[NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? DoestheDogHunt on poin...
George Kennie
geobet at gis.net
Fri Mar 3 09:45:03 AKST 2006
Gee,.....that didn't sound like bashing at all to me. Maybe I missed
something, but it just sounded like a perspective observation.
?
Steven Maxwell wrote:
> At least Ed's doing it here and not in Model Aviation, unlike
> the article by Mike Hurley a couple years ago, just explaining his
> experience. Steve Maxwell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: 3/2/2006 11:22:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern
> Participation? DoestheDogHunt on poin...
> Ed........This is a pattern list..There is no reason
> to bash IMAC here. I respect the IMAC group for what it
> has brought to many modelers,mfg, and sport flyers in
> general It took a lot of work to get where they are
> now.. As the past statements on the list show IMAC is
> doing very well.. Pattern is great and so is IMAC. I fly
> both for many years and enjoy both groups.I am proud to
> be a member of both. Pattern is doing very well.. WE
> have many contest and I see more promotions to bring
> in more members.Pattern will always be there for the
> precision pilot. IMAC is doing extremely well.... I
> cant go on and on because this is the pattern list.
> butit is to bad you did not have a good experience in
> IMAC ... lets leave it like that.fly pattern and stay
> in the pattern group.Marguerite In a message dated
> 3/2/2006 9:21:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:
>
> Brett:I think there's really a couple of tiers
> of SA pilots, with some very polished
> precision flyers in the top ranks. You are
> right though, there's also a good sized
> contingent that handle their sleds the way you
> describe. Often, they are the "checkbook
> pilots" who recently arrived on the scene and
> are just plopping recipes together and playing
> follow the leader as best they can. Dave
> Michael made some excellent points, one of
> which I would dub the "fade factor" with SA
> pilots. Everything he said was right on - the
> planes have great appeal, they get tons of
> press, you see them everywhere etc. So it
> attracts the masses. To a degree, that's
> great because it does help everything grow at
> a rapid pace. On the other hand, it can lead
> to an implosion, such as what seems to
> currently be happening in the NE region. When
> all you have to do is buy your way in, the
> event tends to attract larger numbers of peop!
> le with no particular awareness or concern
> over what it takes to be an actual modeler
> involved with precision aerobatics. That's
> what it seems like from here at least. Dave
> had some great ideas about promoting Pattern,
> which have mostly worked for IMAC / SA. I
> think that the main thing that we have to
> avoid is anything that would veer us away from
> concentration on precision, which is where
> IMAC has led the SA rules recently. Sequence
> design has also run amok with IMAC calling the
> shots every year over what goes in the AMA
> rulebook, resulting in what amounts to
> variations on methods to display snap rolls to
> the crowd. It's a lazy way to run up the
> K-factors in the sequences, which has become
> even more problematic for them since they have
> shortened the sequences to about 10 figures
> per class. Mess up one snap in a high K
> figure and you are done, hence they have done
> ever more to encourage snap cheats, all the
> while they valiantly attempt to teach
> otherwise in judging clinics. For proof,
> check a couple of the RCU experts forums,
> where they describe how they do snap! cheats
> to help teach the masses. That's what SA
> pilots are going to school on for the most
> part. We can learn a bunch from IMAC, good and
> bad. Ed ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: brett terry
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:37
> PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC
> Vs Pattern Participation? Does
> theDogHunt on points made?
> At my last IMAC competition I tried
> to present my maneuvers somewhat
> close, tried to be precise, and
> tried to increase the visibility of
> my plane. The judges told me to fly
> further away, because it can slow
> down the routine. People were
> flying the back side of the roller
> at the limits of vision, and this is
> with 35% - 40% planes! Some of
> these planes could fly away from the
> transmitter, and still be within
> vision limits. So much for
> positioning and "presentation". It
> is exceedingly difficult to
> recognize the difference between a
> vertical line and 15 degrees
> off...The deviation point deductions
> are mere speculation. Forget about
> trying to determine the number of
> wingspan deviations during a
> hammerhead.
>
> Most people, myself included, want
> to learn all the fun freestyle
> tricks with the big planes. Most
> spectators don't care about how well
> an IMAC plane can slow roll, or
> main! tain track during unweighted
> snaps, or perform precision
> aerobatics, they want to see it
> blast out of a hover, Panic,
> Blender, Rolling Harrier, Roller
> Coaster, Waterfall, and in general
> act like a foamie.
>
> It has become the Olympic Snowboard
> Half Pipe event of the model
> airplane world, including the
> requisite adjectives, "Extreme",
> "Alternative" (if 'alternative' is
> in the mainstream, can it still be
> considered 'alternative'?),
> "Radical", "Hucking", etc.
>
> There, I feel better now. Back to
> precision. Of course, I do enjoy
> the turnaround setup...
>
> Brett
> On 3/2/06, Ed Alt
> <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> For all practical
> purposes, Scale Aerobatics
> has no box anymore. It
> exists as an abstract
> concept on a piece of
> paper in that it has a
> defined height, width and
> depth, but since they
> eliminated the 75 degree
> markers, there is nothing
> left to measure it
> against. Additionally,
> they eliminated the
> concept of zones, so you
> are free to place things
> where it seems good to
> place them, i.e., a figure
> that would appear to be
> meant for the center of
> the box doesn't have to be
> flown directly in front of
> you. Your choice of
> placement has some kind of
> connection to the
> so-called Presentation
> Score as it was originally
> 'defined'. There are no
> deductions for centering
> inaccuracy. Once you
> enter the box, you still
> need to get figures in the
> correct order and
> direction, though cross
> box figures leave
> direction (in or out) to
> the discretion of the
> pilot. Currently, there
> may or may not be
> enforcement of a pure
> impressio! nist extra
> figure known as the
> Presentation Score. It
> passed as a rule, then
> everyone was instructed by
> the IMAC BOD not to follow
> the AMA rule they pushed
> through. I heard
> rumblings that maybe they
> are going to allow or
> encourage CDs to follow
> that rule again. Not
> sure, I don't really track
> what they do very closely
> anymore. Ed ----- Original
> Message -----
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> _______
> _______________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _
> _____________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060303/d675fe9c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list