Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] 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:


Thread: [Acro] Re:

Message: [Acro] Re:

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

From: Don Peterson <autotech at>

Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:48:45 UTC



Certainly the bottom pull on an N is an extended period of max gee.  
Actually less than a goldfish, though, as there was a longer -1 or so at 
the top of the looping part of the goldfish and a positive loading from 
just past the top all the way around the the ascending 45.  A pull from 
a descending 45 to vertical doesn't last as long, and I find it is the 
duration that hurts far more than the amount of gee.

Virginia has put things in reasonable perspective, I think.  Go try it 
and let's see how the year goes.  There have been numerous cases in the 
past where a small vocal group cried out after a decision was made and 
in the end no problem appeared during the subsequent year.  I recall 
specifically the increase to 300k for the advanced freestyle and the 
inclusion of the inverted 90 degree turn in intermediate.  One would 
have thought from the crying during the winter that we would be scraping 
bodies off the runway for the entire season.  In the end, advanced has 
grown to be a huge success (other factors prevail, I'm sure), and I 
watched lots of people learn how to do inverted turns.  Odd how if you 
establish a bar with plenty of notice people just go out and learn how 
to jump over it.

Don't you you just crack up how some people think insults and innuendo 
are persuasive to their case?  I think what that sort of behavior causes 
is fewer people participating in these discussions, then the rude few 
can point to how no one else is speaking out in opposition to their view 
points.  Small mobs have often pursued their goals with these methods.

Chix seems to think that "flyable" should not be the criterion for 
sequence selection.  Whether she is right or wrong, it is the current 
test for a sequence.  Any change from that standard to another will 
require a board decision, not an after-the-fact debate on this exploder, 
which is not even monitored by many board members.


John Cornwell wrote:

>The "N" is not the same as a combination of a wedge (not reverse wedge) and a
>vertical line. At the bottom of the N you have 135 degrees of strong pull
>(pitch change). IMHO, that's a whole lot different than a pull to level from
>45, line, think, line, then pull vertical, especially when it comes after a
>-1G environment.
>"Virginia M. Jacobson" <virginia at> wrote:
>Hello all
>Once again I'll go out on a limb here and express an opinion.
>All the talk and fear about category creep IMHO is unfounded. If you
>look at the "N" and break it down into its basic elements you will see
>it is nor more than two figures combined that we have been flying in
>Sportsman for years. The "N" is nothing more than a reverse wedge
>followed by a vertical up line. In 2000 figure nine was a reverse
>wedge in Sportsman and in 2001 the Sportsman sequence started out with
>a vertical up line capping off positive. The "N" is nothing more than
>these two elements combined. If you stop paying attention to the K
>values and actually look at the figures in the sequence the basic
>elements are nothing more than figures we have always flown just being
>combined in new ways. All the elements in the 2004 Sportsman sequence
>are still basic figure that have been used in Sportsman for years. The
>true difficulty level has not changed a great deal. The challenge is
>flying them in a new combinations. If  the "N" was broken up into two
>separate figure I doubt there would be much of a discussion. I for one
>welcome the diversity and look forward to seeing how well Sportsman
>pilots deal with it.
>If new pilots go out and fly the N as two separate figures ( a reverse
>wedge and a vertical up line ) they will see that neither of the two
>elements are that horrid. Once you have mastered each of these than
>work to combine them together with a smooth transition form one to
>another.  What most people will find is that the initial pull to
>vertical in the wedge will be shorter than usual and the 45 down line
>will be longer in order to build speed to pull back to vertical again.
>This is not going to be a Yank and Bank figure. The pull form the 45
>down up to vertical must be done with a moderate G radius in order not
>to bleed off to much speed and the vertical up will be flown as short
>as possible. Remember a pilot only has to fly a vertical line up long
>enough to show that he/she is vertical before capping off.  A one
>count is probably going to be more than enough for most of us. The
>whole figure comes down to energy management.  Caring the 45 down to
>build speed before pulling back to vertical will be the hardest part
>for most of us.
>I suggest that new pilots don't become over whelmed by the sequence
>drawn on paper. If you break each figure down into its basic elements,
>practice each of these elements separately than work on combining them
>together to comprise the figure flying will become much easier and you
>will score much better. In my opinion this is how instructors should
>be teaching their students to fly. If you talk to advance or unlimited
>pilots you will find that they practice flying each of the elements of
>the figures before they combine them together. To score well you must
>master the individual components of the figures if you are to combine
>them and fly well.
>I will also take this moment to plug attending a Basic Judges School
>for new competitors before competing for the first time. If you attend
>a school you will find that much of these concerns are addressed. Most
>people also find that they learn a great deal that will help them in
>their practice and flying and will attend again to keep learning more.
>I  also praise those who did fly the proposed sequences and submit
>comments during the comment period. However, I must believe that our
>representatives and the officers on the BOD are working in our best
>interests and would change sequences if there were enough of the
>membership that truly opposed them. If  I didn't I would not vote to
>reelect them. Trying to come up with sequences that fit the majority
>of pilots in a category is a most difficult thing to do. Pilot
>abilities in any given category lay out like a Bell curve. The
>majority of pilots fall in the middle with a few outliers on either
>end. I believe when designing a sequence you have to consider the
>majority of pilots that will be flying it but still try to temper it
>so the pilots especially on the low end are not totally left out. If
>you try to design a sequence that is tailored just to the lower end
>than the majority of pilots will leave and disparity between the
>category classes will only broaden. This would do more to drive new
>comers away from our sport than bring them in.  I praise BK Howard in
>his efforts to come up with suitable sequences every year and would
>suggest that those that disagree start submitting proposed sequences
>that they feel are better. Brian Howard has repeatedly asked for
>pilots to design sequences and send them to him and I doubt that much
>has changed to date and many have not. I for one am guilty of this as
>I have to believe that the concerns express these past weeks are
>coming from the minority not the majority of  Sportsman pilots. The
>proof in the pudding will be to see how well the majority of pilots
>fly the sequence next year.  If it ends up being that more people have
>problems with it than not than I'm sure adjustments will be made.  I
>value opinions form such individuals as Mr. Stark but do not
>necessarily share them at all times. Experience sometimes can be a
>handicap. As we become more experienced we tend to look at things from
>a more advance point of view and we tend to forget about the basics
>that we learned many years ago that make things we do safe. NO ONE is
>standing pointing a gun to someone's head forcing them to fly a pair
>of figure that they (the pilot) deem to be unsafe for them or their
>aircraft to fly. Flying safe is still the pilots responsibility. If
>someone feels they can not fly a set of figures safely than find a way
>around it either by getting more instruction, practice or plan a
>strategy that allows you to compete with the minimum of penalties
>assessed. I suggest that all pilots go out and practice the basic
>elements of the figures, master these than work on combining them
>together. Go out and practice your slow flight, and spin avoidance
>procedures again. I bet if people practice these the N and 90 degree
>turn won't be so intimidating.
>There is an old saying that says "Inch by Inch anything is a synch"
>Virginia Jacobson
>VP IAC Ch-88
>National Judge
>1D pilot N105DR


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Email Guenther Eichhorn