<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi All,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">After watching and flying the new Masters pattern a few times, I do not think it is setup to fly close in. The upwind turnaround maneuvers, which precede the rolling segments, will not allow you to fly the pattern close. Unless you are 250 meters to begin with, bringing "in" the upwind cross-box turnarounds (top hat & humpty bump) are unthinkable. Even if you have room to bring them in, you would not have room to complete the 1/4, 1/2, 1/4 roll, or reverse knife edge. This bucks efforts to get flyers to fly between 150-175 meters. In order to fly it close, you would need to fly slow, very tight radii, and very short line lengths between upwind turnaround maneuvers and rolling maneuvers. If not done near perfectly, you are left with the impression of a rushed-flight. I think instead, most Masters flyers will fly at a farther distance to start with, and then get farther out due to the upw
ind turnaround maneuvers to make room for the rolling maneuvers. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I think the difficulty/challenge of this Masters pattern will be for the pilot to fly the slower speed envelope and small maneuver size to keep the entire maneuver set in the box, and not so far out as to warrant downgrades. It will be all to easy to begin the high-k-factor rolling maneuvers with an 8, due to being too far out. Presentation and positioning of the maneuver set is going to be the biggest challenge, rather than individual maneuvers. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jim W.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Bob Richards <bob@toprudder.com></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">11/15/2004 08:58 AM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to discussion</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To: discussion@nsrca.org</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc: </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject: Re: Warning to Masters Pilots</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Joe,</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">I have not tried it yet, but I thought the same thing. Could be an airplane breaker. I have always liked props with good braking action, perhaps this maneuver above all the rest will decide which prop to use. You will have to disspate a lot of energy before the snap, then the snap will kill more energy, then you will have to climb out hanging on the prop.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Bob.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
<b><i><br>
Joe Lachowski <jlachow@hotmail.com></i></b> wrote:</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">A few weeks ago I was experimenting with the speed/enegy required to do the <br>
loop with snap roll on the bottom. Be forewarned, I went into the loop with <br>
a little too much energy and bent my wing tube. I'm beginning to wonder <br>
whether this particular manuever should be changed for safety sake?<br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>