RE: 2006 Sequences?  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> IMAC >> RE: 2006 Sequences?
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/8/2005 11:50:36 PM   
Matt Merciez



Posts: 328
Joined: 11/16/2003
From: Suffolk, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Ryan,

I wrote up my own word document for the Sportsman sequence #2 since that is the sequence I like the most. No guarantees for the accuracy of the text, maybe someone with more experience can validate its accuracy or correct the errors.

Sportsman Known with Right-to-Left Wind

1. Inverted figure 9 with a 1 ½ positive spin on entry, (pull on the loop) exit inverted.
2. Pull to a 45° downline with a 2 pt. roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
3. Positive vertical upline with 2 of 4 pt. roll on the upline, push on exit.
4. Inverted, reverse shark’s tooth with 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
5. Vertical downline with a half roll on the downline, exit upright.
6. Hammerhead with a ¾ roll on the upline (roll to the right and stop with the canopy facing), 2 of 4 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the right), exit upright crossbox.
7. Humpty-Bump, 2 of 8 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the left to setup next figure), exit upright.
8. Half-Cuban-Eight with 2 of 4 on the 45° downline, exit upright.
9. Inside loop, full roll at apex.
10. Reverse teardrop. Half roll on the vertical upline, (pull for 5/8 loop) , 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright


Sportsman Known with Left-to-Right Wind

1. Inverted figure 9 with a 1 ½ positive spin on entry, (pull on the loop) exit inverted.
2. Pull to a 45° downline with a 2 pt. roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
3. Positive vertical upline with 2 of 4 pt. roll on the upline, push on exit.
4. Inverted, reverse shark’s tooth with 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
5. Vertical downline with a half roll on the downline, exit upright.
6. Hammerhead with a ¾ roll on the upline (roll to the left and stop with the canopy facing), 2 of 4 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the left), exit upright crossbox.
7. Humpty-Bump, 2 of 8 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the right to setup next figure), exit upright.
8. Half-Cuban-Eight with 2 of 4 on the 45° downline, exit upright.
9. Inside loop, full roll at apex.
10. Reverse teardrop. Half roll on the vertical upline, (pull for 5/8 loop) , 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright



_____________________________

Matt Merciez

(in reply to Ryan Nau)
       Post #: 26

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/18/2005 12:50:20 PM   
3D Joy



Posts: 1061
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: , QC, CANADA
Status: offline 		2006 unlimited proposals still not out or I have a problem on my side of the line ??

(in reply to Matt Merciez)
       Post #: 27

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/18/2005 2:49:49 PM   
extratorker


 

Posts: 273
Joined: 12/5/2004
From: new york, NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dick Hanson

It is obvious - IMAC is an equipment race -too bad
Anybody who does not pony up for a 40 %model and transport need not apply.
Sour grapes?
No-just tired of seeing the fun knocked out of the event.
It is very obvious to even the newer flier that larger planes are easier to fly and fly well.
The cost of the latest /largest stuf is not a big deal to the hard core competitors.
The really proficient may even have a sponsership that takes a lot of the sting out of it.
Pattern did the same thing -evolving into a perceived need for very expensive planes and engines.
Marketing of products for the hobby helps drive this "need".
The old "move up" thing is all part of the plan.
Same thing with autos - The market people want you to spend as much as they can convince you to part with.
$60,000 for a grocery getter --
I built planes for TOC starting in the 1970's-into the 1990's- not all that expensive then but the desire to really provide a show for the crowd at the TOC really ramped up the cost and size. With that new equipment available to anyone, IMAC made a mad dash into the same size type stuff and the market was happy to provide even newer bits n pieces .
It happens in all motorsports.
Try to field even the cheapest dragster-on gasoline -
The "rice burners" have created a new sub class on drag racing -and simply ignore the NHRA classes.
The 2006 patterns promise to be even more involved than the 2005.
As CD for our events -getting good judges has become harder each year.
It all goes right to the heart of the problem - trying to make the event a more technically complicated playground which challanges the core group and excites (hopefully) the potential new IMAC participant.
A progressive skill event -it aint anymore. It is far more complicated than full scale aerobatics and the inclusion of the judged free style further complicates an event .
If you are a hard core competitor --none of this will bother you .


Not a progressive skill event? Geez, I'd swear that each year my skills become more and more honed. Maybe we should write NASCAR and ask them to get rid of the 200mph stock cars and use toyota hybrids since more people can afford them. Sorry your not having fun at IMAC events. I still have a great time. I don't go to these looking to put plaques on my walls or get enough points to get to regionals or nats. I go to have fun, and thats exactley what I do. I was at an IMAC last weekend and Basic was won with a GP Pattywagstaff with a brison on the front.

(in reply to dick Hanson)
       Post #: 28

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/19/2005 1:01:26 PM   
tl3


 

Posts: 42
Joined: 1/30/2004
From: Sandston, VA,
Status: offline 		2006 Unlimited will be along shortly. The sequence gurus are working hard and have base proposals written and nearly ready for release. Patience grasshopper .
t

RCShowcase
ZDZ Engines

(in reply to 3D Joy)
       Post #: 29

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/19/2005 11:45:49 PM   
xtra 330


 

Posts: 315
Joined: 9/9/2003
From: Dallas, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Hey there Ty, just wanted to congratulate you on the win at NC this past weekend...well deserved...even if your wing does sit lower than mine
Joe

(in reply to tl3)
       Post #: 30

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/20/2005 1:46:26 PM   
tl3


 

Posts: 42
Joined: 1/30/2004
From: Sandston, VA,
Status: offline 		Thanks Joe, and likewise. As for the wing position, I'm wondering if that was a one time change for the plane's original intended owner, or maybe a change in the kits. Regardless, I have a 260 nearly done, now my wing is higher than yours ;-
t

RC Showcase
ZDZ Engines

(in reply to xtra 330)
       Post #: 31

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/20/2005 2:29:58 PM   
drbebob


 

Posts: 233
Joined: 3/22/2003
From: Oxford, IA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dick Hanson

It is obvious - IMAC is an equipment race -too bad
Anybody who does not pony up for a 40 %model and transport need not apply.
Sour grapes?
No-just tired of seeing the fun knocked out of the event.
It is very obvious to even the newer flier that larger planes are easier to fly and fly well.
The cost of the latest /largest stuf is not a big deal to the hard core competitors.
The really proficient may even have a sponsership that takes a lot of the sting out of it.
Pattern did the same thing -evolving into a perceived need for very expensive planes and engines.
Marketing of products for the hobby helps drive this "need".
The old "move up" thing is all part of the plan.
Same thing with autos - The market people want you to spend as much as they can convince you to part with.
$60,000 for a grocery getter --
I built planes for TOC starting in the 1970's-into the 1990's- not all that expensive then but the desire to really provide a show for the crowd at the TOC really ramped up the cost and size. With that new equipment available to anyone, IMAC made a mad dash into the same size type stuff and the market was happy to provide even newer bits n pieces .
It happens in all motorsports.
Try to field even the cheapest dragster-on gasoline -
The "rice burners" have created a new sub class on drag racing -and simply ignore the NHRA classes.
The 2006 patterns promise to be even more involved than the 2005.
As CD for our events -getting good judges has become harder each year.
It all goes right to the heart of the problem - trying to make the event a more technically complicated playground which challanges the core group and excites (hopefully) the potential new IMAC participant.
A progressive skill event -it aint anymore. It is far more complicated than full scale aerobatics and the inclusion of the judged free style further complicates an event .
If you are a hard core competitor --none of this will bother you .



Dick--- I hear ya! CD-ing an IMAC event must be a major PITA what with known, unknown, and freestyle and don't forget Minimac. I haven't competed in IMAC for almost 10 years and am excited and also somewhat miffed at what I see has happened in 10 years. I had been flying AMA pattern for several years before I first got into IMAC so being competitive in Advanced wasn't all that difficult. I was flying Goldberg ultimates and Sukois. IMAC served as a great way for flyers to get into competition aerobatics without having to ante up for a full blown pattern rig. At that time the complaint was that Pattern (AMA/FAI) was too expensive.
Enter the TOC and similar events with manufacturers responding to the competitors demand for the biggest and best. What a great 10 years it has been for powerplant and airframe development. When I attended my first TOC in 1988 the big dogs were using glow motors with mechanical devices to link them together allowing more than one engine to turn the prop. Very few used gas; and for good reason gas motors were heavy and wimpy. Along came 3W and all that changed---for the better. Now we have amazing choice of light, powerful gas motors from 1-4 cylinders. Same with airframes; once we had the motors, airframes followed and of course Chinese airframes made all this more accessible.
This obviously was a major shot in the arm for IMAC where basically unrestricted airframe size and weight led to a major runup in aircraft cost and complexity. Problems attendant to this cost spiral were "fixed" with minimac. NOT!!
Meanwhile Pattern stuck to FAI guidelines and to its 5 Kg weight limit. Equipment cost has increased in Pattern despite the weight limit; but at a reasonable rate. A mere drop in the bucket compared to equipment cost increase in IMAC (with no end in sight).
Yes, we do it for fun! Motorsports have always been expensive and competition always pushes us in the direction of well.... being competitive. I find more fun when I win than when I lose; so do all of us.
I guess what I am saying, after trying to put it in the perspective of the changes of the past 10 or so years, is that it looks like a time when we might put the brakes on a bit and consider a weight limit, at least in the basic through advanced classes. The unlimited class should be UNLIMITED and a stepping stone to TOC level events. By doing so we would encourage manufacturers to make lighter stuff and I would not have to buy and tow a trailer to contests! Hows about 22 lb (10 Kg)? I think there is an event in Europe called FAI X where that limit is used so the target weight similarities would encourage manufacturers even more. I DON'T WANT A TRAILER!

Bob G

(in reply to dick Hanson)
       Post #: 32

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/20/2005 7:50:40 PM   
Steve Campbell


 

Posts: 4195
Joined: 12/8/2001
From: Zachary, LA, USA
Status: offline 		Bob, your thoughts echo mine precisely. I will probably enter a contest or two, just to say I did it. But the knowledge that one must have a huge plane to be competitive at most upper levels has effectively killed any real interest I may have had.

I don't want no steenkin' trailer either. This is my hobby; if it becomes too much work, then I'll lose interest. That is what killed my interest in competitve shooting. I knew I HAD to practice at least twice a week to stay competitive. It got to the point where I had to drag myself to the range. And then one day, as I was loading the gear into the car, a kid down the block was taxiing an Eagle up and down the street in front of his house. I walked down there to check it out... and a week later I had a Royal 40T ready to fly. I lingered on in the shooting game for a couple of years, but by the end of 1991 I was done with it.

My flying buddy got a trailer. Half the time he leaves it at home, and throws his Funtana 90 into his truck. That tells me something. Besides, I'm working out of a spare bedroom. The quarter-scale models are too big for my bench; I have to use the kitchen table to work on them. I intend to get a 30% plane down the road, and have no clue how I'll work on it. But that's it. Any bigger than that is simply not in the cards for me.

Yes, yes, I know that any problem can be worked around. But that's just it; I don't WANT to have to solve any more problems than necessary. And I don't want to have to buy a van.

Anyway, I intend to go to a contest or two for cheap thrills. Come to think of it, they WON'T be cheap... You know what I meant.

But become a serious competitor? Highly unlikely...

(in reply to drbebob)
       Post #: 33

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/20/2005 8:58:19 PM   
why_fly_high


 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Guthrie, OK, USA
Status: offline 		I don't want to get into the "You gotta have a big plane to be competitive" thing. It has been beat to death. But when you talk about size limits you have to remember that all you will be doing is excluding another group. Now the guys with the smaller planes feel excluded. If you set size limits you will be excluding a large group of guys that already have big planes. I promise you that a HUGE portion of the 35-40% planes sold don't go to IMAC contests. There are a lot of people that have these planes that can be attracted to IMAC because they can fly the plane they already like and have, as compared to pattern.

Just my thoughts,

Dan

_____________________________

What size tank do you have in that thing?

(in reply to Steve Campbell)
       Post #: 34

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/21/2005 2:35:15 AM   
koelling


 

Posts: 24
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Powell, OH, USA
Status: offline 		2006 Unlimited Proposals (3) are posted on the IMAC website now!
www.mini-iac.com
members only section

(in reply to 3D Joy)
       Post #: 35

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 10/21/2005 2:59:45 PM   
Steve Campbell


 

Posts: 4195
Joined: 12/8/2001
From: Zachary, LA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: why_fly_high

But when you talk about size limits you have to remember that all you will be doing is excluding another group. Now the guys with the smaller planes feel excluded. If you set size limits you will be excluding a large group of guys that already have big planes.
Dan



Good point. And to be totally objective, I suspect the playing field in the Basic class IS pretty level. I see where they have some anti-sandbagging provisions in place. That's always good.

Ah, well. We'll give it a shot and see what happens...

(in reply to why_fly_high)
       Post #: 36

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/8/2005 8:39:09 PM   
DrFun



Posts: 632
Joined: 7/7/2003
From: Breinigsville, PA, USA
Status: offline 		2006 IMAC known schedules are available at www.mini-iac.com

_____________________________

Former RCU Id: Cobra78

(in reply to Steve Campbell)
       Post #: 37

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/9/2005 2:38:09 AM   
rcblimppro



Posts: 514
Joined: 2/9/2003
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I have thought more than once that if the Mini-Mac Idea was updated it may give some the avenue they are looking for to take the jump into IMAC. I would say wingspans up to 78", engines up to 1.5 ci, and weight of 13lbs. There are literally hundreds of combinations available that would fit those specs. If this was to get off the ground one could have a competitive airplane for a grand.



Shawn

(in reply to drbebob)
       Post #: 38

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/9/2005 12:54:17 PM   
dick Hanson



Posts: 10035
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: slc, UT, USA
Status: offline 		The current patterns are designed for a large plane -flown in a large footprint - make no mistake about it .
This is what drives the need for larger models
The time used for flying any sequence with a smaller model , compresses with the size of the footprint.
Plainly -a smaller model is at a disadvantage right from the start.
My comments on large models were made because the smaller ones are effectively, non competitive in upper classes
A really good flyer can fly the Unlimited with a 33% model.
But you must have enough power to open up the box to regain the TIME advantage the large models enjoy.
The model then looks very small -so again - a disadvantage.
To ignore this situation is to ignore the obvious.
The local events feed the regional events which feed the national events .
At the local level ,