Guys, stop the stupid talk please.
I suspect that the calendar put our ages higher than 16.
Thanks,
Wes
Nips
Guys, stop the stupid talk please.
I suspect that the calendar put our ages higher than 16.
Thanks,
Wes
Nips
Last edited by WLIU; 09-27-2014 at 07:11 PM.
I tried today, and I couldn't fly the version of the Nats Advanced Unknown (that I thought most energy friendly) without taking an altitude break or busting the top of the box (Factory stock 180 hp Pitts S-1S). Only mod to my airplane is a 3-blade Catto prop which actually has very slightly less performance than a metal Sensenich. Unknown was 14 figures. Sammy definitely shows what a stock Pitts airframe can do, but it does help that he doesn't weigh anything, and has a pumped motor. If I could lose about 50 lbs (I'm not fat), and upgrade my standard compression pistons, I could have gotten through it. :-) Pat's airplane is modded quite a bit. Sammy will admit that there are sometimes figures he gets hurt a little on due to the performance limitations of the Pitts. The monoplanes absolutely do have an advantage in Advanced, pilot skill being equal. I don't see how that's even up for debate...though it's debatable how much the advantage is. And some care more about this edge than others. I understand where my friend Tony is coming from, I guess I'm just not quite as passionate on the subject. I will have to make an effort to submit more Unknowns.Originally Posted by cyav8r
Eric Sandifer
What is missed here is that the contest is more than just 4 minutes in the box. Part of the competition is bringing enough airplane and enough $$. For better or worse, the complaint here is that the technology has moved beyond the biplanes. Maybe beyond the 1D. That is just a fact of life. You all are welcome in Intermediate.
Us biplane guys cling to our airplanes for a bunch of reasons, none of which have to do with our desire to reach the top of the competition ladder. It is unrealistic to ask the rest of the competition world to accomodate us.
As noted above, whining won't change anything. And frankly, those of us who take the time to understand how the current set up works, become Regional or National Judges, submit Known Program proposals to the Rules Committee every year, run contests and chapters, etc., are less than sympathetic to our friends who are great to drink beer with but won't follow up their ideas with time and effort. There is no sport out there that welcomes the behavior that has been demonstrated here.
So if Advanced is too hard, Intermediate welcomes you. But you should be warned that there are Extra's and Edges in Intermediate too. And I outscore them and maybe you, in my "lowly" S-2A.
Sheesh,
Wes
N78PS
I guess you know when a thread has reached the point of "profit to loss" based off the fact that nobodies getting any smarter on the subject...Original arguments that have already been dealt with reemerge & personal slights begin to creep in to the debate{I'm as guilty as anybody on the last issue} and to that point let me apologize to cyav8r if what I posted was perceived as an attack against his mount or his service to the club or him personally...Some of the best & most skilled competitors I know are decathelon pilots!
Having said all the above ...Wes...my argument is not with technology....I completely understand your side of the argument & I believe I understand how the system is setup{don't see how that's relative at all}to the dissussion ....I just can't tell you how strongly I disagree with it. I firmly believe that the club should require the guys buying an advantage in the lower categories to move up to the category that their mount was designed for ....or after a period of time have something to balance the obvious advantage they fly with...Wow ...after making the same point multiple times...the better it sounds{to me}! Be it in the form of sequence design in the unknowns{which by the way you'll notice is where the pitts guys fell out of contention at the nationals}... handicaps as was mentioned in earlier posts or as I've pointed out multiple times .... go back to what the club was doing up to the early 2000's in AWAC eliminate the planes with the higher API numbers in the lower categories...{which I notice for a guy with your historical knowledge of the sport you never address}The competitions really should be about "SKILLS NOT FRILLS".....My gosh Wes you amaze me at the lengths you'll go to defend the obvious!!!
I still hold out hope that Mike & maybe some of the board members will join in this discussion....Do I think anything is going to change even if they do...probably not...But it does the membership no service for the guys that are making the decisions on issues like this to insolate themselves & leave it up to guys like you to defend the obvious.
Let me again boil it down one more time to the 'BLACK & WHITE" of the issue...............Some folks {mostly lower category} will still make the argument that the guys flying the unlimited machines in advanced have no advantage in the category{if that's your contention then I have no more arguments for you} IMO...that's as Eric has said... is not even debatable... and I will not engage in anymore debate with anyone on that issue{won't waste your time nor mine}.
. Then some will agree with the disparity {Wes} they just think you should suck it up & be willing to spend the $'s{IMO..that's what unlimited category is for} or move back to intermediate because technology has rendered your mount uncompetitive as it once was. And it's unreasonable to expect to be accommodated & the IAC is not going to keep up by implementing rules to keep the competitions as fair as possible.
I have already stated where I stand....But I really would like for the powers that be to state where they stand & as my director told me...get enough of the membership to bring it up & maybe you can get it changed
I struggle to see how to do that without bringing the debate up on forums such as this{which is the official IAC website} to get consensus for or against the status quo...If I could figure how post on the exploder I would invite anyone interested to join in the debate here.
I'd be interested to know Wes...If we were to put out a survey to the membership{ain't gonna happen I know} and asked the advanced guys flying in the category REGARDLESS OF THEIR MOUNTS this question... they must answer either "YES or NO" ...No trying to explain away the disparities with all manner of reasons...{I've heard'em all} We can argue the pro's & con's of what's fair about it or what's not after we get agreement on the basic issue..... just a simple yes or no.. just boil it down to this simple question.....
Do you think it's a fair fight between the unlimited mounts & the lower performance guys in the category...and if the majority were to answer no as Eric has ....would you still stick by your position?
Take care
Tony
Last edited by flyrite; 10-04-2014 at 04:12 PM.
My position is that we are competing. Its supposed to be hard. And a marine once said "if you show up for a fair fight, you are unprepared." I understand that the airplane, practice schedule, budget, and coaching that I can bring to the arena limits my ability to score points. I take my enjoyment in flying my best and posting a better score than my last contest. In golf, I know people who play with clubs they buy at the Sports Authority. Some other folks buy clubs that cost $1000 each. Tiger Woods likely pays $4K each for his custom equipment. We can admire it and know that if we could play with Tiger Woods' equipment we would likely have better scores. But we do not have Tiger Woods' budget so we settle for the score we can achieve.
I fly a Pitts S-2A. I know that John Morrissey won the IAC Advanced Championship in his S-2A. In I think 1984. I have no expectation of matching John's achievement in 2014 because the technology has moved beyond the best flown S-2A. That's life. I fly to the best score that I can achieve with my S-2A and if I can avoid brain farts and work the rules a little, I go home happy with the score I get. If I can organize a better budget, I will buy a Staudacher. But for now, I am not looking for anyone to change the rules to make it easier for me to post a high score. That would devalue my effort. I do not need artificial help. At every contest I go to, my monoplane friends look over their shoulder at me knowing that they can not relax. The big check that they wrote will not guarantee them a trophy. There is great satisfaction in being accorded that respect.
See you at the box,
Wes
N78PS
Wes after giving your reasons for competition some thought....I must admit it makes perfect sense to me now....All the time & money I've spent practicing before a contest wasn't for nothing, I've just been looking at it wrong. I've just had the wrong philosophy about COMPETITION...
It's not about having a fair shot at winning... that would "devalue my efforts"..... Shoot, that contest{Warrenton competition} that I flew 1100 miles round trip to meet you at last year wasn't about COMPETITION...No..No...It's about learning life lesson's..It's about knowing that even if the COMPETITION ain't fair, The fact that it's HARD because of the disadvantage is the lesson.. it's about achieving my best up against unfavorable odds....
It's about keeping my "supership" buddies looking over their shoulder for fear of me overcoming the odds & beating them.....And really what your saying is... after all.. it's really not about COMPETITION.
I can make those long trips home HAPPY Knowing that I've done my best and I've earned the respect of the Supership guy's even if everybody knows it wasn't a fair COMPETITION!
I'm not sure ...But maybe we need to rethink what we call our contest's.....because the word contests implies COMPETITION???
Now that I have a marines perspective on war as a guide for my preparedness..... my philosophy has been reset....I'm good to go...I can now cancel all my self help classes about life's inequities cause I'm getting all the life lesson's I need by... COMPETETING IN THE DIFFERENT IAC PLAY DAYS!! I will no longer petition for "artificial help" to prop up my flying!
Take care
Tony
PS...Next time I dive in the box at the next "playday" I'll envision I'm a marine in a FA-18 fighting against overwhelming odd's......No wait...I'm sorry... the guys flying the Superships would be the marines in your scenario...cause their the most prepared by spending the $$$$...Sorry for the confusion, It might take me awhile to adapt to my new found "philosophy".
Last edited by flyrite; 11-26-2014 at 09:06 AM.
Tony, you need to figure out how to get a better airplane.
That said, my crunchy granola friends would offer some advice that you have likely heard before - Its not the destination, its the journey that is important.
Peace,
Wes
N78PS
Wes, The wife's done said NO to more acro expense!
So I thought I'd try & get some of my buddies like you to make me more competitive by helping me change the rules....thought it would be easier & cheaper than divorce!
OH well I guess it's time for a new plan. Thanks for the debate.
Take care
Tony
Last edited by flyrite; 09-29-2014 at 12:09 PM.
I'd say the thread is done when people start to hurl insults.... Not you Tony.I guess you know when a thread has reached the point of "profit to loss" based off the fact that nobodies getting any smarter on the subject...
But it seems the IAC has a proposal right now about this..... PROPOSAL 2015-07
:
And just for fun.... I tried to fly the 2014 Sportsman known in my 7ECA this weekend. Starting at 3500 feet (I was told I could cheat with such a big airplane on the high side, but the 'low' would go against me since it would look lower than a smaller plane) I was unable to complete the sequence without stopping or busting the 1500 foot hard deck (actually both, once I found myself below 1500, I stopped and climbed). I repeated the Sportsman sequence in my Pitts and had no issue staying above the hard deck even starting at 3,000. Now, I am sure a better pilot could of pulled off the whole sequence in the 7ECA, but in this case the SAME pilot was unable to do it.Over the IAC’s history we have seen a steady decline in the number of contestants as the performance and cost of our aircraft have dramatically increased. There were 51 Sportsman and 135 total competitors at the IAC Championships at Fond du Lac, WI, in 1975. The average Aerobatic Performance Index (API) calculated from the horsepower/weight ratio, maximum speed, and roll rate of the 1975 competitors was 27. In 2005 (the most recent year for which I have statistics), the average API was 62
The future of our sport is highly dependent on attracting and retaining our entry level competitors (Editors note: Which is something I was trying to express and am not seeing in these threads from some of the posters). During the early years of IAC, Sportsman pilots were flying low-performance aircraft, many without inverted fuel or oil systems. In recent years, we have seen most of these early classics sitting on the sidelines and replaced in the box by high performance monoplanes. Most of our current Sportsman competitors are flying such aircraft. The up-ramping of the energy requirements for the Sportsman sequence, aircraft performance, and cost has gradually excluded a great many aerobatic-capable aircraft and pilots.
The first-level (now called “Primary”) category has the potential of attracting entry level competitors and providing a home for the classic, as well as RV, and other modern aircraft capable of light aerobatics. However, it's hard to justify the cost of attending a regional contest to fly three aerobatic figures. Many standard aerobatic flight training programs are now of the 10-hour variety concluding with an aerobatic sequence approximately 75% the difficulty of the present Sportsman Known. For these pilots, the Primary category, at its present level of difficulty, is a step backwards. Moreover, for those few that are attracted to
IAC and fly Primary with a low API aircraft, the quantum jump in difficulty excludes many from advancing to Sportsman (ED: Which is what I tried to convey as a new person facing this situation). The transition from Primary to Sportsman currently has a more than 300% increase in K-value. The other rungs of our competition ladder are more uniformly spaced with an average increase of about 140% in the K-values of their respective Knowns. Indeed, past studies have revealed that few of the Primary pilots in a given year continue in subsequent years or advance to higher levels (ED: Again, what I tried to convey). For the experienced pilot flying a low API aircraft, the current Primary sequence is dumbed down to a humiliating level and certainly not serving its intended function.
There is little we can do to affect the health our nation’s economy or the costs of fuel, hanger, insurance, and maintenance, all of which have and will take a significant toll on general aviation and our sport. We can, however, improve our entry-level competition environment (ED: Which is what I was trying to start a discussion about... I did include the jump from Primary to Advanced as 'entry level'). In recent years there has not been a good home for the low-performance aircraft (API < 20). The low-performance aircraft has insufficient energy to fly recent Sportsman sequences (ED: This is where I get the information that a 7ECA will not do well in sportsman), the Primary sequence is too easy for the experienced pilot and too short to be cost-effective given the costs of attending a contest. Our challenge is then to construct a first-level sequence that will encourage and retain new participants and provide a home for the low-performance aircraft with a sequence that measures airmanship rather than API values. In order to address the issues discussed above, the sequence should target a K-value of perhaps 80 or 100. The most fundamental consideration for a well-designed sequence that meets our criteria is energy flow. The low-API aircraft requires careful energy management with the right hand, not the left. The pilot must expend a finite amount of altitude rather than more horsepower on kinetic energy. In my view, fair competition can exist between aircraft of widely different API providing the sequence gives the low-performance aircraft access to its potential energy. If a given figure has a critical minimum energy requirement, there must be an opportunity to convert altitude into speed in the preceding figure. A sequence at this level will provide sufficient challenge to attract and retain new participants, provide a home for the low-performance aircraft, and a much more reasonable platform to advance to Sportsman.
Should this proposal be adopted, a new name for this category which more accurately reflects its purpose would be desirable. However, that’s an editorial change which can be addressed later.
Table 1. Some representative API values.
Citabria 3
Clipped Wing Cub 4
150 hp Decathlon 8
180 hp Great Lakes 9
Super Decathlon 10
Skybolt 23
Pitts S-2A 36
Extra 200 41
Pitts S-1S 48
Pitts S-2B 51
Extra 300 76
Edge 540 94
And the proposed sequence actually looks fun:
1. Reversed sharks tooth
2. Immelmann turn
3. 1 turn spin
4. Hammerhead
5. 1/2 Cuban
6. Roll
On the other hand..... The proposal for the sportsman sequences... Yeah, that seems much more difficult than even the current sequence in a lower performing plane. For example it has a 2X4 on the 45 upline of the reverse sharks tooth and another one AFTER an Immelmann turn. I don't see how my 7ECA would be able to even do the one after the Immelmann turn. Another one has a roll on a 45* upline then leading into a level roll.... Yeah, I can't see pulling that off in a 7ECA. Maybe someone else can, but it would turn me away from competing. And it has a roll on the top of a loop... Don't really see that one working either.
1996 Quad City Challenger CWS w/503 - Sold
1974 7ECA Citabria - Sold
1986 Pitts S1S
Hey ssmdive, Bring that Pitts up to Morganton N.C. 10/24 for the "Blue Ridge Hammerfest" You won't find a finer more helpful group of "acronuts" anywhere.
And to your point on the new proposals...I myself don't see how you could be competitive in the 7ECA with the new proposed sequence designs...not that somebody couldn't possably get through it....But like Eric said in an earlier post bout some of the advanced sequences, your not gonna have energy enough for any technical points after some of the figures compared to some of your competition!
Rare is it that any one pilot has 2 mounts in the hanger to do real world comparisons on any given sequence back to back. Thanks for the post.
Take care
Tony
Last edited by flyrite; 09-29-2014 at 01:33 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote