Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

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.

[Usage Statistics]


ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [IAC-L:28] IAC Sequence & Aircraft Performance ...



                


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


Message:

  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




  

 


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn