ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [IAC-L:28] IAC Sequence & Aircraft Performance ...
[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: [IAC-L:28] IAC Sequence & Aircraft Performance ...
Message: [IAC-L:28] IAC Sequence & Aircraft Performance Policy
Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)
From: "Kurt O. Haukohl" <TwoWing6 at ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 21:16:33 UTC
Karen Diamond Editor - Sport Aerobatics Letter to the Editor --- Growth GOOD, shrinkage BAD. We want to see competition aerobatics Grow. More Pilots and Competitors. An older but perhaps unwritten policy for many years seems to be slipping by the wayside. Has anyone else noticed? The OLD Legends: *Citabria 7ECA /115hp (no inverted) -- Should be able to complete the SPORTSMAN Sequence and WIN. *Decathelon (inverted) -- Should be competitive and capable of completing any INTERMEDIATE Sequence. *Pitts S2A / Eagle -- Should be competitive and able to complete the ADVANCED Sequences. *Pitts S1T (Four Cylinders) -- Should be competitive and able to complete the UNLIMITED Squences. Does it appear that all of this equipment is struggling to the MAX this year, just plugging through the motions? Are these aircraft truly competitive in their respective classes? Should these planes be competitive, or just "able" in their respective classes? Is it a BOARD accident, or a policy, to ratchet each class of aircraft down one notch? Should the IAC BOARD automatically adopt CIVA knowns? Is there a need to replace the older equipment and make the sport more costly? Would creating equipment obsolescence be a good policy idea? Just stand back and watch these planes flying, ( in their respective classes ) with interest this year. 1. Sportsman. A reverse tooth in the known should have been performed by each IAC BOARD member in a Citabria 7ECA before approving this one. The need to start this 97' sequence above 3500ft is also a pronounced problem. 2. Intermediate. Working Correctly! 3. Advanced. The Goldfish/Spider... are we having fun yet? Try this in a stock Pitts S2A or Eagle. Take a IAC BOARD member with you, and put him or her in the front seat. PUSH HARD! 4. Unlimited. No Center Box figures, No Spin, No Slide, No SLOW figures, with 8 Snaps in 11 figures? I am anxious to see ONE IAC BOARD member complete this flight in a Pitts S1T and score. Could this high speed box banger sequence have been written for one type of craft and one style of flying? YES it could. If 600 pilots compete in the US, and 200 in Europe, why would our IAC Board just rubber stamp the CIVA sequences without question? How about that little Sportsman Citabria waiting for his motor to quite on that reverse tooth? I defy any of you to show me a radius on the apex of a tooth with your motor dead in a Citabria. A whip-stall apex should probably zero this figure. Right? Is the IAC Board making competition more expensive, by crippling competitors, and causing equipment obsolescence? What are our goals here? I should point out that would be fairly easy to write an unlimited sequence that NOBODY could complete in existing equipment today. What would this prove? Aircraft cost and performance is becoming a universal problem across the spectrum of aerobatics. All of us need a clearer definition of the LIMITS. PILOTS. Get a clear picture of each IAC Director or Officiers position, before you cast your votes this year. Ask yourself if they are here to grow or shrink the sport; then vote. Kurt Haukohl