go a long way toward making the Simultaneous rule and the followup .5/5 clarification, more compatible with eachother.


In the end it comes down to the MAIN criteria. "Presenting the manuver in a proper manner" You can cite the rules to the Nth degree. . they are there for a purpose, but not as an excuse for bad flying.

[Shawn Berkheimer]

Ok I have a question for the two of you guys that seem to be getting a tad heated here.

1. Have you 2 guys attended a judging seminar?

2. Have you guys flown in contests on a regular basis.


Shawn