2005 sequences
 

the proposed 2005 sequences are now available for IMAC memebers in the members only area. these sequences look very busy and no free passes. So they should fly faster.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

But I'll bet that people will figure out how to stretch them from horizon to horizon.

BTW - what class are you flying in '05??

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Advanced, I think

RE: 2005 sequences
 

there are no free pass's in imac. your maneuver ends and the next one starts immediately.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

If you aren't an IMAC member you can see the proposed sequences at the Northwest IMAC site.

http://www.imacnw.com/

RE: 2005 sequences
 

True enough, but Tony was using it as a generic term to indicate a long level pass (scored of course) with no actual figure on the line. This is a waste of time just driving from one end of the box to the other.

Pilots need to learn to fly tight. I was totally blown away at the Tucson Shootout to see a full scale Sukhoi flying a 360 roller smaller and tighter than 99% of the IMAC rollers I see flown.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Say, could one of you clever fellows check out the proposed Intermediate sequence?
Have a look at Figure 8 on Proposal 2. It looks like a 2 point roll, half loop, then positive snap. Shouldn't that be a negative snap from inverted to inverted???

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I think you mean figure 9 on proposal 2... are you asking if it is an illegal maneuver? According to the maneuvers catalog that is an allowed maneuver.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Looking at the IMAC sequence criteria I currently have I am assuming things have changed for the intermediate class in 2005. According to what I have only 1 full positive snap from level or 45 degrees is allowed and 1 full negative snap from inverted to inverted. Anyone care to comment?

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I'm confused by the questions.

First A320's comments. There are no written guidelines for Known Construction. Don't confuse the Unknown Guidance Catalog with the Knowns. Having said that, there are general guidelines the BoD uses for each class. For 2005 it was decided to allow negative snap rolls on both level inverted lines and on inverted 45 downlines.

Now to the questions about the figures. Figure #8 on Intermediate Proposal B is a vertical upline with a 2 of 4-point roll up, exit negative.

On Proposal A, figure #8 is a 1 and 1/2 continuous rolls from inverted to positive. That is followed by a positive snap, 1/2 inside loop, full roll, exit negative.

The last two figures are the same in both. Pull to a negative 45 downline, full negative sap roll, exit negative. Then a 90 degree 1 roll roller to the inside. Enter/exit negative.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

If you look at the snap criteria for intermediate, it does allow a full positive snap from inverted at the top of a loop or half loop.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Again, there are no published criteria for Knowns. Only Unknowns, and they are different. The only real true published criteria is the FAI catalog, and I can assure you that all these proposals are fully legal by that standard.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

What happened to crossbox?

Unlimited B has only one crossbox maneuver (a humpty where the loop over the top is crossbox), and Unlimited A has two maneuvers, but one is just the entry to a roller. Personally I think the most interesting parts of the more complex advanced/unlimited sequences are the crossbox elements that require planning and skill to position properly. In some sequences it seems like back to back crossbox maneuvers make it go even faster because it makes it impossible to draw a long line between maneuvers. Is this an intentional effort to control sequence size?

Anyone know the story?

-Adam

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Sorry to argue with you, but I do have a sequence criteria that was published by IMAC for what the limits were in each family of maneuvers for each class. Known or unknowns. So far in all my IMAC flying over the past several years I have never seen anything that deviated from that published criteria. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see more than a single snap in intermediate, but I would like to have an updated list or you guys could be flying some very interesting unknowns if you come to Phoenix in February next year to fly in the return of "The Cactus Classic".

RE: 2005 sequences
 

So are we voting or critiquing?

RE: 2005 sequences
 

The official Unknown catalog is being re-worked right now. It needs a fair bit of work. As far as the Knowns, sorry, since I worked on the 2005 submittals I think I can tell you that there was NOT a document that was used. We had discussions with the BoD as to what was desired, what was acceptable and so on. But the only really official document is the Unknown one. And believe it or not, but there are things that are legal for a Known that are not OK for a Known. Any Unknowns that I write in 2005 will comply fully with the new catalog of Unknown figures, once it is finalized.

Hope that helps.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

The way I understand it, the BoD is looking for comments only. The final decision will be by the BoD alone. THe IMAC website has a place for member comment on each sequence.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I commented on the Sportsman and Intermediate routines posted.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Hi All,

Had a beautiful day here in Nor-Cal ..Burnt 3 gallons trying the new advanced proposals..B is a real winner..Goes fast and is easy to keep tight!! Hats off to whoever wrote it!!!A wasn't as much fun...
My buddy flew sportsman...A is a time waster while B is efficient... We haven't checked out intermediate or Unlimited yet.(But we will tomorrow)!!!

Can't wait for Phoenix"05

Dave Stoik

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Bill,

I thought I recognized some of your Handywork in the proposals!!!! (GRIN)

Dave

RE: 2005 sequences
 

The sequences at the Northwest site are not the same as the ones on the IMAC members site. At least the Sportsman routines aren't anyways. Unless I missed something they're not the same. Later Jon

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Watch you talkin' about Willis???? [&:]

RE: 2005 sequences
 

For any Non-IMAC members out tehre who are interested you can see the 2005 proposals here:

http://www.scaleaerobatics.org/IMAC2005Proposals.html

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I agree with Hecter that proposal A for Sportsman is a waste of time. There are 3, count them 3, 2 of 4 rolls on 45° uplines. What gives?

Another comment regarding the "speed" at which a sequence is flown. Since the Shootout, I realize that a few of you (I'm assuming most are involved with SCAT) are concerned with the time it take to fly a sequence. "Fly tight" I'm not sure I agree. It is my opinion that a sequence should take about the same amount of time wether it is a SCAT or IMAC event. If someone chooses to fly the routine at an accelerated pace then have at it. I believe time is saved by staging pilots 2-3 deep and having them in the air before the next guy takes off. I love to have as many flights as possible but not at the expence of feeling rushed when I fly. Here in the SC region, there is too much lack time between rounds. Every contest I atttended could have easily completed another round exept for one due to weather.

By the way, it was great fun competing against all of you guys at the Shootout. I had a blast.

Ryan

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I'm going to go fly some of these today with a buddy.
(Interm and Unlim)

RE: 2005 sequences
 

[QUOTE] Since the Shootout, I realize that a few of you (I'm assuming most are involved with SCAT) are concerned with the time it take to fly a sequence. "Fly tight" I'm not sure I agree. It is my opinion that a sequence should take about the same amount of time wether it is a SCAT or IMAC event. If someone chooses to fly the routine at an accelerated pace then have at it. I believe time is saved by staging pilots 2-3 deep and having them in the air before the next guy takes off.[QUOTE/]

I think you are missing what we mean. We do NOT mean fly FAST. We mean doing things like avoiding numerous long level passes back and forth across the box. Avoiding the use of figures that take a long time to fly, like a full Cuban 8 and so on. Also, like it or not, IMAC is working hard to get people to tighten up their sequence footprint.

You are correct that proper staging is also critical, but each is a part of the whole. Last year the SCAT sequences flew much faster than the IMAC sequences did. This was a direct result of their design. I think you will see that the 2005 IMAC sequences share a lot of this design philosophy.

So you don't have to fly fast, just don't waste time.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

At the request of the IMAC leadership I am removing the link I posted with the 2005 proposals on them. Theory is that this information is intended for members only. So send in your $20 so you can see the proposals!! Use Paypal, membership is immediate!!

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I assumed that SCAT flew the same sequences that IMAC issued. I did not realize that the sequences were different.

Ryan

RE: 2005 sequences
 

When will the final sequences be ready? I think they look cool and more scat-like. I really apreciate what little I am learning about this kind of flying. I can not log into the imac site on my mac. Maybe they want $20?;)
Thanks Bill for your involvment!

Joe

RE: 2005 sequences
 

IMO

I’m not sure I understand the IMAC BOD sequence selection process and not sure why they try to keep the selection process limited to only a handful. The Known sequence is a piece of the IMAC world that will be flown and judged several hundred times throughout the year. Time and thought should be put into such an item that is so important to the IMAC flyers.

As for the sequences: I happen to know the guy that wrote the Sportsman seq B. The IMAC proposed and the submitted sequences were changed. The submitted seq had a 2-point roll on the output of fig#2 and had a full roll on the 1st and 3rd leg of the diamond. Why they decided to delete these elements I don’t know, but it sure took a lot out of the seq.

My big problem with some of the proposed sequences is the crossbox without a return crossbox. Example Intermediate Seq B.Fig #6. This humpty takes you out crossbox and exits back on a secondary x-axis that is moved out by the crossbox humpty. Now with no maneuver to bring you back into the primary X-axis line, the pilot has no choice but to fly the remainder of the sequence way out. IMO this is no way to design a sequence. For every crossbox maneuver there should be another to bring the pilot back in and exit on the primary X-axis line. This happens in Intermediate B, Advanced A and B.

As for illegal maneuvers. I know that the knowns are not held in the same criteria as the unknowns. But I think the Intermediate seq B fig#1 and the neg snaps on the 45 degree downlines is pushing the limit for legal maneuvers for Intermediate.

Again IMO

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Wow... the intermediate proposals are very challenging. Havent had the weather here to give them a go on anything other than the simulator.... man, I am going to be burning a lot a fuel to get these to look good - dont really care for either one honestly, there is no real flow to them, especially proposal B, it starts you out low on engergy, and doesnt give you a chance to get it back until the middle of the pattern unless you want to spread out manuevers 2 and 4. Proposal A will have a much smaller footprint for sure. We'll see when I can get to them on the airplane. Sure seems like it gets harder every year... must just be me getting old.

Roger

RE: 2005 sequences
 

My mac works fine. You do need to be a member to access the members only area where the proposals are currently posted. The intention is to have the final selection done by the end of the month.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I think that you find in actual use that this figure will allow you to adjust for wind drift. I am not certain about the piltos in your area, but out here it is the rare pilot that can keep his seuence EXACTLY on plane for the entire sequence. Plus, the top of a humpty can be very tight which will limit the y-axis displacement. Or if you need it you can fly a very large radius at the top.

The BoD determined that the negative snap on the 45 downline would be used in Intermediate this year.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

The A proposal actually flows very well. It is in large part based on one of the Unknwons flown at the Tucson Shootout. None of the pilots complained about the flow. But to each his own.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I would agree that feedback should be limited to those people who are going to participate in the flying.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Wasn't Tucson where the Sportsman Unknown had three uplines before they had a downline to bring them back down to earth?

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Indeed. Actually BOTH Sportsman Unknowns were fairly prooly constructed. But I was referring to the Intermediate sequences, since that is what the post I was repsonding to was talking about. 2005 Intermediate Proposal A is based on the Saturday Intermediate Unknown from the Shootout.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I don't understand why you would design a sequence to compensate for pilot error. A pilot that flies a good wind-corrected sequence will be penialized. A sequence should be drawn to provide good flow period. Let the pilot make the choice on where to try to hide mistakes.

So the BOD decided to allow neg snaps on 45 downlines for Intermediate but throwout a proposed Intermediate sequence because it had a 90 inside roller that had to be flown coming back in from a crossbox manuver.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I guess I did not make my point very well. Let's not call it pilot error, but rather reality. Also, a simple cross box Humpty is far and away NOT a figure that you have to let get away from you, as I pointed out earlier.

As to why the BoD accepted or rejected certain submittals, you will have to address that with them.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Missed this the first time. Of course you know that the direction shown on rollers in an Aresti diagram is irrelevant, right. The sequence you posted could have the roller flown inbound or outbound at the discretion of the pillot. In Aresti there is NO requirement for direction on y-axis figures. Inbound/outbound is entirely up to the pilot.