RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Mark,

Your statements are very well put. Your concern of tail slide placement in the unknown as opposed to the known is also well founded. I have not competed in a model event for a number of years, but am planning a return next year with a stable of an old tried and true warhorses - the Laser 200. I have one 33% Laser completed with only a few flights on it before the weather turned, and my second one will be on the bench soon for this winters building project. I hope to put at least 100 more flights on my primary plane and some extensive trim sessions on the backup before I again try my hand with all the young guns out there. And yes, I am one of those - getting to be rare - pilots who builds my own airplanes.

I spent some time with Quique down at this years WAC in Lakeland and the first comment he made was concerning nose movement on the snaps of the full scale planes. I wish modelers could perform the snap without having to move the right stick to the corners of the box, but alas, the airplane would never get around without the aileron input. It comes down to mass and inertia. With our light wing loading and thrust to weight ratio, we are always going to have differences between full scale and models. The good news is that modelers can do things with airplanes that full scale pilots only dream and are amazed at. I know that Goody and Hub marveled at the demo flights on Sunday - the day Quique almost said hello to the fence, the tree, and some said the crowd (though he wasn't that close). I think you may have already been on the road for the NATS.

My statements concerning the FAI catalog were directed specifically at some of the other posts that were recommending the removal of the figure. In my opinion, this would be a serious mistake. I may have been mistaken, but this is what I felt I was reading and saw these types of discussions take place in IAC between Intermediate and Advanced pilots and I went into a panic. I did, however, review past known/unknown Unlimited sequences and feel that there are other Family's that can be pulled from and, depending on placement, utilized in the sequence. Standing outside the airplane, modelers are not as aware or concerned about entry/exit speeds when stringing figures together. But, being a full scale pilot yourself, you know that airspeed and more importantly energy management are just as important as keeping the wings level - a feat that is harder when viewed from anywhere other than the cockpit.

Good luck in full scale. I traveled in that circle for a number of years and would not have traded it for the world. I made some life long friends as well as some bitter rivals, but we always had a great time together. I still go to some regional, and occasionally national, events and hope to see you excel. Most of the Unlimited pilots are extremely friendly but not as "salt of the earth" as modelers tend to be. Then again, I probably had my moments when I was competing and had my game face on. It must be in the breed because my father was a jet jock and we walk, talk and think a lot a like.

Regards,

Mark - A.K.A.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Sporstman sequence figure 10.

Hello,
Like you know, a regular split Ess has 1/2 roll with 1/2 inside loop. With 2004 sporstman sequence fig 10, should we do 2 of 4 point roll before the 1/2 inside lopp?

Scou.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

That is correct, a 2 of 4 then the 1/2 loop.
What region do you fly?

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Hello Geistware
I fly in Quebec Canada IMAC and i begun last year in Basic and i got the first position at my first contest with super sporster...
I am building a 24% CA Extra 300 for next spring.

We have some contests in Ste-Julie, Quebec, Rimouski...
Daniel

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

I would echo Mark's comments about the tailslide. There is a great deal of luck involved with this maneuver. Moreso if the wind is blowing. I would also like to see them removed from IMAC competition as it truly does take away from the skill aspects. There is also a great deal of arbitrary application of the 'visible slide' judging criteria.

A couple comments though. The tailslide has been removed from the known in IAC and CIVA contests due to the Q not being a scored flight for contest results. The Q only serves to validate competency in the class being flown. They still show up in unknowns, and are a requirement in the free program. Regardless, they are still a much hated maneuver in full scale competition as a result of the luck factor. Matt Chapman lost the free program at the WAC in Oklahoma after his airplane slid backwards some 150' or more only to flop the wrong way.

As far as how we fly or what control inputs are required.. it's irrelevant. I don't care if you need full down, full right aileron, and wag the rudder like a fish to make your airplane snap roll.. If it looks like a good snap.. it gets scored like a good snap. If your airplane shows all the criteria for a snap roll.. then you get scored as such.

Tailslides
 

Given that the aircraft performing a perfect tailslide would have a pure vertical entry, slide backward perceptibly, and flop in the correct direction I would assert the following: Unlike any other maneuver in the aresti it seems that the closer you are to scoring a 10 in the tailslide the closer you are to getting a zero. Obviously it makes the maneuver very unforgiving and will bring more CHANCE into the mix of a closely contested event.