2006 Sequences?
10-08-2005 | 05:50 PM
#26
Senior Member
My Feedback: (34)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Virginia Beach,
VA
RE: 2006 Sequences?
Ryan,
I wrote up my own word document for the Sportsman sequence #2 since that is the sequence I like the most. No guarantees for the accuracy of the text, maybe someone with more experience can validate its accuracy or correct the errors.
Sportsman Known with Right-to-Left Wind
1. Inverted figure 9 with a 1 ½ positive spin on entry, (pull on the loop) exit inverted.
2. Pull to a 45° downline with a 2 pt. roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
3. Positive vertical upline with 2 of 4 pt. roll on the upline, push on exit.
4. Inverted, reverse shark’s tooth with 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
5. Vertical downline with a half roll on the downline, exit upright.
6. Hammerhead with a ¾ roll on the upline (roll to the right and stop with the canopy facing), 2 of 4 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the right), exit upright crossbox.
7. Humpty-Bump, 2 of 8 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the left to setup next figure), exit upright.
8. Half-Cuban-Eight with 2 of 4 on the 45° downline, exit upright.
9. Inside loop, full roll at apex.
10. Reverse teardrop. Half roll on the vertical upline, (pull for 5/8 loop) , 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright
Sportsman Known with Left-to-Right Wind
1. Inverted figure 9 with a 1 ½ positive spin on entry, (pull on the loop) exit inverted.
2. Pull to a 45° downline with a 2 pt. roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
3. Positive vertical upline with 2 of 4 pt. roll on the upline, push on exit.
4. Inverted, reverse shark’s tooth with 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
5. Vertical downline with a half roll on the downline, exit upright.
6. Hammerhead with a ¾ roll on the upline (roll to the left and stop with the canopy facing), 2 of 4 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the left), exit upright crossbox.
7. Humpty-Bump, 2 of 8 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the right to setup next figure), exit upright.
8. Half-Cuban-Eight with 2 of 4 on the 45° downline, exit upright.
9. Inside loop, full roll at apex.
10. Reverse teardrop. Half roll on the vertical upline, (pull for 5/8 loop) , 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright
I wrote up my own word document for the Sportsman sequence #2 since that is the sequence I like the most. No guarantees for the accuracy of the text, maybe someone with more experience can validate its accuracy or correct the errors.
Sportsman Known with Right-to-Left Wind
1. Inverted figure 9 with a 1 ½ positive spin on entry, (pull on the loop) exit inverted.
2. Pull to a 45° downline with a 2 pt. roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
3. Positive vertical upline with 2 of 4 pt. roll on the upline, push on exit.
4. Inverted, reverse shark’s tooth with 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
5. Vertical downline with a half roll on the downline, exit upright.
6. Hammerhead with a ¾ roll on the upline (roll to the right and stop with the canopy facing), 2 of 4 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the right), exit upright crossbox.
7. Humpty-Bump, 2 of 8 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the left to setup next figure), exit upright.
8. Half-Cuban-Eight with 2 of 4 on the 45° downline, exit upright.
9. Inside loop, full roll at apex.
10. Reverse teardrop. Half roll on the vertical upline, (pull for 5/8 loop) , 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright
Sportsman Known with Left-to-Right Wind
1. Inverted figure 9 with a 1 ½ positive spin on entry, (pull on the loop) exit inverted.
2. Pull to a 45° downline with a 2 pt. roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
3. Positive vertical upline with 2 of 4 pt. roll on the upline, push on exit.
4. Inverted, reverse shark’s tooth with 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright.
5. Vertical downline with a half roll on the downline, exit upright.
6. Hammerhead with a ¾ roll on the upline (roll to the left and stop with the canopy facing), 2 of 4 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the left), exit upright crossbox.
7. Humpty-Bump, 2 of 8 pt. roll on the downline (roll to the right to setup next figure), exit upright.
8. Half-Cuban-Eight with 2 of 4 on the 45° downline, exit upright.
9. Inside loop, full roll at apex.
10. Reverse teardrop. Half roll on the vertical upline, (pull for 5/8 loop) , 1 positive snap roll on the 45° downline, exit upright
10-18-2005 | 08:49 AM
#28
Senior Member
My Feedback: (8)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: new york, NY
RE: 2006 Sequences?
ORIGINAL: dick Hanson
It is obvious - IMAC is an equipment race -too bad
Anybody who does not pony up for a 40 %model and transport need not apply.
Sour grapes?
No-just tired of seeing the fun knocked out of the event.
It is very obvious to even the newer flier that larger planes are easier to fly and fly well.
The cost of the latest /largest stuf is not a big deal to the hard core competitors.
The really proficient may even have a sponsership that takes a lot of the sting out of it.
Pattern did the same thing -evolving into a perceived need for very expensive planes and engines.
Marketing of products for the hobby helps drive this "need".
The old "move up" thing is all part of the plan.
Same thing with autos - The market people want you to spend as much as they can convince you to part with.
$60,000 for a grocery getter --
I built planes for TOC starting in the 1970's-into the 1990's- not all that expensive then but the desire to really provide a show for the crowd at the TOC really ramped up the cost and size. With that new equipment available to anyone, IMAC made a mad dash into the same size type stuff and the market was happy to provide even newer bits n pieces .
It happens in all motorsports.
Try to field even the cheapest dragster-on gasoline -
The "rice burners" have created a new sub class on drag racing -and simply ignore the NHRA classes.
The 2006 patterns promise to be even more involved than the 2005.
As CD for our events -getting good judges has become harder each year.
It all goes right to the heart of the problem - trying to make the event a more technically complicated playground which challanges the core group and excites (hopefully) the potential new IMAC participant.
A progressive skill event -it aint anymore. It is far more complicated than full scale aerobatics and the inclusion of the judged free style further complicates an event .
If you are a hard core competitor --none of this will bother you .
It is obvious - IMAC is an equipment race -too bad
Anybody who does not pony up for a 40 %model and transport need not apply.
Sour grapes?
No-just tired of seeing the fun knocked out of the event.
It is very obvious to even the newer flier that larger planes are easier to fly and fly well.
The cost of the latest /largest stuf is not a big deal to the hard core competitors.
The really proficient may even have a sponsership that takes a lot of the sting out of it.
Pattern did the same thing -evolving into a perceived need for very expensive planes and engines.
Marketing of products for the hobby helps drive this "need".
The old "move up" thing is all part of the plan.
Same thing with autos - The market people want you to spend as much as they can convince you to part with.
$60,000 for a grocery getter --
I built planes for TOC starting in the 1970's-into the 1990's- not all that expensive then but the desire to really provide a show for the crowd at the TOC really ramped up the cost and size. With that new equipment available to anyone, IMAC made a mad dash into the same size type stuff and the market was happy to provide even newer bits n pieces .
It happens in all motorsports.
Try to field even the cheapest dragster-on gasoline -
The "rice burners" have created a new sub class on drag racing -and simply ignore the NHRA classes.
The 2006 patterns promise to be even more involved than the 2005.
As CD for our events -getting good judges has become harder each year.
It all goes right to the heart of the problem - trying to make the event a more technically complicated playground which challanges the core group and excites (hopefully) the potential new IMAC participant.
A progressive skill event -it aint anymore. It is far more complicated than full scale aerobatics and the inclusion of the judged free style further complicates an event .
If you are a hard core competitor --none of this will bother you .
10-19-2005 | 07:01 AM
#29
Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sandston, VA,
RE: 2006 Sequences?
2006 Unlimited will be along shortly. The sequence gurus are working hard and have base proposals written and nearly ready for release. Patience grasshopper [8D].
t
RCShowcase
ZDZ Engines
t
RCShowcase
ZDZ Engines
10-19-2005 | 05:45 PM
#30
Senior Member
My Feedback: (19)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Dallas,
GA
RE: 2006 Sequences?
Hey there Ty, just wanted to congratulate you on the win at NC this past weekend...well deserved...even if your wing does sit lower than mine 
Joe
Joe
10-20-2005 | 07:46 AM
#31
Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sandston, VA,
RE: 2006 Sequences?
Thanks Joe, and likewise. As for the wing position, I'm wondering if that was a one time change for the plane's original intended owner, or maybe a change in the kits. Regardless, I have a 260 nearly done, now my wing is higher than yours ;-
t
RC Showcase
ZDZ Engines
t
RC Showcase
ZDZ Engines
10-20-2005 | 08:29 AM
#32
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Oxford, IA
RE: 2006 Sequences?
ORIGINAL: dick Hanson
It is obvious - IMAC is an equipment race -too bad
Anybody who does not pony up for a 40 %model and transport need not apply.
Sour grapes?
No-just tired of seeing the fun knocked out of the event.
It is very obvious to even the newer flier that larger planes are easier to fly and fly well.
The cost of the latest /largest stuf is not a big deal to the hard core competitors.
The really proficient may even have a sponsership that takes a lot of the sting out of it.
Pattern did the same thing -evolving into a perceived need for very expensive planes and engines.
Marketing of products for the hobby helps drive this "need".
The old "move up" thing is all part of the plan.
Same thing with autos - The market people want you to spend as much as they can convince you to part with.
$60,000 for a grocery getter --
I built planes for TOC starting in the 1970's-into the 1990's- not all that expensive then but the desire to really provide a show for the crowd at the TOC really ramped up the cost and size. With that new equipment available to anyone, IMAC made a mad dash into the same size type stuff and the market was happy to provide even newer bits n pieces .
It happens in all motorsports.
Try to field even the cheapest dragster-on gasoline -
The "rice burners" have created a new sub class on drag racing -and simply ignore the NHRA classes.
The 2006 patterns promise to be even more involved than the 2005.
As CD for our events -getting good judges has become harder each year.
It all goes right to the heart of the problem - trying to make the event a more technically complicated playground which challanges the core group and excites (hopefully) the potential new IMAC participant.
A progressive skill event -it aint anymore. It is far more complicated than full scale aerobatics and the inclusion of the judged free style further complicates an event .
If you are a hard core competitor --none of this will bother you .
It is obvious - IMAC is an equipment race -too bad
Anybody who does not pony up for a 40 %model and transport need not apply.
Sour grapes?
No-just tired of seeing the fun knocked out of the event.
It is very obvious to even the newer flier that larger planes are easier to fly and fly well.
The cost of the latest /largest stuf is not a big deal to the hard core competitors.
The really proficient may even have a sponsership that takes a lot of the sting out of it.
Pattern did the same thing -evolving into a perceived need for very expensive planes and engines.
Marketing of products for the hobby helps drive this "need".
The old "move up" thing is all part of the plan.
Same thing with autos - The market people want you to spend as much as they can convince you to part with.
$60,000 for a grocery getter --
I built planes for TOC starting in the 1970's-into the 1990's- not all that expensive then but the desire to really provide a show for the crowd at the TOC really ramped up the cost and size. With that new equipment available to anyone, IMAC made a mad dash into the same size type stuff and the market was happy to provide even newer bits n pieces .
It happens in all motorsports.
Try to field even the cheapest dragster-on gasoline -
The "rice burners" have created a new sub class on drag racing -and simply ignore the NHRA classes.
The 2006 patterns promise to be even more involved than the 2005.
As CD for our events -getting good judges has become harder each year.
It all goes right to the heart of the problem - trying to make the event a more technically complicated playground which challanges the core group and excites (hopefully) the potential new IMAC participant.
A progressive skill event -it aint anymore. It is far more complicated than full scale aerobatics and the inclusion of the judged free style further complicates an event .
If you are a hard core competitor --none of this will bother you .
Dick--- I hear ya! CD-ing an IMAC event must be a major PITA what with known, unknown, and freestyle and don't forget Minimac. I haven't competed in IMAC for almost 10 years and am excited and also somewhat miffed at what I see has happened in 10 years. I had been flying AMA pattern for several years before I first got into IMAC so being competitive in Advanced wasn't all that difficult. I was flying Goldberg ultimates and Sukois. IMAC served as a great way for flyers to get into competition aerobatics without having to ante up for a full blown pattern rig. At that time the complaint was that Pattern (AMA/FAI) was too expensive.
Enter the TOC and similar events with manufacturers responding to the competitors demand for the biggest and best. What a great 10 years it has been for powerplant and airframe development. When I attended my first TOC in 1988 the big dogs were using glow motors with mechanical devices to link them together allowing more than one engine to turn the prop. Very few used gas; and for good reason gas motors were heavy and wimpy. Along came 3W and all that changed---for the better. Now we have amazing choice of light, powerful gas motors from 1-4 cylinders. Same with airframes; once we had the motors, airframes followed and of course Chinese airframes made all this more accessible.
This obviously was a major shot in the arm for IMAC where basically unrestricted airframe size and weight led to a major runup in aircraft cost and complexity. Problems attendant to this cost spiral were "fixed" with minimac. NOT!!
Meanwhile Pattern stuck to FAI guidelines and to its 5 Kg weight limit. Equipment cost has increased in Pattern despite the weight limit; but at a reasonable rate. A mere drop in the bucket compared to equipment cost increase in IMAC (with no end in sight).
Yes, we do it for fun! Motorsports have always been expensive and competition always pushes us in the direction of well.... being competitive. I find more fun when I win than when I lose; so do all of us.
I guess what I am saying, after trying to put it in the perspective of the changes of the past 10 or so years, is that it looks like a time when we might put the brakes on a bit and consider a weight limit, at least in the basic through advanced classes. The unlimited class should be UNLIMITED and a stepping stone to TOC level events. By doing so we would encourage manufacturers to make lighter stuff and I would not have to buy and tow a trailer to contests! Hows about 22 lb (10 Kg)? I think there is an event in Europe called FAI X where that limit is used so the target weight similarities would encourage manufacturers even more. I DON'T WANT A TRAILER!
Bob G
10-20-2005 | 01:50 PM
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (13)
RE: 2006 Sequences?
Bob, your thoughts echo mine precisely. I will probably enter a contest or two, just to say I did it. But the knowledge that one must have a huge plane to be competitive at most upper levels has effectively killed any real interest I may have had.
I don't want no steenkin' trailer either. This is my hobby; if it becomes too much work, then I'll lose interest. That is what killed my interest in competitve shooting. I knew I HAD to practice at least twice a week to stay competitive. It got to the point where I had to drag myself to the range. And then one day, as I was loading the gear into the car, a kid down the block was taxiing an Eagle up and down the street in front of his house. I walked down there to check it out... and a week later I had a Royal 40T ready to fly. I lingered on in the shooting game for a couple of years, but by the end of 1991 I was done with it.
My flying buddy got a trailer. Half the time he leaves it at home, and throws his Funtana 90 into his truck. That tells me something. Besides, I'm working out of a spare bedroom. The quarter-scale models are too big for my bench; I have to use the kitchen table to work on them. I intend to get a 30% plane down the road, and have no clue how I'll work on it. But that's it. Any bigger than that is simply not in the cards for me.
Yes, yes, I know that any problem can be worked around. But that's just it; I don't WANT to have to solve any more problems than necessary. And I don't want to have to buy a van.
Anyway, I intend to go to a contest or two for cheap thrills. Come to think of it, they WON'T be cheap...
You know what I meant.
But become a serious competitor? Highly unlikely...
I don't want no steenkin' trailer either. This is my hobby; if it becomes too much work, then I'll lose interest. That is what killed my interest in competitve shooting. I knew I HAD to practice at least twice a week to stay competitive. It got to the point where I had to drag myself to the range. And then one day, as I was loading the gear into the car, a kid down the block was taxiing an Eagle up and down the street in front of his house. I walked down there to check it out... and a week later I had a Royal 40T ready to fly. I lingered on in the shooting game for a couple of years, but by the end of 1991 I was done with it.
My flying buddy got a trailer. Half the time he leaves it at home, and throws his Funtana 90 into his truck. That tells me something. Besides, I'm working out of a spare bedroom. The quarter-scale models are too big for my bench; I have to use the kitchen table to work on them. I intend to get a 30% plane down the road, and have no clue how I'll work on it. But that's it. Any bigger than that is simply not in the cards for me.
Yes, yes, I know that any problem can be worked around. But that's just it; I don't WANT to have to solve any more problems than necessary. And I don't want to have to buy a van.
Anyway, I intend to go to a contest or two for cheap thrills. Come to think of it, they WON'T be cheap...
You know what I meant.But become a serious competitor? Highly unlikely...
10-20-2005 | 02:58 PM
#34
My Feedback: (19)
RE: 2006 Sequences?
I don't want to get into the "You gotta have a big plane to be competitive" thing. It has been beat to death. But when you talk about size limits you have to remember that all you will be doing is excluding another group. Now the guys with the smaller planes feel excluded. If you set size limits you will be excluding a large group of guys that already have big planes. I promise you that a HUGE portion of the 35-40% planes sold don't go to IMAC contests. There are a lot of people that have these planes that can be attracted to IMAC because they can fly the plane they already like and have, as compared to pattern.
Just my thoughts,
Dan
Just my thoughts,
Dan
10-20-2005 | 08:35 PM
#35
Member
My Feedback: (69)
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Powell, OH
RE: 2006 Sequences?
2006 Unlimited Proposals (3) are posted on the IMAC website now!
www.mini-iac.com
members only section
www.mini-iac.com
members only section
10-21-2005 | 08:59 AM
#36
Senior Member
My Feedback: (13)
RE: 2006 Sequences?
ORIGINAL: why_fly_high
But when you talk about size limits you have to remember that all you will be doing is excluding another group. Now the guys with the smaller planes feel excluded. If you set size limits you will be excluding a large group of guys that already have big planes.
Dan
But when you talk about size limits you have to remember that all you will be doing is excluding another group. Now the guys with the smaller planes feel excluded. If you set size limits you will be excluding a large group of guys that already have big planes.
Dan
Good point. And to be totally objective, I suspect the playing field in the Basic class IS pretty level. I see where they have some anti-sandbagging provisions in place. That's always good.
Ah, well. We'll give it a shot and see what happens...[&:]
11-08-2005 | 09:38 PM
#38
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Jose,
CA
RE: 2006 Sequences?
I have thought more than once that if the Mini-Mac Idea was updated it may give some the avenue they are looking for to take the jump into IMAC. I would say wingspans up to 78", engines up to 1.5 ci, and weight of 13lbs. There are literally hundreds of combinations available that would fit those specs. If this was to get off the ground one could have a competitive airplane for a grand.
Shawn
Shawn
11-09-2005 | 07:54 AM
#39
RE: 2006 Sequences?
The current patterns are designed for a large plane -flown in a large footprint - make no mistake about it .
This is what drives the need for larger models
The time used for flying any sequence with a smaller model , compresses with the size of the footprint.
Plainly -a smaller model is at a disadvantage right from the start.
My comments on large models were made because the smaller ones are effectively, non competitive in upper classes
A really good flyer can fly the Unlimited with a 33% model.
But you must have enough power to open up the box to regain the TIME advantage the large models enjoy.
The model then looks very small -so again - a disadvantage.
To ignore this situation is to ignore the obvious.
The local events feed the regional events which feed the national events .
At the local level , the number of upper class flyers has been reduced -costs and size are a real factor.
To preserve the event (IMAC) there really needs to be some sort of classing which stops the "biggest" from dominating .
If not - then simply accept that the total number of participants will diminish.
The cure is really easy .
Just put size limits from Basic up to Unlimited
Not itty bitty size limits - a 15lb/ 20lb/ 30 lb then Open weight graduation.
Or some such class identification.
The new guy with the 40% model may feel shut out from Basic - but this is really a non issue if what is wanted is a method of keeping IMAC a viable event for the majority of fliers..
This is what drives the need for larger models
The time used for flying any sequence with a smaller model , compresses with the size of the footprint.
Plainly -a smaller model is at a disadvantage right from the start.
My comments on large models were made because the smaller ones are effectively, non competitive in upper classes
A really good flyer can fly the Unlimited with a 33% model.
But you must have enough power to open up the box to regain the TIME advantage the large models enjoy.
The model then looks very small -so again - a disadvantage.
To ignore this situation is to ignore the obvious.
The local events feed the regional events which feed the national events .
At the local level , the number of upper class flyers has been reduced -costs and size are a real factor.
To preserve the event (IMAC) there really needs to be some sort of classing which stops the "biggest" from dominating .
If not - then simply accept that the total number of participants will diminish.
The cure is really easy .
Just put size limits from Basic up to Unlimited
Not itty bitty size limits - a 15lb/ 20lb/ 30 lb then Open weight graduation.
Or some such class identification.
The new guy with the 40% model may feel shut out from Basic - but this is really a non issue if what is wanted is a method of keeping IMAC a viable event for the majority of fliers..
11-09-2005 | 08:37 AM
#41
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Locust Grove,
GA
RE: 2006 Sequences?
Lat year we had a kid compete in basic with a funtana.
He won the freestyle and came in second in basic!
Go for it!
He won the freestyle and came in second in basic!
Go for it!
ORIGINAL: rcblimppro
I have thought more than once that if the Mini-Mac Idea was updated it may give some the avenue they are looking for to take the jump into IMAC. I would say wingspans up to 78", engines up to 1.5 ci, and weight of 13lbs. There are literally hundreds of combinations available that would fit those specs. If this was to get off the ground one could have a competitive airplane for a grand.
Shawn
I have thought more than once that if the Mini-Mac Idea was updated it may give some the avenue they are looking for to take the jump into IMAC. I would say wingspans up to 78", engines up to 1.5 ci, and weight of 13lbs. There are literally hundreds of combinations available that would fit those specs. If this was to get off the ground one could have a competitive airplane for a grand.
Shawn
11-09-2005 | 09:33 AM
#42
RE: 2006 Sequences?
then don't compete - a simple answer -
yes it is -
now ask guys who formerly flew IMAC actively--- why they no longer participate .
That takes a bit more investigation .
yes it is -
now ask guys who formerly flew IMAC actively--- why they no longer participate .
That takes a bit more investigation .
11-09-2005 | 09:53 AM
#43
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Johns Creek,
GA
RE: 2006 Sequences?
why?
everything changes....
I think we should all stop buying cars and livng in houses.... can you believe how much more expensive they are today, sheesh
it is just the way it is......
heck...maybe if there is a contest and noone shows up...they will look at the rules.....
or someone could start their own series...
Like IRL and champ cars.... but now there are new issues about IRL being too expensive.....
Honestly... it IS as simple as ....if you don't like it...don't do it....
its a Hobby/Sport for fun
(at least it is for me!)
Now I'm going back on the sm to practice my Imac routines....
everything changes....
I think we should all stop buying cars and livng in houses.... can you believe how much more expensive they are today, sheesh
it is just the way it is......
heck...maybe if there is a contest and noone shows up...they will look at the rules.....
or someone could start their own series...
Like IRL and champ cars.... but now there are new issues about IRL being too expensive.....
Honestly... it IS as simple as ....if you don't like it...don't do it....
its a Hobby/Sport for fun
(at least it is for me!)
Now I'm going back on the sm to practice my Imac routines....
11-10-2005 | 02:56 AM
#46
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Queen Creek, AZ,
RE: 2006 Sequences?
Tony,
I just updated the list of participants for 2005 in IMAC SW Region events on the IMAC SW Region News Section:
http://www.mini-iac.com/EditModule.a...iew&ItemId=191
In 2005 we had 274 people participate in SW Region events. In 2004 the number was 271.
In 2005, we had 23 contests, with an average of 30.47 pilots per contest.
Contest, # of Pilots
Cactus Classic, 42
Las Vegas, 56
Hollister, 24
Tucson, 42
Saint George, 29
Riverside Spring, 41
Bakersfield, 49
Albuquerque, 27
Whittier, 17
Love Air, 11
Salt Lake City, 15
Livermore, 25
Jefco, 20
Camarillo, 55
Salinas, 31
Crosswinds, 9
San Diego, 18
Ogden NURCAC, 19
Riverside Fall, 36
Jordan River, 8
Alamogordo, 13
Tucson Shootout, 63
SW Regional, 51
Total, 701
2 pilots competed in 12 contests
2 pilots competed in 10 contests
5 pilots competed in 9 contests
7 pilots competed in 8 contests
6 pilots competed in 7 contests
12 pilots competed in 6 contests
12 pilots competed in 5 contests
16 pilots competed in 4 contests
30 pilots competed in 3 contests
48 pilots competed in 2 contests
117 pilots competed in 1 contest
Basic pilots, 56
Sportsman pilots, 77
Intermediate pilots, 47
Advanced pilots, 24
Unlimited pilots, 30
From my perspective we had a pretty good year in the region.
However, there is no doubt that IMAC participation in Utah is down. Why is this..... I would venture to guess that Dick's doom and gloom attitude towards IMAC on these forums is having an impact in Utah. Start looking at the many positives and promote those positives and I bet participation will increase for the Utah guys.
"Your Focus, Is Your Reality"
Regards,
Anna Wood
IMAC SW Region
Assistant Regional Director
I just updated the list of participants for 2005 in IMAC SW Region events on the IMAC SW Region News Section:
http://www.mini-iac.com/EditModule.a...iew&ItemId=191
In 2005 we had 274 people participate in SW Region events. In 2004 the number was 271.
In 2005, we had 23 contests, with an average of 30.47 pilots per contest.
Contest, # of Pilots
Cactus Classic, 42
Las Vegas, 56
Hollister, 24
Tucson, 42
Saint George, 29
Riverside Spring, 41
Bakersfield, 49
Albuquerque, 27
Whittier, 17
Love Air, 11
Salt Lake City, 15
Livermore, 25
Jefco, 20
Camarillo, 55
Salinas, 31
Crosswinds, 9
San Diego, 18
Ogden NURCAC, 19
Riverside Fall, 36
Jordan River, 8
Alamogordo, 13
Tucson Shootout, 63
SW Regional, 51
Total, 701
2 pilots competed in 12 contests
2 pilots competed in 10 contests
5 pilots competed in 9 contests
7 pilots competed in 8 contests
6 pilots competed in 7 contests
12 pilots competed in 6 contests
12 pilots competed in 5 contests
16 pilots competed in 4 contests
30 pilots competed in 3 contests
48 pilots competed in 2 contests
117 pilots competed in 1 contest
Basic pilots, 56
Sportsman pilots, 77
Intermediate pilots, 47
Advanced pilots, 24
Unlimited pilots, 30
From my perspective we had a pretty good year in the region.
However, there is no doubt that IMAC participation in Utah is down. Why is this..... I would venture to guess that Dick's doom and gloom attitude towards IMAC on these forums is having an impact in Utah. Start looking at the many positives and promote those positives and I bet participation will increase for the Utah guys.
"Your Focus, Is Your Reality"
Regards,
Anna Wood
IMAC SW Region
Assistant Regional Director
11-10-2005 | 08:37 AM
#47
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Locust Grove,
GA
RE: 2006 Sequences?
Anna,
Can you help/suggest that all regions put together this kind of information.
I would welcome a analytical breakdown of the SE region!
Can you help/suggest that all regions put together this kind of information.
I would welcome a analytical breakdown of the SE region!
11-10-2005 | 08:52 AM
#48
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bloomington, IL
RE: 2006 Sequences?
NC is alive and kicking. We have a ton of events during our season and the turnout at most of them is really good.
2005 was my first full year but the NC Veterans say that participation has gone up steadily each year for the past several years.
2005 was my first full year but the NC Veterans say that participation has gone up steadily each year for the past several years.
11-10-2005 | 09:53 AM
#49
My Feedback: (198)
RE: 2006 Sequences?
Anna,
Thanks for the numbers. It is also interesting to look at the Utah and Colorado numbers.
Tony
Thanks for the numbers. It is also interesting to look at the Utah and Colorado numbers.
Tony
ORIGINAL: Anna Wood
In 2005 we had 274 people participate in SW Region events. In 2004 the number was 271.
In 2005, we had 23 contests, with an average of 30.47 pilots per contest.
However, there is no doubt that IMAC participation in Utah is down. Why is this..... I would venture to guess that Dick's doom and gloom attitude towards IMAC on these forums is having an impact in Utah. Start looking at the many positives and promote those positives and I bet participation will increase for the Utah guys.
"Your Focus, Is Your Reality"
Regards,
Anna Wood
IMAC SW Region
Assistant Regional Director
In 2005 we had 274 people participate in SW Region events. In 2004 the number was 271.
In 2005, we had 23 contests, with an average of 30.47 pilots per contest.
However, there is no doubt that IMAC participation in Utah is down. Why is this..... I would venture to guess that Dick's doom and gloom attitude towards IMAC on these forums is having an impact in Utah. Start looking at the many positives and promote those positives and I bet participation will increase for the Utah guys.
"Your Focus, Is Your Reality"
Regards,
Anna Wood
IMAC SW Region
Assistant Regional Director
11-10-2005 | 10:06 AM
#50
RE: 2006 Sequences?
ORIGINAL: Geistware
Anna,
Can you help/suggest that all regions put together this kind of information.
I would welcome a analytical breakdown of the SE region!
Anna,
Can you help/suggest that all regions put together this kind of information.
I would welcome a analytical breakdown of the SE region!
http://www.mini-iac.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=78
Looks like there were 18 contests. Just click not the results links and count up to your heart's content.!!
BTW - Anna, in the SW is it fair to include the Shootout?? It is not really an IMAC contest per se, and it did not count in the points series. We still had killer participation even without the Shootout counted.
Something else that falls out of Anna's numbers is that only 17% (46) of the SW pilots flew in 5 or more contests. 43% (117) flew in only a single contest. Leaving 40% (111) who flew in between 2 and 4 contests. Even at the full 274 pilot field, that represents only 0.7% of the AMA members in the SW region. We are a very tiny (dedicated) group compared to the rest of modeling to be sure!
But the real point is that 57% of the pilots who flew in an IMAC contest in the SW last year chose for whatever reason NOT to compete again. Those are the folks I would like to talk to!!! And I doubt that the major reason was that they were scared off by all the big airplanes!! In the SW this year I did not see a single plane at a contest (even in Basic) smaller than a 27% to 30% plane. And everyone that I saw was a scale planes. I do not see this as the factor that stopped that 57% from coming back for even 1 more contest.
I am also convinced that the major sequence creep that happened for 2006 is not going to help the situation.
I was also interested in the class numbers in the SW. Healthy Basic (56) Nice Sportsman (77), BIG drop to Intermediate (47 - a 40% drop from Sportsman) then another big drop to Advanced (24 - 51% drop from Intermediate) then a 25% increase from Advanced to Unlimited, which dashes the classes get smaller as you go up argument.
2006 will be interesting.
