[SPAM] Re: New Sequences

Fri Jun 10 03:15:23 AKDT 2005

IMAC uses Centered Cross Box stuff.  
 fwiw

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Bob Pastorello
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 6:59 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: New Sequences

Personally, I have always *liked* a cross-box turnaround, because of the

variety it adds to positioning in the box in an additional dimension 
(depth).  Having a mandatory cross-box forces one to "choose" an INITIAL

flight line for the conditions that permits one to be at their "OTHER" 
flightline following the crossbox.  Also requires one to really master 
crosswind corrections in track - constantly - to keep the thing in
position.

Years ago, the crossbox was used to position people OUT in preparation
for a 
Immelmann, Stall, Roll series that took up LOTS of box, so it was a good

manuever to permit you to go "OUT" with your line to keep in shape.
    It also meant stuff before was in SLIGHTLY closer, and that required

good throttle management, and literally put more of your show on display
to 
the judges as you were easier to watch.

Like I said, I know it's a preference issue, but I really think there is

also a skill-building benefit to having a crossbox or two.

Bob Pastorello
www.rcaerobats.net
rcaerobob at cox.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Black" <tkeithb at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: New Sequences

>> 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.
> 

=================================================
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.