RE: 2006 Sequences?

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

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

30%Yak54 and DL50 combo - ARF
Seller: peakmodel
Details: $879.00 | 7/26/2008 | 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: 2006 Sequences?

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/13/2005 1:01:15 PM

babflyer

Posts: 286
Joined: 5/31/2005
From: , OH, USA
Status: offline

I was under the impression that 25-28% was what was being refered to as small, not 33%. Thats fine but I like my 33%and plan on getting a 35% hopefully. If I loose to a 40% in basic, sportsman, or intermediate I wont be blaming it on the fact that I need a 40%. It may help to have a 40 but not required. To me all that you have to do is look at a unlimited pilot that does fairly well and watch when they test fly someone elses 80" plane, they can do better with that than I can with my 33%ers, that should be the proof that skill is more important than size. As far as weight restrictions, that may drive the quality of the planes up for what size they are but cost would probably have to increase with better materials to build the planes. I agree with most of what PAF said, the biggest thing for me would be to make it more intertaining to those that arent hardcore into it. Maybe take the knowns for the year and make them monthly or every other month, something besides the same old one all year but then take away the pressure of the unkown in all but the top two levels, add freestyle to each class, not an overall freestyle. With the rc cars, its easier and more relaxed, thats why more people do it, not cost. IM just putting my thoughts out there for those that might be able to do anything about it. To come up with a way to make imac more fun for the masses would be the way to go I would think, not size restrictions. Many forms of recreation competition you can just go do. Rc cars, just go do it. Rc boats, just do it. Quad racing, just do it. You may not win by being able to just do it but you can get hooked. Imac on the other hand requires quite a bit of practice flying the sequence, reading up on rules, heck its darn near like learning a new language reading aresti. Just lots of work has to go into it if you are even thinking about competing. Like anything though once your into it and get decent then it gets fun so Im not saying imac isnt fun, just not a whole lot of it untill you have done it quite a bit, skills increased, knowledge of the way things work increases and meet new friends.

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)

Post #: 76

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/13/2005 1:19:23 PM

dick Hanson

Posts: 9930
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: slc, UT, USA
Status: offline

The 33%/35% are pretty good at doing all the tricks the 40% can do .
The only catch -for precision flying -is the time/size frame.

Let's say you have a combination of 3/4 roll and 3/4 snap -then an up line then pull/push to another maneuver.
Unless you do this all in a tight sequence - the model gets out there pretty fast.
Now the size gets to be an issue -it is harder to see it (judges in particular.)
A really light well powered model can be flown more slowly and with the right skill level - held in and look good.
But the old bugaboo size difference give the advantage to the bigger model -
more time and a larger playing field .
IF the maneuvers for -say Sportsman, Advanced or Intermediate , were designed around using a 33% model -flown in a more restricted airspace (remember the box?), the advantage of the 40% would be nullified.
Or to go to the extreme -held in a tighter box -a really large model would be at a disadvantage.
There are easy ways to control model size.
As long as model size is unlimited and airspace is unlimited the bigger model always has the edge.
If this were not so -why would the winners in Unlimited all fly about 40% or larger ?
So
Leave model size up to the flyer -all classes .
Simply reduce the box size for for lower classes AND design the maneuvers to "fit well" in this box.

< Message edited by dick Hanson -- 11/13/2005 1:28:45 PM >

_____________________________

I am watching you
Libby

(in reply to babflyer)

Post #: 77

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/13/2005 2:20:27 PM

exeter_acres

Posts: 6026
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: Johns Creek, GA, USA
Status: online

then it sounds like there is a judging issue and NOT an airplane issue and more focus needs to be put on judges training

also.... free beer would attract more pilots

_____________________________

This plane has no limits as to performance with this engine except vertical,..

(in reply to dick Hanson)

Post #: 78

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/13/2005 5:05:14 PM

PaulBK

Posts: 131
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: corona, CA, USA
Status: offline

from what i have seen at recent contests, classes sp through unlimited are populated with 33% and larger aircraft. so the problem seems to be with basic, and the easiest answer is probably to eliminate the class, as has been done at other contests. that eliminates the CD headache of enforcing limits of any kind, while demonstrating sensitivity to the issue. imac has had four classes for most of its existence, this would simply return to that format.

or imac can bring back engine cc limits (they were there before, btw) and instead of excluding some airplanes over a certain size, exclude all airplanes over a cetain size. that would level the playing field, and guys could stop worrying about having to get a new airplane as they moved up.

frankly, i would like to see some evidence that limits could be effective - all it takes is for someoone to create limits for their contest(s) and report back the findings. we know that mini mac failed - could we attract more 25% airplanes if we assured their pilots that anything larger would have a mandatory class assignment? again, i think it is important to demonstrate sensitivity to the issue - and many things can be tried.

as phaedrus stated the issue is moot until the next rules cycles, which give everyone a couple of years to experiment and be ready when the next round of proposals come up.

(in reply to exeter_acres)

Post #: 79

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/13/2005 5:08:32 PM

PaulBK

Posts: 131
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: corona, CA, USA
Status: offline

<<Simply reduce the box size for for lower classes AND design the maneuvers to "fit well" in this box.>>

Great idea, Dick, I would love to read how this could be done, especially the enforcement of the box size for the lower classes.

(in reply to PaulBK)

Post #: 80

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/13/2005 5:27:36 PM

dick Hanson

Posts: 9930
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: slc, UT, USA
Status: offline

Yeh - not easy -
The box thing was regularly busted by the guys who won -and there was a lot of pressure to go as big as possible
The big planes flying way out ala TOC contest looks kool.
Ultimately the box was effectively discarded --which gave the big planes a REALLY BIG advantage .
Judging issues are real - The judges should understand the flight sequences better than the fliers.
Real world- a well performed error sometimes gets high scores. ( reversed rolls etc..)
The allowable box size really causes problems for some judges.
Tho I am really all for smaller box and NO stacked maneuvers (very high or deep on ends) The guys who are now writing the schedules don't see these as a problem.
They work well with unlimited airspace and big models.
That appears to be the criteria for all schedules .
I am not knocking these guys -writing schedules takes a lot of work and time and it ain't even at Federal MinimumPay--.
I do know however - schedules can be done which are challanging yet easier to judge -if they are written to be flown in a smaller box. (a box)
Just a thought -----

< Message edited by dick Hanson -- 11/13/2005 5:32:34 PM >

_____________________________

I am watching you
Libby

(in reply to PaulBK)

Post #: 81

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/13/2005 5:36:26 PM

rcblimppro

Posts: 514
Joined: 2/9/2003
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Status: offline

While Dick has some very good points, I still think that the format works as is. In every avenue of R/C I have participated in the sport evolved. You simply just can't fight it. Look at what Q500 has become. It started out with all balsa/ply models with a K&B 40. These were pretty fast at around 100 mph. Now look at it, nelson racing engines and composite airframes with a price tag 5 times higher. Sailplanes, Used to be the same with an all balsa polyhidral wing usually 3 cannels. Look at them now. Composite airframes as well, computer generated airfoils. Last time I checked a good F3B sailplane cost from $800 to $1200. Bottom line is that the participants of IMAC have made the sport what it has become. When I talk to people interested in IMAC I tell them that in basic I would start with a good 80" to 85" airplane, set it up well with good reliable equipment. I suggest a gas engine because of the amout of time practicing the cost savings is there. That airplane should last them their first two seasons. One season in basic and their first season in sportsman. By then they can decideif they enjoy the sport enough to invest in a 35% airplane that would last them up to the advanced class. Even that isn't all that nesessary as all season long I was getting beaten in advanced with 33% and 35% airplanes while I was flying my 40%.

Shawn

(in reply to PaulBK)

Post #: 82

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/13/2005 6:25:41 PM

RC_Pattern_Flyer

Posts: 489
Joined: 8/6/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

I have to agree that larger planes c=score an present better. i flew in one IMAC contest this season and placed 3rd with a 76 in 28 % Texas Hurricane. Model flies well, smooth but with 20 mph + winds it was a handful. Others with larger aircraft handled the situation better and were able beat me. Funny thing is i landed with ease while they struggled at times. Kinda funny really. Anyways.. i have been looking for a steal of a deal on a larger plane to be able to compete on a ore level plane (plain) playing field.

So..i will stick with pattern, with a 2m wooden roach, a little os 160 and be competitive leaving flying skills to determine the outcome. If that steal comes along, watch out IMAC, i ok forward to competeing eventually with you guys.

_____________________________

Mark Hunt Designs

(in reply to rcblimppro)

Post #: 83

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/14/2005 3:40:57 AM

toprudder

Posts: 167
Joined: 10/4/2005
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcblimppro
When I talk to people interested in IMAC I tell them that in basic I would start with a good 80" to 85" airplane, set it up well with good reliable equipment. I suggest a gas engine because of the amout of time practicing the cost savings is there. That airplane should last them their first two seasons. One season in basic and their first season in sportsman. By then they can decideif they enjoy the sport enough to invest in a 35% airplane that would last them up to the advanced class.

Sounds like a plan to me!!

I competed heavily in pattern from '91 to '96, and then took a few years off from flying, for various reasons. I just dusted off my old pattern plane (Finesse w/ YS 1.20) and have flown it a few times, hope to fly it competitively next year. However, there are a few guys in my club that fly the big stuff, and I've always liked the idea of flying scale airplanes.

Against the recommendations of everyone in '91, I flew a Cap 21 in pattern for two years. I knew a pattern plane would fly better, I just liked seeing a real looking airplane doing the maneuvers. But, I had to practice A LOT to do well. I burned over 40 gallons of fuel one year, in that one plane. When I decided I liked pattern, I ended up with a Runaround (a Dick Hanson design, BTW

) That is when all the practice really paid off.

So, the suggestion of a smaller plane to get started in IMAC, to 'test the waters' is a good suggestion. I had already decided that I would either dust off my old Cap 21, or get a 50cc gas burner. The gas burner I figure will set me back about $1500 by the time I get all the stuff I need. I'll probably go the 50cc route, I like the idea of lower fuel costs! Besides, the Cap is the only plane I have never crashed and I would like to keep it that way!

No matter what kind of competition there is, it will always evolve into something that costs money. If anything gives an advantage (either real or perceived) it will become mandatory in peoples minds. Then, people start to come up with ideas for how to fix the problem. It has happened in pattern. Interestingly enough, I think it is as inexpensive as ever to get into pattern, with some of the low-cost ARFs that are available along with the end of the engine displacement rule. A weight and size limit are the main restrictions on the model now. Interestingly, there has been some discussion about relaxing the weight/size limits to get more people to fly pattern. Hmmmm.

I believe people with a competitive spirit will find an avenue to participate, be it pattern, IMAC, pylon, whatever. And some of those will figure out it is not necessarily how much money you spend, it is how much you practice and prepare. Yes, there are some things that will give them an advantage. The serious ones will get all the equipment they feel will give them an advantage. The smart ones will figure out what they really need.

Bob R.

(in reply to rcblimppro)

Post #: 84

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/14/2005 12:52:34 PM

Dean Bird

Posts: 431
Joined: 5/4/2003
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaulBK

from what i have seen at recent contests, classes sp through unlimited are populated with 33% and larger aircraft. so the problem seems to be with basic, and the easiest answer is probably to eliminate the class, as has been done at other contests. that eliminates the CD headache of enforcing limits of any kind, while demonstrating sensitivity to the issue. imac has had four classes for most of its existence, this would simply return to that format.

Eliminate the Basic class. Yikes!!

Paul, I appreciate your involvement several years ago to promote scale aerobatics in the Southwest. I benefitted greatly from those efforts. But I currently view you as another person trying to identify problems in a segment of the hobby that you don't participate in. I flew in 8 of the 9 largest contests held in the Southwest this year. I didn't see any problem with the Basic class. The classes were large, the pilots were good, and usually did a better job of being in the air and ready to be judged than the Unlimited guys. The class was won by the pilot with the most skills.

Looking for ways to improve is always a good thing. That's been the motivation for sequence committees, national Unknowns, judges training, etc. Things just continue to improve in this segment of the hobby. We're having more contests, with more pilots, that are run better, that have trained judges, and have great sponsor support. Talk about improvements!!!

If those non-participants would like to help increase particpation, stop trying to highlight what you think are the problems with a segment of the hobby you don't participate in. If I were to listen to Dick, I would never have started flying scale aerobatics. I was told I had to be intimidated if I wasn't flying a 40% airplane, and even if I had one I was going to get beat by a sandbagger that the rules hadn't taken care of. The guys that are participating have continued to let those considering trying scale aerobatics that all of that is BS.

Is scale aerobatics challenging.... you bet. Rewarding... you bet. If the non-participants want to increase participation, I would suggest the aresti2004 approach. Point them to the rescources on the IMAC website that teaches them how to read aresti and how they'll be judged. Encourage them to attend judges training that is offered so they'll understand how they're going to be judged. Encourage them to attend the events that are specifically tailored to help the beginning pilots. There is already a Basic/Sportsman workshop scheduled in December and a possible Basic/Sportsman contest in January.

http://www.mini-iac.com/EditModule.aspx?tabid=191&mid=502&def=News%20Article%20View&ItemId=242

Let them know that not having a caller is OK. There are going to be lots of guys at the contest willling to help. Let them know that they'll have lots of contest pilots and airplanes that they can look at and ask questions about on their set-ups. Let them know that they'll often get feedback from judges after a round if the judge consistently sees the same mistake. Let them know that often a pilot will try to help them with a particular maneuver their struggling with, even though they may end up beating the pilot that just helped them.

I'll say it again. So much positive going on!!!

Take care,

Dean Bird
2005 Tucson Shootout Intermediate Class Champion
2005 IMAC Southwest Region Intermediate Class Champion

_____________________________

www.Smart-Fly.com
www.TroyBuiltModels.com

(in reply to PaulBK)

Post #: 85

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/14/2005 2:25:53 PM

dick Hanson

Posts: 9930
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: slc, UT, USA
Status: offline

I better change my writing style
Apparently you completely misconstrued my comments.

_____________________________

I am watching you
Libby

(in reply to Dean Bird)

Post #: 86

RE: 2006 Sequences? - 11/14/2005 3:02:21 PM

toprudder

Posts: 167
Joined: 10/4/2005
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dean Bird
.... But I currently view you as another person trying to identify problems in a segment of the hobby that you don't participate in. I flew in 8 of the 9 largest contests held in the Southwest this year. I didn't see any problem with the Basic class. The classes were large, the pilots were good, and usually did a better job of being in the air and ready to be judged than the Unlimited guys. The class was won by the pilot with the most skills.

Looking for ways to improve is always a good thing. That's been the motivation for sequence committees, national Unknowns, judges training, etc. Things just continue to improve in this segment of the hobby. We're having more contests, with more pilots, that are run better, that have trained judges, and have great sponsor support. Talk about improvements!!!

If those non-participants would like to help increase particpation, stop trying to highlight what you think are the problems with a segment of the hobby you don't participate in. If I were to listen to Dick, I would never have started flying scale aerobatics. I was told I had to be intimidated if I wasn't flying a 40% airplane, and even if I had one I was going to get beat by a sandbagger that the rules hadn't taken care of. The guys that are participating have continued to let those considering trying scale aerobatics that all of that is BS.

Two groups of people - those that participate, and those that don't. It would make sense that the ones that are actively participating don't see as much of a problem as those that don't participate. Think about it. I don't think it is prudent to rule out someones opinion because they don't participate, especially if you want to get new blood in the sport, they are your target audience!!!

Of those that don't participate, you could break that down into two groups - those that have never participated, and those that have but left for whatever reason. These are two different viewpoints that should be explored. If each of these segments have common reasons for why they don't participate, then you should pay attention, IMHO.

It has been my experience that of those that have never flown competition, they will almost always have some reason, such as "too expensive" or "too elitest" etc. In most cases, they just are not interested, but feel compelled to give a reason other than "I'm just happy to bore holes in the sky". Nothing wrong with that.

For those that have flown competition, but gave it up, find out why. There is always going