ORIGINAL: speedracerntrixie


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.