[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Master's maneuvers

[Whodaddy Whodaddy]

The current pattern seams to say lets see how creative we can get .. Without really understanding what is needed to separate the pool of competitors we currently have in the masters class .... 

The current proposed pattern needs several changes for instance we do not need a roller to help separate the masses just look at this years nats and the spread from the finalists to the rest of the pack .doesn't scream we are all at the same level we need more to do to figure out who is going to win... 

Im not fond of the knife edge half square its a clumsy maneuver and not practically smooth .. It seems like we through this one in to show how big our intellect is .. 

The reverse top hat is a good maneuver i like it .. The one in this pattern is ill placed .. Y would u put a maneuver like this (which traditionally a box correcting maneuver) before a center box mid altitude entry hourglass... The final leg of the top hat has a 2 of  8  and u have to finish it up mid altitude .. So the last leg after u push from the bottom has no detectable straight line before the 2  of 8 ( 2of 8 screams lets get cute with this maneuver"  really") then no practical line before the push to a mid altitude .. Heaven help u if ur just a slight bit off pushing out of the bottom of this maneuver because u just blew it  no time to correct..

A half reverse cuban eight with an upline snap says to me lets introduce the twinkle snap so we can stay online .. Never liked the presentation of an upline snap .. Unless it twinkles the dispacement looks horrid..  

At this point im not sure i will not fly nxt year if the current masters pattern retains the  roller .. If i wanted to fly rollers id fly FAI .... Its not that i cant fly a roller .. i disagree with the  premise that we need a roller in masters to bring the class closer to FAI ..

JMO

Gary Courtney 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 11, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Patrick Harris via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Jim,
> 
> The proposed sequence has a roll combination followed by a "Half Cuban", not a Reverse Cuban. I don't see this as a problem as you would finish the rolls and do a 5/8 th outside loop to a 45 degree downline at the end of the box. Yes it would be a major issue if it were a Reverse Cuban that you have to do a roll on the upline 45. 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:02 PM, James Oddino via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure I have the latest proposed sequence, but the one I have has got a downwind half reverse Cuban turnaround after a downwind roll combination.  That looks like a recipe for moving the pitch maneuver plane out to 300 meters.  Is that what we want?
>> 
>> When I started contest flying, prior to turnaround, we flew low and close, probably within 100 meters and below 600 feet.  I couldn't believe how high and far out many of the guys were flying at Miramar this past weekend.  We were told that the reason we were going to turnaround was to decrease the noise footprint.  It didn't work.
>> 
>> I guess with electric the noise is no longer a problem, but we need to do something to bring the maneuvers in closer where they can be judged better.  I say get rid of the 60 degree box and let the criterion be, is it in a position to be judged?
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140811/ba76e104/attachment.html>