smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

Gentlemen,
Here is the link to the proposed 2013/2014 Advanced and Masters sequences as developed by the NSRCA Sequence Committee.


http://nsrca.us/index.php/sequencecommittee

J Lachowski

My Feedback: (46)

Any questions regarding these sequences should be directed to the NSRCA President or whomever the newly designated Chairman will be. I am no longer affiliated with the Committee.

woodie

After a quick look/review, it looks like the sequences should flow well. Masters looks like a fun sequence.

Woodie
Team Blenderm
Team Acme LG

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I was one of the so called beta testers and I sent in comments regarding the proposed Masters schedule. I think it has several poor areas, particularly where they copied the F3A P-11 schedule. The high reverse knife edge being one of them. I never heard back from anyone regarding my comments. I guess they took them for what they thought they were worth. This is an example of the NSRCA's lack of ability to get anything positive done right now.

wattsup

My Feedback: (1)

Joe, was there any particular reason why you decided to disassociate yourself from "the Committee"? I, for one, have always appreciated your leadership and contributions in past years. Everette

underdw

My Feedback: (2)

Like it a lot guys! Thanks sequence committee!
Having not yet flown it.... my comments:
- Like the commonality with P13 in some places
- Difficultly level similar to P sequences without rollers, KE loops, and rolling loops is perfect IMO
- 9)Stall turn: I'd rather see the 4pt on the way up
- 11)Crossbox Humpty: I'm not a big fan of figures that force me to move in or out if I'm at the depth I like. That said, it's nice to have the opportunity to move in and out, especially after a stall turn or spin.

Regards, Dan

rcprecision

My Feedback: (6)

My initial concern about the proposed Masters sequence is time. Has anyone timed the sequence? The current Masters sequence takes me an average of 8mins from take-off to landing. Even though the proposed sequence has 17 airborne maneuvers it contains a half clover, triangle Loop, reverse cuban eight, eight sided loop and a ¾ figure eight which these maneuvers can take considerable time to execute. The figure z and center top hat when performed big can also take considerable time.

rene69

You may need glow to get through the sequence!!!!!!!!!

Regards
Rene

rgreen24

My Feedback: (6)

May be that's the point huh

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Here is what I sent to the Committee on March 8th. As I said, I never got a response back from anyone. I have heard from others that that has been SOP for the Sequence Committee.

I have flown bits and pieces of it and I have studied it at length. I will probably get to fly the entire pattern this weekend. But here are a few comments.

The pattern has a lot of influence from F3A P-11 and a little from F-11. I never felt the P-11 pattern was that good. The series of maneuvers that get you pretty high for the reverse point roll is poor. That maneuver should be done lower to make it easier to see to judge. I have the same feeling about the Top Hat with the snap on top. I've judged a lot of F-11 and that maneuver makes judging the snap more difficult. I also feel that doing the 2 1/2 turn spin then with a 2 of 4 roll to exit is not a good idea. Very few people judging will ever properly judge that exit roll. I also feel Maneuvers 7 and 11 should be switched. It would be better to have a wind correction turnaround opportunity just a bit later in the pattern.

I feel that if doing integrated rolling loops or circles is off the table then the Masters pattern should at least begin to use some more difficult snapping maneuvers. Maybe a snap on a climbing 45 degree line instead of every snap either being level or descending. I also feel that one more higher K horizontal rolling maneuver should be included.

My feeling is that this proposed pattern is easier to fly then the current Masters pattern. I don't think that is the direction we should go.

Tony

wattsup

My Feedback: (1)

For some reason this smacks of the "Rules Proposal Survey" we all had to suffer through this past February! Some people just can't seem to handle prosperity! Joe's unexpected departure is either an omen or de ja vu all over again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cmoulder

I like the flow of the proposed Advanced sequence. I have flown it only a few times because I have been primarily practicing the current sequence.

It uses a few extra mAh's and takes a little more time because of the double loop (#10) and the double stall turn (#14). It has fewer inverted segments but is slightly more complex and a better intro to Masters IMO.

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
Isn't "Avalanche with Full Snap Roll" redundant?
.

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

This is redundant. Consider shaving sir.

louie525

My Feedback: (1)

My 2 cents: As far as the Advanced pattern goes; What's with the sharktooths? What happened to the half reverse cuban 8's? Too much like an IMAC sequence. Drop the double stall turn (old sportman manuver from the 80's) and add a figure "M" either with 1/4 rolls or 1/2 rolls! Double stall turn; K-factor of 4? Really, without and outside looping segment? Same "K" factor of 4 as Master's class Figure "Z" and 2 slow rolls reversed? I'll take the double stall turn for K-factor 4! No triangle looping manuvers either? You have one in the proposed Master's sequence. Oh...that's also a K-factor of 4. No figure "M" in Master's class? Come on.....The past 20 years of Master's patterns there always some type of figure "M"!

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

Louie,

MTK

When Ed Alt and I flew early versions of this sequence late last year, duration was around 7 1/2 to 8 minutes, but that is with his YS and my gas powered models. Electrics may need another minute. Electrics will need to use their slower speed to make smaller maneuvers for both lower duration and better use of available current capacity....Joe flies electric and had no problem finishing the sequence in time. But I'm not sure if he has flown it in good amount of wind

rcprecision

My Feedback: (6)

Matt – thanks for the feedback.

My concerns lie with contest flight line time at local events and the Nationals. As you are aware there has been concerns voiced in the past from those who sit in the judge’s chair and from those who run contests that the Masters sequence time should be shorter.

I am a firm believer sequence design should not consider power plant types used or the potential size the maneuvers could be flown. We already have rules to govern this plus each competitor is responsible to configure their chose of equipment to yield the necessary performance to execute maneuvers to the best of their ability.

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
You're killin' me!!!
.
As a matter of fact, I did shave today!!
.

MTK

Glen,

I am not arguing one way or the other about powerplant versus sequence design. I agree that a sequence should not consider powerplant but that may not be reality. The reality of our current situation in Patternland is that wet powered models often are flown at higher speeds and tend to fly larger maneuvers than their electric siblings, yet the amount of time per sequence is possibly a little less on average. Electrics tend to butt against a capacity versus weight wall so slower flight and smaller, smarter maneuvers are more typical; that's a good thing in my view since slower speed is a little easier to manage. But it could be limiting in poor conditions.

I think you may agree, one good way to further limit flight line time per schedule is to lose another one or two maneuvers from Masters. I don't see any negatives. Judges would be better served at both the Nats and locally and electric models could use lower capacity. I think we would still crown the best pilot as Champion. BTW- I think Masters should be the only class affected this way since it is often the largest and uses the most resources

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I have to disagree here with the comment that electric models fly slower. What I often see is just the opposite. The electric models on average have far more power and can fly at least as fast as any IC model I've seen. In fact, keeping the speed down is more of a problem then flying too slow.

Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

I give credit to the guys making the sequences, even if I don't love the one I'm flying. It's nice that it changes every few years. It's important to roll with the ebbs and flows of any organization or activity you are a part of, since whenever multiple people are involved it is difficult to please everyone.

I've only flown a few sequences in my short career flying pattern, but I take the parts that don't seem to flow well as challenges, which teaches me to use certain parts of the box, throttle control, and maneuver entries and exits.

DaveL322

Any discussion / concern about the length of the Sequences and consideration for glow / electric is nonsense. At this point, the majority of the Seq Committee actually flies electric. In the midst of a season, my flight times are generally within +/- 5 seconds for a given Sequence. To recall, the proposed Masters, 2011 Masters, P11, and P13 were all within about 15 seconds and mah usage was very similar.

There were a fair number of comments received during the testing period of the sequences. The majority were positive, so changes were not made. Having worked on the Seq Committee the majority of the cycles since 1989, it is simply impossible to make all the changes requested and minor tweaking of the sequences can go on endlessly. I am not aware of any feedback / input/ commentary that was not reviewed by the Seq Committee.

There is not enough room in any of the Sequences for all of the maneuvers everyone wants to see. Never has been, never will be. Use too many "classic" maneuvers and the Sequence is criticized for being old, stale, nothing new. Use too many "FAI" maneuvers, and it is too much like FAI. Use too many "IMAC" maneuvers, it is too much like IMAC. Use too many new maneuvers or traditional maneuvers in new spots, and the "classic" flyers think the classic way was better.

Over the years, I've learned its not possible to look, review, and even fly a Sequence and accurately compare it to another Sequence - yes, flying gives a general sense, and can point out some pinch spots or challenges - and they might be the same. A pinch spot for one guy is a brilliant combination of maneuvers to teach box and airspeed manangement to another guy....again, no Sequence will make everyone happy. The Seq Committee has used a number of tools to analyze the types of maneuvers and elements in various sequences - amount of inverted flying, number of rolls, snap rolls, and spins of each type, 45 degree elements, crossbox maneuvers - this is done very analytically to remove personal preferences and semantics, ensure guidelines are followed, and ensure a good progression through the classes.

Regards,

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

The biggest comment I have heard from some actually in the Sequence Committee and from some of the testers is that any comments or inputs they have submitted have been pretty much ignored. The deathly silence I received after I sent in my comments told me a lot.

A simple reply to my comments that they were received would have gone a long way. But I can tell from what I have seen here that at least one of the members feels inputs are not needed, or perhaps really wanted.

mjfrederick

Well, most of the discussion up to this point has been regarding the Masters pattern. I fly Advanced currently (probably won't have to fly the new sequence), but let me give you my perspective as someone who is leaving Advanced after this year. The first thing I noticed was in regards to the turnaround maneuvers: 2 shark's tooths and 2 humpty-bumps? Really? We don't have more imagination than that? And really that problem can be alleviated by correcting the next overall issue: no maneuvers start and end at the top of the box. Currently we at least have the reverse cuban from the top. Putting in something similar can get rid of one humpty and one shark's tooth. The next problem I have is the 2 loops with half rolls. The way the maneuver description reads the rolls are not integrated. The maneuver can't be flown as required for geometry without integrating the rolls into the loops (loops won't be round). In my opinion integrated rolls have no place in AMA pattern, but they certainly have no business in the Advanced pattern. The final problem I found with the Advanced pattern is the avalanche starts downwind. And people wondered why anyone would have opposed removing the maneuver sequences from the AMA rulebook? Well, here you go. Much like with the rules proposals put forth this year, the NSRCA leadership can just do whatever they feel like doing. That being said, I really like the return of the double stall turn. Classic.