Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50

  1. #26
    exeter_acres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Johns Creek, GA
    Posts
    7,457
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    The way I see it is the traditional "box" is impossible to judge... as Wayne mentioned there is no way to judge the "box" without extra people sitting out in the woods somewhere.

    The ACS is designed to bring pilots in closer and tighter... and your total score IS affected if you do not..


    and I am not sure what you mean about not liking an answer???

    I have found that IMAC is open all the time to growth and advancement...if there is a better way.. we will give it a shot....
    Extreme Flight RC tech support
    IMAC Vice President|IMAC Sequence Committee|IMAC National Judging Instructor|Team Futaba|Extreme Flight R/C|2014 IMAC World Championships Contest Director

  2. #27
    Mastertech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Dalzell, SC
    Posts
    1,408
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    The traditional box isn't impossible to judge no more in Imac than pattern. Too far out is subjective to say the least. The box ends are very easy to judge. Having spent many hours/days in a judges chair at local contests as well as at national contests I can speak with at least some authority.

    I only ask these questions because I fail to understand the problem along with the solution as presented now in Imac. I don't mean to start a pattern/Imac war but rather to have possibly a meaningful dialog on the things I see in these forums as "problems".

    The answer I spoke of you wouldn't like is to bring back the box, prescribe centering as the center of the box and add a 200 meter flight path rule. This would likely make some 40% er's obsolete. Maybe not if the pilot can handle the airplane correctly. I submit you could fly the same size box as Pattern does right now. If you want to lower your "Foot print" these might be the changes that'll be required. I see Imac is going through the sound problem pattern fliers went through 20 years ago.

    Is this subject worth debating in a meaningful way? I think so.
    Be a kid forever, fly models.

  3. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Greenwood, SC
    Posts
    3
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE


    ORIGINAL: twtaylor

    I don't mean to start a pattern/Imac war but rather to have possibly a meaningful dialog on the things I see in these forums as "problems".

    The answer I spoke of you wouldn't like is to bring back the box, prescribe centering as the center of the box and add a 200 meter flight path rule. This would likely make some 40% er's obsolete.

    Is this subject worth debating in a meaningful way? I think so.
    I am replying only if you are not trying to have a IMAC/Pattern debate. This accomplishes nothing but ruffling people's feathers and will never be solved. This is two orginazations with two different rules and will always be different. Pattern has their rules to solve certain problems and IMAC has different rules to accomadate the same problems. Both organizations watch how the other handle problems talk about among themselves but come up with thier own solutions.

    I have been involved in IMAC for over 10 years and very active participate, CD, and former Regional Director. If you truly want answers then you will be open minded about the answers you get. I will gladly give you any answers that I know and will gladly give my phone number for us to talk if you don't understand the rules. If you are trying to debate just for confortation then I will be the first to bow out.

    Here we go!

    One thing we can agree on - Flying too far out causes clubs to lose flying fields!

    "Box" There is no absolute way to enforce it on all sides. Wheather it is back, side or front there is a place where it cannot be enforced.

    You are correct the "old 75 Degree box" can be enforced on the sides but because IMAC does not care to the size or style of airplane, then people with bigger airplanes tend to fly further out to give themselves more time to fly. Now the back of the box (which was 1100' out) now becomes an issue. How can you enforce this? NO way possible right now.

    With technology changing very rapidally it may be different in a few years BUT right now technology is not there yet. (Also remember that the rules have to apply to all parts of the US and we are now an international organization. These rules will be used Internationally.)

    So what is the Answer? ACS. Flyers will not change unless it affects their score. See the rule book and the other postings as to the details of the ACS.

    Is ACS the almighty answer to all questions? Heck No. Will the ACS be perfected in a couple of months and everyone be happy with it? Heck No. Right now, I see this as the "best we've got" and if instead of putting it down please look at this objectively and give it a try for a while and I feel that in a short period of time you will see that this is a good rule and if we as a group try to help keep a tight footprint then we will see some realization to this rule.

    The statement about making 40%ers obsolete is the furtherst from the minds of the rulemakers. They do not want to exclude any aircraft. If Joe Blow want to fly his 95% scale aircraft then that is quite alright. If he wants to fly is .05% aircraft that to is ok. If he wants to fly anything in between then we welcome him and hope he will joins us and compete with us.

    Hope this helps you understand the bases of the rule. One thing that I can truly say "In the 4 years that I was part of the rule making process, the statement that the rules where changed instead of enforcing them is just not true. This did not happen. The rules were changed by looking at all the situations and a rule was made to try to help promote IMAC at it's fullest" It was every board members intentions to make IMAC better.

    Do we all agree? NO, but we can come together, try to understand the rule and enforce it so that it can potentially help IMAC and promote more and better IMAC events.

    Stan

  4. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vicksburg, MS
    Posts
    710
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE


    ORIGINAL: twtaylor

    I can see where the back of the "box" could be hard to judge. Let me ask you this. Why put maneuvers in your sequence that requires that type of space cross box? If you're losing flying fields what is the purpose of making it even worse? If you're going to have cross box flying like rolling circles then don't down grade for flying out to far?

    I don't have an argument, I only have questions. Why did the rules change? Seems to me they changed because guys were having a hard time flying inside the 75 degree box with the huge airplanes they built. So that begs the question what changed? The rules to fit the airplane or the airplane to fit the rules? In pattern we adopted the FAI F3A size standards for our airplanes. If we'd have removed those standards we'd most likely have the same problems as IMAC does now.

    I applaud your work in IMAC, (I admit I've no clue what you do for imac) nobody gets the accolades they deserve for the work they do.

    Reading these forums I see the same problems stated over and over.

    I have an answer but you won't like it.

    Then again I could just go away and not bother you.
    So, what your answer that Ken won't like?

    Bobby

  5. #30
    Mastertech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Dalzell, SC
    Posts
    1,408
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    "The answer I spoke of you wouldn't like is to bring back the box, prescribe centering as the center of the box and add a 200 meter flight path rule. This would likely make some 40% er's obsolete. Maybe not if the pilot can handle the airplane correctly. I submit you could fly the same size box as Pattern does right now. If you want to lower your "Foot print" these might be the changes that'll be required. I see Imac is going through the sound problem pattern fliers went through 20 years ago.

    Is this subject worth debating in a meaningful way? I think so."
    Be a kid forever, fly models.

  6. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Randolph, NJ
    Posts
    866
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    The answer I spoke of you wouldn't like is to bring back the box, prescribe centering as the center of the box and add a 200 meter flight path rule. This would likely make some 40% er's obsolete.
    Same basic idea I had in mind, however I don't think it makes anything obsolete. Most 35 - 40% stuff flies slower than Pattern models, and we're comfortable at 150 to 175m out in a 60 degree box. Anyway, it's a realistic solution, but it needs clear explanation to describe how to judge it when it comes to all cross box flying. Not my job, mon!
    Ed Alt
    Tech-Aero Designs LLC

  7. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vicksburg, MS
    Posts
    710
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    Thank you for responding.

    IMAC is going to go through a couple of changes when we move to follow the FAI guidelines. FAI is an international organization as you know from the F30 pattern side of the house. It may take a couple of more years but expect to see a 75 degree box and centering of maneuvors to come back. The 60 degree angle thing is going to have to change as well. If you calculate the back side of a plane flying at a height of 60 degrees it is over 2200 ft away linearly - that is a fur piece away.

    Stay tuned and if you haven't attended an IMAC judging seminar please attend the next one in your region - you'll learn a lot.

    Bobby
    IMAC Nat'l Sec
    2073
    AMA 86412

  8. #33
    Mastertech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Dalzell, SC
    Posts
    1,408
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    Hi Bobby

    I think you're right, FAI will dictate what you do in Imac to some degree. I suspect you'll have some kick and scream all the way, but it will happen. We had the same thing when pattern went from AMA style to Turn Around years ago. It fractured Pattern for years and a lot of guys dropped out over it. Most of them were guys that couldn't or wouldn't adapt. I agree Imac planes tend to fly slower than most Pattern planes and the box isn't a problem, yes I've flown my sequences with a 33% Edge inside the 60 degree box. My opinion that the rules in Imac were changed to fit the airplanes rather than enforce the rules and make the airplanes fit stands. If not why was the 75 degree box done away with? Why was centering done away with? I see a repeat of what happened to us in the pattern world happening all over again with Imac.
    Be a kid forever, fly models.

  9. #34

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    11
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE


    Guys,
    The posts from Stan and Wayne are correct. Thousands of hours have gone into making the IMAC rules the best they can be for IMAC. They are a compilation/combination of FAI/CIVA/IAC/pattern and other rules designed by AMA & IMAC. The international arena is actually looking to IMAC for guidance on formulation of a lot of what will someday become "International Scale Aerobatics" standards. I had several countries contact me before I left office a little over a year ago. The future is out there.

    Suffice it to say that the IMAC Board of Directors, The IMAC Rules committee, The AMA, and the AMA Scale Aerobatics Contest Board are working together to produce a Flying & Judging Guide and Rule Book that will make IMAC the absolute best it can be worldwide.

    Attend a Judging Seminar sanctioned by IMAC and taught by one or some of our National Instructors. [BTW, there is no "box", no "maneuver centerline requirement", no height angle or altitude requirement.] Study the Airspace Control Score section.

    Thanks,
    -Fred Johnson,
    (past IMAC-Rules, Judging, Regional Director, VP),
    AMA L71, Leader Member, Contest Director,
    AMA Scale Aerobatics Contest Board Member
    :-)

  10. #35
    Mastertech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Dalzell, SC
    Posts
    1,408
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    Thanks for your response Fred.

    Can I ask what was the reasoning for removing the "box" in the first place?

    Why were the centering requirements removed?

    Did those changes lead to the "foot print" problem we see now?

    Why would the governing body decide to use an subjective thing like ASC rather than something everyone can see and verify? IE the "Box".

    I'm trying to understand what the rule changes were trying to achieve. I'm not looking for an argument at all just understanding.

    Thanks
    Be a kid forever, fly models.

  11. #36
    exeter_acres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Johns Creek, GA
    Posts
    7,457
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE


    ORIGINAL: twtaylor

    Thanks for your response Fred.

    Can I ask what was the reasoning for removing the "box" in the first place?



    Why would the governing body decide to use an subjective thing like ASC rather than something everyone can see and verify? IE the "Box".

    Thanks
    This is just my opinion but....

    The box is UNjudgable(sp?)... there is no way to judge the 1000 ft distances without people out there... and there aren't enough people to do that... I don't care who you are, there is NO way you can tell if an airplane is 900ft away or 1000ft away....

    so...how do you "verify" that an airplane has remained in the box without judges at each corner....which would be nice, but is impracticle
    Extreme Flight RC tech support
    IMAC Vice President|IMAC Sequence Committee|IMAC National Judging Instructor|Team Futaba|Extreme Flight R/C|2014 IMAC World Championships Contest Director

  12. #37

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    11
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE


    ORIGINAL: twtaylor

    Thanks for your response Fred.

    I do not usually post on public forums, as I learned a few years ago that most of the participents are simply trying to start a "brand war" or "public embarrassment debate". However, when a topic "hits a nerve", I will respond to the point. No public debate unless 'you want to talk to me in person'. This will be my last public response on this subject as a courtesy to you.

    Can I ask what was the reasoning for removing the "box" in the first place?

    Unenforcable, impractical, angle lines not accurate, manpower, and others

    Why were the centering requirements removed?

    weighted the center maneuvers (figures) unfairly and unnecessiraly, ability to design sequences that flow better, not to crowd the X-axis, and others

    Did those changes lead to the "foot print" problem we see now?

    If the sequences are designed and flown as mandated, there should be no footprint problem (all the latest sequences can be flown and presented much smaller than most pilots realize), even for the rolling circles (ever seen someone do a 4-roll roller within the confines of the runway? - I have) My son can do any 360 roller well within the alloted airspace - less than 1,000 feet out in any direction - and score very well. (this year , 2007, he finished 2nd in Unlimited and 1st in Freestyle at the NATS and received very high ACS -- he works at it, and I see and critique it, so I know it can be done)

    Why would the governing body decide to use an subjective thing like ASC rather than something everyone can see and verify? IE the "Box".

    Biggest reason -- see #1.
    It is not all that subjective.... some education and experience go a long way....I recommend that you attend a sanctioned IMAC Judging Seminar given by one of our nationally trained instructors.

    I'm trying to understand what the rule changes were trying to achieve. I'm not looking for an argument at all just understanding.

    The changes accomplish a lot of objectives, not the least of which is flexibility of sequence design, better flow of sequence, smaller foot print and less noise consequences, centering of a given figure does not outweigh the comparable other figure K values and sacrifice figures before or after 'center', Many, Many hours of discussion have gone into these improvements. I have only touched the surface of a 3 or 4 year debate and actual field testing. You are welcome to come to my contest in October 2008 (it is on the IMAC website - I hope you are an IMAC member, if not please join), attend a future Judging Seminar when I am one of the instructors, or even call me via phone. -Fred

    Thanks
    :-)

  13. #38
    BHolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Posts
    1,066
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    Hello Guys,

    I've been away from IMAC for some years now. I like the new rule changes made and plan to return to IMAC this year in a very limited schedule. I took up flying Pattern for the past two years now and really enjoy the rules that govern the pattern community. However in saying that,...the planes are limited to a maxumum standard size of 2 meters and other variables that keeps it consistant with the rules that defines it.

    IMAC on the other hand emulates the full scale verisions of a reduced size from 72 inches in wing span to 50% spanning to 133 inches, just as and example to a full scale % relationship. The pilots have the choice of what sizes planes they choose to fly. I agree that opening things up was a great decission, as it allows the pilot of a larger 40% bird (aircraft) to control the rythum and speed of a sequence with out the burdens of squeezing in a maneuver at the end of a box only to turn around and hit the center line verticle maneuver, exit and then worry about the rolling circle at the end of the box, while the prop. goes supersonic over a neighbor hood right in the middle of the roller.

    The scoring for IMAC is now all about the execution of the flight and not the aerobatic constraints placed on the pilot, size of aircraft, difficulty factor dictated by class and the worry factor of making it look good in the confines of a box. There can be no parady drawn between F3A pattern and IMAC other than they both strive to achieve precission throughout the flight envelope. That's what makes each one so unique, the rule criteria that each one is judged by is different, because the aircraft parameters are so vast and different.

    And of course,....this is only my opinion.

    Bill Holsten
    PS:Hey Wayne and Stan,...see you at Camden!

  14. #39
    Mastertech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Dalzell, SC
    Posts
    1,408
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    hey bill

    You up for some practice this Sunday at our field?

    Tim
    Be a kid forever, fly models.

  15. #40
    BHolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Posts
    1,066
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC "BOX" SIZE

    Hey TW,

    Yep,...lake City? I will have to fly the Evolution the Smagd-Z is done for a while. How's the Proline's?.............call me!

    Bill Holsten

  16. #41

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    El Segundo, CA
    Posts
    2
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC



    Subject IMAC improvements to Judging through telemetry>>

    >>I heard a few contestants chatting, who seem to like the idea and possibility. Maybe a forum discussion will help find a "guy/gal" who can write an iPhone app that the IMAC website can share with the members and conduct a 1 year beta test to work some bugs out. At that point maybe a vote by members could help the board make an informed decision on what a box is and how it can be judged with accuracy and fairness to all model sizes and speeds.>>

    >>>>

    >>We are all aware of GPS, a magnetic compass, accelerometers, and computers. A significant number of people have all four in their pocket as they read this; we know it as an iPhone. It seems like a relatively easy request to openly solicit some "guys and gals" out there who can open source an iPhone app in a few months that will serve as onboard telemetry. >>

    >>>>

    Imagine this if you will... A new rule that states something to the effect; a 2.5x4.5" area must be provided in a contestant’s airplane with hook and loop material... Hmmmmmm what do you think one could place in that area? Maybe an iPhone or iTouch with a program called "IMAC telemetry". At this point I hope you mind is swimming in endless possibilities. There is a lot to discuss in theory and start a general direction in which to take this available technology. >>

    >>>>

    In short, I would like to see an app "judge" me and assist me in training at my home field. If it isgood, it could be used as a back up or supplement judges (maybe replace). I mean this with respect, I don’t always receive consistent advice from the wide ranging opinion and subjectivity of the judges thus far. A iPhone with a Google map and data logging of my flight could tell me more accurately. >>

    >>

    >>>>

    What do you think?>>


  17. #42

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, CO CO
    Posts
    307
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC

    Thanks for bringing this idea up Brockflying!
    I too have been thinking a lot lately about the problems with judged competitions.
    With RC aerobatics, it would seem that the technology might exist to use positional and inertial sensors in each plane to collect data during a flight.
    I hadn't thought about iPhones - interesting idea, but I suspect the resolution, accuracy, and number of axes aren't adequate.

    In my dream embodiment, the sensor unit (light, small and cheap of course) record position in 3 translational and 1 rotational (roll) degrees of freedom. Inertial degrees of freedom in 3 rotational axis might also be needed/desirable to help judge roll rates, snaps, etc.
    I suspect GPS might not provide accurate enough positional info - so a triangular array of local transmitters would be set up (and somehow calibrated) on the perimeter of the flight area.
    Data would be downloaded after a flight and loaded into a program that analyzes the flight and matches it to the idealized figures that were attempted. A sophisticated algorithm would fit flight data to the figures and apply the downgrade rules that we all know and love. Perhaps some figures would score positive numbers!

    I think possible, but probably not an easy app that somebody could whip out. Hard to see a profit opportunity for a commercial venture.... but if they were only a few hundred bucks, guys might buy their own for practice?

    Dan

  18. #43
    kenh3497's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Rockwell, IA
    Posts
    881
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC


    ORIGINAL: underdw

    but if they were only a few hundred bucks, guys might buy their own for practice?

    Dan
    If you have $10,000 wrapped up in a plane, and double or triple that in support equipment, what's another few hundred??? A top level competitor would spend it in a heartbeat, not to mention those that have to have the latest toy.

    Ken

    Sent from my Dry-Erase-Board

  19. #44

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    El Segundo, CA
    Posts
    2
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC

    Dan/Ken

    >>

    Thanks for your reply and valuable input. I hope we can all pool together our resources to find an app “guy” I’ll look into some local colleges solicit professors to see if they could direct their students to put something together. >>

    >>

    The iPhone is an insanely powerful computer with equally impressive sensors. The phone is 1000 times more capable than what is necessary for this basic application. That is not really a factor worth much discussion. Perk is the phones are available worldwide and at low cost. So money is not a factor in this case.>>

    >>

    The objective is to accomplish this task via readers and members sharing resources and to stay away from too much theory and detail that may distract from the mission. >>

    >>

    I think, the question we should ask ourselves is “What can I do, or who do I know that can get this together in a few days?” >>

    >>

    I can use a eTrex GPS and get decent data but I can’t view it and get value at the field. I can use my iPhone, but the map does not leave a “bread crumb” trail. >>

    >>

    Things I want to use an iPhone to help determine”>>

    >>

    Do my maneuvers take place in the appropriate position? That is, do the turn maneuvers (half Cuban and shark tooth) happen at the ends? Do my loops and teardrops happen in the center? Remember, there is no defined “box” yet I need a defined box for my particular style and tempo to improve. Thus a tool is needed. I need to be able to convey accurate data. Air Force and Navy Test pilot school does not make good pilots, the school teaches already good pilots to speak a common language that engineers can use to make changes. >>

    >>

    Profile view: Correct>>

    Left>-Turn Maneuvers-<>-Center Maneuvers<>-Turn Maneuvers< Right

    >>

    Profile view: Incorrect>>

    Left>-Turn Man-(overlapping or skewed)-Center Man(overlapping or skewed)-Turn Man< Right

    Do I fly accurately in wind? That is, does my ground track have accuracy (same line each pass)? Does it have precision (same line each pass over the theoretical perfect distance from the pilots box)? To explain accuracy vs. precision. A paper target has 10 bullet holesall in a 1 inch group is accurate. A 1 inch group in the bulls eye is accurate and precise…

    My dilemma, How does the half blind old guy that does not fly well standing next to me(a stranger) help me improve?Sure makes sense to look at my iPhone and see a trail of dots over the very field I justflew overin my mind. Hell, I can even call my wife to tell her I am staying late to practice and send her the image to prove it...

    Brock


  20. #45

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, CO CO
    Posts
    307
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC

    Ahh - I see now that our objectives are different.
    You are looking for a map of your "ground track" - yes, should be quite achievable (and useful).
    I'm looking for an electronic judge - a whole magnitude more of complexity.

  21. #46

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    ToowoombaQLD, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    787
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC

    ORIGINAL: BHolsten
    There can be no parady drawn between F3A pattern and IMAC other than they both strive to achieve precission throughout the flight envelope.
    I'm not so sure? I fly F3A ships and have flown 40% IMAC stuff and 40% stuff can easily fit into an F3A box if the throttle is used correctly. Your typical F3A box is 1000ft high with a baseline ~1700ft long and don't think that an F3A ship won't shrink that box quick smart if you're a few seconds slow in throttling back. I will admit it was more difficult to keep a big Extra slowed down than a big Yak.

    I can see where a rolling circle can/will land IMAC guys into trouble if you're already starting 300+ ft out from the deadline, but surely shedule designers could pay a little attention and use a cross box turnaround to bring the planes in a bit and a cross box turnaround to take you back out? I understand in some areas they've ditched the turnaround-centre-turnaround and fly more a sort of turnaround-turnaround sequence in space sensitive areas.

    I just hope that the enthusiasm for IMAC doesn't get crushed by rules and regulations.

  22. #47

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    46
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC

    My guess that the other IMAC guys are saying you are flying in to close may be the same reason as what I tell 90 % of the guys i help out. You may start at the distance out from yourself that is comfortable for you. The problem arises when you cannot hold that same distance out. Typically most everyone will end up closer than they intended unless there is a nice crosswind blowing out. Most people when flying back and forth on a parallel line to the runway will fly with their inside wing low. (go to the field and watch them ) This will naturaly tend to bring the plane in towards the pilot. Added to this, is the fact that when you pull into a 45 or vertical line at the end box, it will make matters worse because you will tend to bend the line in towards you. (again go to the field and watch) Add to all of this, the first mistake you make where you under/over roll, and on the exit it comes pointing in towards you (again, pretty common) and you can see where it is very common to have a newer IMAC pilot trying to finish his manuevers while looking strait up while overhead, and trying to not break the deadline. (worse when you have a crosswind in youe face)

    It is a lot of work to get this first basic part of IMAC correct, and is really the essence of becoming an accomplished IMAC competitor, to hold this distance consistently while keeping the line, strait, level and parallel to the runway. Watch the top couple pilots in basic and sportsman at a contest, they usually will have this mastered, and the reason they are at the top of the class, is they are starting each manuever with a 10, or close too it.
    I will usually start someone out further than what they think to allow for a little bit of wiggle room for this phenomenom of them inching (sometimes by many feet at a time) in towards them. Once we get this basic premise of holding the distance of their flight consistent, then we can possibly start closer, so it s easier to see.

    Bill Adams

  23. #48

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    ToowoombaQLD, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    787
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC

    Yep, keeping that baseline is hard but it's the foundation for building upon everything else. I've burned tanks of fuel trying to get that reasonably consistant.

    I had a discussion with my brother the other day and he mentioned at one comp, a local resident complained a rolling circle was being flown over his house all weekend. According to Google Earth, the house is about 670M (2200ft)!!!!! away from the pilots area. Why on Earth a 40% plane needs to be flying that far out is beyond me but it would appear to be part of the more power, fly faster, need to fly bigger to "slow" the maneuver down trend that IMAC seems to be moving towards.

    Even in pattern, flying faster and further out helps with perceived speed regulation and gives you plenty of time to do stuff, but to fly at the 150m line you really need to work the throttle hard to keep the plane chugging along upwind, downwind, upline or downline.....

  24. #49

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    256
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC

    Hello Guys,
    I fly primarily F3C, that's helicopters for the guys that don't know. I have read with interest this thread and several others related to the rules of IMAC. I have an interest as I recently purchased a 50CC airplane and planned to try Sportsman this coming year. I did read the rules, ended up totally confused but have friends that fly IMAC and got most of my questions answered, at least enough to go out and practice.
    There is VERY little reward for writing rules for anything. I wrote the current rules for AMA helicopters Sportsman, Advanced, and Expert, and in reality got only criticism for all the work I did and NO offers of help or even suggestions to help make it better. I figure IMAC won't be any better about that than F3C , F3A, Senior Pattern, or Ballistic Pattern but since I only compete for fun, the final results are what they are and I just do the best I can. Having competed in many forms of model aviation, the only one I was totally satisfied with the judging was in sailplanes as I was flying against a stopwatch and a tape measure, no subjective judge.
    I have competed in F3C and been on the US World Team so have learned to fly to the judges and how to maximize scores so in IMAC I will attempt to do the same thing, figure out what the judges are looking for and give it to them as good as I can. Makes sense to me. Later, after I learn the rules, I might be in a position to offer suggestions for rules changes but only suggestions, no more rules writing for me. I only do this for fun and if I'm not having a good time,..... adios.
    I picked up some insight here reading how things are done and will look forward to some events in the SouthEast.
    Gordie
    In a dog sled team, if you\'re not the lead dog, the view never changes.

  25. #50

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vicksburg, MS
    Posts
    710
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: IMAC

    You may want to take a look at the online judging program at www.mini-iac.com under the training tab to look at the judging criteria.

    Bobby aka TDD


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 AM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.