2004 IMAC Sequences
 

The 2004 sequence finalist are now posted on the IMAC website, this weekend will be the final review of those proposals. We hope everyone gets a chance to fly them and report their experience to a IMAC board member. We will announce the official 2004 sequences early next week.

Tom Wheeler
IMAC President

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Thanks Tom.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Question:

I see only one Unlimited sequence in the finalist list so I assume this is the final and the next official 2004 Unlimited?

[link=http://www.mini-iac.com/Sequences/2004.asp]http://www.mini-iac.com/Sequences/2004.asp[/link]

I like it... ;)

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Jay,
All of the sequences posted are there for final review. We have ask those lucky enough to live in regions were flying outdoors is still possible, to fly these sequences this weekend and report their experience. We will make tweaks if needed before the sequences become official later next week.

Tom Wheeler
IMAC President

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Tom, In intermediate I liked the A version better then the B version. I only flew each 3 times though. I did not like the 90 degress roller at the top of the box.

These are only my opinions.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

I have flown the Sportsman routine several times and like it. I have also flown it by combining 6,7&8 into one maneuver then move this combined maneuver before the humpty bump. Doing this you have to modify the 2/8 to be in the same direction as the 3/4 roll.

All in all, it looks good.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

I have had a chance to fly the Unlimited. I would very much like to see the Tailslide completely eliminated from this Sequence. Lets keep the Sequence Strictly to Maneuvers that are not 50% Chance. Leave the Slide to the Unknown. Tailslides, in models, are greater than or equal to 50% chance to meet criteria. I don't want to fly a perfect sequence and be beaten by chance. It is the job of the Unknown to sweat. I have been flying models and full scale a lot this past month, and come to the conclusion that the Tailslide is the most Unrewarding maneuver. It is either complete, or a few other four letter choice words that are brought on by bad luck. QuiQue is a perfect example of this maneuver in TOC 2000. Third Unknown Program, He had the Tailslide backing up 150 feet and Hammered out at a very high speed going backwards. This is by No means the only Tailslide Story, but Full Scale hasn't used the Slide in the Known for a while. Since 2000 is as far as I have gone back. IMAC hasn't used it fer a few years either.
My 2 Cents
Mark Leseberg Jr.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

can sumone explain to me how to start a new post im 13 and very confused by all the stuff on this site

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

A friend and I have flown the sportsman a couple times and we are flying number 7 as a centered manuever. Is that correct? We are also having discussion about the placement of number 3....does it matter where #3 is completed? Thanks for posting the Sequences and allowing us to see them so soon.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

First I would like to thank you all for these sequences reports and sugesstions, everyone please keep them coming. They will make a difference in deciding the final sequences.
For the question about the figure 3 ("N") in the sportsman, in a zoneless sequence there is no exact required placement like there was in the old zoned box.

Tom Wheeler
IMAC President

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

I've flown the sportsman sequence several times and I really like the latest revision; it flows really well. My flying needs a lot of work, though!

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

How about replacing the tail slide with a 1 turn torque roll?
At least it won't be a "flip a coin" maneuver.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

edit - (Thanks Q!)

As for proposals 1 and 2, I see little difference in flow or difficulty between the two, but my personal preference is to end with the roller. I would like to point out that these proposals are significantly more difficult than last years Intermediate, and quite a jump from Sportsman, honestly this pattern looks about the same as last years Advanced. While I appreciate the extra challenge, I'm not sure I like it, and its sure to hold some folks down in Sportsman that were considering moving up.
Just my 02c, you guys do whatcha gotta do.

Roger Tinder
Boerne TX

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Tom,

thinking back to last year, I did a lot of judging the Unlimited unknowns. of those unkonwns that I judged with a tailslide I dont think anybody score on one. Im certainly no expert, but it would be a shame to build a nice known sequence and leave an ugly manuver in it for every body to flop. maybe that would not be the case at all, but I would like the chance to zero a manuver on my own :D rather than get lucky.

is it true that full scale does not use the tailslide? maybe we should follow suit then.

Hubb

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

I agree with the opinions expressed above regarding the tail slide in the unlimited sequence. This is not a maneuver that reflects the skill of the pilot. If this "maneuver" is to stay in the sequence how about making it pilot's choice to perform it wheels up or wheels down. You will see much better tail slides if this option is permitted.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

I haven't had the chance to fly the Advanced sequence but have done it a few times on the sim and it flows pretty well. The two half reverse cubans (#3 and 10) are fairly similar though.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Hi

I was thinking about it and I agree with Mark on the Tailslide. What about a hammerhead turn followed by 1 1/2 positive snaps... Or the hammerhead turn cross the box followed by 2 of 8 on the downline. Any more suggestions?

I like the rest of the sequence. I will fly it tomorrow.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Is Figure #2 on the Basic sequence a Hammer Head? I think it is, since if it were a tailslide there would be a roll indicated on the Aresti symbol. Am I right?

Jon

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Figured it out...the Unlimited has the Tail Slide as #10, now I know what the 2 Aresti symbols look like.

Jon

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

I am sure Mark is still annoyed about the tailslide at the shootout. I believe it cost him 3rd place.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Annoyed is not the term that I would use. Disappointed at myself for allowing it to happen would be the correct rebutal. I believe that I won one Unknown round and had a 995-999 in the second Unknown, but Frazier won the Known and the Unknown that day and cleaned up third, a $1750 mistake on my part. I am not mad because I just didn't concentrate enough on the Slide. I had the throttle stick earlier in the flight on the diamond down line snap. I didn't want the throttle to stick again going straight down, so therefore didn't keep 100% concentration on the slide and its direction. My Mistake. It won't happen again.
The Tailslide still shouldn't be in the Sequence, in my opinion. We have been trying to get away from the High K Factor of the Slide in the Unknown for sometime, and I just still don't understand why now do we have to have a Slide after a few years of trying to make the Sequences as close to 100% Skill Related as possible.
Mark Leseberg Jr.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

I was under the impression it took skill to do a tail slide. Are you now saying that it is luck which side the plane flops on?

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Skill and Practice?
RickP

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Hi Tom,

I Like the USA Civa /Imac B better for advanced for the the reason of doing something different than last years Immelman into a 4 point roll that we did in Intermediate. Ialso like doing the 3 turn roller Upright vs. Inverted ..The USA Civa/B Flows real well and will be a real time saver at contests.........

Dave Stoik

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Not with the tailslide. Ray Rose was telling us in a recent judging seminar that if you do
a tailslide as it's supposed to be done then it's 50/50 to get a score from it or get a zero.

The full scale pilots, he said, they cheat up top. Instead of going perfectly vertical on the stall
and then slide and hope for the best they lean a bit to the direction of the slide. So if the
slide is wheels down they lean to the belly. Wheels up they lean to the canopy.
They take a 1 or 2 point deduction for this but consider the alternative.

I wonder how that will work in a model. Haven't even attempted one yet[X(]

Stratos.-