<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>--Lance</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>