I think this thread started as a query into unknowns. Jim W's post pretty well hit the nail on the head. Leave the unknowns to IMAC. When I switched from F3A to IMAC (actually the JR SCAT series) in 2002 I started flying Intermediate and really liked the unknowns. Flying those unknown sequences was very easy. I found the degree of difficulty of maneuvers between intermediate and the then F3A sequence to be compatible. Unknowns were no more difficult and, since I had been flying competitive pattern for 12 years I had little trouble adapting. I was typically the most experienced pilot in the class so I had little trouble. Moving up the ladder saw an exponential increase in the degree of difficulty for the maneuvers as well as for the unknowns. It is true, you have to kick butt in the unknown in order to win. So, at every contest I would spend saturday night learning and memorizing my unknown. I'd get the sequence and stick fly it until I fell asleep. I got to where I really hated that. It wasn't fun. Flying Unlimited in 2007, including the TAS, burned me out on this whole thing and cured me of any desire to fly unknowns ever again.<br>
<br>When I started flying pattern again in 2008, it was like a breath of fresh air to me. The contests were fun again. I am a competitive guy and I stopped having fun at IMAC contests. They were just too much work. <br>
<br>Pattern contests are much lower key and relaxing. IMAC events are hectic. The unknowns put a cramp on your fun as well. I would always be thinking at the evening group dinner "I can't have that extra beer, I need to leave NOW in order to have enough time to cram the Unlimited Unknown sequence into memory". That sucked.<br>
<br>As for the never ending debate of which is better/tougher/more precise, I'll say this. Flying Pattern made me a good IMAC pilot. Then, flying IMAC made me a much better Pattern flier. They're all good. Everyone should try both. Just leave the unknowns to IMAC, Keep them easy enough to memorize in 10 minutes in the morning so you can have a few beers and shoot the bull with your buddies at night.<br>
<br>Steve<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Bill's Email <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wemodels@cox.net">wemodels@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im">
J N Hiller wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p><span><font color="#993366" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Thanks guys that will
make it a little easier. <span> </span>I will then assume
that the slash marks
through the loop only indicate centering the rolling element.</span></font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#993366" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">It looked nice through 90
degrees of ark with a very slow rate but I
only got one out of maybe a dozen attempts that looked decent. </span></font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#993366" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Jim</span></font></span></p>
<p><span><font color="#993366" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br></div>
Those marks are from the Aresti catalog and indicate where on the loop
a roll element can be placed.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br>