ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: Goldifsh - as I intended them.
[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.
Thread: Goldifsh - as I intended them.
Message: Goldifsh - as I intended them.
Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)
From: ACCassidy at aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:20:26 UTC
So far I have held back my input, but as the person who originally proposed what have become known as "Goldfish", perhaps I should say how they started and how I would like to see them judged. In Sportsman and its worldwide equivalents, there is a shortage of turn-around figures that also involve a slow start/fast finish or vice versa. Really only Spins, Immelmans and Split-Ss. In designing a lot of Sportsman Unknowns, which we fly over here in UK at each contest, I needed more flexibility. So I combined a plain 45 degree down or up line with a half cuban/half reverse and made figures to fit my bill. Now I had more flexibility without increasing the number of figures in a sequence - quart into a pint pot so to speak. Once this basic pattern was established, the whole 4 rows of similar figures could be designed, most of which would be of Intermediate or higher difficulty. I then had to decide which Family to put them in. Already there are great similarities between figures from different Families - notably half-cuban-types from Fam 8 and sharks teeth from Fam1. Also blurring the distinctions, we have half-cubans in 8, but full cuban eights in 7. As the natural resting place for goldfish was thus indeterminate I chose Family 7 because it was smaller than 8. Now to how you judge these. There has been no CIVA ruling on this so far - a matter that should be resolved at the end of this season. So each country is having to decide for itself - at the risk of having to revise its criteria for next year to be in line with CIVA. An important principle in the judging criteria is that they (the criteria) should not unduly favour aircraft of a particular perfomance. If you look at the criteria for a half-cuban, therefore, you find no requirement for the figure's exit line to be at the same height as its entry, as this would be very difficult in a low-performance, slow roll-rate aircraft at Sportsman. Therefore to read across from the horizontal eight, which requires the 2 loops to be of the same size and height, to the Goldfish - requiring start and finish heights to equal loop maximum and minimum - is to unjustly penalize the low performance aircraft. Also, such strict criteria give the judge an unnecessarily large number of subjective measurements to apply. I consider therefore that the recommendation recently made by the IAC Board is over-restrictive. Incidentally, the CIVA wording for Family 7 - Horizontal 8s - allows that the final 45 line may finish higher or lower than the relevant looping portion if it contains MULTIPLE rolls. I shall be proposing the following wording to CIVA for its next review, and would recommend that this is adopted for judging Goldfish in the interim: Family 7.19 to 7.22 (CIVA 1997 Numbering) - Horizontal 3/4 Eights In these figures all looping radii must be identical. The 45 degree lines may be of any length and may differ one from the other. Any included rolling elements must be centrally disposed on the parent 45 degree line. I believe the KISS principle should work here. Alan Cassidy British Alternate Delegate to CIVA