wobblewobble

I am not sure what to start competing in. Which one is the best to start competing in?

aussiesteve

Ford / Chev

It really is a question that can't be answered for you by others.

Both disciplines tend to have a great bunch of people who will help out a beginner. both require "Thumbskills" Both are fun to do.


What sorts of planes do you prefer to fly?
What sort of flying do you prefer?
Do you prefer to fly fast or slow?
Do you prefer to land fast or slow?

My opinion is that IMAC is easier than F3A at beginner level because the "normal" IMAC styles of planes (Extras, Yaks etc) tend to give the pilot the feeling of flyig slower and are less "slippery" in the air. Typical F3A planes tend to be more slippery.


However
Both disciplines will usually encourage people to fly whatever they have in the lower classes so why not give both a try a few times and see which you prefer.

underdw

My Feedback: (2)

I'd suggest going with the disciple you can find the best mentor(s)/friends with.
I fly both and my protege' has tried both. He prefers pattern at the entry level because the sequence is easier:
You get sequence breaks and there is no spin.

highfly3D

F3A is a difficult & challenging in comparison to IMAC. I dont understand why people compare F3A & IMAC. I would always go with F3A all the time..

stuntflyr

I liked Pattern this year. It was my first year, I chose pattern because I like the smooth presentation and flowing sequences. IMAC reminds me of IAC, full sized aerobatics which I had competed in before, more power, more frenetic sequences, more snap rolls.
I started with a Kaos powered by an OS 46 and ended the season with an electric Osiris which I really, really like.
Chris...

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

I agree that you really have to make the decision for yourself. Both disciplines have merits for sure. In my opinion, pattern helps you be a better IMAC pilot. Some of the greatest IMAC guys I know started in pattern aka Rick Byrd, Andrew Jesky, etc. I am not advocating that the only way to be a good IMAC pilot is to fly pattern but I do believe that pattern gives you the fundamental skills to be a great IMAC pilot.

There's a saying I heard not too long ago...."If you want to be a great pilot, fly pattern. If you want the limelight, fly IMAC". I'm not so sure I agree with that 100% but the first part of the statement rings true for me. Pattern teaches you how to fly the plane so the plane does not fly you. It takes a set of skills to fly at the upper levels of IMAC that are certainly taught through every stage of pattern. Pattern takes dedication and pattern is rather boring to watch if you don't understand what the pilot is trying to achieve. When you do understand, you will develop a deep appreciation for those that do it. IMAC is incredible to watch and can be just as demanding. I say try out each and take it from there. I do believe that, in order to be successful on a regular basis in either discipline, that you have to eventually choose which facet to fly.

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

kenh3497

Some areas of the country are an IMAC desert. I was considering IMAC because I like the scaleish aircraft. To my knowledge there is only one IMAC member "close" to me..... if you can call 150 miles close. Go to the IMAC web site and click on the member button. All members are listed there and you can see who might be close to you.

MTK

I fly both styles and compete in Pattern. For pure precision a Pattern thoroughbred model can't be beat. In my opinion it requires terrific skills to fly Pattern well and score well.......BUT, don't expect one of these thoroughbred models to fly in a 3D mode

For agile, 3D, gyratory and flippy style of flight, the IMAc plane is hard to beat. A purpose built, precision IMAC plane is almost a contadiction in terms. There are very few, if any, on the market with that capability.

So, it depends on what you want to do with your competition time and dollar......

wobblewobble

Thanks for the info. I only have sport type planes at the moment. I guess I will try both a basic imac sequence and pattern sequence to see what I like.

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

Wobble x2,

Like someone already mentioned, the greatest thing is that in the lower classes, you can fly your sport plane no problem.  At a pattern contest in Houston I watched a guy take a 4x% Sbach 352 and do quite well in the Sportsman class.  Just fly what you brung!

corch

My Feedback: (1)

Wobble, not sure where in IL you live, but there are 2 pattern events in the Chicago area, and 1 in the peoria area last year and I think 1 or 2 in MO.  A lot of the Chicago guys come to some District 4 contests (Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, KY)

check out http://www.nsrca.us/ for more information....

Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

I fly pattern but fly with a few talented IMAC pilots, and watch them and talk to them a lot. I have a Yak and am interested in trying some IMAC sequences next year, but will stick with pattern as my primary focus.

Totally up to you what you want to do - maybe find some videos to watch online? Pattern seems more graceful, more fluid, more precise. IMAC has a LOT of snap rolls and less emphasis on when/where a maneuver starts and ends.

I am not an expert, just flying pattern since I started flying planes 3-4 years ago, but these are some of my thoughts:

One thing I notice is that IMAC uses a lot more ARESTI than pattern:
In pattern, maneuvers are called out by names - "top hat with 1/4 rolls" "cobra with half rolls" "Humpty push-pull-pull (from inverted)" 3 maneuvers
In IMAC, the maneuvers are called out as segments - "pull to 45 degrees, one and a half positive snap. Push 5/8 loop..." part of one maneuver

Pattern planes fly GREAT. Very straight and precise. Scale aerobats (to me) are a lot more 'twitchy' and ready to spin/snap/roll in any direction at any time.


It is great that you are interested in either, or both! It adds a new level to flying - challenge and practice, and will make you a much, much better pilot.

So stay up on using your rudder

bjr_93tz

At the end of the day, there's no massive difference between the two. You'll get out of it what you put into it although it seems with IMAC you might get a little more out of it in the pocket side.

Apart from a bottle of wine (and a trophy), I've never received anything substantial out of pattern, it's all been money out of my pocket. IMAC seemed to get a bit more sponsor support with prizes and goodies handed out.

Find what's most popular in your area and if they're a good bunch of guys then you'll enjoy yourself, be it Pattern or IMAC. Also with IMAC at the higher levels the planes get bigger and more expensive, at least with pattern if you want to fly in the higher classes the equipment just gets more expensive but stays the same size

KLXMASTER14

Flying IMAC makes you appreciate your pattern plane all the more.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

My opinion is that IMAC is easier than F3A at beginner level because the "normal" IMAC styles of planes (Extras, Yaks etc) tend to give the pilot the feeling of flyig slower and are less "slippery" in the air.

F3A is a difficult & challenging in comparison to IMAC.

For agile, 3D, gyratory and flippy style of flight, the IMAc plane is hard to beat. A purpose built, precision IMAC plane is almost a contadiction in terms. There are very few, if any, on the market with that capability.

In IMAC, the maneuvers are called out as segments - "pull to 45 degrees, one and a half positive snap. Push 5/8 loop..." part of one maneuver

Pattern planes fly GREAT. Very straight and precise. Scale aerobats (to me) are a lot more 'twitchy' and ready to spin/snap/roll in any direction at any time.

Flying IMAC makes you appreciate your pattern plane all the more.

For the guys who have made these statemants, have you actually competed in an IMAC contest?


As far as choosing one over the other I would ask a few questions.


Do you have a way to transport a 50cc or larger airplane?

Do you prefer to run electric or gasoline?

Do you perfer a scale airplane or not?

In your district, are there more pattern or IMAC contests.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

There was a time when several popular "IMAC" offerings were more pattern-like than anything that I am aware of these days. The 37% Godfrey Extra 300 and the Aeroworks Extra 300 come to mind. If I remember right, the Aeroworks was 40% scale size. On a much smaller scale, Dick Hanson's DHModelsExcess was an extremely good flyer, and was (barely) "IMAC Legal" (met the AMA Scale Aerobatics rules) and was also "Pattern legal".Basically,it was the thinnest Extra 300 you've ever seen.In all of these examples, you saw the obvious reasons for why the models flew with greater precision than the rest in their class - mainly because they were stretched to the limit in length, and had proper attention to the placement of the wing and stab. There wasendless controversy about the "IMAC Legality"of the Excess and often, the other two I mentioned.

The Aeroworks and Godfrey were still capable of 3D, because they had oversized control surfaces, but not to the absurd extremes that you see now. It seems a shame that so much emphasis is placed on a $7,000 model that can flop around like a dying fish, when it sacrifices so much in precision. It's especially odd, since only a small percentage of pilots in Scale Aerobatics contests actually compete in Freestyle as compared to sequence flying. Anyway, I still have a 40% Carden Extra 330 that Ibuilt in 2001 - 2002, which performs well for sequence flying, mainly because it has the CG moved forward more than normal to help it lock. It's still capable of 3D, although it isn't as dramatic when set up forprecision flying. There was a time when I flew it with a more conventional "IMAC" setup and it would flop with the best of them. That and a$1.35 gets me a cup of coffeein the cafeteria at work..

As a side note, I always enjoyed the way the Lockharts used to make smoke emerge from the ears of a few hardcore IMAC types around here when they showed up with the Excess. I guess the best thing I ever witnessed as aScaleAerobaticscompetitor was when Dave won freestyle with a J3 Cub. Go figure.

Some survey responses:

Iuse a Dodge Grand Caravan to transport the 40% Extra.

There are roughly the same number of contests around here in the two events. Fewer venues areavailable to IMAC contestsin the NE (you are now required to call it an "IMAC"contest). Some locations were lost because the behavior of a few knotheads caused angry responses from neighbors,and they werebooted for all time. In other cases, clubs won't have them anymore, either because of noise and safety concerns being too great a risk for the security of THEIR field(asis the case with a club that I belong to, which once formed the nucleus of IMAC in the NE).In another case, IMAC contests are no longer welcome because the club never got their contest proceeds from the CD. Again, go figure.

MTK

A bunch of years ago, yes I did....It was far simpler to actually fly the IMAC sequence as I recall (Sportsman I think) than the Pattern schedule I flew in Pattern. The IMAC plane I flew was a 1/3 scale Extra from H9 and it was a pig in comparison to my Pattern models. Also flew a 27% Extra with a Moki 180 at one time but that was the piggiest of pigs

Until last week I've been flying an EF 78" Extra in precision flying. It flew poorly compared to my Pattern models but was a lot of fun nontheless, with a piped DLE55 up front, turning a 20x12 3 blader. Powerwise, the best combo I have even put together. Alas, I had radio failure and I lost this fun fly plane

MTK

Yes I do...Ive owned grand caravans for 25 yeras and these easily transported the 1/3 scale bird. My biggest issue with the 1/3 scale plane tho, was indeed transportation and storage. They are heavy and take up too much room. It was a PITA to haul the thing in and out of the van...... and a worse PITA to store it in my limited available room in the work shop. Not much room for my other planes

Love the gas engines, from the 26cc in my grandson's truck to my BME106 in the Extra. A piece of baklava to start, feed and maintain. Don't care too much for the electrics large stuff, but small stuff is fine

There are no scale airplanes that catch my eye....maybe the color scemes are poor or the shapes just don't appeal to me. Most likely I dismiss them becasue they fly precision stuff (which is what I love) rather poorly. But I use them as test beds for pattern components all the time.

KLXMASTER14

The key to successful IMAC precision is to set up the throws, CG, trimming etc LIKE A PATTERN PLANE. Extreme throws are great for doing flip-flops and whirly-twirlies, but trying to fly precisely with such a set-up says one thing- POSER! You need only high enough rates to snap and spin cleanly, otherwise, dial it down.

That being said, it is true an IMAC plane will never fly as well as a real pattern plane.

mithrandir

My Feedback: (2)

if you have good eyesight... go pattern...

if your eyes are over 40 years old... easier to see IMAC....

lol

cmoulder

Or get good glasses!!

I finally relented and got some very good prescription Ray-Bans with progressive lenses, specifically for flying. The upper part of the lenses was prescribed with a larger lens area for distance vision, and it has made pattern flying much easier simply because I can see what the heck the plane is doing with regard to wings level, track relative to the flight line, etc...

If you can't see the model, you can't fly it no matter how big it may be!

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I would have to say no. An IMAC airplane is required to have an outline that deviates from the full scale airplane no more then 10%. We shouldn't open that can of worms as I have never seen any airplane checked but in general it needs to be recognisable. The problem is that full scale aerobats don't really fly all that well by our standards. They have alot of control cross coupling. The reason for this is the layout of the airplane, the layout is determined mostly by the fact that a pilot is housed in the airplane right where a wing spar should be optimum wing placement. There are a few other things but this is the biggie. A well dialed in IMAC airplane can be quite precise. In August of 2010 I won a pattern contest flying my IMAC airplane. It was very dialed in and I had been flying it for almost 2 years at that point.


Matt. I'm a little surprised by your comments. Obviously you are more pattern oriented then IMAC but I had hoped that you would be comparing apples to apples. To me it looks like you were comparing sport aerobatic airplanes to top level pattern airplanes. The two examples of IMAC airplanes you gave are pretty much bottom of the line. The Extreme Flight 300 is a bit better but still not up to snuff as a competitive IMAC airplane. Had you flown and well equipped and dialed in Carden, Dalton, CA, Comp ARF, Godfrey or Older Aeroworks kit 300L I think your impressions may be different. The other thing that I have a difficult time wrapping my head around is you saying that the IMAC sportsman sequence is less difficult to fly ( With an airplane that flew like a pig ) then the pattern sportsman sequence. The main reason for my last post though was the comments that there is less criteria for precision in IMAC then for pattern. IMO this is just not true. True IMAC has done away with the box but that has been replaced with the airspace utilization score. Center manuvers are downgraded for not being centered, rolls are supposed to be centered on thier lines, radii are supposed to be the same throughout a manuever. Take this example. Say we have a reverse sharks tooth ( Yes in IMAC each manuver does have a name ) with a 1/4 roll followed by an opposite direction 1 3/4 positive snap, pull to the downline, 2 of 4 point roll, push to invert level. How can all that be maintained on it's perspective lines and all rolling elements be centered without a good degree of precision? Now I will admit that to most observing IMAC can draw the same conclusion as you did. I contribute this to the fact that in the upper levels ( Advanced and Unlimited ) it can look that way just because it is quicker paced with alot less hesitation between manuvers and elements.

stuntflyr

Do you fly in Illinois a lot?
Chris...

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

Whichever discipline you choose. A word of advice...don't ever volunteer to be Event Director at the NATS...

Arch

nonstoprc

My Feedback: (90)

Here are some additional factors to consider

1. Planes in high IMAC classes cost much more than the high-class pattern ones. For entry classes, the cost probably is the same;
2. IMAC planes require more time to setup at the field;
3. IMAC planes are bigger and you need a big car/truck;

I have done both and my preference is to just fly the pattern.