[QUOTE] 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.[QUOTE/]

I think you are missing what we mean. We do NOT mean fly FAST. We mean doing things like avoiding numerous long level passes back and forth across the box. Avoiding the use of figures that take a long time to fly, like a full Cuban 8 and so on. Also, like it or not, IMAC is working hard to get people to tighten up their sequence footprint.

You are correct that proper staging is also critical, but each is a part of the whole. Last year the SCAT sequences flew much faster than the IMAC sequences did. This was a direct result of their design. I think you will see that the 2005 IMAC sequences share a lot of this design philosophy.

So you don't have to fly fast, just don't waste time.

At the request of the IMAC leadership I am removing the link I posted with the 2005 proposals on them. Theory is that this information is intended for members only. So send in your $20 so you can see the proposals!! Use Paypal, membership is immediate!!

I assumed that SCAT flew the same sequences that IMAC issued. I did not realize that the sequences were different.

Ryan

When will the final sequences be ready? I think they look cool and more scat-like. I really apreciate what little I am learning about this kind of flying. I can not log into the imac site on my mac. Maybe they want $20?
Thanks Bill for your involvment!

Joe

IMO

I’m not sure I understand the IMAC BOD sequence selection process and not sure why they try to keep the selection process limited to only a handful. The Known sequence is a piece of the IMAC world that will be flown and judged several hundred times throughout the year. Time and thought should be put into such an item that is so important to the IMAC flyers.

As for the sequences: I happen to know the guy that wrote the Sportsman seq B. The IMAC proposed and the submitted sequences were changed. The submitted seq had a 2-point roll on the output of fig#2 and had a full roll on the 1st and 3rd leg of the diamond. Why they decided to delete these elements I don’t know, but it sure took a lot out of the seq.

My big problem with some of the proposed sequences is the crossbox without a return crossbox. Example Intermediate Seq B.Fig #6. This humpty takes you out crossbox and exits back on a secondary x-axis that is moved out by the crossbox humpty. Now with no maneuver to bring you back into the primary X-axis line, the pilot has no choice but to fly the remainder of the sequence way out. IMO this is no way to design a sequence. For every crossbox maneuver there should be another to bring the pilot back in and exit on the primary X-axis line. This happens in Intermediate B, Advanced A and B.

As for illegal maneuvers. I know that the knowns are not held in the same criteria as the unknowns. But I think the Intermediate seq B fig#1 and the neg snaps on the 45 degree downlines is pushing the limit for legal maneuvers for Intermediate.

Again IMO

Wow... the intermediate proposals are very challenging. Havent had the weather here to give them a go on anything other than the simulator.... man, I am going to be burning a lot a fuel to get these to look good - dont really care for either one honestly, there is no real flow to them, especially proposal B, it starts you out low on engergy, and doesnt give you a chance to get it back until the middle of the pattern unless you want to spread out manuevers 2 and 4. Proposal A will have a much smaller footprint for sure. We'll see when I can get to them on the airplane. Sure seems like it gets harder every year... must just be me getting old.

Roger

My mac works fine. You do need to be a member to access the members only area where the proposals are currently posted. The intention is to have the final selection done by the end of the month.

I think that you find in actual use that this figure will allow you to adjust for wind drift. I am not certain about the piltos in your area, but out here it is the rare pilot that can keep his seuence EXACTLY on plane for the entire sequence. Plus, the top of a humpty can be very tight which will limit the y-axis displacement. Or if you need it you can fly a very large radius at the top.

The BoD determined that the negative snap on the 45 downline would be used in Intermediate this year.

The A proposal actually flows very well. It is in large part based on one of the Unknwons flown at the Tucson Shootout. None of the pilots complained about the flow. But to each his own.

I would agree that feedback should be limited to those people who are going to participate in the flying.

Wasn't Tucson where the Sportsman Unknown had three uplines before they had a downline to bring them back down to earth?

Indeed. Actually BOTH Sportsman Unknowns were fairly prooly constructed. But I was referring to the Intermediate sequences, since that is what the post I was repsonding to was talking about. 2005 Intermediate Proposal A is based on the Saturday Intermediate Unknown from the Shootout.

I don't understand why you would design a sequence to compensate for pilot error. A pilot that flies a good wind-corrected sequence will be penialized. A sequence should be drawn to provide good flow period. Let the pilot make the choice on where to try to hide mistakes.

So the BOD decided to allow neg snaps on 45 downlines for Intermediate but throwout a proposed Intermediate sequence because it had a 90 inside roller that had to be flown coming back in from a crossbox manuver.

I guess I did not make my point very well. Let's not call it pilot error, but rather reality. Also, a simple cross box Humpty is far and away NOT a figure that you have to let get away from you, as I pointed out earlier.

As to why the BoD accepted or rejected certain submittals, you will have to address that with them.

Missed this the first time. Of course you know that the direction shown on rollers in an Aresti diagram is irrelevant, right. The sequence you posted could have the roller flown inbound or outbound at the discretion of the pillot. In Aresti there is NO requirement for direction on y-axis figures. Inbound/outbound is entirely up to the pilot.

Flew the Interm, Advanced and Unlim stuff today.
Maybe I am easy but I liked them all..

So it's true, the Sportsman IS too tough!!!

I realize the direction on the aresti does not dictate the direction that has to be flown. But if you have a stick plane fly through the program and you make the decision on which way the roller has to be flown.

Either way works, so I don't follow you. If you started deeper or got blown out then fly it inbound. If you started close or got blown in, then fly it out bound.

I flew it at the Shootout. I quietly complained about it to my friends who were quick to tell me to quit whining, so I did. What good does it do to complain about something you cant conrtol? I was very unhappy with it and I thought it went too far - as an unknown - evidenced quite well by the loss of one CA 35% Yak - the pilot of which "got all mixed up". As a known at least guys can practice the sequence without the added pressure of judges and get competant at the manuevers before they have to fly them in front of people, and maybe only one or two airplanes will die in practice. But hey, I suffered through it as an unknown, I know I can live with it for a year.
Here is the "my own" part: I think its a mistake to do a 45 degree downline neg snap followed by and inverted to inverted roller in intermediate - its too much all at once, and I think they should be separated. I also agree with Duane, the pilot should hide his mistakes, not the sequence.

JMO, please dont take it personal. I'm done whining and ready to shut up and fly.

Roger

Personally I think the rolling 90 degree turn from inverted at the end of both of the Intermediate sequences to be over the line. Rolling turns are one of the more difficult maneuvers and very few pilots in advanced fly them well let alone trying to make Intermediate pilots, who're just getting used to the idea of being inverted more than at the top of an immelman.

Advanced is also too tough IMO. 340 K for 9 figures? I could see a K that high for 11 or 12, but 9 seems a bit compressed. Advanced B is too much into too few figures.

My only complaints about either of the unlimited sequences is they're so busy I think the ability to accurately judge them will suffer. Roughly 450 K for 10 figures is harder than most of the TOC unknowns in recent memory.

A few things here. I too thought both Sportsman unknowns were poorly designed with 3 upline manuvers before coming down. They were the two most ridiculous sequences I've flown to date. The stall turn (on the first) and loop (on the second) were so high you could not tell how well they were flown. I know thw judges had trouble as well. Looked to me like the judges had trouble no matter what the sequences were, but that is a different story.

I kind of like the Intermediate sequences proposed for 2005. Especially the outside snap on the inverted downline followed by the 90° roller from inverted. A little difficult but challenging for sure. Praticing these will make you a better pilot!

Ryan

The Yak was lost on Firday during the first Unknown. Not on Saturday when the Uknown that I am referring to was flown.

I looked at both unknows and the friday sportsman unknown forces you to keep your loops small to make the hight presentable. This works for me. If you keep your maneuvers big, then it will be an extremely high snap.

This is the point that I'm trying to make. The known sequence will be flown and judged hundred of times during the year. Why have a program that is difficult to present well unless you corrupt the geometry and why have a program that is difficult to judge unless you have top-notch experienced judges sitting in the chair. Time and effort should be made to provide a program that flows well during ideal conditions. Let the pilot take care of making corrections during unfavorable conditions.

Duane Cox