[SPAM] Re: New Sequences

[Keith Black]

> It's also not really a top hat. More of a square loop with 1/2 rolls on
the verticals.

And not NEARLY as difficult in my opinion. Part of what makes the Top Hat
difficult *is* the cross box component and how one has to deal with wind
corrections. Cross box with a head wind is tricky, going straight into the
wind would be much easier.

To some degree I feel this falls under the category of "he who can do it
best scores best".  SURE it's hard, but it separates the good pilots from
the great pilots. After all, it's called MASTERS.

Keith Black

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Verne Koester" <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: New Sequences


> Troy,
> It has possibilities. However, the inline version (1/2 rolls) leaves you
> inverted if you started upright and vice-versa. It's also not really a top
> hat. More of a square loop with 1/2 rolls on the verticals. Still, it
could
> work as an option with the traditional crossbox, 1/4 roll top hat.
>
> Man, that's giving me a headache. Hittin the rack so I can leave for
Muncie
> in the morning.....
>
> Verne
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Troy A. Newman" <troy_newman at msn.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:44 PM
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: New Sequences
>
>
> >a top hat with options type of thing?
> >
> > do it inline flat an inverted at the top
> > ????
> >
> >
> > Troy
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
> > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 8:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: New Sequences
> >
> >
> >> How about if all "cross-box" type maneuvers were designed with
"in-line"
> >> options, then we meet correction and no-correction required needs. The
> >> turnaround top-hat is a bit of an anomaly in that  it forces you in or
> >> out. The humpty with options is much more versatile and pilot friendly.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Eric.
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: "Bill Pritchett" <phelps15 at comcast.net>
> >> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 8:03 PM
> >> Subject: New Sequences
> >>
> >>
> >>> Rodney:
> >>> Both proposed Advanced schedules are "easier" than the current
Advanced
> >>> schedule.  This was one of the criteria that we worked with, based
upon
> >>> overwhelming opinion that the jump to Advanced is currently too much.
I
> >>> like both schedules (not because I'm on the committee...hehe), but
what
> >>> this WILL do is make the jump to Masters much bigger for the guys that
> >>> will come through these schedules.  I am sort of a victim of having
made
> >>> the current jump, and now that I've made it, felt that I could
> >>> objectively help others coming up in seasons to come not deal with
some
> >>> of the issues current Advanced flyers have had to handle.  Our current
> >>> schedule calls for 10 maneuvers prior to a cross box turnaround.
> >>> Although there is discussion on the list right now about being on that
> >>> "line", and a cross box being a bother, let's face it, most Advanced
> >>> flyers need to adjust in/out earlier than 10 maneuvers in.  Lots of
> >>> thought and discussion went into these, and I'm sure that everyone on
> >>> the committee hopes that the NSRCA membership takes a deep collective
> >>> breath before making any judgments.  One thing we all tried to do is
> >>> make it more even in jumps between classes, up to Masters.  We all
> >>> seemed to agree that Masters should be the "big" jump, and a jump that
> >>> provides a class of "Destination" for some, and FAI prep for others.
I
> >>> hope that you, and others, will look at the proposed Advanced schedule
> >>> as a part of the whole, and not a direct comparison to the present.
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Bill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bill Pritchett
> >>> 765-744-9322
> >>>
> >>> =================================================
> >>> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> >>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> >>> To be removed from this list, go to
http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> >>> and follow the instructions.
> >>>
> >>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
> >>> list.
> >>>
> >>
> >> =================================================
> >> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> >> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> >> To be removed from this list, go to
http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> >> and follow the instructions.
> >>
> >> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
> >> list.
> >>
> >>
> > =================================================
> > To access the email archives for this list, go to
> > http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> > To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> > and follow the instructions.
> >
> > List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
> > list.
> >
> >
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
list.
>

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.