Hi guys,
Just wondering about the differences between IMAC and Pattern and what draws you to this. I love aerobatics and fly pattern. I love the way my pattern plane flies, and I do like to watch the large scale planes but have thought that I could never afford it. Is IMAC more for the rich guys? I've heard that you guys have more competitions. Tell me why I should fly IMAC.
Thanks,
Steve

Steve,
Look at my new post on "IMAC too expensive". We have three pattern and three IMAC contests within 100 mile of Detroit. To keep costs down, I now fly the same plane, 60" Giles 202, in both pattern and IMAC. I call it no stress competition, but a lot of fun. That is okay for the basic (sportsman in pattern) classes, but not for the higher classes. A competitive pattern plane is going to cost you 1200 plus dollars, a competitive IMAC plane at least twice that, if not more.
Richard

It has been argued many times, but here are some realities for me. I have been flying RC for a number of years, mainly Thermal Duration sailplanes.

I went to a local IMAC contest, Westerville Ohio, this May, and decided I wanted to try it. I bought a used 25 percent Lanier Edge 540 from someone I knew(500$ just add rx and fly!), and began to practice.

I ended up flying in two contest at the end of the season, in Basic. I didnt come in last place, which was my sole goal for this year. During the contests and meeting people, I have seen less $$ planes doing well.

Sure, I am not going to argue that big planes fly better. I am not going to argue that bigger planes present better to the judges also.

I will say that you can be competitive with a smaller, less expensive plane.

I have a 31% CA Extra ARC that will be my main plane next year. It is probably going to set me back around 2200 bucks, when it is all said and done.

If I decide to step out of Basic, and face Unknowns, I will always have a backup airplane if they are too "Hairy" to risk my more expensive one, and remember a ZERO costs nothing. Save the plane at all costs vs. some points. The competition thing is fun, but even more so is just hanging out flying with a bunch of NUTs who love airplanes and flying, is equally rewarding.

Then again, the scary factor can be reduced by dillignet practice. Not just the standard routine, but as many maneuvers in the same class that you may get hit with in unknowns. I am looking foward to getting out of BASIC but I am not going to rush it, and have fun in the process. Cant wait til next season!

Just wanted to add another viewpoint.

Chip

Steve,
I fly in both types of contest, write in pattern, have covered an IMAC nationals, flown in two of them, competed in 12 pattern Nat's, judged AMA, FAI and IMAC, with a judging session at the Don Lowe Masters this year, so I might just have an opinion on your question. :-) (VBG)

I think that the differences are very few if you think in terms of aerobatic schedules. They seem greater when you look at the equipment but that is the result of two different design demands. Scale aerobatics, usually called IMAC have planes that have to look like scale aerobatics planes. Precision aerobatics, usually called pattern, have planes that can look any way they want but must not be bigger than 2 meters (78-5/8") or heavier than 5Kg (11 lb).

Entry level planes for both are now very much available at prices that are very reasonable.

The contests feel the same when you compete. The judging has the same ups and downs in both. The skill levels are very much the same. Interestingly enough, the top guys in both types of aerobatics are the same guys.

IMAC has a freestyle component that allows 3-D maneuvers to be flown and enjoyed. International Pattern has Artistic Aerobatics (FG1) but it has not caught on here yet and may never do so.

I advise anyone who wants to fly IMAC to fly it and the same for pattern. You develop skills flying either type that just don't or won't come to you when sport flying. Once you get into aerobatics you can experience crossover to your hearts content. Fly either or both.

The only bias that I really have is that I like the quieter planes.

Eric.

Take a look at this link!
http://www.geistware.com/rcmodeling/aerobatics/

I started in Pattern, but have long been attracted to IMAC, and this past season did both. There's pretty much no difference in the maneuvers, and in the entry classes you can use a pattern or IMAC model both ways and come out OK. Once you move up beyond Pattern Sportsman and IMAC Basic you have to abide by the rules concerning size and scale, but even so some designs can be competitive both ways; Yaks, Giles, etc. can meet the size constraints of Pattern and the scale constraints of IMAC.

I have not tried anything beyond 1/4 scale glow in IMAC, but will build a couple 78-80" gassers in the 50 cc class in the next year or two. My main problem with 1/3 scale is the inconvenience of storing and transporting the model--plus the expense of bigger engine, bigger servos, etc. I'm serious about my flying, but not fixated on winning or even finishing in the money, so that helps me resist the temptation to always be moving up to a bigger plane. Plus I prefer to build rather than ARF, and building 1/3 scale presents challenges to my building space.

I will say that there are many smaller (.60 size) pattern models that fly beautifully--make me look better than I am--than is the case with smaller IMAC models. A 72" ws IMAC plane I find takes a lot more concentration to fly as well as a smaller pattern model...at least in my experience. I'd love to find a smaller (not so expensive) CAP or Extra that flies as well as a Venus or Javelin.

No difference in the maneuvers? The piloting skills are similar, but that is as far as it goes.

Actually, there are big differences in the sequences being flown. First, Pattern changes its sequences once every rule change. Now that the AMA is on a 2 year rule sequence, they will change every two years, up until now, it has been every three years. IMAC changes its sequence every year.

Unlike Pattern, Scale Aerobatic sequences are made up of figures which are contained in the FAI Catalog. There is no such figures as a Top Hat, a Triangle Loop, a Bunt or other Pattern specific figures in the FAI Catalog. Scale Aerobatic sequences are made up solely from the Catalog. In Scale Aerobatics the K factors are all from the FAI Catalog. Pattern pilots fly the pattern sequence for the class they are in. SA pilots fly the SA sequence for their class, but (except basic) also get an unknown sequence which they have to fly for a score which they will never have flown before being judged. Flying the unknown was my biggest reason for moving up.

There is very little use of cross-box figures in Pattern, whereas there are cross-box figures in almost all Scale Aerobatic sequences, and they can be a significant part of the sequence.

One of the problems I've seen in SA involves the use of pattern judges. They generally use pattern judging criteria for SA and when asked about it, readily admit the practice and tell you its just fine for SA (if they don't incorrectly try to tell you they are the same). The scoring criteria are not the same. For example, Pattern uses 1 pt per 15 degree in heading error, while SA uses 1 pt per 10 degree heading error. (Full size uses 1 pt per 5 degrees) In Pattern they judge take offs and landings. SA does not.

If you view what Pattern and SA do and all you see is dancing in the sky, they might seem the same to a casual observer. But anyone who has flown in either and taken an interest in what they are doing really should be able to identify the differences easily. Polo and dressage both involve riding a horse, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

Although there are differences between pattern and SA, experience in one will help with the other. I've just seen too many pattern pilots come out to try SA and do well out of the box to believe differently.

Fly what you like, but don't believe anyone who says they are the same. BTW, the discipline is called Scale Aerobatics. The AMA Scale Aerobatic SIG is called IMAC. But the two words are not interchangable. It would be like arguing that !QUOT!baseball!QUOT! and !QUOT!Yankees!QUOT! means the same. Somehow, I don't think Red Soxs fans will react favorably to being asked if they would like to go to see a Yankee game.

I fly intermediate in Pattern and Sporstman in Imac and agree that yes, the schedules are not the same, but the skills required to fly them well are.
The comparison with Dressage and Polo is not valid. A fair comparison would be between Formula 1 and Indy Cars.

Both Pattern and Imac required disciple and lots of practice in order to succeed. A good Imac pilot can succeed in Patterna nd vice-versa. Just look to Jason, Chip, Quique, Sczur, Christophe for confirmation.

I fly in pattern as there is no Imac comps around me, but i would prefer to fly Imac as i like the scale looks of my katana or extra over any pattern plane any day.

So it only realy comes down to which type of plane you like to fly,and to how much you'd like to travel.Sure the manuvers are diferent but you will still get the same thing out of doing both. HEAPS OF FUN.

Fly IMAC dude... thats where pattern is gonna be in 10 years anyway!! LOL...
There is already starting to be a few Quasi-Scale pattern planes out there... and with a 10% rule, almost any SCALE plane can be Patternesqued. But.. just fly!!

I don't know that pattern will turn into IMAC but it sure seems to be heading in that direction. I will have to stick with pattern here in the Sacramento area since there isn't any IMAC in the area I know of. Honestly, I would like to fly both just because.

I fly for the fun and comradeship, I am not good enough to win and realize I probably never will be. No problem as long as it is fun.

Hey, just wondering if the bipe picture in your profile is a Midwest Super Stinker? It's hard to tell for sure from the small size of the picture, but it appears to be the same exact covering scheme I did when I built one about 5 or 6 years back. I eventually sold it to a guy near Cincinnati, OH. Had a Moki 1.8 in it. Any chance this is the same model?

Perhaps the dressage and polo analogy was not as close as formula 1 and indi cars, but I was reacting to a comment that there was no difference in the schedules. I agree, whether you perform a loop in scale aerobatics or pattern, it is the same skill. I wouldn't suddenly lose my ability to perform a loop just because I flew a pattern plane.

But I thought it was misleading to say there wasn't much difference in the "schedules." Of course, I call them sequences.