PDA

View Full Version : Known Proposals for Advanced and Unlimited Published by CIVA



Mike Heuer
10-05-2014, 12:33 PM
The CIVA Known proposals for Advanced and Unlimited (Power and Glider) were sent to delegates yesterday and will be voted on at CIVA's plenary meeting in Wroclaw, Poland on 8-9 November. I welcome comments on these proposals before my departure for Europe on the 4th of November.

There is a news article on the IAC website on this subject:

https://www.iac.org/news/2014-10-05-civa-publishes-known-proposals-2015

The sequences are available for download here as well.

Mike Heuer
10-14-2014, 03:44 PM
209 views as of today. Only one comment to me so far.

Mike

flyrite
10-15-2014, 06:14 AM
Hey Mike sorry for delay in response ......"A"...is my choice & is the best of the proposals for keeping the little guy [4cly small winged] in the fight in my opinion.
All are flyable in my little mount & I think I could practice away the disadvantages that any of the proposals present, But I believe proposal "A" provides the best option of keeping the flight about pilot performance & not plane performance.

I am surprised to see that a neg-snap made it into a proposal at all "B"....and figure 1 in proposal "F" is a sleeper for a lot of us .

Take care
Tony

Mike Heuer
10-15-2014, 08:50 AM
Tony,

Good call on the Known. I have been receiving copies of the evaluations by the CIVA Working Group on these proposals and it so happens that two former World Champions agree with you on sequence "A" in Advanced. It was their first choice.

While I am still waiting to hear from members of the US Advanced Aerobatic Team (Craig Gifford and Nikolay Timofeev have weighed in), I predict we will cast the USA vote for "A".

Additional input welcome!!

Mike

Martin Price
10-16-2014, 11:18 AM
I'd be OK with Advanced proposal 'A'.

-Martin

RetroAcro
10-19-2014, 11:12 PM
Just now had time to review and comment. I guess I shouldn't cast my final "vote" (FWIW) until I've flown a few of these, but right now I'd choose Advanced sequences A, C, and F as decent Known candidates (C or F initial preference). Other comments for now until I can fly -

"A" - There are a couple significant altitude loser figures for slow-rolling stock Pitts types - the full roll down in Fig. 2, and the 1.5 roll on the 45 down in Fig. 3. A fair amount of altitude will be needed getting sufficient speed to fly Fig. 6 round over the top in slower rolling stock Pitts types. This sequence is fairly simple, containing the same 270 roller as was in the '14 Known, as well as a 3/4 vertical snap down, also in the '14 Known.

"B" - No comment, as I understand IAC will vote against anything with a negative snap. I do not mind the idea of Advanced having a simple 1-rotation neg. snap on a level line as this sequence has.

"C" - Has some good challenge, and some new figures compared to the '14 Known (outside/in roller, 1-1/2 snap, 1/2 snap 45 down), has good flow, and seems to have no energy issues for stock Pitts types.

"D" - Fig. 2 will be hard to get good energy for, and a possible energy issue into Fig. 7 on a hot day for stock Pitts types.

"E" - Speed into Fig. 2 for a decent snap will be a challenge, and Fig. 7 (especially w/ roll on top) will be without question impossible to remotely score well in stock Pitts types due to energy requirements. Fig. 7 is the worst possible figure to put in a Known when it comes to performance disparities between the bipes and 6-cylinder carbon mono-ships.

"F" - Looks OK to me, and (without flying it), it doesn't seem to me Fig. 1 is any more of a sleeper than an inverted spin into a 3/4 loop up with the hard pull needed for a snap on top. Fig. 3 may be hard to fly a round 5/8 radius.

"G" - Fig. 2, and speed into Fig. 5 are significant altitude losers - again for slow rolling stock Pitts bipes.

"H" - Figures 3 and 4 will take up an excessive amount of the X-axis for slow rolling Pitts types due to the large numbers of rolls in the downwind lines. May be very hard to keep in the box with significant wind down the X.

"I" - Fig. 4 is a big altitude loser for slow rolling Pitts', and this sequence will require pushes that are harder than I'd like to see in an Advanced Known, where the "legal" G-limit is -3G for most Pitts'.

Eric Sandifer

flyrite
10-20-2014, 03:54 PM
Great exposition on the sequence's Eric....I hope the "powers that be" give the same consideration to the performance differences of the mount's that you have!

Take care
Tony

Craig Gifford
11-04-2014, 07:45 PM
A bit late to the thread, but a sloppy pass at Advanced sequence A can be seen in flight at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-l-Ck-_3Wo&list=UU_XV8Oy1XlMC5ND-Nv5pylw

RetroAcro
11-05-2014, 09:46 AM
Yeah, I hate those Advanced sequences that leave me ending up in the stratosphere. :-) I haven't flown this 'A' sequence yet, but I expect altitude issues getting all those rolls on the downlines done in the Pitts.

flyrite
11-05-2014, 04:57 PM
A bit late to the thread, but a sloppy pass at Advanced sequence A can be seen in flight at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-l-...lMC5ND-Nv5pylw
Craig Gifford

Hey Craig, Like the flying....Thanks for posting video of the "A proposal"....I have followed your blog the last couple of times at AWAC & have truly enjoyed the posts. I would love to have you join in the discussion on this forum under the thread "Unfair" in this same section.
It would be great to have someone who's been playing in the advanced category in an unlimited machine for years to give their perspective on the issue.
Look forward to your posting.

Take care
Tony

Craig Gifford
11-05-2014, 08:23 PM
....perspective on the issue.


yeah, I've managed to stay out of that one, so I'll just offer that my first two years in Advanced, which included the first year I made the Advanced team, were in a Christen Eagle that, while it had a 540 motor, had bone stock ailerons. I couldn't get a full roll on a vertical in before a humpty. S-1's and S2-C's easily eclipsed me in aircraft performance. I didn't often lose to them. Competition success is a result of well-designed practice and coaching, and mental focus during the 4 minutes in the box.

WLIU
11-06-2014, 07:22 AM
" S-1's and S2-C's easily eclipsed me in aircraft performance. I didn't often lose to them. Competition success is a result of well-designed practice and coaching, and mental focus during the 4 minutes in the box."

We should all carve that on the hangar wall and look at it before each flight.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

RetroAcro
11-06-2014, 01:01 PM
yeah, I've managed to stay out of that one, so I'll just offer that my first two years in Advanced, which included the first year I made the Advanced team, were in a Christen Eagle that, while it had a 540 motor, had bone stock ailerons. I couldn't get a full roll on a vertical in before a humpty. S-1's and S2-C's easily eclipsed me in aircraft performance.

I'm surprised to hear you say this. I've seen video of your 540 Eagle and it definitely rolls as fast as my factory S-1S. With a 540, I would expect it to perform similar to an S-2B with only slightly less roll rate than the B, but with better acceleration and penetration due to the power, lighter weight and a cleaner airframe than the S-2B. The B rolls and performs a little better than a stock 180 hp S-1S.

flyrite
11-06-2014, 07:56 PM
I truly wouldn't want to hijack this thread by addressing Craig's response to the issue of the "Advanced Lifer's" flying the unlimited machines year after year in the category on this thread....So please Craig join in the unfair thread & tell how being able to start at 1300' as you do in the video is not an extreme advantage over your fellow competitors flying the 4 cyl small wing area's!

Thanks
Tony

RetroAcro
11-07-2014, 05:40 PM
This afternoon I made a couple runs through Advanced sequence 'A' in cool, 60 degree, dry air. As suspected it is a significant altitude loser in my stock 180 hp S-1S - especially Fig. 3 with the 1-1/2 roll on the 45 downline. This figure requires pulling a significant amount of power off to get the rolls done. The full roll down on Fig. 2 also requires pulling some power off so you're not blasting into Fig. 3 with excessive energy, which will make it impossible to draw an equal length line after the snap while retaining enough energy to fly the laydown Humpty round as it closes. Anytime power needs to be pulled off, you're throwing away altitude. I sure can't afford to throw altitude away. It would be next to impossible to retain enough energy on top of the Fig. 6 P-loop on top to make this round. Worse is it's into the wind over the top. Getting enough speed on the vertical line after the 1-1/4 spin to even come close to flying Figure 6 passably will be another altitude loser. Add in hot weather and there's going to be an altitude break. Besides the energy issues, 'A' is really not a very challenging sequence from a mental or technical standpoint.

I vote for Advanced sequence 'C'. It's more interesting, a little more challenging, yet has fewer altitude/energy issues for the 4-bangers, IMO.

Mike Heuer
11-08-2014, 10:27 AM
I am at the CIVA meeting in Wroclaw, Poland. In Advanced it was sequence A that was selected.

Mike

Mike Heuer
11-08-2014, 10:29 AM
Advanced sequence will be A. Unlimited will be D.

Mike Heuer

RetroAcro
11-09-2014, 03:35 PM
I regret the choice of this Advanced sequence. I've now flown this sequence a few times, and I'll either be busting the top of the box on Figure 1 by a decent margin (in a tiny Pitts S-1) or taking an altitude break - even in cool weather. It's a good monoplane sequence, though. ;-)

flyrite
11-09-2014, 04:07 PM
Flew it for the first time today.....I can take solace in that I got till next year to practice away the disadvantage given to the unlimited machine's......IT IS WHAT IT IS!!!!!

I just need to embrace the underdog mentality, If I see it in that light I don't feel as bad about being at a disadvantage, Although I think this is the best of the bad option's that were offered.

Tony

RetroAcro
11-09-2014, 04:34 PM
Tony, I think it'll be OK for you with the roll rate of the 1D. You'll just need a lot of smash to make the P-loop round. I don't think it's a bad sequence for you.

Craig Gifford
11-09-2014, 04:47 PM
Guys - Mike was relaying a CIVA selection. A suggestion - since this isn't a WAAC year, and the IAC board hasn't selected the Advanced and Unlimited Knowns for the 2015 year, perhaps it would be worthwhile to lobby your IAC board representative to advocate for a couple modest changes to the Advanced sequence A for IAC purposes - an inside snap rather than full roll on figure 2, and a 1/2 roll on figure 4 rather than 1 1/2 would have almost the same K and I believe would address altitude concerns, as well as add another snap to add interest. No, it won't even the score with the fire-breathers on the P-loop, but trust me, biplanes have significant advantage on the roller which is almost the same K. Even as an "advanced lifer" I plan to advocate this to the Board members I know.

WLIU
11-09-2014, 05:05 PM
Out of curiosity, are you guys flying all of the way down to 660'? I know a number of pilots who are not comfortable at that altitude, but that is what the current Advanced category expects of you.

I practice down to 600' and the view of the ground does take some getting used to.....

Best of luck,

Wes

RetroAcro
11-09-2014, 05:37 PM
Out of curiosity, are you guys flying all of the way down to 660'?

Sure did. We 4-banger guys have lots of experience with the the bottom of the box...and lower sometimes. :-)

EDIT - And that involved rushed lines, and not much airspeed into the P-loop - indicating zero on top. Not even close to round by the time I pushed around. And it was a nice cool, dry 60 deg. day.

RetroAcro
11-09-2014, 05:50 PM
...perhaps it would be worthwhile to lobby your IAC board representative to advocate for a couple modest changes to the Advanced sequence A for IAC purposes - an inside snap rather than full roll on figure 2, and a 1/2 roll on figure 4 rather than 1 1/2 would have almost the same K and I believe would address altitude concerns, as well as add another snap to add interest.

Great suggestion. Anyone know of any precedent for IAC actually doing this?

flyrite
11-10-2014, 05:49 AM
Sure did. We 4-banger guys have lots of experience with the the bottom of the box...and lower sometimes. :-


Ain't that the truth....Eric, I remember the up close view of the fall color's at Morganton in the unknown....I think you got a couple of low call's as I recall.




Tony

WLIU
11-10-2014, 07:20 AM
"Anyone know of any precedent for IAC actually doing this?"

I believe that I recall that maybe 5 years ago, IAC voted to fly a slightly different Advanced Known Program than CIVA. As noted above, that this is not a WAAC year will make it easier to lobby the IAC Board, especially if you can make the case that the CIVA program is a safety issue for the S-1 guys.

The fall IAC Board meeting is Wednesday. Best call your IAC Regional Director and express your concerns today. It looks like Tony and Eric should call Rob Holland.

Best of luck,

Wes

flyrite
11-10-2014, 02:38 PM
Wes, I think my rep. is Tom Adams[S.E. region] and not to be negative...But based on past exchanges...I wouldn't waste his or my time.

Tony

WLIU
11-10-2014, 03:09 PM
Tony, the way the IAC Board works these days, all directors are really "at large". They agree to divide up regions, but that is really a sort of "gentlemans agreement". So call Rob anyway, or another director if you are more comfortable with one of the others. Or Mike H, the IAC President. Don't be bashful.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
11-10-2014, 05:35 PM
Tony, the way the IAC Board works these days, all directors are really "at large". They agree to divide up regions, but that is really a sort of "gentlemans agreement". So call Rob anyway, or another director if you are more comfortable with one of the others. Or Mike H, the IAC President. Don't be bashful.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Wes, Being's you seem to be "Connected" to the board why don't you invite...challenge...shame...what ever will work...Ask the board member's to join in this forum...I do not understand why the powers that be will not involve themselves here...I have seen post's from most of them over on the exploder, But this is the "official IAC forum" why would they not introduce themself's here?

It's no wonder that most of us feel like we are not heard when all we can do is send an e-mail or phone call that is isolated between the member & the director...I think it would be much more beneficial for the power's that be to respond here on the forum & make themself's accountable to membership.

I don't mean to load your wagon with this...But I've already tried to get my director to join in here & to our president Mike's credit he has jumped in & at least made himself available to us....Why don't you see if you can do what I can't....Connect us pee.on's with the men that matter!!


Tony

DJ Molny
11-11-2014, 06:40 AM
A suggestion - since this isn't a WAAC year, and the IAC board hasn't selected the Advanced and Unlimited Knowns for the 2015 year, perhaps it would be worthwhile to lobby your IAC board representative to advocate for a couple modest changes to the Advanced sequence A for IAC purposes.

FYI, the IAC Board meeting -- at which these sequences will most likely be adopted -- begins TOMORROW, Nov. 12th. If you're going to lobby for IAC-specific changes, do it now.

RetroAcro
11-11-2014, 10:55 AM
FYI, the IAC Board meeting -- at which these sequences will most likely be adopted -- begins TOMORROW, Nov. 12th. If you're going to lobby for IAC-specific changes, do it now.

Thanks for the heads up DJ. I sent a note to NE Director (Rob) about a proposed mod to the CIVA Known.

RetroAcro
11-13-2014, 09:51 AM
BTW, I think this would be a good modification to Advanced sequence 'A' -

http://i62.tinypic.com/9gkfo5.jpg

WLIU
11-13-2014, 10:48 AM
Looks very constructive.

Best of luck,

Wes

flyrite
11-13-2014, 07:15 PM
I like it Eric, Great revisions that doesn't take away complexity...But balance's any performance advantage in altitude demand's flying different mount's.


Tony

DJ Molny
11-14-2014, 08:44 AM
At yesterday's meeting, the IAC Board decided to modify Figure 3 to replace the 1 1/2 roll with a 2x4. Figure 2 was left unchanged.

RetroAcro
11-14-2014, 09:16 AM
Thanks for the follow up. That change will significantly improve altitude issues for certain a/c types.

eagledriver.zoe
11-16-2014, 05:19 PM
Hi guys, does any body know how to use the openaero.net?

eagledriver.zoe
11-16-2014, 05:21 PM
I'm trying to draw the lines bolt, I mean darker but don't know how...

Mike Heuer
11-23-2014, 02:57 PM
Thanks to DJ for posting the news of the change to Advanced "A". Changes to what CIVA adopts has precedent and we will not hesitate to modify any sequences that are not in the best interests of aerobatics here in the USA. I thank Craig Gifford for suggesting changes and the Board for recommending these to Rules Committee. The Committee came back to us quickly and figure #3 was changed as DJ stated. In accordance with IAC policy, the sequence was given final approval by the IAC Executive Committee last week. All sequences have now been approved with the exception of the Primary. We are still looking at that.

I hope to have all of this wrapped up with official forms and sequence diagrams available next week on www.iac.org.

Mike Heuer
IAC President