Did they get rid of the half loop with integrated half roll?<br><br>I still think there is too much knife edge flight in the sequence even with the golf ball changed. It then becomes who can trim his airplane the best instead of fly the best. Also, a disadvantage to still using viable older designs.</div><div> </div><div>The loop with full roll is tolerable after having flown it some this fall.</div><div> </div><div>I also found the sequence to have too many vertical neck straining maneuvers.</div><div> </div><div>The back to back snaps was kind of stupid. Don't care for upline or downline snaps. I'd sooner do the Cuban 8 with two snap rolls.</div><div> </div><div>I suspect that battery consumption is higher, but I can't tell without having the final sequence to deal with to determine that.</div><div> </div><div>The sequence also presented some judging difficulties.</div><div> </div><div>Will see. I am probably going to fly Advanced with my physical health condition as it stands right now.<br><br>Joe Lachowski</div><div style="font-family: Verdana;"><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div>On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sal Piu via NSRCA-dist1 wrote:<div> </div><div> </div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(136, 136, 136); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid;">
<font face="Arial"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-size: 10pt;">D1
folks,<br>
<br>
I usually don’t comment about Board of Director’s (BoD)
meetings as the official meeting notes are always published: I
thought folks should know what transpired to end up with the
final Masters 2018-2019 sequence.<span>
</span>As everyone knows, there was a very large contention with
the proposed Masters sequence earlier this year that essentially
revolved around some maneuvers being deemed excessively
challenging by some pilots, as well as the overall sequence not
adhering to the sequence committee guidelines established
several years ago.<span>
</span>The BoD made recommendations to essentially get the
proposed sequence back within guidelines as well as address the
difficulty aspect.<span>
</span>The sequence committee responded with a counter-proposal.
The BoD meeting in October 2017 discussed the counter-proposal
and made decisions based on districts’ preferences and survey
results.<span>
</span>Two particular maneuvers were contentious even among the
BoD members during that meeting.<span>
</span>The golf-ball maneuver was decided by a margin of only 1
vote in favor of keeping it simple with half rolls (the
knife-edge ¾ loop is reduced to a simple wings-level loop).<span>
</span>The second contentious maneuver was the loop with the top
180 half containing either an integrated roll or a 4-point roll.<span>
</span>The Board originally recommended to change this maneuver
to include a 4-point roll because, in theory, that should be
easier to do than an integrated roll across the same area.
Several folks stated at the board meeting that they tried flying
both versions of this maneuver multiple times: all-that-did
discovered the version with the 4-point roll was actually more
difficult to fly than the integrated roll. Hence, the board
voted to go with the simpler integrated roll version.<span>
</span>I believe the final, BoD-endorsed Masters sequence
complies with existing sequence committee guidelines in
generating new sequences.</span>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10pt;"><font face="Arial"><br>
</font>
</p>
<font face="Arial">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10pt;"><font face="Arial">Sal</font></p>
<hr>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-dist1 mailing list<br>
NSRCA-dist1@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist1" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist1</a><br>
</blockquote>