The strip is about 750m long. The sideslipping is not because it is short it is because they are flying extremely slippery aeroplanes with no draggy bits and also because the view out the front of those things is er...somewhat limited!
The Comet.

Adding to that the sideslipping is good if you want to get on the ground quickly. Hammer in on final as fast as you want, throw it into a sideslip to wash off the speed and throw it on the ground. You could fly the 1 degree approach but nobody has time for that these days.

There were many a pilot that chose not to land on the grass because they felt it was a little short. (Mostly the poms!)

aulglase:

Don't know the length of the paddock. Side slipping those particular aerobatic aircraft is necessary as they do not have flaps.

The ailerons are nearly full-span, so side slipping is really the best (only?!) method of approach path control. It allows an increase in rate of descent, while keeping the speed under control.

And there where some good sized palm trees not far from the threshold!

And at times there was a reasonable x-wind on the 45 aswell!

So for all those reasons I was pretty impressed with the airmanship shown!

:D

Yeh good point, Pitts' are tiny wee things though they could probably be stored in one piece and transported accordingly.
I have some figures actually, it costed each US Unlimited aerobatics team member, to go to the World champs at Grenada this year, US$25-30K JUST for transportation, not reassembly, or testing, or flying, and fees, accommodation...
They have been trying to get the US Air Force to allow them to charter a C5 Galaxy, as it would halve the costs for everyone by getting everyone under one roof. Apparently they have a senator on board who wants to help with this for next time....

I hadn't noticed about Ivanoff, I only check the results occasionally....Amazing though, how is that possible!!
Stock or factory 2 place Extras or S's could be the answer. My thinking was another category, similar to the T6 Havard section at Reno, a very competitive, closely fought contest.

Certainly a logistical nightmare, must be the same sort of level as Formula 1 when it comes to moving the 'circus' around the globe...

Yep for sure, these machines don't generate much lift at low speed and low power settings...
When I'm joining a busy pattern in the Yak it is a pain in the ass, having to fly a standard approach with a 50mile final, with something that descends like an elevator with power coming off...if I'm followin a wee piper or cessa I would swerve left to right on final to keep the numbers in sight and not bother with flaps at all and not start descending from circuit height until onto finals.
fun n games!
Speaking of Vis, in those pics on this thread, I noticed how bloody bad the vis must be when on the ground in one of those Zivko products....with the mid wing, and long wide snout, there is just no vis, it looks like you cannot see anything bar a couple of small strips inboard of the leading edge left and right of the nose - crazy...even the Pitts has better vis I would imagine although I haven't sat in a 540 before.

Primary design consideration is high performance flight, everything else is a secondary consideration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBYrYjNi53M

That video illustrates your point! Expensive composite MT prop strike.

Lucky for the crabon prop....it might be expensive but not like a full engine strip and rebuild:uhoh:

J

M14P, even a Pitts S1 has a wingspan of 17+ft, while the average shipping container is <8ft wide internally. Wings are coming of one way or another as far as I can see.

J, I think the fact that he had a spare about says it all, the big mt logo wouldn't come cheap.

Is that right well can't say I have ever shipped an aeroplane overseas....

I'm not sure if the last comment was in sarcasm or not?, I have never shipped an aircraft in a container either, though would be glad to be proven wrong. Common sense seems preclude wings on shipping though, for geometrical reasons as stated.

Sorry for drifting the thread guys.