<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Working as a judge at the DLM last week
provided an insight into the technology, judging, and competitors. The
event is an interesting combination of F3A and IMAC formats. Large airplanes are
flown, but the judging criteria are F3A with a few changes. (Essentially 1 pt /
5 deg error, no side box limits, 75 deg top of box, and relaxed centering
requirements). Sound levels were mandated at 94 dBa @ 25 ft which kept the
noise at a much more pleasant level than is often the case with the
large powerplants.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Power is generally provided by 150+ cc gas engines,
but E was used by two of the finalists (300+ A at full throttle).
While turn-arounds were farther than F3A (with proportionally larger
maneuvers), the pace was similar to F3A flown with E power. Some airplanes
looked as though more power would have been good at the top of the big maneuvers
- the E airplanes weren't lacking at all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Pilots were the best of both disciplines, and
the judge mix was also about even.The biggest take away is just how close
the flying skills of the top pilots of each discipline are. There may be a
slight overall advantage in precision for the F3A guys and a like advantage for
the IMAC guys in free-style, but it's very small. Both groups flew very complex
unknowns very well. The top IMAC guys would clearly be in the top of the finals
at any F3A event and vice versa. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Discussions in judging orientation were similar to
those in any Team Selection judges discussions, with no difference between
the views of the two disciplines. I'm confident either group could competently
judge to other group's events with little adaptation (differences are mostly box
/ centering items).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Overall - the only real difference between the
current F3A pattern and IMAC is the size of the airplanes. It can't be anything
but good for both events, and precision aerobatics in general, that things are
this close - we is them and they is us (sort of). Collaboration among
the respective SIG's at any opportunity would appear to be something worth
pursuit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Anyway, If you want to see some of the best flying
ever - insane freestyle - and the most outstanding model flying facility -
mark your calendar to visit the DLM in 2008 at Triple Tree Aerodrome!
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(More event specific discussions are on RCU - IMAC
Forum.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Earl</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There's a thread on RCU (IMAC
Forum)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>