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.-

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Don't forget - the controls still work when you're going backwards.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

The controls do work sliding backwards. For the longest time when IAC and CIVA pilots and judges talked about a wheels down or wheels up tail slide they described it from a pilots point of view. What this means is that the slide was ether "STICK FORWARD" or "STICK BACK TAILSLIDE" if the slide required the wheels up during the flop, you put the sick full forward during the slide. If the slide was to be a wheels down during the flop, you pulled the stick all the way back at the moment of slide. Back in 2000 the IAC and CIVA wanted the judges to refer to all figures in terms of what can be observed from the ground
and not to what the pilot has to do to perform the figure. This was to eliminate possible bias based on saying something like, "I know what he did, and that's the wrong input" it's the judges job to score based on what is observed, not to second guess the pilot.

As for how this correlates to models, I would suggest as many unlimited pilots do, (especially those with full-scale experience) set a very high elevator and rudder rate on one of the spring return type buttons on your TX, so during the slide you have more control of the direction of the flop.

Tom Wheeler
IMAC President

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

You hit the nail on the head Tom ...FLOP... that is what you will be seeing a lot of in this maneuver. It is also a moot point to mention that the Wind plays a more than significant factor in the Slide. Double the wind Factor for the Scale of the Plane. IE 15 mph to Full Scale which translates to about 25-30mph for models, and if there is a cross Wind of 15+, I will guarantee that no pilot will meet the criteria for a score on this maneuver. Everything does work going backwards, but what is missing from all of you explanations is the fact that the Mass of the back of the model being moved is roughly 1/15 that of the Full Scale Counterpart. All you are moving is very very light Balsa or Carbon Fiber, not heavy wood wrapped in many Layers of Carbon Fiber on full scale Airplanes. The lightest Full Scale Ulimited Aerobatic Airplane still weighs 1000 lbs., opposed to our 40. Sheer Fact of the matter is that Full Scale dislike the Slide as much as Modelers. There is always a moment of No Control. No Matter how you justify your explanation, sitting in the aircraft and cheating the slide with a three dimensional view of your aircraft in space is much different than having the two dimensional view from the ground. Center Box is hard enough to Cheat the Slide; End Box makes it that much harder. It doesn't really sound like, from the aspect of Unlimited Pilots replying to this post, that any of them want to see the Slide in the Sequence.
Mark Leseberg Jr.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Mark,
To slide or not to slide was by far the single biggest issue we had to deal with in designing the Unlimited sequence for next year. The board informally polled some Unlimited pilots, your responses to this forum was included, and our top nationally recognized judges. The split was about 50/50, so no matter our decision, 1/2 would not be happy with us. Definitely a bum deal for us, but that's why we get paid the big bucks :). The board ended up taking a vote, and the results were, 5 in favor and 3 against the slide. We changed the last few figures a little, so now the Tail Slide is the last figure, its downwind and plane Jane, nothing up, nothing down.
The final OFFICIAL IMAC 2004 SEQUENCES will be posted on the IMAC web site tonight. You will see some changes that were made do to a great deal of feedback from our membership, thank you everyone.
Tom Wheeler
IMAC President

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Tom,

First off, thanks for your hard work on our behalf.

While it's too late to make any changes, for what it's worth, I too fly Unlimited and I can only think of one Unlimited competitor that I have spoken with over the last few seasons who believes the tailslide should be an IMAC manuever for all of the reasons Mark has stated here- including TOC and Masters competitors.

I've been wrong before, however, based on discussions I have had it's hard for me to imagine that a vote from a group of just Unlimited pilots - the group that is affected by the decision - would have produced a similar outcome.

I'll grin and bear it this year- but will continue to say that the tailslide does not have a place in IMAC- too much is out of the hands of the competitor and, what's more, when you flop a tailslide- it's a zero and has the most severe impact on your score.

Dave Michael

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Tom,
Thank You for your time in replying back. I'm sorry to be a little antsie about this subject, but I know that I speak for the great majority about the slide. Not a lot of people have the ability to respond to this forum. I will grant that the Slide will Stay for this year. However, I would respectfully request that the Slide be completely omitted and banned from all Future Known Sequences. Perhaps a Rule Change for 2005. Just out of curiosity, who voted on the Sequences and who voted for or against the Slide? Is there another site where we can view votes and or put imput into future sequences. Thank You for bringing up my post to the board members and for listening to all the pilots suggestions in this thread.
Mark Leseberg Jr.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Advanced Maneuver #10 description problem. I sent the follwing to Marc Jorgensen (IMAC webmaster and received the response).

Hi Bill,
It looks like the text was worded incorrectly. I will send your email to the BOD so that they can correct it.
Thanks,
Mark

My Question:
Mark,

In the Advanced sequence the last maneuver is called incorrectly from the way it is drawn. 45 up-line with 1/2 roll and opposite 1-1/2 negative snaps would bring you back to upright on the 45 upline. The 5/8 outside loop would exit you inverted so the 8 point roll would be from inverted to inverted.

Please advise.
Thanks,
Bill

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Thanks Bill, got it fixed and sent back to Mark.
Tom Wheeler
IMAC President

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Mark,
This years sequences were designed by the board based on the CIVA and IAC sequences. They were changed and modified based on the feedback from the membership. The final sequence decisions where made by Officer vote, Officer voting on the tail slide was 5 to 3 in favor. Of the three current IMAC board members who fly Unlimited, two voted for the slide. Believe it or not, there were many Unlimited pilots who wanted the slide in the Known sequence. At least in the Knowns you practice the figure and if you do blow it there is the chance that sequence will be dropped. Where as in a Unknown, it's going to count no matter what happens, plus the figure was not practiced.
We shortly discussed eliminating the Tail Slide all together from IMAC, but we didn't want repeat the mistake of playing with the FAI catalog like we did a few years ago where we doubled the K on rollers and 1.5 times them for the Tail Slide.

Tom Wheeler
IMAC President

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Fair enough- thanks for the detail. I am surprised to hear the slide was received positively by so many.

Should be fun- I like the rest of the sequence and especially enjoy seeing a one roll roller - first one I can remember seeing since I have been in IMAC.

Dave Michael

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Well Tom, the good news about the tailslide in 2004 is that the ' 10 degrees cheating' will still be 'legal', right?
The rule change to eliminate it will only be effective in 2005 and after if I remember right.

Christophe told me in '98 that he'd much rather take a large downgrade by visibly tilting the plane in the right direction before the stall to force the flop direction when it goes down, since the flop will be the key judging criteria for most judges to give a zero. The 'visible slide backward' is extremely difficult to judge and you need big balls as a judge to give a zero on that criteria alone.

My approach when I wrote the 10 degrees cheating in the F&JG was to avoid penalizing the competitor who modifies the plane attitude to control the flop direction, and somewhat remove the 'chance' factor out of it as much as possible. Sounds like I was wrong since it will be removed :D.

BTW, how are you doing?

Ben P.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

As a former FULL SCALE ADVANCED competition pilot and continuing R/C pilot, I have to tell you, us full scale guys hated rolling circles when they were first introduced too. We cheat(ed) a lot of figures in full scale and we made them work. The Tail Slide is no different. It's a figure in the FAI Catalog and likely to be placed in the figure pool for both knowns and unknowns. I have not competed in IAC or IMAC for a number of years, but can still fly the figure very well in both - wheels up / wheels down, doesn't make a difference. This is by no means a FLOP figure and the airplane never departs controlled flight. While I understand Mark's disdain for the figure, I appreciate Tom's statement about maintaining the FAI catalog. Choosing to drop a figure because certain people may have a difficult time flying it goes against the reason we fly. If we all flew perfect figures and were only concerned about the order they appeared in a sequence, in my humble opinion - flying would be boring. We would only fly aerobatics because "they are cool" and not because we want to achieve and demonstrate a proficiency in flight. If you don't like tail slides - practice what you hate!

Looking at previous IMAC Unlimited sequences, maybe Family 6 could take a break, but don't disown him. He's a little Family and only twice as big as 5 - nobody hates 5 - Stall Turns - and he could just as easily be flown out of the box. Half in - downgrade, out - the same ZERO you would get on a "FLOP". Besides, full scale Unlimited pilots zero figures too. I saw five pilots zero a loop/point combination in the WAC this year. Several more rolled the wrong way on the up-line of a cross-box Humpty and either flew WAY out of the box (the smart move for a downgrade) or tried to correct the error and - you guessed it - zeroed the figure. One pilot actually tried to "get creative" and zeroed the flight. In full scale, we would take the optional BREAK, pull our heads out of our %$$, and complete the sequence.

The biggest difference between IAC and IMAC is wind corrected figures, but as see it, the goal of IMAC is to emulate full scale aerobatics. It's the difference of where the nose is pointed as opposed to the path of flight. If you can't fly a clean tail slide - practice, cheat it and take the downgrade or fly for fun.

Just my humble opinion.

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Hi Ben,
Good to hear from you.
The "cheat" on the slide is still in effect till 2005. We had discussed a great length the pros and cons of keeping the 10 degree cheat or not. It basically came down to the fact that since we are going back to a true FAI K factor for the slide and rollers, the hit a pilot would get (if observed) for cheating the slide will not be too damaging. The legal "cheat" was also one of those issues like "what color is better, red or blue" no matter what you decide your going to piss off a group of people.
I personally think that the key to performing good repeatable slides is what Kule said; "practice what you hate".

Ben, it's been a long time, send me your number so we can talk. [email protected]

Tom Wheeler
IMAC President

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Kule,
My entire reason for replying to this post is the sheer fact that we are trying to IMULATE Full Scale Aerobatics. I too have quite a bit of full scale experience and can tell you that if we all tried to imulate the full scale exactly, there would be a lot of catching up to do.
Prime Example:
The Snap Roll - This maneuver is impossible to accomplish with rudder and elevator alone in models. If we were subject to the same criteria that a Sukhoi performs a snap, all modelers would receive a score of 0. Myself Included. The Full Scale Sukhoi does the best text book Snap Rolls. The nose pitches VIOLENTLY up or down and commences autorotation not by Aileron, but by Rudder. Aileron may be used to speed up the Snap and or stop the Snap Crisply. Modelers cheat with the use of aileron to aid in autorotation.

The entire just of my continuance in this matter is the point of fact.
I have lost, and seen too many contests lost because of the tailslide. The FLOP is the most dreaded maneuver that I can possibly fathom. You have worked your entire life, weather it be for a week or 15 years to get to this point in competition all to see it windle away in a FLOP.
The differences in a Known and Unknown program are very sound.
Talk to Chip, QuiQue, or Christophe. Each one is not worried about the other in the Classic Section of the Unknown. What is the one question that they will always ask after an Unknown Program.
Did he/she get the Slide?
Why?
Because, in models, there is a huge disadvantage. There is a point of NO CONTROL. Cheat all you like, but then you run the greater risk of the FLOP. THERE IS A PIONT OF NO CONTROL if you do the Slide Textbook, and move the Control Surfaces coming backwards PERIOD. I DO NOT LIKE NO CONTROL, hence my argument for Classic Figures in the Known.
I am not saying completely omit the figure, but rather omit the figure from the known program.
The Sequences are final, so there is nothing that I can do except practice 10,000 Slides before next year, shut up, and fly.

On a lighter note:
I have found some sponsorship and been given the gracious opportunity to fly a Full Scale Extra 300L next year. I have been doing some flying, and plan to go for the U.S. World Team in 2005.
My goals next year far superseed this year and I can't wait to get started. Models and Full Scale have been a life-long dream of mine. To make the US Team would be amazing!

RE: 2004 IMAC Sequences
 

Tom,
Good to see that you're still passionate about this and don't give up. You skin is defintively thicker than mine!
I'll send you a personal mail or give you a call one of those days.

Mark,
Good to hear about your sponsorship, good luck with your full scale endeavor!
If you apply the same enthousiasm there as you did for Scale Aerobatics (and I'm sure you will), you'll make great things as well.
Hope to see you around down here in Florida soon again, my little Flip 3D has been missing you... ;>).

Ben