RE: 2005 sequences

RE: 2005 sequences
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

Dave Patrick Models Extra 330L - RTF
Seller: cdp2buck
Details: $845.00 | 10/7/2008 | Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> IMAC >> RE: 2005 sequences

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 4:16:17 PM

Silent-AV8R

Posts: 1782
Joined: 3/16/2004
From: SOCAL, CA, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE] Since the Shootout, I realize that a few of you (I'm assuming most are involved with SCAT) are concerned with the time it take to fly a sequence. "Fly tight" I'm not sure I agree. It is my opinion that a sequence should take about the same amount of time wether it is a SCAT or IMAC event. If someone chooses to fly the routine at an accelerated pace then have at it. I believe time is saved by staging pilots 2-3 deep and having them in the air before the next guy takes off.[QUOTE/]

I think you are missing what we mean. We do NOT mean fly FAST. We mean doing things like avoiding numerous long level passes back and forth across the box. Avoiding the use of figures that take a long time to fly, like a full Cuban 8 and so on. Also, like it or not, IMAC is working hard to get people to tighten up their sequence footprint.

You are correct that proper staging is also critical, but each is a part of the whole. Last year the SCAT sequences flew much faster than the IMAC sequences did. This was a direct result of their design. I think you will see that the 2005 IMAC sequences share a lot of this design philosophy.

So you don't have to fly fast, just don't waste time.

(in reply to Ryans Rebel)

Post #: 26

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 4:27:37 PM

Silent-AV8R

Posts: 1782
Joined: 3/16/2004
From: SOCAL, CA, USA
Status: offline

At the request of the IMAC leadership I am removing the link I posted with the 2005 proposals on them. Theory is that this information is intended for members only. So send in your $20 so you can see the proposals!! Use Paypal, membership is immediate!!

< Message edited by aresti2004 -- 11/21/2004 5:09:05 PM >

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)

Post #: 27

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 6:17:09 PM

Ryans Rebel

Posts: 1171
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: St. Martinville, LA, USA
Status: offline

I assumed that SCAT flew the same sequences that IMAC issued. I did not realize that the sequences were different.

Ryan

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)

Post #: 28

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 7:01:13 PM

Joe Kelley

Posts: 3603
Joined: 8/11/2002
From: North Hollywood, CA, USA
Status: offline

When will the final sequences be ready? I think they look cool and more scat-like. I really apreciate what little I am learning about this kind of flying. I can not log into the imac site on my mac. Maybe they want $20?

Thanks Bill for your involvment!

Joe

(in reply to Ryans Rebel)

Post #: 29

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 7:14:48 PM

Duane Cox

Posts: 73
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

IMO

I’m not sure I understand the IMAC BOD sequence selection process and not sure why they try to keep the selection process limited to only a handful. The Known sequence is a piece of the IMAC world that will be flown and judged several hundred times throughout the year. Time and thought should be put into such an item that is so important to the IMAC flyers.

As for the sequences: I happen to know the guy that wrote the Sportsman seq B. The IMAC proposed and the submitted sequences were changed. The submitted seq had a 2-point roll on the output of fig#2 and had a full roll on the 1st and 3rd leg of the diamond. Why they decided to delete these elements I don’t know, but it sure took a lot out of the seq.

My big problem with some of the proposed sequences is the crossbox without a return crossbox. Example Intermediate Seq B.Fig #6. This humpty takes you out crossbox and exits back on a secondary x-axis that is moved out by the crossbox humpty. Now with no maneuver to bring you back into the primary X-axis line, the pilot has no choice but to fly the remainder of the sequence way out. IMO this is no way to design a sequence. For every crossbox maneuver there should be another to bring the pilot back in and exit on the primary X-axis line. This happens in Intermediate B, Advanced A and B.

As for illegal maneuvers. I know that the knowns are not held in the same criteria as the unknowns. But I think the Intermediate seq B fig#1 and the neg snaps on the 45 degree downlines is pushing the limit for legal maneuvers for Intermediate.

Again IMO

(in reply to Ryans Rebel)

Post #: 30

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 7:36:49 PM

Desertrat

Posts: 472
Joined: 11/6/2002
From: Boerne, TX, USA
Status: offline

Wow... the intermediate proposals are very challenging. Havent had the weather here to give them a go on anything other than the simulator.... man, I am going to be burning a lot a fuel to get these to look good - dont really care for either one honestly, there is no real flow to them, especially proposal B, it starts you out low on engergy, and doesnt give you a chance to get it back until the middle of the pattern unless you want to spread out manuevers 2 and 4. Proposal A will have a much smaller footprint for sure. We'll see when I can get to them on the airplane. Sure seems like it gets harder every year... must just be me getting old.

Roger

(in reply to Joe Kelley)

Post #: 31

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 8:01:09 PM

Silent-AV8R

Posts: 1782
Joined: 3/16/2004
From: SOCAL, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goekeli

When will the final sequences be ready? I think they look cool and more scat-like. I really apreciate what little I am learning about this kind of flying. I can not log into the imac site on my mac. Maybe they want $20?
Thanks Bill for your involvment!

Joe

My mac works fine. You do need to be a member to access the members only area where the proposals are currently posted. The intention is to have the final selection done by the end of the month.

(in reply to Joe Kelley)

Post #: 32

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 8:06:47 PM

Silent-AV8R

Posts: 1782
Joined: 3/16/2004
From: SOCAL, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Cox

My big problem with some of the proposed sequences is the crossbox without a return crossbox. Example Intermediate Seq B.Fig #6. This humpty takes you out crossbox and exits back on a secondary x-axis that is moved out by the crossbox humpty. Now with no maneuver to bring you back into the primary X-axis line, the pilot has no choice but to fly the remainder of the sequence way out. IMO this is no way to design a sequence.

I think that you find in actual use that this figure will allow you to adjust for wind drift. I am not certain about the piltos in your area, but out here it is the rare pilot that can keep his seuence EXACTLY on plane for the entire sequence. Plus, the top of a humpty can be very tight which will limit the y-axis displacement. Or if you need it you can fly a very large radius at the top.

quote:

As for illegal maneuvers. I know that the knowns are not held in the same criteria as the unknowns. But I think the Intermediate seq B fig#1 and the neg snaps on the 45 degree downlines is pushing the limit for legal maneuvers for Intermediate.

Again IMO

The BoD determined that the negative snap on the 45 downline would be used in Intermediate this year.

(in reply to Duane Cox)

Post #: 33

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 8:09:46 PM

Silent-AV8R

Posts: 1782
Joined: 3/16/2004
From: SOCAL, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Desertrat

dont really care for either one honestly, there is no real flow to them,

The A proposal actually flows very well. It is in large part based on one of the Unknwons flown at the Tucson Shootout. None of the pilots complained about the flow. But to each his own.

(in reply to Desertrat)

Post #: 34

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 8:26:06 PM

Geistware

Posts: 12946
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Locust Grove, GA, USA
Status: offline

I would agree that feedback should be limited to those people who are going to participate in the flying.

_____________________________

Aircraft Proving Grounds
http://www.rcaircraft.net/
Information on the building and flying of Radio Control Aircraft.
Site for hobbyist in the R.C. Aircraft modeling world.

(in reply to Duane Cox)

Post #: 35

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 10:20:33 PM

Duane Cox

Posts: 73
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aresti2004

quote:

ORIGINAL: Desertrat

dont really care for either one honestly, there is no real flow to them,

The A proposal actually flows very well. It is in large part based on one of the Unknwons flown at the Tucson Shootout. None of the pilots complained about the flow. But to each his own.

Wasn't Tucson where the Sportsman Unknown had three uplines before they had a downline to bring them back down to earth?

< Message edited by Duane Cox -- 11/21/2004 10:21:08 PM >

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)

Post #: 36

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 10:22:54 PM

Silent-AV8R

Posts: 1782
Joined: 3/16/2004
From: SOCAL, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Cox

quote:

ORIGINAL: aresti2004

quote:

ORIGINAL: Desertrat

dont really care for either one honestly, there is no real flow to them,

The A proposal actually flows very well. It is in large part based on one of the Unknwons flown at the Tucson Shootout. None of the pilots complained about the flow. But to each his own.

Wasn't Tucon where the Sportsman Unknown had three uplines before they had a downline to bring them back down to earth?

Indeed. Actually BOTH Sportsman Unknowns were fairly prooly constructed. But I was referring to the Intermediate sequences, since that is what the post I was repsonding to was talking about. 2005 Intermediate Proposal A is based on the Saturday Intermediate Unknown from the Shootout.

(in reply to Duane Cox)

Post #: 37

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 10:28:54 PM

Duane Cox

Posts: 73
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aresti2004

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Cox

My big problem with some of the proposed sequences is the crossbox without a return crossbox. Example Intermediate Seq B.Fig #6. This humpty takes you out crossbox and exits back on a secondary x-axis that is moved out by the crossbox humpty. Now with no maneuver to bring you back into the primary X-axis line, the pilot has no choice but to fly the remainder of the sequence way out. IMO this is no way to design a sequence.

I think that you find in actual use that this figure will allow you to adjust for wind drift. I am not certain about the piltos in your area, but out here it is the rare pilot that can keep his seuence EXACTLY on plane for the entire sequence. Plus, the top of a humpty can be very tight which will limit the y-axis displacement. Or if you need it you can fly a very large radius at the top.

quote:

As for illegal maneuvers. I know that the knowns are not held in the same criteria as the unknowns. But I think the Intermediate seq B fig#1 and the neg snaps on the 45 degree downlines is pushing the limit for legal maneuvers for Intermediate.

Again IMO

The BoD determined that the negative snap on the 45 downline would be used in Intermediate this year.

I don't understand why you would design a sequence to compensate for pilot error. A pilot that flies a good wind-corrected sequence will be penialized. A sequence should be drawn to provide good flow period. Let the pilot make the choice on where to try to hide mistakes.

So the BOD decided to allow neg snaps on 45 downlines for Intermediate but throwout a proposed Intermediate sequence because it had a 90 inside roller that had to be flown coming back in from a crossbox manuver.

Attachments

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)

Post #: 38

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 11:47:50 PM

Silent-AV8R

Posts: 1782
Joined: 3/16/2004
From: SOCAL, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Cox

I don't understand why you would design a sequence to compensate for pilot error. A pilot that flies a good wind-corrected sequence will be penialized. A sequence should be drawn to provide good flow period. Let the pilot make the choice on where to try to hide mistakes.

So the BOD decided to allow neg snaps on 45 downlines for Intermediate but throwout a proposed Intermediate sequence because it had a 90 inside roller that had to be flown coming back in from a crossbox manuver.

I guess I did not make my point very well. Let's not call it pilot error, but rather reality. Also, a simple cross box Humpty is far and away NOT a figure that you have to let get away from you, as I pointed out earlier.

As to why the BoD accepted or rejected certain submittals, you will have to address that with them.

(in reply to Duane Cox)

Post #: 39

RE: 2005 sequences - 11/21/2004 11:51:30 PM