unfair

[ssmdive]

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.

I only have about 140 hours in the Citabria and I only have about 15 hours in the Pitts. I did place 2nd in Primary with the Citabria when I had 50 hours in it in Fall 2013. And to be fair, neither was flown in front of a judge in a real box. So I guess it is possible that the flight with the 7ECA that I have nine times more experience with scored better than my new Pitts..... But I doubt it.

With the 7ECA if I could make it through the 1/2 Cuban without busting out low, I could get the loop in. But the second half of the wedge made be bust out low each time. Also, after the Immelmann turn it was impossible to get enough speed to do the roll without diving. Roll speed is listed as 120 and WOT level I am not going to make it much better than 110 and that is giving the plane time to speed up, not trying to speed up and do a roll in 3000M. While I could start the roll slower when the engine died when inverted the roll rate slowed considerably and with all the drag from all the down elevator and all the drag from full aileron deflection and rudder deflection to try and not lose altitude the plane dished out and ended up in a bit of a dive at the end of the roll. In the Pitts, I just keep the throttle full and sped up with plenty of box left to roll the plane.

Again, if the judge was Mr Magoo or a judge that has a soft spot for Citabria's and hates Pitts.... I guess the ECA could have scored better. But I would not hang my hat on that.

[Mike Heuer]

Well, I am here -- after several days at the US Nationals, I came home exhausted and with tons of e-mails to answer and phone calls to make. IAC is a very intense business -- not that I am complaining. It's an honor to be your President and the Nationals was really good this year and a pleasure to meet and talk to many friends and members.

I don't have many comments on this discussion thread right now as it requires more thought with a rested brain. The problem of competitors feeling disadvantaged because of the aircraft they own and want to fly in a particular category is not a new one. I remember when a Pitts S-1S was considered a "super ship" by early members of IAC and they didn't like those flying in certain categories either. It's a discussion as old as IAC.

I can tell you this -- my priorities as President (and even long before I took over on 1 August) are to increase our membership and increase participation in competition. Simply put, more pilots + more contests = good. That must be the focus of all your Officers and Directors. If this can be done through rules proposals, such as we have on the table this year, then they should be seriously considered. Generally, you will find me opposed to any proposal that may result in a decrease in competition activity and there have been some of those floated in the past.

We did have a lot of experience over several years of trying to restrict aircraft at the World Advanced Aerobatic Championships -- through regulating the makes and models that could participate. It didn't end well and eventually all restrictions were dropped. Handicap systems have been informally discussed before but a workable proposal from one or more of our members is yet to be approved by the Board. Exchanging ideas is fine and necessary -- putting those conversations to actual rules proposals and submitting them to our Rules Chairman, Brian Howard, is the next step and not quite as easy, as those of you know who have ever prepared complex proposals in the past.

My personal opinions do not matter here. As President, I don't have any personal opinions -- whatever I say will be construed as not coming from me personally but rather as some sort of official IAC viewpoint and there is none at this point in time. But what has always been challenging and exciting about working with our organization's fine membership is there are always lots of interesting discussions and views which can lead to a better IAC. I have watched it happen over our 44 year history and it can be very rewarding.

So keep discussing ideas about how to get more pilots involved -- and more competitions organized out there. And also forward your ideas about how to keep our non-competition members happy, too. We get a lot of feedback on how we have to look out for the other 3,000 members who are not involved in flying at contests.

[flyrite]

Also, after the Immelmann turn it was impossible to get enough speed to do the roll without diving. Roll speed is listed as 120 and WOT level I am not going to make it much better than 110 and that is giving the plane time to speed up, not trying to speed up and do a roll in 3000M. While I could start the roll slower when the engine died when inverted the roll rate slowed considerably and with all the drag from all the down elevator and all the drag from full aileron deflection and rudder deflection to try and not lose altitude the plane dished out and ended up in a bit of a dive at the end of the roll. In the Pitts, I just keep the throttle full and sped up with plenty of box left to roll the plane. .

As you've already found out...Much more stick-n-rudder skills required to fly a nice roll in the 7ECA than the pitts...in competition on the judges line it's still called a "slow roll" even if a whizzzbang mono-wing is doing it....But when your doing it in the 7ECA it really is a "slooooow roool"

[flyrite]

I don't have many comments on this discussion thread right now as it requires more thought with a rested brain. The problem of competitors feeling disadvantaged because of the aircraft they own and want to fly in a particular category is not a new one. I remember when a Pitts S-1S was considered a "super ship" by early members of IAC and they didn't like those flying in certain categories either. It's a discussion as old as IAC.

I can tell you this -- my priorities as President (and even long before I took over on 1 August) are to increase our membership and increase participation in competition. Simply put, more pilots + more contests = good. That must be the focus of all your Officers and Directors. If this can be done through rules proposals, such as we have on the table this year, then they should be seriously considered. Generally, you will find me opposed to any proposal that may result in a decrease in competition activity and there have been some of those floated in the past.

We did have a lot of experience over several years of trying to restrict aircraft at the World Advanced Aerobatic Championships -- through regulating the makes and models that could participate. It didn't end well and eventually all restrictions were dropped. Handicap systems have been informally discussed before but a workable proposal from one or more of our members is yet to be approved by the Board. Exchanging ideas is fine and necessary -- putting those conversations to actual rules proposals and submitting them to our Rules Chairman, Brian Howard, is the next step and not quite as easy, as those of you know who have ever prepared complex proposals in the past. .

Thanks so much for joining in Mike...and thanks for the years of service to the club on behalf of guy's like me...I've got every issue of "sport aerobatic's" all the way back to the beginning...I told you that because I want you to know I've read every one of the articles written by you & your Dad through the years and the contributions & some of the sacrifices that you & your family have made for the sport.

I really look forward to anything you might add to this debate in the future...& please don't be a stranger here.

Tony

[Mike Heuer]

Not sure I am "rested" yet and smart enough to make a good contribution here, but will give it a try. Tony wrote me privately and has shamed me into it.

We will never know how many pilots are scared away by what they regard as competition that they believe is tilted in favor of those who can afford high-performance, high-cost aircraft. Something I have learned the hard way is that no matter what you have in the rules and how perfectly you administer those rules at a contest, people come away with impressions and perceptions. Those perceptions become reality. If IAC members who are thinking about becoming involved in competition feel they cannot make a decent showing, they may not come and we will never know it.

A recent membership survey done by IAC VP Doug McConnell has generated a lot of excellent feedback on where IAC is today, where it's going, and how we can change to ensure a future for sport aerobatics and our club. I have been impressed by the quality and quantity of the good ideas and we will discuss them in our Board meeting in Oshkosh on 12-13 November. As anyone will tell you in business, if you don't pay attention to your customers, you will whither and die.

While there has not been any feedback on creating "handicap" systems in the dozens of ideas and proposals we received, there is are underlying themes to many of the messages and letters. That is, competition has to be more attractive and we have to get away from "category creep" which chases people away. Some have called for a total realignment of the categories in terms of difficulty. One writer enthusiastically and articulately stated a case for divorcing ourselves from the CIVA sequences and to simplify Advanced and Unlimited to attract more pilots. One writer from California said the "bonus system" introduced some years ago at Unlimited level (you have to have been around a while to remember it as it was discontinued) damaged Unlimited and we have not recovered since. There are a lot of opinions out there -- no shortage in that department -- and the Board is tasked with doing what is good for the sport. One of the other questions I always ask is, "Will this proposal grow aerobatics (or contests) or shrink it?" If the answer is shrinkage or decline, I am not in favor. End of story.

I invite you to look at the rules proposals that I posted on the IAC website and which are now under review by the IAC Rules Committee (under the direction of its chairman, Brian Howard). Their report will be coming in soon and I will announce it here on this forum. Comments from members will be encouraged. You will see some proposals in there regarding Primary (see proposal 2015-07). Here is the link to the proposals: https://www.iac.org/news/2014-09-28-...2015-available

The rationale behind 2015-07 bears study and reading. What is impressive about proposals like this, to me anyway, is that members are always thinking of how to improve our rules and get more people involved. I will say again, "More Pilots + More Contests = Good". I appreciate what Tony has brought up here. But I also admit, I do not have the answers. If a workable handicap system could be derived, I would be in favor of it -- if it meant that more pilots would come to contests and feel they were treated fairly -- after all, "unfair" was the title of this thread and Tony feels we are not doing a good job of ensuring fairness at contests -- then this discussion is useful and positive.

So everyone, give it some more thought. Keep the messages, posts, and ideas flowing. You have a receptive ear here.

Mike

[flyrite]

Well after finishing the season up @ Keystone & Morganton I had the opportunity to discuss the issue of this thread with a lot of different pilots.....At Keystone all my fellow competitors were flying unlimited mounts except for 1 in a 202 & he's already moved up to an MX, It was down for service or he would have been flying it [there was 5 in the category].

I had good conversations with 4 of the guys...who btw are good friends of mine & I have known & competed against most all since the late 90's...let me relay the conversations over food & drink on the issue.
All agreed with me that their is a big disparity, But didn't know what to suggest as a solution...many points were made on both side's of the issue, But none deny they are flying with a big advantage! All agreed to join this thread.....Hmmmm......Don't know what happen to that commitment.....I can only assume like another advanced lifer flying an unlimited machine said on another thread relating to this issue[knowns for 15]....And I quote...I've managed to avoid getting involved on this!!

Now to Morganton...All that flew there were flying 4 cyl's except for a 2B, We had a good round table discussion & several good idea's were floated...All there also agreed that there was a big disparity, One of the guy's had a good idea [from his perspective] was to allow a break for the 4cyl guy's & I like it ...Don't think it will happen...But It was a good debate.

I wouldn't want to speak for anybody...I can only assume that the guy's flying unlimited's year after year in advanced are afraid of debating the issue in public or like a lot of folk just shy away from controversy. I will leave it at this......YOU GUYS KNOW WHO YOU ARE...Quit letting the lower category guy's argue your point for you. Take care
Tony

[Craig Gifford]

Tony - that guy flying the 4 cyl 202 - I've seen him fly it a little. On more than one continent. He's better in it than he is in the MX. And when he's "on", he's hard to beat in Advanced, period. Did you notice that 4 of the top 10 in Advanced at 2014 Nationals were "4 cyl guys"? and they finished ahead of Extras, a Cap and an MX? They are great pilots and it shows in their scores.

As for the disparaging "advanced lifer" terminology you've associated with me in a couple posts, for what it's worth, I've only been flying aerobatics for 8 years - apparently you've been in the sport twice as long as me.

[flyrite]

Tony - that guy flying the 4 cyl 202 - I've seen him fly it a little. On more than one continent. He's better in it than he is in the MX. And when he's "on", he's hard to beat in Advanced, period. Did you notice that 4 of the top 10 in Advanced at 2014 Nationals were "4 cyl guys"? and they finished ahead of Extras, a Cap and an MX? They are great pilots and it shows in their scores.

As for the disparaging "advanced lifer" terminology you've associated with me in a couple posts, for what it's worth, I've only been flying aerobatics for 8 years - apparently you've been in the sport twice as long as me.

Craig , So glad to have you join the debate...The guy your talking about is Marty & no doubt he's a great stick...He's also one of the guy's that I quoted that won't argue that the unlimited machine's fly with a big advantage over the 4 cyl's guy's in the category...And to the 4 that placed at the nationals you'll also notice that they fell out of contention in the unknown's which is where most 4 banger's struggle against guys like you..especially on a hot day...Go back & read the previous post's...you can practice away the disparity in the known's & the free's , But the unknown's are a different matter!

And regardless of the ability to practice away the disadvantage in the known's & free's you still have the disparity of presentation that guy's like you have in being able to start so much lower in those flight's & put the flight in the performance zone. Now to your perception that I have disparaged you by using the term..."Advanced Lifer's"...Please believe me when I say I mean nothing personal when I use the phrase...But guy's like you that have demonstrated the skill's {you've made the AWAC team 2 time's] As well as the finance's to afford an unlimited machine...Don't you think it's time to move up & quit using the advantage you have in a lower category against the guy's who are still flying the lower performance mount's ...I have watched your flying, You have the skill's..You have the machine...Move up & use the mount you have in the category it was designed for...There is a reason that the regional contest's have no real unlimited participation.

And to the time spent in the sport...Go back & reread the post's in this thread as well "Fair Unknown's" & you'll see that I to have only been in advanced for 3 year's total....I really don't think it has anything to do with the time in the category so much as demonstrated skill's. Take Foster who just won the national's in advanced...I think this was his first year in the category, But he's demonstrated the skill's so he either need's to move up with the extra he's flying or move back in mount's if he want to park in the category as some do, Not to continue to use an advantage he has bought over his fellow competitors!
Again, Thank you for joining in this debate & please don't take anything I have pointed out as a personal attack...

Take care
Tony

[Craig Gifford]

the 4 that placed at the nationals you'll also notice that they fell out of contention in the unknown's which is where most 4 banger's struggle against guys like you.

Actually, 3 of the 4 improved their position in the Unknown, the fourth only dropped 2 slots and it had nothing to do with energy (he was downgraded for a very odd spin), and one of the four scored higher than me.

[flyrite]

Actually, 3 of the 4 improved their position in the Unknown, the fourth only dropped 2 slots and it had nothing to do with energy (he was downgraded for a very odd spin), and one of the four scored higher than me.

How about this...You have flown other mount's & now have the benefit of flying your present mount....Let's not talk around the issue by trying to debate minutia...Do you agree that it's a big advantage having the H.P. & wing area in the category over the lower performance mount's...Yes or No?