[NSRCA-discussion] BoD meeting tomorrow, sequences to be discussed

[Vogel, Peter]

Am I on the wrong call?  I am in the join.me but no one else is here?

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:56:29 PM
To: Jon Lowe; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org; frackowiak at sbcglobal.net; General pattern discussion
Cc: whodaddy10 at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] BoD meeting tomorrow, sequences to be discussed

Good afternoon all,
As a general point of information, the BoD meetings are the second Wednesday of each month at 9:00 PM EST.  It's always best to reach out to your DVP or other board member if there is a particular item you would like to bring up for discussion.  Don't be shy, reach out to your DVP and share your comments.  The more articulate and specific, the better.

Regarding the sequences, the point of posting them for comment is to do just that, get comments.  I see a lot of great points to give back to the committee to consider as we move the process forward.  It is not intended to rewrite the proposal with entire new sequences, but the alternate sequences are excellent examples to make points being discussed more clear.  It will be the committee's job to work through the suggestions and make adjustments.  As required by the Charter and the Guide, the proposals are also going to be posted in the K-Factor for review by the entire membership, many of which are not on the discussion board list.  You will see the proposals posted as originally submitted so everyone is starting from the same information. Please know that all comments are valid and will be evaluated in aggregate to identify trends and commonalities.

Our job as the membership is to filter comments directly to your DVP, so keep them coming!

Best,
Joe Walker,
NSRCA President


On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:55 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:


Apparently, there is a meeting of the BoD tomorrow night that I just found about about, where the sequences are going to be discussed. Get your comments on the sequences to your DVP asap. I told mine the "official" masters sequence is a disaster, and that the ones being worked on by Tony, Stuart, and John Gayer are far better and should be put forward to the membership.
Jon
________________________________
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
I guess it depends on how many people are reading this.  If it is just you and me having a conversation then probably not 😊

The process as I understand it is the DVPs should be collecting information from their pilots regarding the sequences pro or con.  The DVP’s will bring it to the BOD who will make their recommendations to the sequence committee.   I have personally spoken to or heard from most of the active and less active Masters pilots (and FAI pilots) in D1 and they  all have issues with the difficulty level of the original proposed sequence.  And if I am wrong I hope that they speak up.  If the majority of the rest of the districts feel the same then the choice will be to markedly modify the original proposed sequence or work from this one.  If we are in the minority and most people want the more difficult schedule then ………

Stuart

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Frackowiak Tony<mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:34 PM
To: Stuart Chale<mailto:schale1 at outlook.com>
Cc: General pattern discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / Masters different sequence

Stuart,

Your suggestions seem fine to me about the Double I and the rolls.

The Pyramid loop has a 45 degree entry.

Now for the real question. Do you think any of the proposed sequences discussed here have any chance of being used? My guess is probably not.

Tony Frackowiak

On Jul 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Stuart Chale wrote:


I guess I was hoping to hear from more people about the choices in your sequence vs mine :)  I was really hoping to hear from more people about all of the sequences.  I did look at it and I think it makes a fine sequence.  And you are right about being defensive a bit about the sequence you make.  I for one would really love to see the Double I with knife edge flight.  It is such a pretty maneuver IMO when done right and not that easy.  Truthfully I have never even flown it so I don't know how well I can do it :)
Continuing with what you wrote, perhaps put that back in and change the knife edge flight roll to a K4 2 slow rolls reversed?
Does your pyramid pull 45 degrees or 135?  I put the 135 degree pull or push in as it was different from the way we usually flew it.
Stuart

On 7/10/2017 11:39 PM, Frackowiak Tony wrote:
Stuart,

We can discuss the past or we can work in the present.

Here's just a little "past" discussion. I do believe that the Committees I was on started the trend of adding too many new maneuvers that were not in the Guide. I had many discussions with other members about not falling in love with every new maneuver you see in F3A P or F. I was one vote. Not saying I didn't make mistakes as I'm sure I did. I do try to learn from them. That is why I was very surprised when the BOD decided to appoint a Chairman who had no experience with the process. Plus I don't think any of the other members had been on a Sequence Committee before. I may be wrong about that. But this is not the fault of the people who accept the positions like yourself. I applaud the commitment. But it does seem like a failure of leadership. They swept the plate clean when the current committee was formed.

You have not made one comment about the schedule I proposed. BTW, that proposal is mostly yours with only 9 of the 19 maneuvers out of the Guide. I am not against adding new maneuvers. Just against difficulty creep with unrealistic K-Factors. And keep in mind, what was old becomes new. If we did a schedule just out of maneuvers currently in the Guide would it be a bad one? I don't think so. I think you could make a very "fresh" sequence using stuff that hasn't been in Masters for a decade. Heck, I can't remember what I had for breakfast. If we just flew the 2005 or 2007 schedule it would be fresh for me!

Tony Frackowiak


On Jul 10, 2017, at 7:58 PM, Stuart Chale wrote:


I hope a lot of people are listening (or reading) and I hope more will comment one way or the other on this or the original sequence.  They can either comment here or to their DVPs so that it gets back to the board and then to the sequence committee as a whole.
And I do have a question for you and the past committee members.  Which maneuvers in the current sequence were not in the guidelines at the time?
Eyecatcher?, Knife edge humpty? Bow tie?, 2 of 8 full roll 2 of 8?
The point being I think we are always putting in some new maneuvers or variants of old maneuvers.
And I am not trying to be confrontational but I could use your K factor logic to ask why the Knife edge humpty is a K4.  I think it is clearly more difficult than a pull pull pull humpty with 1/2 rolls up and down which is a K4.  The knife edge humpty with inverted exit is more difficult IMO so shouldn't it be a K5 or is it still a K4 because a knife edge humpty with 3/4 rolls is a K5?


On 7/10/2017 8:56 PM, Frackowiak Tony wrote:
Well, Stuart, I have pointed out exactly where I disagree with the K's you have assigned in your proposed pattern and I have shown examples to support my reasoning. Instead of discussing each point you want to continue with interpretations of how the K system works.

Lets just look at one, your Pyramid Loop. I have shown the closest example of your proposed maneuver in the Guide is,

Triangular loop (base at bottom) with half rolls in all legs, exit inverted (K4)

Your proposed maneuver is a Pyramid Loop with 135's at the top, 2/4's in the 45 legs, and a Full Roll on the bottom leg. How in the world is that not a K5 if the one in the Guide is a K4?

I have pointed out that your proposed Six Sided Loop on Corner is also a K5. Here is the Guide example,

Six sided loop with 2/4 pt roll on top, inverted entry (K4)

Your Six Sided Loop on Corner with 1/2 rolls on 4 of the 6 legs is definitely more difficult then the Guide example. Or do you feel the Guide example should be a K3? I don't think so.

You said this, "If the difficulty of the Masters sequence should parallel the FAI P sequence then it would be near impossible without calling some "borderline maneuvers a K4 and still stick to the 63K total limit".
I believe that means that your intent and the intent of the Sequence Committee is to design a sequence that is more difficult then the Guide specifies for Masters. I believe that the Sequence Committee should be staying within the constraints of the Guide when developing sequences and their difficulty. Only if the majority of the membership after being asked their opinion agrees with increasing the difficulty of Masters then that is how it should go.

I've also taken the time to revise your proposed pattern to make it comply, in my opinion, more closely with the Guide. I believe I have done all I can. I can't make a point if no one is listening. Let me refer you to something John Gayer said to me. We all have a problem when looking at a sequence we didn't originate. Compound that with the problem of being too defensive about sequences we did originate.

Let me make another point. Do you think that it will make any difference who wins in Masters if we make the schedule easier or harder? I sort of doubt it. But will it make a difference how many Masters pilots there are if the pattern is easier or more difficult? I think there is a good chance.

Tony Frackowiak

Jul 10, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion wrote:


I hear you but.....
Our K's basically go from 1 to 5 so if it was a 1 to 100 scale  then 1-20 would be a K1, 21-40 K2, 41-60 K3, 61-80 K4, and 81-100 K5.
Each K is a range of difficulties.  Like judging there is plenty of subjectivity to the final score or K factor.  We could argue forever about some maneuvers.  If a 6 sided loop with reversing 1/4 rolls on each leg is a K 5 then is a 6 sided loop with 1/2 rolls on 4 of the legs still a K5 or is it easier so it is a K4.  I am not trying to win an argument over which it is just using your logic in reverse.
There are several maneuvers in the sequence that could go either way IMO and are the same or similar to K4 maneuvers in the FAI P sequence.  (I know you have already said not to use the FAI catalog)   One of the guidelines for Masters is to make it similar in difficulty to FAI P.  If you look at this years FAI P only 3 K 5's but is the knife edge combo 1/4 full 1/4 roll really a K4?  6 sided loop with 2 of 4, full roll, 2 of 4 only a K4, how about the triangle loop with 2/4 opposite on the sides and a 4 point on top.  Is that only a K4, the final roll combo, 1/2 roll, snap roll, 1/2 roll  also a K4 or should it be a 5
If the difficulty of the Masters sequence should parallel the FAI P sequence then it would be near impossible without calling some "borderline maneuvers a K4 and still stick to the 63K total limit.
I think the sequence that we have been playing with and discussing is pretty close in difficulty to the current Masters sequence and FAI P.  As Mike said it flies pretty well with the stick plane.  I think it will take some real life flights to see what additional tweaks would be needed.  For example ss the reverse Cuban cramped and a regular Cuban better in its place or is it OK as It is?
Keep in mind that I posted this sequence that you have helped tweak only to show that the committee was looking at other sequences besides the one that was posted.  And I posted it on my own as the one picked by the Committee was getting mostly negative responses on the list. And honestly I agreed with most of what was said on the list (I said most :) )
It would be nice if we had more feedback from more Masters pilots pro  or con on both sequences so that the BOD can make their recommendations to the sequence committee.  If the recommendations are to reduce the difficulty even more and use only maneuvers in the current guidelines then that is what we should do.

On 7/10/2017 11:42 AM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
You are still trying to sneak in too many K5's by calling them K4's. The Reversing 4 of 8's should stay a K5. Yes, the inverted 8 point is a K4, but you are reversing! Can't you get that now makes it a 5!

The Pyramid Loop as Described is definitely a K5. The Guide's Pyramid loop with just 1/2 rolls on each leg and without the 135 down at the start is a K4. So this is a K5.

The Six Sided Loop on corner with all of the 1/2 rolls should be a K5. In the Guide a standard Six Sided Loop with just a 2 of 4 on the top leg is a K4. How does this stay a K4?

And as I have said, the KE with 1 1/4 rolls should be a K5. The Guides simple KE flight with just 1/4 rolls is a K4.

You should quit trying to sneak in difficulty by using too low of K-Factors. It is possible to create an interesting pattern without the difficulty creep of fake K-Factors.

Tony Frackowiak


On Jul 10, 2017, at 7:04 AM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:


Stuart,

I took the liberty of putting your sequence in a new spreadsheet.
Some of the exit attitudes didn't work as described like maneuver 11 needs to be a full roll to exit inverted and it is a K2 according to the guide. Also the spin is a K3 according to the guide.

I have some other ideas but I thought starting with a clean layout might be a good idea. I support what you are trying to do here.

John

DESCRIPTION

K

Exit

Notes

1





1



2

U

Double Immelman with knife edge flight

5

upright

inside 1/2 loop then outside 1/2 loop

3

TA

1/2 Square loop on corner with 2of4 roll

2

upright

4

D

Pyramid Loop with 2of4, full roll, 2of4

5

upright

Push to 135 down……

5

TA

1/2 Square loop with Snap

3

inverted

6

U

Six-sided Loop on corner, 1/2 Rolls in leg 1,3 and 4,6

5

inverted

7

TA

Humpty with options: Push, push, push, 1/2 roll up and a full roll on the downline. Option 1/4 roll up 3/4 roll down

3

inverted

8

D

4of8-pt roll, 4of8 opposite

5

inverted

I would consider this a K4, inverted 8-pt is K4

9

TA

Stall turn with 1/2 rolls reversed going  up and 1/2 roll down

3

upright

10

U

Outside Avalanche with 1/2 rolls

4

upright

11

TA

Half reverse Cuban Eight with a full roll on the 45

2

inverted

Not inverted here and its not a 3, added 1/2 roll

12

D

Knife edge flight with 1 1/4 rolls in and out

4

upright

rolls same direction

13

TA

Top Hat, 3/4 roll up and down

2

upright

14

U

Figure Z with two rolls on 45

4

upright

15

TA

2  turn  spin

3

inverted

two turn spin is still a K3, not 2

16

D

Reverse cuban eight with full rolls

4

inverted

17

TA

Stall turn with 1/2 roll down

2

upright

18

U

Loop with roll over top 180

5

upright

19

U

Landing

1

upright

















61




On 7/9/2017 7:02 PM, Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
Pyramid (triangle from the top base at the bottom)  From the top of the box as you approach center push 3/8 loop to an inverted 45 degree down line 2/4 on this leg to upright.  Push 3/8 to inverted horizontal flight, full roll on this line from inverted push back 3/8 loop back towards top center. 2/4 on this line to inverted again, push 3/8 loop back to upright flight
You are not going to like my answer but as far as the K factor it is similar to the current P-17 triangle which has a 4 pt roll on the top leg and still just a K4
Since you are going to want to make the pyramid large so the 1/2 square down can be big enough not to fear the snap the maneuver preceding the pyramid the half square on corner needs to be large so the asymmetrical  roll (one leg only) should be fairly easy to do.  Also going up hill so you have more time for the 2/4.
6 sided loop K factor being a 5.  Can't disagree with you but I can also make the case for a K4.  There are no K5 six sided loops in the current guidelines.  Nothing to compare to say it is as hard or easier.  I think that since it just has 1/2 rolls in it is easier than the P-17 six sided FAI is flying now.  Theirs is a K4.
I think I agree with what someone said about K factors needing an overhaul.  'Perhaps going to an IMAC type system to assign K factors is the right direction to go.   This will take a bit of work and can't happen before these sequences need to be done:)  But it is something to think about for the future.
As far as the number of spins I am good with 2 or 3 or 1.5 or 2.5 with an added 1/2 roll.  You are happy at 3 Jon recommends 2 which just confirms that not everyone will be happy with the path we chose.
I think right now there are 3 clear K5 maneuvers.  Is the pyramid, six sided and or 1 1/4 roll to knife edge a K5 maneuver.  You can make a case with support to go either way.
Let me try to get this to format better.  If anyone else has comments on this version or if you support the original Masters proposal from the NSRCA website please let us know.


Masters proposal







Maneuver

KF

Notes:

1

Takeoff (U)

1



2

Double Immelman with knife edge flight (U)

5

Pull to 1/2 loop, immediate 1/4 roll, knife edge flight, 1/4 roll same direction, immediate push to 1/2 outside loop, immediate 1/4 roll, knife edge flight, 1/4 roll same direction to level upright exit

<cjialcnhkpanepbl.png>
3


1/2 square loop on corner with 2/4 pt rolls in 2nd leg (TA)

2



4

Pyramid loop, 2/4, Full roll, 2/4 (D)

4

Push back to 45 deg down line, 2/4 pt roll, push to level flight, Full roll  from inverted, push back to to 45 up line, 2/4 pt roll, push to level upright exit

5

1/2 square outside loop, full snap (+ or -) in vert down line, exit inverted (TA)

3

(inverted exit)

6

Six sided loop on corner with 1/2 rolls in legs 1, 3, 4, 6, exit inverted (U)

4

Push at center no rolls on vertical legs.  (inverted exit)

7

Humpty with options: Push, push, push, 1/2 roll up and a full roll on the downline, exit inverted.  Option 1/4 roll up 3/4 roll down, exit inverted (TA)

3

(inverted exit)

8

4/8 opposite from inverted, exit inverted (D)

5

(inverted exit)

9

Stall turn with 1/2 rolls reversed going  up and 1/2 roll down, exit upright (TA)

3



10

Avalanche with 1/2 roll going in and out

4

1/2 roll to inverted, perform an outside loop with a snap at the top, complete the loop and perform a 1/2 roll to exit upright.

11

Half reverse Cuban Eight with a1/2 roll roll on the 45 (TA)

3

exit inverted

12

Knife edge flight with 1 1/4 rolls in and out. (D)

4



13

Top Hat, 3/4 roll up and down exit upright (TA)

2



14

Figure Z with 2 consecutive rolls  (U)

4



15

2 turn spin exit inverted (TA)

2



16

Reverse cuban eight with full rolls from inverted(D)

4



17

Stall turn with half roll  down (TA)

2



18

Loop with integrated roll in top 180 (U)*

5



19

Landing (U)

1





Total K-factor

61

Goal is 60 to 63



Minimum of 2, max of 3 cross box maneuvers















Minimum of 2, max of 3 downwind rolling







maneuvers















Minimum of 2, max of 4 K5 maneuvers















Minimum of 2, max of 3 Snap Rolls















Minimum of 1, max of 2 Spins















Minimum 2 stall turns, 4 max






On 7/9/2017 5:30 PM, Frackowiak Tony wrote:
Stuart,

Your description of the Pyramid loop still doesn't seem to make sense to me. Am I wrong?

I like the Avalanche.

I don't think you've incorporated some of the other changes and as such you still have too many, in my opinion, K5 maneuvers. The Six Sided loop as proposed should be a K5. I feel the 1 1/4 roll KE is a K5. As I mentioned earlier, you could change the Pyramid loop to all 1/2 rolls and make it a K4, it's in the Guide that way.

My suggestion, #3 should be a 1/2 Square Loop w/1/2rolls both legs. #4 should be Pyramid Loop starting from inverted, 1/2 rolls each leg, exit upright.

I would personally keep the 3 turn spin. I wouldn't go less then 2 with the spin. But you might consider making the Reverse Cuban 8 a regular Cuban 8 just to give more distance between the spin and the 8. That won't affect the entry in to the Stall Turn.


My suggested sequence. Maneuvers in Red are straight out of the Guide. I've given what I can find in the Guide as the closest example of a proposed new maneuver.


#1. Take-off (K1)

#2.  Double Immelmann with half roll first, full roll second, inverted entry, exit upright (K4)

#3.  Half square loop on corner with 1/2 rolls, exit inverted (K2)

#4. Pyramid Loop, inverted entry, 1/2 rolls each leg, exit upright. (K4)
Guide example -  Triangular loop (base at bottom) with half rolls in all legs, exit inverted (K4)

#5. 1/2 Square Outside, 1 Snap down, exit inverted (K3)

#6. Six Sided Loop on Corner, 1/2 rolls legs 1, 3, 4, 6, exit inverted (K5)
Guide example -  Six sided loop with 2/4 pt roll on top, inverted entry (K4)

#7. Humpty w/Options, exit inverted (K3)
Guide example -  Humpty bump (push, push, push) half roll up, 2/2pt roll down, inverted entry (K3)

#8. two 4 of 8 rolls reversed, exit inverted (K5)
Guide example -  4/8 pt. roll, inverted entry (K4)

#9. Stall Turn, 2 1/2 rolls reversed up, 1/2 roll down, exit upright (K3)
Guide example -  Stall Turn, 2/4pt roll up, half roll down, inverted entry (K2)

#10. Inverted Avalanche w/1/2 Roll in and out, exit upright (K4)
Guide example -  Avalanche with 1-1/2 snap, inverted entry (from bottom) (K4)

#11. Same as proposed, exit upright (K3)

#12. Same as proposed, exit upright (K5)
Guide example -  Knife edge flight (K4)

#13. Same as proposed, exit upright (K2) Might create an option that doesn't change position. Suggest 1 roll up, 1/2 roll down.

#14. Figure Z w/2 rolls on 45, exit upright (K4)
Guide example -  Figure Z with 2/2pt roll up (K4)

#15. Three Turn Spin, exit inverted (K2)
Guide example -   Two turn spin (K2)

#16. Cuban 8 w/full rolls, inverted entry and exit (K4)

#17. Stall Turn w/1/2 roll down, exit upright ( K2)

#18. Loop w/Integrated 1 Roll on Top 180, exit upright (K5)

#19. Landing (K1)

Total K - 62

This meets the Guide with a max of 4 K5 maneuvers and is within the K limit of 60 to 63. It does have only 9 of the 19 maneuvers currently in the Guide. Really 7 of 17 if you don't use the Take-off and Landing.

Tony Frackowiak
On Jul 9, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion wrote:


Can certainly change it to 2 spins without changing anything

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 9, 2017, at 10:30 AM, John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
Totally agree with Jon’s thoughts on spins.

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 9:13 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; frackowiak at sbcglobal.net<mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / Masters different sequence

Much better sequence overall. I believe it is more in line with the intent of the sequence guide. It certainly makes the transition from advanced more doable. It also appears to be less power hungry.
One comment. I, and several others, are not fans of end box spins. In heavy crosswinds, like the last NATS, the plane drifts as allowed without penalty FOR THAT MANEUVER, even if it goes out of box. However, unless the proposal to correct this passes the contest board, the following maneuver gets penalized for cross box or out of box before the maneuver actually starts. So the pilot gets a penalty in one maneuver for allowable drift in another. There is no guarantee the proposal will pass.  In this sequence, a three turn spin allows even more drift than we have with 2.5 in the current sequence.
I would argue that the entry and exit of a spin are what really count in judging. Therefore, if end box spins are kept, reducing it to one turn or 1.5 with a 1/2 roll out reduces the drift component considerably. 3 turns is just too many for end box.
I'd also suggest that the top hat have a straight ahead option if the pilot does not need to correct in and out. I often wish the current sequence had the option.
Good effort!
Jon

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
Lets look at this, we can replace the Double key (K 5) with an avalanche K3 to get the snap in a center maneuver or lets put the maneuver we originally had in advanced, and avalanche with ½ roll in and out (K4), and remove the snap from the next maneuver reverse cuban turnaround.  Also changed a stall turn to ½ rolls reversed going up.

Sorry formatting problems showing up again.



Masters proposal







Maneuver

KF

Notes:

1

Takeoff (U)

1



2

Double Immelman with knife edge flight (U)

5

Pull to 1/2 loop, immediate 1/4 roll, knife edge flight, 1/4 roll same direction, immediate push to 1/2 outside loop, immediate 1/4 roll, knife edge flight, 1/4 roll same direction to level upright exit

<CCDCC1C3B1DB44578155E81A66BA48EE.png>
3


1/2 square loop on corner with 2/4 pt rolls in 2nd leg (TA)

2



4

Pyramid loop, 2/4, Full roll, 2/4 (D)

5

Push back to 45 deg down line, 2/4 pt roll, push to level flight, Full roll  from inverted, push back to to 45 up line, 2/4 pt roll, push to level upright exit

5

1/2 square outside loop, full snap (+ or -) in vert down line, exit inverted (TA)

3

(inverted exit)

6

Six sided loop on corner with 1/2 rolls in legs 1, 3, 4, 6, exit inverted (U)

4

Push at center no rolls on vertical legs.  (inverted exit)

7

Humpty with options: Push, push, push, 1/2 roll up and a full roll on the downline, exit inverted.  Option 1/4 roll up 3/4 roll down, exit inverted (TA)

3

(inverted exit)

8

4/8 opposite from inverted, exit inverted (D)

5

(inverted exit)

9

Stall turn with 1/2 rolls reversed going up and 1/2 roll down, exit upright (TA)

3



10

avalanche with 1/2 roll in and out (U)

4

1/2 roll to inverted, perform an outside loop with a snap at the top, complete the loop and perform a 1/2 roll to exit upright.

11

Half reverse Cuban Eight with a 1/2 roll on the 45 (TA)

3



12

Knife edge flight with 1 1/4 rolls in and out. (D)

4

exit upright

13

Top Hat, 3/4 roll up and down exit upright (TA)

2



14

Figure Z with 2 consecutive rolls  (U)

4



15

3 turn spin exit inverted (TA)

2



16

Reverse cuban eight with full rolls from inverted(D)

4



17

Stall turn with half roll  down (TA)

2



18

Loop with integrated roll in top 180 (U)*

5



19

Landing (U)

1





Total K-factor

62

Goal is 60 to 63



Minimum of 2, max of 3 cross box maneuvers















Minimum of 2, max of 3 downwind rolling







maneuvers















Minimum of 2, max of 4 K5 maneuvers















Minimum of 2, max of 3 Snap Rolls















Minimum of 1, max of 2 Spins















Minimum 2 stall turns, 4 max







Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 3:24 AM
To: Frackowiak Tony<mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>; General pattern discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / Masters different sequence

Tony thanks for looking at this with an open mind and critical eye.  To be honest I wasn’t going to initially post this but was convinced to by a group of D 1 flyers at the contest yesterday.  If for no other reason than to show that the committee did consider a more “conventional” sequence in addition to the one that was sent out.
And I did change a few things last night after spending the full day in the sun and I promise only 1 beer at dinner so I may have messed up a thing or 2.

Can this be the basis of the recommended sequence?  As I understand the process the committee sends the proposals to the BOD.  They review and in this case have asked for membership feedback and then make their recommendations to the committee.  If the BOD decides that sequence 1 is too difficult and this one meets the goals of the NSRCA better then they can ask us to tweak this one instead.  Did I send this out at the request of the entire sequence committee?  No I did not.

#4 From top of the box push 3/8 loop to a 45 2 of 4 push back to level inverted flight full roll across the bottom push back 3/8 loop to a 45 degree up line towards top center of the box 2 of 4 and push 3/8 loop back to horizontal (upright)
Can easily make a case to be a K5 😊

#6 correct ½ rolls only I will have to review current maneuvers for the K factor. Pretty late right now but I wanted to provide a response as best I could.

#12 comes from P19 and that is the k factor they gave it so that is what we were using right or wrong we have to start somewhere.

Double key only reason it is in here is it is in P19 and as I stated I sort of like having a few of the same maneuvers as FAI (not the clown dance)  I need to try to fly it to see if it really a good maneuver or not but it is certainly an easy place to swap to a K4.

Roll reversal:  The knife edge flight you have to roll the other way after knife edge to come out upright.  But one can be put in the stall turns as well or somewhere else if we think another one needs to be included.

Snaps.  You are correct I misplaced one trying to simplify the pattern a little. Maybe after the 1 1/4 roll in the middle of the knife edge flight 😊
I will look at the sequence and get one back in there.

Stuart

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Frackowiak Tony<mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 1:48 AM
To: Stuart Chale<mailto:schale1 at outlook.com>; General pattern discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / Masters different sequence

Stuart,

#4. The description doesn't seem to make sense. Isn't it an upright entry, PUSH to 45, 2 of 4 roll, PULL to level flight, Full roll from upright to upright, PULL to 45, 2 of 4 roll, push to exit upright? Or am I missing something? Also, it seems to be pushing being a K4. Here are the two closest examples in the Guide.

 Triangular loop (base at bottom) with half rolls in all legs, exit inverted (K4)

 Triangular loop from top (base at bottom) w/ half rolls on 45 degree legs, 2/4-pt roll on
base leg (K5)

It would seem that the maneuver proposed should be a K5. You might want to go with 1/2 rolls on all legs and redo a few things to get the upright/inverted thing going again.

#6. I had to actually draw this one out to visualize it. Just so I'm sure, you enter inverted and at center push to a 30 degree angle? I like the maneuver but I think it's really a K5 not a 4. The Guide has no 6-sided loop on corner, but a standard 6-sided with just a 2 of 4 on top is a K4.

#12. I still feel that a very good case can be made that this maneuver is a K5, not a K4.

Both snaps are in turnaround maneuvers. You need a center snap. Guide says:  Minimum of two Snap Rolls but no more than three (one may be a turnaround maneuver).

The only roll reversal is in the 4/8 opposite. You might want to incorporate another in one of the looping maneuvers. Maybe in the Figure Z. Maybe a 3 of 4 with a reverse 3 of 4. Or something less. Maybe just reverse the 2 rolls. But that might bump it to a K5 also.

You have to address the snap issue and in my opinion you have too many K5 maneuvers. Maximum according to the Guide is 4. I think this has to be addressed. I would dump the Double Key and use a K4 from the Guide in it's place as a start.

Otherwise to me it looks like a better pattern to work with then the current proposal.

Is there any chance that what is worked out here might actually make it in as an official proposal?

Tony Frackowiak


On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion wrote:

Thank you, you are correct I swapped the Cuban with a roll to allow better entry to the knife edge roll
To keep the Cuban an inverted entry and exit we can change the spin to 3 turn spin with an inverted exit (may bump the k?)
And change the stall turn to 1/2 roll down only.


Masters proposal







Maneuver

KF

Notes:

1

Takeoff (U)

1



2

Double Immelman with knife edge flight (U)

5

Pull to 1/2 loop, immediate 1/4 roll, knife edge flight, 1/4 roll same direction, immediate push to 1/2 outside loop, immediate 1/4 roll, knife edge flight, 1/4 roll same direction to level upright exit

<olpknaibinkfmdnp.png>
3


1/2 square loop on corner with 2/4 pt rolls in 2nd leg (TA)

2



4

Pyramid loop, 2/4, Full roll, 2/4 (D)

4

Push back to 45 deg down line, 2/4 pt roll, push to level flight, Full roll  from inverted, push back to to 45 up line, 2/4 pt roll, push to level upright exit

5

1/2 square outside loop, full snap (+ or -) in vert down line, exit inverted (TA)

3

(inverted exit)

6

Six sided loop on corner with 1/2 rolls in legs 1, 3, 4, 6, exit inverted (U)

4

Push at center no rolls on vertical legs.  (inverted exit)

7

Humpty with options: Push, push, push, 1/2 roll up and a full roll on the downline, exit inverted.  Option 1/4 roll up 3/4 roll down, exit inverted (TA)

3

(inverted exit)

8

4/8 opposite from inverted, exit inverted (D)

5

(inverted exit)

9

Stall turn with 2/2 rolls up and 1/2 roll down, exit upright (TA)

3



10

Double Key with full roll, 1/2 roll, 1/2 roll, full roll (U)

5

Pull to a vert up line, full roll, pull back to a 45 deg down line, 1/2 roll, push to a 45 deg up line, 1/2 roll, pull to a vertical downline, full roll, pull to level upright exit

11

Half reverse Cuban Eight with a positive snap roll roll on the 45 (TA)

3

exit inverted

12

Knife edge flight with 1 1/4 rolls in and out. (D)

4



13

Top Hat, 3/4 roll up and down exit upright (TA)

2



14

Figure Z with 2 consecutive rolls  (U)

4



15

3 turn spin exit inverted (TA)

2



16

Reverse cuban eight with full rolls from inverted(D)

4



17

Stall turn with half roll down (TA)

2



18

Loop with integrated roll in top 180 (U)*

5



19

Landing (U)

1





Total K-factor

62

Goal is 60 to 63



On 7/9/2017 12:12 AM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
Stuart,
I believe the reverse cuban with full rolls should be from upright.
Good luck with this.
John

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion






_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


<Stuart Masters Sequence for 2018-19-1.xls>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion





_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion






_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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/20170713/ea8d6c44/attachment.html>