2005 sequences (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RC Airplanes] >> IMAC



Message

quist -> 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 5:41:58 PM)

the proposed 2005 sequences are now available for IMAC memebers in the members only area. these sequences look very busy and no free passes. So they should fly faster.



Silent-AV8R -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 6:08:45 PM)

But I'll bet that people will figure out how to stretch them from horizon to horizon.

BTW - what class are you flying in '05??



quist -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 7:44:56 PM)

Advanced, I think



tony/amps -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 8:45:25 PM)

there are no free pass's in imac. your maneuver ends and the next one starts immediately.



Flyfalcons -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 8:47:37 PM)

If you aren't an IMAC member you can see the proposed sequences at the Northwest IMAC site.

http://www.imacnw.com/



Silent-AV8R -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 9:07:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tony/amps

there are no free pass's in imac. your maneuver ends and the next one starts immediately.


True enough, but Tony was using it as a generic term to indicate a long level pass (scored of course) with no actual figure on the line. This is a waste of time just driving from one end of the box to the other.

Pilots need to learn to fly tight. I was totally blown away at the Tucson Shootout to see a full scale Sukhoi flying a 360 roller smaller and tighter than 99% of the IMAC rollers I see flown.



Diablo-RCU -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 9:29:18 PM)

Say, could one of you clever fellows check out the proposed Intermediate sequence?
Have a look at Figure 8 on Proposal 2. It looks like a 2 point roll, half loop, then positive snap. Shouldn't that be a negative snap from inverted to inverted???



Flyfalcons -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 9:36:20 PM)

I think you mean figure 9 on proposal 2... are you asking if it is an illegal maneuver? According to the maneuvers catalog that is an allowed maneuver.



A320driver -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 11:04:40 PM)

Looking at the IMAC sequence criteria I currently have I am assuming things have changed for the intermediate class in 2005. According to what I have only 1 full positive snap from level or 45 degrees is allowed and 1 full negative snap from inverted to inverted. Anyone care to comment?



Silent-AV8R -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 11:29:36 PM)

I'm confused by the questions.

First A320's comments. There are no written guidelines for Known Construction. Don't confuse the Unknown Guidance Catalog with the Knowns. Having said that, there are general guidelines the BoD uses for each class. For 2005 it was decided to allow negative snap rolls on both level inverted lines and on inverted 45 downlines.

Now to the questions about the figures. Figure #8 on Intermediate Proposal B is a vertical upline with a 2 of 4-point roll up, exit negative.

On Proposal A, figure #8 is a 1 and 1/2 continuous rolls from inverted to positive. That is followed by a positive snap, 1/2 inside loop, full roll, exit negative.

The last two figures are the same in both. Pull to a negative 45 downline, full negative sap roll, exit negative. Then a 90 degree 1 roll roller to the inside. Enter/exit negative.



Flyfalcons -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 11:31:33 PM)

If you look at the snap criteria for intermediate, it does allow a full positive snap from inverted at the top of a loop or half loop.



Silent-AV8R -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/20/2004 11:34:45 PM)

Again, there are no published criteria for Knowns. Only Unknowns, and they are different. The only real true published criteria is the FAI catalog, and I can assure you that all these proposals are fully legal by that standard.



adampbry -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 12:04:30 AM)

What happened to crossbox?

Unlimited B has only one crossbox maneuver (a humpty where the loop over the top is crossbox), and Unlimited A has two maneuvers, but one is just the entry to a roller. Personally I think the most interesting parts of the more complex advanced/unlimited sequences are the crossbox elements that require planning and skill to position properly. In some sequences it seems like back to back crossbox maneuvers make it go even faster because it makes it impossible to draw a long line between maneuvers. Is this an intentional effort to control sequence size?

Anyone know the story?

-Adam



A320driver -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 1:26:59 AM)

Sorry to argue with you, but I do have a sequence criteria that was published by IMAC for what the limits were in each family of maneuvers for each class. Known or unknowns. So far in all my IMAC flying over the past several years I have never seen anything that deviated from that published criteria. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see more than a single snap in intermediate, but I would like to have an updated list or you guys could be flying some very interesting unknowns if you come to Phoenix in February next year to fly in the return of "The Cactus Classic".



Geistware -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 1:46:00 AM)

So are we voting or critiquing?



Silent-AV8R -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 2:21:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: A320driver

Sorry to argue with you, but I do have a sequence criteria that was published by IMAC for what the limits were in each family of maneuvers for each class. Known or unknowns. So far in all my IMAC flying over the past several years I have never seen anything that deviated from that published criteria. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see more than a single snap in intermediate, but I would like to have an updated list or you guys could be flying some very interesting unknowns if you come to Phoenix in February next year to fly in the return of "The Cactus Classic".


The official Unknown catalog is being re-worked right now. It needs a fair bit of work. As far as the Knowns, sorry, since I worked on the 2005 submittals I think I can tell you that there was NOT a document that was used. We had discussions with the BoD as to what was desired, what was acceptable and so on. But the only really official document is the Unknown one. And believe it or not, but there are things that are legal for a Known that are not OK for a Known. Any Unknowns that I write in 2005 will comply fully with the new catalog of Unknown figures, once it is finalized.

Hope that helps.



Silent-AV8R -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 2:25:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Geistware

So are we voting or critiquing?


The way I understand it, the BoD is looking for comments only. The final decision will be by the BoD alone. THe IMAC website has a place for member comment on each sequence.



Geistware -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 4:22:54 AM)

I commented on the Sportsman and Intermediate routines posted.
quote:

ORIGINAL: aresti2004

quote:

ORIGINAL: Geistware

So are we voting or critiquing?


The way I understand it, the BoD is looking for comments only. The final decision will be by the BoD alone. THe IMAC website has a place for member comment on each sequence.



UNLDAVE -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 5:03:29 AM)

Hi All,

Had a beautiful day here in Nor-Cal ..Burnt 3 gallons trying the new advanced proposals..B is a real winner..Goes fast and is easy to keep tight!! Hats off to whoever wrote it!!!A wasn't as much fun...
My buddy flew sportsman...A is a time waster while B is efficient... We haven't checked out intermediate or Unlimited yet.(But we will tomorrow)!!!

Can't wait for Phoenix"05

Dave Stoik



UNLDAVE -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 5:10:21 AM)

Bill,

I thought I recognized some of your Handywork in the proposals!!!! (GRIN)

Dave



Jon Wise -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 5:14:02 AM)

The sequences at the Northwest site are not the same as the ones on the IMAC members site. At least the Sportsman routines aren't anyways. Unless I missed something they're not the same. Later Jon



Silent-AV8R -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 6:00:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hekter-RCU

Bill,

I thought I recognized some of your Handywork in the proposals!!!! (GRIN)

Dave


Watch you talkin' about Willis???? [&:]



Silent-AV8R -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 6:14:02 AM)

For any Non-IMAC members out tehre who are interested you can see the 2005 proposals here:

http://www.scaleaerobatics.org/IMAC2005Proposals.html



Ryans Rebel -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 12:42:55 PM)

I agree with Hecter that proposal A for Sportsman is a waste of time. There are 3, count them 3, 2 of 4 rolls on 45° uplines. What gives?

Another comment regarding the "speed" at which a sequence is flown. 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. I love to have as many flights as possible but not at the expence of feeling rushed when I fly. Here in the SC region, there is too much lack time between rounds. Every contest I atttended could have easily completed another round exept for one due to weather.

By the way, it was great fun competing against all of you guys at the Shootout. I had a blast.

Ryan



wgeffon -> RE: 2005 sequences (11/21/2004 2:18:34 PM)

I'm going to go fly some of these today with a buddy.
(Interm and Unlim)



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>  

Valid CSS!




SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.
0.2646484