<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Anybody been able to fugure out a "golf ball?" Some of the folks
around here can't. Including me. Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
Lance Van Nostrand wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid001f01c56a42$a445a2a0$6501a8c0@LanceDesk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">At the Broken Arrow contest a bunch
of the flyers got together and reviewed the new proposals. Dan Curtis
flew the Intermediate sequences (options A & B) and I (Lance) flew
the Advanced. Bill Ahrens was supposed to fly the Masters, but he was
too chicken to do it in the dark. Imagine that. Here are some
comments from the group for the Sportsman thru Advanced. For Masters,
we never had the chance to discuss as a group so those comments are
purely mine.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">First, let me say that the work put
into these is evident and exceptional. There isn't really a bad
solution and both options are good. Thanks to everyone involved. It's
really a situation where choosing means being very picky, so everyone
involved should be proud of the options they created. I can see
advantages/disadvantages to manuvers in these sequences, but will not
use this note to go to that detail. Just the factors that tipped the
balance.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">sportsman:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Option A was the group choice only
because B has the vertical upline on center and many underpowered
sportsman planes can't do this. We already see plenty of trouble with
stall turns and in a stall turn you don't have to be able to push out,
just fall.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Intermediate:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Option B was the choice because the
2 outside loops + Cuban 8 + double immelman made the sequence longer in
time at essentially the same Kfactor. B will move better at big
contests and introduces a shark's tooth, which we haven't seen in
pattern maybe ever.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Advanced:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Option B mostly because we need a
cuban 8 before masters (it combines so many elements) and partly
because the 2 outside loops in A, although excellent skill builders can
kind of long to watch.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Masters 2007: </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">My choice: Option B because it looks
way more fun and has new stuff (8 point roll, figure M). Also, the 1
1/2 downline snap in A is sure to cause controversy AGAIN.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Masters 2009:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">My choice: Option A. this is a hard
one because A continues the 8 pt roll, but it has lots of cool stuff.
the 1 1/2 snap is in both A & B so that can't be differentiator.
Option B just seems more normal (except for the "spring coil" which I
don't know what it is). Overall option A has an interesting cuban and
avalanche, and 8 sided loop, reversed spins, etc. It will look very
different.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">--Lance</font></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>