Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

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.

[Usage Statistics]


ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: Goldifsh - as I intended them.



                


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


Message:

  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


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn