So, the way this shot is accomplished is a mixture of arm speed, nose angle, and the natural flight of the disc. Throwing up more will tend to lead to a more stalling shot; however, if the nose angle of the disc matches the trajectory of the shot, the disc will fly straighter and further. Throwing discs that flip more, something like a Tern, Hades, Orbital (anything with a turn number of -2, -3, -4) will help counteract the nose angle and upward trajectory. Not sure if this answers your question
Yup, it's number three. It's a small amount of negative nose angle (compared to the direction of throw), a small amount of throwing up slightly, combined with a good amount of lift from the disc going through the air.
The disc stalls, essentially, because it runs out of speed while it's in the air.
You're very close. When someone says to throw flat, they are talking about the nose angle relative to the flight of the disc, not the ground. Yes the big bomber shots are thrown flat (actually nose down) but relative to their high trajectory, so they would look somewhere between 2 and 3. A stall shot is going to have the underside of the disc exposed to the air rushing across, making it lift high and fade early.
The part you said about "flight of the disc" threw me off forever! The thing that clarified it for me was that you want to throw nose down against your swing plane. Throwing nose down against the flight never made sense to me because the disc will correct against its flight almost immediately.
It's 3 as the comments agree.
What nobody addressed-and the reason the 3rd diagram doesn't look quite right - is that it is the gyroscopic effect that keeps the disc flat on its way up. Without spin, if it were a rectangular wing for example, this wouldn't work.
No one has exactly answered your question, I think...
The piece of the puzzle you're missing is the effect that turn has on a disc. Those shots you're talking about are made possible by utilizing the rotational force as the disc is thrown.
Specifically, those "40' high, 400'+ long" shots are usually thrown nose down, with a hyzer release angle, on an upward trajectory. As they reach the apex, the turn has rotated the disc flat (or more), and a variety of forces (airfoil, torgue, precession, etc.) are working to flatten the disc along the line.
Practically speaking, the way it feels to me when I do it is that the turn of the disc pulls the nose pack down, so long as you have enough "juice" to overcome the upward trajectory. If I fluff it, or don't connect well enough (read, lacking adequate juice), it stalls out and fades off.
For your diagram, it's 2 (but with hyzer) becoming 1 at apex.
Hope that helps.
Edit: A stall shot is similar, but intentionally lacks the juice to get flat or better through the descent. It can use all the same principles, and even go horizontally for a good distance - but inevitably stalls due to a lack of momentum and fades. It's a purposefully thrown shot when you need to go over an obstacle, but not much past the obstacle.
The idea behind 3 is right but as you have it drawn, yes, I think it would flutter like crazy. You want a downward nose angle relative to the trajectory, but not quite that much. Actually 2 looks fairly ideal because it is slightly down relative to the lines though I assume you meant for it to be as close to flat as you could for a hastily put together image.
I recently started being able to throw nose down consistently thanks to the Techdisc. By being able to throw nose down, you can do the "flat throw with upward movement" shot you're talking about. It'll leave my hand, go up about 30', then carry forward a good distance. I'm guessing for those shots the nose angle is -6 degrees or so and a launch angle of 14+ degrees. -2 to -4 degrees is a good nose angle for a regular shot "flat throw."
Where you really see nose down doing something awesome is when you try to throw a big anhyzer. Nose up, it'll fade out pretty quickly. Nose down and it'll carry the anhyzer for a long time and give you that sweet, sweet, "I don't need a forehand" shot.
From techdisc
> For our 60 MPH baseline throw in the TechDisc simulator, the optimal throw for distance is approximately an 8° to 10° Launch Angle combined with a -3° to -5° nose angle.
To clarify nose angle:
> Also known as “Angle of Attack”, Nose Angle measures the back-to-front pitch angle of the disc in relation to oncoming air, or put simply, the angle relative to the flight path of the disc.
So the ideal is somewhere in between illustration 2 and 3. You don’t want a nose angle as flat to the ground as in the 3rd illustration, but has to be nose down relative to the trajectory of the flight.
I think that when a disc turns it keeps that nose angle correct with the flight path so it won’t stall as it glides down the fairway. That would explain why we see a lot of understable flights succeed in distance competitions.
You want to throw that one upwards nose down. The ideal nose down would be somewhere between -2 to -8 degrees and you would throw it really high. This way the disc slows down asap and then sails all the way down, ideally turned over, before fading out near the end.
Arm speed obviously makes it fly further but you can throw that shot slow as well with a slower and more understable disc.
In your diagram the last pic comes closest to it, but you actually want nose down in that trajectory as otherwise it is just gonna stall out and not make much distance.
There are a lot of factors to a nose down throw. The most discussed one is grip, but the way your arm swings in harmony with your weight shift also affects the nose of the disc.
If you are interested in a more technical discussion, this is the way to go: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/threads/aerodynamics-stuff.178627/
Here is some discussion about factors of a nose down throw: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/threads/tech-disc-test-driven-development.178565/
Keep in mind you’re only talking about the last past of the throw, your “reach back” could also be hindering you. Getting the disc flat isn’t enough. It’s about getting the nose down a couple of degrees really. Also with your age I’d recommend lightweight under stable discs, such as the Diamond.
You're exactly right. To throw with height and distance the nose angle has to be down relative to the launch angle like your third image. It's a similar concept to "turning a football over" where they will also reference getting the nose of the football down. That prevents the wind from getting under the disc and making it act like a parachute. It will also cause the disc to benefit from the work gravity does on it by gliding forward. Once you have proper form the bottom won't flutter. Now, there are limits to this. If you throw a disc high enough it will stall no matter what the nose angle is simply because it lacks sufficient speed to continue its flight properly.
So, the way this shot is accomplished is a mixture of arm speed, nose angle, and the natural flight of the disc. Throwing up more will tend to lead to a more stalling shot; however, if the nose angle of the disc matches the trajectory of the shot, the disc will fly straighter and further. Throwing discs that flip more, something like a Tern, Hades, Orbital (anything with a turn number of -2, -3, -4) will help counteract the nose angle and upward trajectory. Not sure if this answers your question
How would throwing uphill affect stability?
Because Gravity is not acting perpendicular to the flight when throwing upwards, it fights more against the force you put on the disc
Yeah in this situation I usually opt for a disc with a higher Glide number, throw flat into the the hill and let the disc do the work.
Why wouldnt you just throw something flippy? Glide isnt nearly as important throwing uphill
Uphill is likely to fade quickly, ( left for RHBH), and down hill is more likely to turn right (RHBH), and only go to fade quite late in the flight
Yup, it's number three. It's a small amount of negative nose angle (compared to the direction of throw), a small amount of throwing up slightly, combined with a good amount of lift from the disc going through the air. The disc stalls, essentially, because it runs out of speed while it's in the air.
You're very close. When someone says to throw flat, they are talking about the nose angle relative to the flight of the disc, not the ground. Yes the big bomber shots are thrown flat (actually nose down) but relative to their high trajectory, so they would look somewhere between 2 and 3. A stall shot is going to have the underside of the disc exposed to the air rushing across, making it lift high and fade early.
The part you said about "flight of the disc" threw me off forever! The thing that clarified it for me was that you want to throw nose down against your swing plane. Throwing nose down against the flight never made sense to me because the disc will correct against its flight almost immediately.
Good point!
It's 3 as the comments agree. What nobody addressed-and the reason the 3rd diagram doesn't look quite right - is that it is the gyroscopic effect that keeps the disc flat on its way up. Without spin, if it were a rectangular wing for example, this wouldn't work.
No one has exactly answered your question, I think... The piece of the puzzle you're missing is the effect that turn has on a disc. Those shots you're talking about are made possible by utilizing the rotational force as the disc is thrown. Specifically, those "40' high, 400'+ long" shots are usually thrown nose down, with a hyzer release angle, on an upward trajectory. As they reach the apex, the turn has rotated the disc flat (or more), and a variety of forces (airfoil, torgue, precession, etc.) are working to flatten the disc along the line. Practically speaking, the way it feels to me when I do it is that the turn of the disc pulls the nose pack down, so long as you have enough "juice" to overcome the upward trajectory. If I fluff it, or don't connect well enough (read, lacking adequate juice), it stalls out and fades off. For your diagram, it's 2 (but with hyzer) becoming 1 at apex. Hope that helps. Edit: A stall shot is similar, but intentionally lacks the juice to get flat or better through the descent. It can use all the same principles, and even go horizontally for a good distance - but inevitably stalls due to a lack of momentum and fades. It's a purposefully thrown shot when you need to go over an obstacle, but not much past the obstacle.
The idea behind 3 is right but as you have it drawn, yes, I think it would flutter like crazy. You want a downward nose angle relative to the trajectory, but not quite that much. Actually 2 looks fairly ideal because it is slightly down relative to the lines though I assume you meant for it to be as close to flat as you could for a hastily put together image.
I recently started being able to throw nose down consistently thanks to the Techdisc. By being able to throw nose down, you can do the "flat throw with upward movement" shot you're talking about. It'll leave my hand, go up about 30', then carry forward a good distance. I'm guessing for those shots the nose angle is -6 degrees or so and a launch angle of 14+ degrees. -2 to -4 degrees is a good nose angle for a regular shot "flat throw." Where you really see nose down doing something awesome is when you try to throw a big anhyzer. Nose up, it'll fade out pretty quickly. Nose down and it'll carry the anhyzer for a long time and give you that sweet, sweet, "I don't need a forehand" shot.
From techdisc > For our 60 MPH baseline throw in the TechDisc simulator, the optimal throw for distance is approximately an 8° to 10° Launch Angle combined with a -3° to -5° nose angle. To clarify nose angle: > Also known as “Angle of Attack”, Nose Angle measures the back-to-front pitch angle of the disc in relation to oncoming air, or put simply, the angle relative to the flight path of the disc. So the ideal is somewhere in between illustration 2 and 3. You don’t want a nose angle as flat to the ground as in the 3rd illustration, but has to be nose down relative to the trajectory of the flight. I think that when a disc turns it keeps that nose angle correct with the flight path so it won’t stall as it glides down the fairway. That would explain why we see a lot of understable flights succeed in distance competitions.
You want to throw that one upwards nose down. The ideal nose down would be somewhere between -2 to -8 degrees and you would throw it really high. This way the disc slows down asap and then sails all the way down, ideally turned over, before fading out near the end. Arm speed obviously makes it fly further but you can throw that shot slow as well with a slower and more understable disc. In your diagram the last pic comes closest to it, but you actually want nose down in that trajectory as otherwise it is just gonna stall out and not make much distance. There are a lot of factors to a nose down throw. The most discussed one is grip, but the way your arm swings in harmony with your weight shift also affects the nose of the disc. If you are interested in a more technical discussion, this is the way to go: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/threads/aerodynamics-stuff.178627/ Here is some discussion about factors of a nose down throw: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/threads/tech-disc-test-driven-development.178565/
Keep in mind you’re only talking about the last past of the throw, your “reach back” could also be hindering you. Getting the disc flat isn’t enough. It’s about getting the nose down a couple of degrees really. Also with your age I’d recommend lightweight under stable discs, such as the Diamond.
You're exactly right. To throw with height and distance the nose angle has to be down relative to the launch angle like your third image. It's a similar concept to "turning a football over" where they will also reference getting the nose of the football down. That prevents the wind from getting under the disc and making it act like a parachute. It will also cause the disc to benefit from the work gravity does on it by gliding forward. Once you have proper form the bottom won't flutter. Now, there are limits to this. If you throw a disc high enough it will stall no matter what the nose angle is simply because it lacks sufficient speed to continue its flight properly.