Snap rolls?

[rwmarth 0]

I've been trying to accomplish some snap rolls when flying, but unable to do so with my Alb. Early III. Does anyone have any advice as to how to do these? Thanks in advance!

[+Fates 63]

Just don't do them like this guy:

http://www.aircraftmechanic.org/showthread.php?p=5702

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

rwmarth, the WWI kites weren't really capable of such a maneuver anymore than they can do a modern day "Immelman". If you are use to the newer, faster aircraft you will have to rethink some tactics with the OFF planes. But it's fun learning what they can do.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[Bullethead 12]

the WWI kites weren't really capable of such a maneuver

 

I disagree. A snaproll is just a horizontal, deliberately entered spin. Any plane in OFF that will spin will also snaproll. To do a snaproll, first you have to be slow, not far above your level stall speed. Then you jam on full aileron and rudder in the direction of your choice, plus full up elevator, while throttling all the way back. This puts the inside wing into an accelerated stall and away you go.

 

It's quite possible to snaproll even a Fee, which is incapable of doing a barrel roll or even a decent loop. The only plane in OFF I have been unable to snaproll is the RE8, which steadfastly refuses to do even a regular spin no matter how hard I try, despite its well-documented nasty flight characteristics in real life. A few other planes do things strangely, too. First off, NEVER spin or snaproll a DH2 unless your pilot is set to be immortal. Never try this in a Dr.I unless you've got a lot of experience with the machine and at least 1000 feet of altitude. Camels can easily get completely out of control and be totally disorienting, but are actually much easier to recover if you just force the nose down. Nupes always go to the right even if you start with left control inputs, which can catch you by surprise if you're not used to it. But I've noticed nothing strange with the Albatri.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

BH, maybe we are talking about two different ideas here. I agree that you can "snap" most of these birds into a roll, but you will not have the precise control coming out of that maneuver that I would associate with the true snap roll, unless you have sorted out how to do that, in which case I tip my hat to you Sir and humbly ask for a lesson or two.

 

.

[rwmarth 0]

Thanks for the responses guys. BH, that was what I was looking for as I am not too concerned with maintaining control but rather just making the plane change direction fast. Snap rolling a Fee would be something to see! It already seems extremely fragile in just straight and level flight as is!

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

rwmarth, here's a video I did some time back while I was flying my Fee. A little over 4 minutes into the video I do something with that kite you wouldn't think it could do that quick. Enjoy.

 

Flying the OFF FE2b

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[Red-Dog 3]

Nice video Lou, you handled the crate like a pro.

[Red-Dog 3]

I can snap roll most of the crates, first i bank hard then go into a spin and my wings regularly snap off.

[Stiffy 1]

Its avery different style of flying in these crates... dont expect precision rolls.

 

It is worth noting howerver that many pilots of the time deliberately stalled their machines to perform evasive maneuvers... the trick is practicing getting out of the stall.

[Olham 164]

Being a stone age bloke, when it comes to special manoeuvers: could anyone send a drawing of the snap roll?

Cause, what Bullethead describes, is what I used to do, when I made a barrel roll with a Messerschmidt Bf 109.

So what is the difference?

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Well Stiffy, since you mention using the stall as an intentional maneuver and noting that the trick is getting back out of it, and since I posted my very first OFF video in this thread yesterday, I think it apropos to again post my most recent OFF video that demonstrates the very point you were making. About 3 minutes and 45 seconds in you will see one of the best bits of video I've ever captured:

 

A Duel In The Sun

 

Enjoy!

 

.

 

 

Olham, a snap roll is a precise "snap" of the plane around its longitudinal axis, normally terminating exactly back where you started in terms of that axis. I don't think it can be done with OFF planes, (or actual WWI aircraft), with any kind of predictability.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[Olham 164]

Hmmm - not yet clear, as the word "snap" offers me about 30 translations in the online dictionary.

Do you mean - badly expressed - a roll, where the wings "propell" around the fuselage (which I tought

was just called "roll") ?

 

Do you mean, it would just not come out precise enough, in terms of altitude?

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Olham, here is a video of a Cessna 152 doing a snap roll as best it can, and it's about as good as any of these OFF kites are likely to do the same maneuver, IMHO:

 

C152 Snap Roll

 

As you can see, with a slower, underpowered aircraft it does not exactly "snap", (i.e. roll quickly and precisely), and it does not end up quite where it started in terms of wings being level and such.

 

HTH Olham.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[Olham 164]

Ah, I see. I thought that was almost a barrel roll.

I'll search WIKI for some manoeuver drawings. I get them all wrong named.

 

I tried this manoeuver with the Albatros, and found I had to push stick when headover,

not to loose much altitude. It might have looked similar to the Cesna's.

 

And when I see this vid, I think, they shouldn't dare to perform it with a fix-gear craft at

such a low altitude?

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Olham, it is almost a barrel roll due to the speed and handling characteristics of the plane. That's why I have stated that I don't believe a true, precisely controlled snap roll, (which is really just a horizontal stall), can be done with most of the OFF planes.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[Bandy 3]

... the WWI kites weren't really capable of such a maneuver anymore than they can do a modern day "Immelman".

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

OK, then why do you think an Immelmann turn is called an Immelmann turn? He came up with the maneuver; it was not named posthumously!!! OK, the modern over-the-top roll no, but the vertical turn yes. SEE HERE

 

As far as I know a snap roll is also called a flick roll. Here is a video link of a Dr1 in flight

.

About 50 sec into the video it looks like the pilot attempted to execute a flick roll (and what most are calling a snap roll here, semantics perhaps...) and he fails and stalls out BUT that is because he didn't have enough airspeed entering it.

 

These crates/buses CERTAINLY could do these maneuvers, as witnessed by the original "vintage" airplanes in "Hell's Angles" doing these maneuvers and more!

 

EDIT: now with the way stalls are handled by this flight engine you may not be able to do a proper snap/flick roll in this sim. That is an entirely different question...

Edited November 19, 2009 by B Bandy RFC

[Flyby PC 23]

I'm not a real flyer, so never been told the right names for manouvres, but when somebody mentioned snap rolls, I immediately thought of the rolls you see in flights like the Red Bull Air races, where the pilot snaps through 90 degrees, inverted, 270 deg, then back to level. It's a roll, but the pilot has absolute control to stop & start his roll.

 

 

 

However, I'm now more enlightened, and now assume this first manouvre to be a 'snap roll' -

 

http://www.k4.dion.n.../shiden-kai.mpg

 

Have I got that right?

 

If that link doesn't work, it's the Shiden-kai video here - http://www.k4.dion.ne.jp/~suppon/

Edited November 19, 2009 by Flyby PC

[Dej 17]

OK, then why do you think an Immelmann turn is called an Immelmann turn? ...

 

To be fair, Lou did say 'modern day Immelmann'. It's today a quite different manoeuver from that whcih we now call a 'wing over' that Immelmann made his own. The illustration in 'Practical Flying' is clearly NOT an Immelmann as we call it now. Sim FMs notwithstanding many WW1 aircraft didn't have the aileron 'muscle' that later sircraft had, so a roll, flick, snap or otherwise may well have been beyond them. I know in this sim I have to put a fair bit of rudder on to persuade an SE5 over on her back; the Camel will do it easily but not without a dip and raise in the vertical plane... so not a roll really... more like a kebab

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Thank you Dej, that is the point I was making here too when we posted at the same time. The original WWI Immelman Turn is not the same as the one called the Immelman seen in airshows now. As to actual WWI planes being able to do a snap roll, I will agree that a few of the twitchy birds and those with the larger late-war engines probably could do the maneuver, but I am betting they still were not all that precise in the execution of it, which has been my main contention all along here. The problem as I see it is we are using a more modern aerobatic term and applying it to early aircraft. "Snap" implies a very quick, sharp, exact action, which is possible with high powered, high speed modern aircraft. It was not so back in 1918, and the term "snap roll" was not in the vocabulary of the day as it would not have accurately described any such maneuver these old kites were capable of.

 

Of course, we are likely only arguing semantics here and I apologize if such is the case. But language is precise and I like to try and use it in a precise fashion. So shoot me.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Well, however, I'm not in there for aerobatics.

Before any of my enemies come up with phantastic manoeuvers, I may

watch them, if I have the time, but before it gets too much, I shoot them dow.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

hee, hee...there ya' go Olham. That's probably why you are a BHaH ace many times over.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[Bullethead 12]

BH, maybe we are talking about two different ideas here. I agree that you can "snap" most of these birds into a roll, but you will not have the precise control coming out of that maneuver that I would associate with the true snap roll, unless you have sorted out how to do that, in which case I tip my hat to you Sir and humbly ask for a lesson or two.

 

To make sure we're on the same page, there are 3 main types of rolls: aileron, snap, and barrel. A barrel roll is the only type useful in ACM, because it's the main ingredient of a rolling scissors. The others are only for show, but trying to do them in QC helps you master your chosen ride or at least learn its limitations.

 

As I was taught them, the various types of rolls are defined as follows:

• Snap roll: As described above, it's a horizontal spin. The fuselage is cocked at a pretty sharp angle to the direction of motion, the inboard wing is stalled, the outboard wing is still flying, and you're doing your best to maintain altitude.
• Aileron roll: The objective is to keep the fuselage perfectly staight and level while holding full aileron over, using elevator and rudder as needed as you go around. Needs to be done at a high enough speed that you don't immediately start a ballistic trajectory straight down. For wimpy rides, best done after a dive for speed and then pitching up to about 15^ before starting the roll.
• Barrel roll: Combination of lots of aileron and elevator, so you fly in a spiral path around an approximately horizontal axis. The natural reaction to an enemy diving on from your high 4 or 8 o'clock, and thus bringing about the rolling scissors fight.

Not all OFF planes, even if fast enough, can do a barrel roll, due to insufficient aileron authority combined with too much "built-in headwind". Most can, though. Every plane that will spin will do at least 1 snap roll, however. But only the planes with high speed, decent roll rates, good rudder and elevator authority, and a sufficient lack of inherent stability, can do an airshow-worthy aileron roll. I find these work best in SPADs.

 

I agree that if you try to do snaprolls, you'll usually lack precision. You'll either do too many or come out at the wrong angle and have to do an "excuse me" barrel roll out of it to get back level. Modern aerobatic planes are specifically designed to fly indefinitely in the regime, however, and to come out of it at will, so comparing WW1 planes to a Pitss or something is unrealistic (especially given the disparity in power:weight ratios). But, with sufficient stick-time on a given snap-capable OFF ride, and plenty of practice at judging the correct moment, you can get fairly competent at precision snap rolls. I can do this with Camels, Pups, and Fees, but other planes I'm sloppy with.

 

As I said, though, snaprolls aren't ACM, so being able to do them "correctly" won't help you in combat directly. All it does it teach you about your ride and give you an measure of your master of the beast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Flyby PC 23]

It's incidental to this thread but might be on interest - I remember the Battle of Britain ace Peter Brothers saying on TV that in a dogfight, those pilots who were better at aerobatics and could execute rolls, loops etc perfectly were often shot down because the enemy knew where they were going to be.

 

If you tried a manouvre and made a complete arse of it or rolled out of it half way, you didn't find the enemy waiting for you because he couldn't predict where your aircraft was going to be. He reckoned he owed his survival to not being a very good pilot.

 

 

Edit - Just checking my facts and see Air Commodore Peter Brothers CBE, DSO, DFC* died in December last year. Don't know how I missed hearing that. Rest in Peace.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Flyby PC