IMAC Discuss IMAC style aerobatics in here

IMAC vs Pattern

Reply
Old 11-07-2008, 11:39 AM
  #1
matt1977
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: ., KY
Posts: 38
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default IMAC vs Pattern

Besides the fact that IMAC planes must be built to a scale version of a full scale plane, what are the major differences between flying IMAC and flying pattern?


Thanks in advance for your replies.


matt1977 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2008, 12:13 PM
  #2
exeter_acres
 
exeter_acres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 7,457
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

really that is about it...
There are slightly different manuevers but they are quite similar.

Pattern planes are purpose built RC planes that must be under 11lbs and fit in a 2m by 2m box....

IMAC has no size or weight limit. The planes must be "scale" models of full scale aircraft capable of flying in the aerobatic box....

There are unique rules for each organization, but overall they are quite similar.......
exeter_acres is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2008, 02:12 PM
  #3
bjamesjr
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Elizabethtown, PA
Posts: 68
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

IMAC does have a weight limit which is the 55lb AMA limit with fuel, not that too many of us are gonna get close to that
bjamesjr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2008, 09:34 PM
  #4
exeter_acres
 
exeter_acres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 7,457
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

could the pilot have the AMA experimental aircraft waiver?
exeter_acres is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2008, 09:44 PM
  #5
bjamesjr
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Elizabethtown, PA
Posts: 68
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

Yes...
bjamesjr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2008, 10:20 PM
  #6
vertical grimmace
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,158
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern


One is just slightly less boring than the other!
vertical grimmace is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 07:00 AM
  #7
dhal22
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 5,526
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

which one?


david
dhal22 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 08:05 AM
  #8
exeter_acres
 
exeter_acres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 7,457
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern


Quote:
ORIGINAL: vertical grimmace


One is just slightly less boring than the other!
which one have you competed in?
exeter_acres is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 09:35 AM
  #9
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern


Quote:
ORIGINAL: vertical grimmace


One is just slightly less boring than the other!
I supposed both could be a bit boring to watch for the average spectator. But, the average spectator probably has absolutely no clue what is actually going on.

I spent the entire summer trying to perfect the Imac basic routine, probably 150 flights, and never got bored, and never was satisfied with my performance. This was just practice, never got around to competing, yet.

Considering there are 5 levels of Imac competition, and every level gets a new routine every year, factoring in different wind conditions every flight, etc., I don't see how it could ever become boring. Unless you are just soooo good that it no longer is a challenge for you. That seems impossible to me.

What got boring to me, was boring holes in the sky. Practicing Imac has given me a purpose and direction to my flying, and from the comments I've gotten from my flying friends, I have benefitted greatly.

I've even gotten 3 of them interested in Imac, and we plan to compete next summer.
804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 11:01 AM
  #10
apereira
 
apereira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,636
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

The pattern planes are easier to fly as they are aerodynamically better designs, actually they are designed to be a perfect flying machine, or at least get close to, the IMAC planes being scale down of a real airplane has all the design flaws form their original counterpart, as they need to carry a person, accommodate a predesignated engine, and the flying surfaces are designed to have great performance but while maintaining the pilots ability to move them without mechanical assistance.

The schedules are quite different as they are designed based on the airplanes capabilities to execute them, there are maneuvers that will be very difficult to perform by it's counterpart, and even though both types of airplanes are capable to do whatever maneuver is created, they will not do it as pretty as it will with the corresponding aircraft.
apereira is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 02:20 PM
  #11
MHester
 
MHester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 2,707
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

Ok why not.....just to be specific LOL

They are indeed very similar, but in some cases very different. Besides the planes themselves, the flight is judged a good bit differently.

IMAC is more focused on the execution of the manuever, with very critical dowgrades for things such as wings not level etc. The routines are extremely "busy", as in a lot of movement and tons of snaps.

Pattern is much more "controlled" as far as the actual flight path of the plane. you have a "box" which is 60 degrees to each side of the pilot and 60 drgrees up. Anything outside of that box is severely downgraded....like 2 points for every quarter of the manuever that is outside of the box poles. Also there is a very strict center, as in there is a pole and you better split it...or get severely downgraded. You have to do your entire routine minus take off and landing within this box at a parallel line 150 meters in front of you. In AMA pattern, the take offs and landings are scored as well.

Other than that, a loop is still supposed to be a circle, a roll should be on a rail, you get the idea.

IMAC and pattern planes fly EXTREMELY well. they are designed to take as much load off the pilot as possible. here is where pattern has the edge because inside of that 2 meter box and 11 lb limit your plane must fit, anything goes...and I mean darn near anything. This has lead to some really innovative aerodynamic limit-pushing to get the plane to fly as neutral as possible in all angles of flight, and that includes knife egde. IMAC has to stay "scale", so they are somewhat more limited in that aspect. but some of the newer designs are really testing that

To me modern pattern planes fly better than anything else out there. I like the IMAC stuff too, but since I am a builder and desinger, I get a real kick out of pushing that envelope in search of the perfect plane.

As far as the excitement factor: BOTH are not a spectator sport. It's a participant's sport (or hobby, passtime, addiction, whatever LOL). personally I find 3d to be MUCH more boring than pattern or IMAC. Fun? Absolutely!! But not nearly as challenging as trying to nail that perfect flight in a gusty 30mph crosswind. So if it's boring to you, well, don't bother with it. It's probably just not your thing and that's fine. I will say that in other countries, pattern type contests ge ta LOT more spectators than a regular fly in sort of thing. I think America is just jaded that way. And that's fine too, all that matters is that I enjoy it, and so do my friends, and new people every day.

But to sum up...it's something that if you're interested in at all, you have to DO it, not just watch because you may never "get it" by just watching. it takes a certain personality type to WANT to try and fly a perfect circle dead on center and wind corrected in a strong wind, when everyone else at the field packed up already. if you're not "that guy", just keep on boring holes in the sky and doing whatever is fun to you. but if you ARE that guy, I would greatly stress that you should pick an IMAC or pattern plane, go out and practice, and then just go to a contest. And say hello to the most addicting thing in life......

-Mike
MHester is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 12:12 AM
  #12
MTK
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern


Quote:
ORIGINAL: MHester

Ok why not.....just to be specific LOL

They are indeed very similar, but in some cases very different. Besides the planes themselves, the flight is judged a good bit differently.

IMAC is more focused on the execution of the manuever, with very critical dowgrades for things such as wings not level etc. The routines are extremely "busy", as in a lot of movement and tons of snaps.

Pattern is much more "controlled" as far as the actual flight path of the plane. you have a "box" which is 60 degrees to each side of the pilot and 60 drgrees up. Anything outside of that box is severely downgraded....like 2 points for every quarter of the manuever that is outside of the box poles. Also there is a very strict center, as in there is a pole and you better split it...or get severely downgraded. You have to do your entire routine minus take off and landing within this box at a parallel line 150 meters in front of you. In AMA pattern, the take offs and landings are scored as well.

Other than that, a loop is still supposed to be a circle, a roll should be on a rail, you get the idea.

IMAC and pattern planes fly EXTREMELY well. they are designed to take as much load off the pilot as possible. here is where pattern has the edge because inside of that 2 meter box and 11 lb limit your plane must fit, anything goes...and I mean darn near anything. This has lead to some really innovative aerodynamic limit-pushing to get the plane to fly as neutral as possible in all angles of flight, and that includes knife egde. IMAC has to stay "scale", so they are somewhat more limited in that aspect. but some of the newer designs are really testing that

To me modern pattern planes fly better than anything else out there. I like the IMAC stuff too, but since I am a builder and desinger, I get a real kick out of pushing that envelope in search of the perfect plane.

As far as the excitement factor: BOTH are not a spectator sport. It's a participant's sport (or hobby, passtime, addiction, whatever LOL). personally I find 3d to be MUCH more boring than pattern or IMAC. Fun? Absolutely!! But not nearly as challenging as trying to nail that perfect flight in a gusty 30mph crosswind. So if it's boring to you, well, don't bother with it. It's probably just not your thing and that's fine. I will say that in other countries, pattern type contests ge ta LOT more spectators than a regular fly in sort of thing. I think America is just jaded that way. And that's fine too, all that matters is that I enjoy it, and so do my friends, and new people every day.

But to sum up...it's something that if you're interested in at all, you have to DO it, not just watch because you may never "get it" by just watching. it takes a certain personality type to WANT to try and fly a perfect circle dead on center and wind corrected in a strong wind, when everyone else at the field packed up already. if you're not "that guy", just keep on boring holes in the sky and doing whatever is fun to you. but if you ARE that guy, I would greatly stress that you should pick an IMAC or pattern plane, go out and practice, and then just go to a contest. And say hello to the most addicting thing in life......

-Mike
Jeez Mike, tell us what you really think. LOL

Hey, dudes and dudettes, Mike is on the money here. Indeed, Pattern model design is unlimited within the 2X2 meter box and 5 kilo rules attempting to make a design that performs precision maneuvering nearly effortless. Many are true thoroughbred designs with one goal in mind: PA with as little pilot input as practical

A scale model for IMAC has the full scale counterpart as the main limiting factor in its design. That can be huge handicap. A few years ago when the rules allowed up to a 20% departure from scale, many opted for longer tail moments which immediately resulted in groovier, more precise platforms. Freestyle suffered a bit but precision benefitted greatly

MattK
MTK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 05:46 PM
  #13
DMichael
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 959
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

I fly both Pattern (recent addiction) and IMAC (old addiction). I have more time flying IMAC but want to do more Pattern.

Both are great.

There has never been a 20% deviation from scale. 10% has been and is the rule since I've been flying IMAC (10+ years).

I haven't flown any of the cutting edge pattern planes- I am flying a ZN Line Supreme with an OS140RX. It is an awesome flying plane. Having said that, my 40% Carden 300 with a ZDZ Super160 flies better (my opinion)- maybe I'm just more use to it. Easier to see, slower, better power to weight (believe it or not), snaps better- everything is just more solid. Maybe if I was flying the "latest design" pattern plane with tricked out electric propulsion or YS 170 I might feel different. Pattern plane definitely flies better than my 35% Extra and smaller planes.

IMAC plane is clearly more of a pain in the rear to deal with when transporting, setting up, tearing down, storage, etc.


To me the main difference, other than the planes, is the sequences. Pattern sequences are simpler- not saying that they are easier to fly- but have more simple elements. There is a greater concentration on the shape and flow of the sequence. IMAC has lots of snaps and complicated manuevers and a new sequence every year. I have lamented that I don't have enough time to learn to fly the sequence as well as I'd like. IMAC also has unknowns in all but the entry level class. That's fun.

Both Pattern and IMAC are great. The two disciplines are close relatives. You can't go wrong with either.
DMichael is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 05:48 AM
  #14
dhal22
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 5,526
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

don't know why but pattern is definitely more popular here, there a 5 times more posts on the pattern forum.

david
dhal22 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 06:49 PM
  #15
NJRCFLYER2
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 876
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

Quote:
There has never been a 20% deviation from scale. 10% has been and is the rule since I've been flying IMAC (10+ years).
Hi Dave:
I guess I could be wrong, but I thought there was a time in the mid to late 90's when the fuselage could deviate by 20% from the wingspan, where the wingspan set the % scale for the model. I remember that there were some designs like the 37% Godfrey Extra and and one of the Aeroworks Extra designs that were really stretched to the max. There was a change in % deviation that tightened up the specs, but I don't remember all the specifics anymore. Remember at one time too, there were designs like the Gator Giles And Hanson's Excess (An Extra 300 that pushed the rules to the max)? If I recall correctly, they would not meet today's rules, since something did change to reduce the deviation in the fuselage scale. Was it width or length deviation that changed?
NJRCFLYER2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2008, 09:53 PM
  #16
bobflies
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Palmetto, FL
Posts: 9
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

All of our models have met the 10% rule. Sometimes the builder would shretch the numbers and move the rudder hinge line back and also sometimes get caught but stock they were within the limits just like our current models.
Robert
www.bobflues.com
bobflies is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2008, 10:03 PM
  #17
NJRCFLYER2
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 876
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

Quote:
All of our models have met the 10% rule.
All of whose models?

I'm really asking about how the rule was written roughly 8 to 10 years ago. It has definitely changed, but I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics of exactly how. My recollection seems to be different than Dave's.
NJRCFLYER2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2008, 09:47 PM
  #18
rcpattern
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Great Mills, MD
Posts: 2,860
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

Having flown both, they are both a lot of fun..I personally prefer pattern, but plan to fly more IMAC next year. The biggest difference I have noticed is how they are judged. IMAC has much busier individual maneuvers, but they dont judge other things...such as center. As long as the maneuvers are in sequence that is fine..they don't truly judge the center of the box as is the case in pattern. I have flown a LOT of 40% planes and while they fly well, they don't touch a purpose built top of the line pattern plane for drawing lines. Part of this is they are shorter coupled..so they do snap and tumble better. You can't go wrong flying either...and both will make you a better pilot,

Arch
rcpattern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2008, 10:45 PM
  #19
bobflies
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Palmetto, FL
Posts: 9
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

All of our models??, Sorry my name is Robert Godfrey, Son of the late Bob Godfrey and President of Precision Aviation Design. I had worked with my father from the early 80's untill he passed a couple of years ago. I have been designing models from about '95. I did the 10% verification from the late 80's on for all of our models including the present designs. Also I see that I mispelled our websites address its, www.bobflies.com there is a write up on dad on the main page that has some of the history you are talking about. We still produce models here in Florida and I take care or my Mother here also. All of the present production models will fly Pattern or 3D without any C.G. change by design.
Thanks,
Robert
bobflies is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2008, 11:43 PM
  #20
MTK
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern


Quote:
ORIGINAL: bobflies

All of our models??, Sorry my name is Robert Godfrey, Son of the late Bob Godfrey and President of Precision Aviation Design. I had worked with my father from the early 80's untill he passed a couple of years ago. I have been designing models from about '95. I did the 10% verification from the late 80's on for all of our models including the present designs. Also I see that I mispelled our websites address its, www.bobflies.com there is a write up on dad on the main page that has some of the history you are talking about. We still produce models here in Florida and I take care or my Mother here also. All of the present production models will fly Pattern or 3D without any C.G. change by design.
Thanks,
Robert
Interesting...So Bob Goddfrey Models became Precision Aviation Design.

Do you guys make a real pattern capable airframe? If you do, you should advertise in the KFactor. If it's a good flier, many guys will buy it if reasonably priced either as kit or ARFie

MattK
MTK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2008, 11:50 PM
  #21
Jetdesign
 
Jetdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mason, OH
Posts: 7,054
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

Anyone know if the Quique 'somenized' yaks are within the 10% and legal for IMAC?
Jetdesign is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2008, 08:55 AM
  #22
bobflies
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Palmetto, FL
Posts: 9
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern


There was "Precision built models and kits" and "Precision Aviation Design" but never a Bob Godfrey Models and yes I am planning on designing a pattern plane for Andrew Jesky that will be electric, gas or glow and all wood. Our IMAC models are very capable of drawing straight lines.
Robert

Quote:
ORIGINAL: bobflies
Interesting...So Bob Goddfrey Models became Precision Aviation Design.

Do you guys make a real pattern capable airframe? If you do, you should advertise in the KFactor. If it's a good flier, many guys will buy it if reasonably priced either as kit or ARFie

MattK
[/quote]
bobflies is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 05:51 PM
  #23
sewbusy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Acworth, GA,
Posts: 79
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern


Quote:
ORIGINAL: NJRCFLYER2

Quote:
There has never been a 20% deviation from scale. 10% has been and is the rule since I've been flying IMAC (10+ years).
Hi Dave:
I guess I could be wrong, but I thought there was a time in the mid to late 90's when the fuselage could deviate by 20% from the wingspan, where the wingspan set the % scale for the model. I remember that there were some designs like the 37% Godfrey Extra and and one of the Aeroworks Extra designs that were really stretched to the max. There was a change in % deviation that tightened up the specs, but I don't remember all the specifics anymore. Remember at one time too, there were designs like the Gator Giles And Hanson's Excess (An Extra 300 that pushed the rules to the max)? If I recall correctly, they would not meet today's rules, since something did change to reduce the deviation in the fuselage scale. Was it width or length deviation that changed?
I will agree with Dave here...without a doubt, IMAC has never had a 20% rule at all.... It has always been 10%. Whether builders have changed or not, IMAC has not. I have been a member since 1990.
Wayne Matthews
IMAC # 1294
sewbusy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 06:12 PM
  #24
NJRCFLYER2
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 876
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern

Quote:
I will agree with Dave here...without a doubt, IMAC has never had a 20% rule at all.... It has always been 10%. Whether builders have changed or not, IMAC has not.
The scale rules have changed during that time, but my question is exactly how. It may never have been to 20%, but there were changes. I guess if no one remembers the specifics it doesn't really matter.
NJRCFLYER2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 02:28 PM
  #25
RByrd
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 101
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: IMAC vs Pattern


Quote:
ORIGINAL: NJRCFLYER2

Quote:
I will agree with Dave here...without a doubt, IMAC has never had a 20% rule at all.... It has always been 10%. Whether builders have changed or not, IMAC has not.
The scale rules have changed during that time, but my question is exactly how. It may never have been to 20%, but there were changes. I guess if no one remembers the specifics it doesn't really matter.
The only rule that I know changed was the stab had to be located to 10% of the vertical stab. That was a TOC rule change in 1998.

I have flown both disciplines. Flew pattern for 20 plus years and IMAC the past few years. Both in my opinion have there pros and cons, but I enjoy both. Go with what you like and go with. I get into more Pattern vs. IMAC debates over nothing. Most of the time, one doesn't know anything about the other. But they think they do.

Rick
RByrd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:21 PM.