Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: [Fwd: Re: Re:]

[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: [Fwd: Re: Re:]


Thread: [Acro] Re: [Fwd: Re: Re:]

Message: [Acro] Re: [Fwd: Re: Re:]

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

From: Don Peterson <autotech at>

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:31:23 UTC



Shame shame.  Take a deep breath.  Now, doesn't that feel better?

In the late 50's - early 60's, the Zlin displaced the Stampe as the state of the
art aircraft for world competition.  Getting a Zlin was very very expensive and
politically difficult.  By the end of the 60's, the Stampes were still being used
at top level competition, but could be had in overhauled condition for less than
$10k.  The Zlins were being displaced by the hotrod Pitts and the Yak 50, neither
of which could be afforded by the rank and file, who had to content themselves
with flying older Zlins, Buckers, and Stampes.  By the mid 70's, the Lazer and
Zlin 50 were moving 4 cyl Pitts and Yak 50's out of the world level, but again,
they were beyond the price of mere mortals.  Do you recall that a mid - late 70's
Zlin 50 was a $100k+ aircraft, and I can recall 4 cyl Lazers running 100k into the
early 90's.  The 4 cyl Pitts was no longer an unlimited aircraft by the early to
mid 80's.  Of course, the Stampe was still being used in France, the Zlins
(226/526) were still popular for serious regional competition in eastern Europe,
and the 4 cyl Pitts was still seen in the US.  But all of these aircraft were just
seeing out their silver years flying locally-serious competition.  By the mid 80's
it was Suks and Caps, etc.

So, this process has always gone on.  It is just so gradual that it extends beyond
the average competitor's participation in the game.  I certainly applaud using an
obsolescent aircraft to have fun above its head, but this has never been a valid
reason to change the basic structure of our sport.  I don't doubt there were
similar complaints by Stampe/Zlin 226/Zlin 526/Yak 50/Zlin 50 - etc owners as
their expensive wunderbirds became part of the previous generation.

Get used to it.  It'll probably happen again.


Franko Allan wrote:

> I suppose I should reply in case others interested in the category
> structure have reached the same misunderstandings of my arguments in
> favor of a new Sporting Unlimited category.
> rba at wrote:
> >                       Username: Robert Armstrong
> > Item 1; The range of
> >                 difficulty- Removing  the snap was not to change the
> >                 difficulty as much as it was to reduce the enormous stress
> >                 being put on some of the popular aircraft.  Any Pitts pilots
> >                 fear the snaps? Miss them? OK how bought you 7kcab pilots?
>     My points was simply that Sportsman was harder when every Known
> contained a snap roll.  I didn't say I thought it was a good to have it
> there. It took me hundreds of attempts to learn to do a reliable,
> presentable snap in my Decathlon.  That makes it hard, as far as I'm
> concerned.
> >
> >                 Item 2; Bonus points, to think that this is going to
> >                 reposition some pilots is unfounded. To get one of those 90%
> >                 flights takes more work than you think. The pilots that do
> >                 will get very similar scores on a longer program they are
> >                 not being handed points at regestration they earn them.  The
> >                 entire bonus system was not formed to help the pilots, it is
> >                 to shorten the World and contiental championships. It was
> >                 not uncommon for the free to take 4 to 5 days or more.  It
> >                 was the fear of myself and other unlimited pilots that at
> >                 the last team pick contest that there were several pilots
> >                 that could have not declaired for the team and flown 15 man
> >                 free and been the National champion.
>     Hmm, if a 15 figure Free is the best scoring design, why didn't you
> fly it?  Kinda proves my point that the bonus system provides an
> advantage to those whose aircraft
> are best at doing a shorter free, doesn't it?  And, now that you've
> accused me of selfishness (below), it leaves you open to a similar
> question.  You seem to be admitting
> here that a small group of WAC aspirants changed the Unlimited category
> solely for their benefit.  Isn't that kind of selfish?
> > Now
> >                 150K may fill yoour socks but what dose that new S2B or
> >                 8KCAB cost?  The airplane is a large cost item, but I have
> >                 run $1000 mounth gas bills for years, not to mention the
> >                 insurance.   Hobby that is not expenesive? Basket weaving?
>     Oh, come on!  A $30,000 airplane was all it took to enjoy the
> challenges of Unlimited a few years ago.  Now nobody is doing that, but
> hundreds of those airplanes still
> exist and they could still provide the same fun if they had a category
> to compete in.  Could it be that what really bothers you is the idea
> that others could have just as
> much fun in Sporting Unlimited as you have in Unlimited, flying planes
> that cost 15% of what yours cost?
> >
> >                  Item 4; You want an orginasion to creat a catigory for you
> >                 to fly so that you can feel challanged? Is this not somewhat
> >                 selfish?
>     See above.
> Allan Franko


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Email Guenther Eichhorn