Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: Poll: Do we need a new category be ...

[International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: Poll: Do we need a new category be ...


Thread: [Acro] Re: Poll: Do we need a new category be ...

Message: [Acro] Re: Poll: Do we need a new category between Advanced andUnlimited?

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: Franko Allan <allan.franko at>

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:18:31 UTC


Thanks, everyone, for the replies and the interest.

I wanted my original post to be as short as possible, so I didn't
attempt to address potential objections to the Sporting Unlimited idea.
Several good criticisms have been made, and I want to try to address
some of them here.

Ed Gonzalez wrote:
"I feel adding another category would be difficult as it would make
getting a contest done in 2-3 days next to impossible"
    Up here in the Pacific Northwest it is standard practice to use the
same judging line for two consecutive categories.  It saves a lot of
time changing judges, and doesn't seem to have any major downside.  Even
if this were considered undesirable as a general practice by a Contest
Director, I can't see any reason why the same judging line could not be
used for Unlimited and Sporting Unlimited.  If this were done, the extra
category would add no time to the contest beyond that required to have
additional pilots fly, assuming the new category really would increase
participation - something that few Chapters would regard as a negative.

Don Peterson wrote:
"Fortunately, I suspect that Advanced will continue to refine itself as
category for unlimited pilots flying limited aircraft.  Yes, I would
like to see outside flicks, outside rollers, and tailslides in advanced,

but if that happens it won't be soon.  Time and continue input will move

advanced to being the true "sporting" category in the world.  My
impression of AWAC is that this is what it has already become, since so
many countries cannot field a competitive WAC team anymore.  While the
missing maneuvers mentioned above distinguish it from unlimited, ya
gotta admit advanced is a much greater challenge than it was 10 years
ago.  It may continue to evolve to give you what you want.  I'd bet you
could provide input to hasten the development of advanced more
successfully than you could get a new category invented
    Alan Cassidy made a similar point, and I have to agree that it would
solve the problems with Unlimited that I want to solve with Sporting
Unlimited.  However, there is no guarantee that it actually will
happen.  The problem with making Advanced harder and harder is that it
creates an unacceptable gap between Intermediate and Advanced.  While we
might solve that problem by adding a category between Intermediate and
Advanced, it seems clear that eventually another category will be
needed.  Why not add one where it is needed now?

Don Peterson also wrote:
"I've found that a 10 figure unlimited free can be safely and
flown by a 260HP $60k Zlin 50.  If I decide to practice enough, I can
have plenty of fun in the new unlimited at regional contests.  I can
promise you that an S2B, S1T, Extra 230, and Lazer 200 have at least
equal, and possibly more performance than the Zlin.  It doesn't take
$250k to fly unlimited and have fun.  Just dedication and plenty of
    Again, Alan Cassidy's comments were similar.  While I agree that a
10 figure free (7.5% bonus) is feasible in an S-1S, the bonus for a 7
figure free is 18%.  This difference is how I derived my claim of a 300
point bonus for horsepower.  Some might argue that a 10 figure free in a
Pitts is not as difficult as a 7 figure free in an Edge, but I don't
think anyone will debate the idea that the bonus system rewards
horsepower to some degree.
    My concerns are based only partly on the bonus system.  More
important to me is the obvious signal that IAC has abandoned the
principle that Unlimited should be flyable in an S-1S.  I predict that
most Knowns and Unknowns will require at least one break for airspeed in
an S-1S - a 90 point penalty - and often more than one.  Let me give you
a concrete example, based on the proposals for the Unlimited Known for
2002.  The third proposal (I think - I don't have copies at hand)
contained a rolling turn followed by a crossover vertical upwards snap.
I can't exit a rolling turn with more than 115 mph in my S-1S.  While I
can pull to an upwards inside snap on a hammer or humpty (or a  push to
an outside snap) from 140, I need at least 160 to do a recognizable
outside snap after a pull or inside snap after a push.  Since my maximum
level speed is 150, I can't do that combination of figures without
taking an interruption.  I'm not suggesting that IAC will design
sequences purposely to penalize 4 cylinder planes.  With most of these
planes already driven out of Unlimited there is little incentive to
worry about ensuring that the sequences are flyable for the handful
left, and the adoption of the bonus system in the Free says to me that
IAC has officially stopped worrying about it.

Allan Franko


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Email Guenther Eichhorn