(attached)
(attached)
My vote is E first and C secondOriginally Posted by Jim Ward
In order of preference:
1. Proposal B. The vertical 3x4 roll in Fig. 6 will challenge some aircraft but should be do-able.
2. Proposal D. The 1 1/2 roll + 5/8ths push-around may be hard to accomplish in a marginally powered plane. The 1 3/4 spin on Fig. 6 will eat a fair bit of altitude, but there are no other big altitude-losers.
3. Proposal F. I'm not sure how practical Fig. 6 will be, energy-wise. Some marginally powered planes need a downhill figure before a 1/2 roll up + 1/2 radius.
4. Proposal G. The 360-roller will be boring to practice, watch, and judge. Only the most capable aircraft will have enough energy for Fig. 4, and even then the pilots are going to have to push pretty aggressively. Fig. 7 presents an even bigger energy challenge.
5. Proposal C. This sequence doesn't have enough K, and very little in the way of mental challenges. The push out of Fig. 8 may be too much for aircraft with -3G limits.
6. Proposal E. This is a decent sequence, except for Fig. 8. Coming late in the sequence, as pilot fatigue sets in, this push-pull combo (followed by another pull on Fig. 9) seems like an invitation to G-LOC.
7. Proposal A. The Fig. 7 spin comes late in the sequence, raising concerns about altitude loss. Two maneuvers later, the sequence ends with a split-S; bad idea!
I agree "E" first .."C' second ........if we must subject ourselfs to CIVA rules !
B has good versatility, balance. a lot of snaps.
C is a good sequence. Doable in a Pitts. Pretty short. Could use another figure or two .
D good versatility.1 3/4 turn spin is a big altitude looser late in the sequence. Make it 1 1/4.
E is an altitude loser. fig 8,9 might be energy problem in lower hp arcraft.
A One turn spin is max 700' altitude loss- should be no problem, but it is late in the sequence. Split S at the end is a bad idea.
F Altitude loser in lower hp aircraft. Fig 5 to 6 and 7 would be hard to pull off without a lot of hp.
G bad energy. figures 2,3,4 would be hard to do well in lower powered aircraft. Looks like altitude looser.
Doesn't look like fun. Definitely the one CIVA will pick!
My 1st choice is B. C and D are also good with some modifications.
B seems to be the best for most aircraft
Mike Heuer posted on Acro that he'd received feedback from Advanced team members - in the interest of transparency, below is the feedback I provided. I evaluated the sequence from the perspectives of both my Panzl and my Eagle (which I really hope to fly in regional competition in 2013 - it's fun!)
----------------------------------
Prop A - reasonable sequence but figs 5, 6, 7, 8 all in the same direction will get a little monotonous to judges. And with the spin at the end (and an altitude eater with the roll after) the whole sequence will be flown comparatively high.
Prop B - Figs 7 and 8 - back to back downwind 45's….'nuff said. well, actually not - no way the Eagle could get the full roll in on Fig 1 after the pull to vertical following full snap, much less drive off level after it.
Prop C - seems reasonable enough, though shutting down the speed after the snap on Fig 3 into the spin probably eats a lot of box and gets a little boring to watch. But mostly this sequence is just too short and too low on K to be an Advanced-worthy sequence.
Prop D - a good sequence in my view, though Figs 1 and 4 will provide monoplane pilots a distinct advantage over biplane pilots. What I do like is 4, 5, 6 and 7 require some serious mental work, and will vary every contest (i.e., can't just set it up the same way every time, wind direction WILL make you have to do this differently at times) - fun for pilots, fun for judges….and probably fun for recorders writing down judges comments! I just wish it was more biplane friendly.
Prop E - the "suppository" works its way into a Q! The cross box is on the downwind end, but at least it's a hump back into the wind. Aren't loops for Sportsman and Intermediate??? But again, a biplane can fly this one no prob. I just wonder if it's not TOO easy.
Prop F - the Eagle couldn't do the pull to 45 (with any radius) after the full roll up in 3, particularly following the snap on figure 2 (ie, no acceptable way to enter 3 at mach-speed), would eat a ton of altitude with the half roll after the spin and would never be in the box for 5 after the snap/doubleroll on 4 (so would have no option but to take it away from judges). Other than that it's great!
Prop G - snap and a half on 45, 540 degrees of opposite/hesitation roll on a downline 45, outside/inside/outside roller, and a roll and a half down after hump - what's not to like, it's airshow time for the Panzl! I won't be bringing my Eagle to contests with this one though…..
Video of Proposal E in flight at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0uvF...1&feature=plcp
Prefer Proposal E.
A) Decent energy flow for my stock Pitts S-1S, but as others have mentioned, the late sequence spin, especially followed by the half roll down are big altitude losers. And I'm sure the judges would prefer not to watch my tiny airplane high in the box for most of the sequence.
B) In Fig. 1, I don't like the snap after the 1/2 roll on the 45 downline and would have to be careful with snap speed. In the same figure, it will be hard for me to draw an equal length line after the snap in order to get enough speed for a full vertical roll and fly-away. Will probably be long after the snap in Fig. 5 getting speed for decent points in the 3x4 for Fig. 6.
C) The Advanced Unknown we received at last weekend's Farmville, VA contest was almost this exact same sequence plus two additional figures after the outside roller to bump up the total K. It was fun and relatively simple to fly, but in its form here, I agree with others that it lack sufficient total K and complexity to be a good Adv. Known.
D) Figures 1 & 2 will be tough for the S-1S to get through on a warm day. Likewise, I may be close to snapping out of the roll on top of Fig. 5. Agree with others regarding the altitude-loser 1-3/4 spin.
E) Very doable in the Pitts, good energy flow.
F) I'd be eating a lot of the Y-axis trying to get energy for Fig. 6. I will have scrubbed a lot energy before the half loop up for Fig. 7, which will make it hard to get a good 1-1/2 snap on top.
G) Good monoplane sequence. Very unfriendly to lower-performing a/c, as others have mentioned...esp. figures 4, 7, and 9.
Eric Sandifer
Video of Proposal D in flight at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0_vohcWzag . Not clean - flown as impromptu unknown, just intended to give folks a feel for what it looks like, and altitude (I was surprised that the 1 3/4 spin didn't eat as much as expected - 1500 ft top to bottom. Entire sequence between 1500 and 3000. It would take the full box in the Eagle.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote