Welcome To GiantScaleNews.com

GSN is the BEST in an RC online community. Less corporate BS and more down home fun. Better conversations with REAL RC'ers. Don't settle for the biggest when you can have the best!
  1. If you are new to GiantScaleNews.com, please register, introduce yourself, and make yourself at home.

    We're 1st in Giant Scale RC because we've got the best membership on the internet! Take a look around and don't forget to register to get all of the benefits of GSN membership!

    Welcome!

2015 Sequences

Discussion in 'IMAC>>>Aircraft, Techniques, Equipment, etc.' started by tl3, Aug 7, 2014.

   
  1. tl3

    tl3 50cc

    128
    65
    28
    VT
    Years ago, when I first got involved in IMAC, we still formulated our sequences based upon what the IAC sequences were. While the difficulty level and power demands are clearly different and need to be modified for our needs, I would love to see some collaboration between IAC and IMAC on the known programs. Originally, and I'm sure Wayne can correct me if I'm wrong, IMAC used to simply wait for the released IAC knowns and then adapt them for our use. In light of the recent IAC / IMAC presentations at Oshkosh, and IAC's stated desire to have closer ties to IMAC, is there perhaps on opportunity to not just adapt IAC sequences for our use, but work with the IAC in developing the known programs? As a former IMAC sequence committee member, I know the development of the '15 sequences are likely well under way (or they should be) so maybe '15 is not practical, but in the future it would be a great way to capitalize on the IAC's recent openness towards IMAC and strengthen the ties between the two organizations. Thoughts?

    t
     
  2. TazmanianDevil

    TazmanianDevil Xtreme by DeFinition !

    Awesome idea !

    As close as possible to our origins.
     
  3. jerry3672

    jerry3672 New to GSN!

    5
    0
    1




    2015 is well underway. A few have already been test flown.
     
  4. Has anyone else noticed that the K factor seems to go up each year? Isn't that the reason for the different classes? Higher K factor for higher classes? The unknows seem to be going up in K factor as well. I plan to move up after this season, just an observation.
     
  5. exeter-acres

    exeter-acres Banned

    33
    7
    8
    you sure about that?



    It'll take me a bit to dig the data.... but lets start with Sportsman

    2009 the K was 221, 2010 K was 216, 2011 K was 209, 2012 K was 208 and 2013 it was down to 206 and 2014 is 213



    Intermediate

    2010 k276; 2011 k286; 2012 k284; 2013 k281; 2014 k285



    Advanced

    2010 k368; 2011 k377; 2012 k365; 2013 k368; 2014 k366



    Unlimited

    2010 k450; 2011 k454; 2012 k456; 2013 k463; 2014 k471



    While you could argue a bit for Unlimited, don't forget the K Factors for rolling circles changed quite a bit in that time period... The IAC raised the K on all rollers.

    you will also see that in the other classes...it is all in line and if anything a few classes have dropped a bit



    Now.. all that being said... the K factor is just a reference. Obviously an important one, but I can tell you that I can write a sequence with a "low" K factor that will kick your pants, and I can write a sequence with a higher K factor that would be and could be much easier to fly through



    And... we are always looking for folks to join the sequence committee
     

  6. castlebravo

    castlebravo 30cc

    36
    0
    6


    Clark,

    At Molalla, the Sportsman unknown began with a "Butt simple" cross-box entry to a simple downline with a 3/4 roll. The K factor was 16....simple .....right? You've never seen 7 pilots have more trouble with that simple a$$ maneuver! Of course the trees at that end of the field didn't help!

    Cant wait till next year when the "pucker factor" will go up expoentially!....





    CB
     


  7. Thanks for the clarification. I haven't been in the IMAC circles all that long and didn't have quite that much info available to pull from. There have been a few unknowns that weren't all that high of K factor that kind throw a guy for a tail spin.



    I will pass on the invite for the sequence committee, I am enjoying what they come up with.
     


  8. You moving up too? It's about time you sandbagger :p
     
  9. castlebravo

    castlebravo 30cc

    36
    0
    6


    Yeah....I'm runnin out of excuses........ ;)





    CB
     
  10. tl3

    tl3 50cc

    128
    65
    28
    VT


    As Curtis has already shown, the sequence committee has been quite cognizant of total K over the years and done a very good job of keeping it consistent - not without some rather heated, uh, discussions I might add ;). The upper classes have moved a little, but again this is as much related to re-assigned k values for rollers and the introduction of several new and more complex base figures to the catalog over the last few years. To add a little more clarity to the subject, it's helpful to understand the K factor system and it's origins. Aerobatics nerd alert - very condensed history of Aresti: IMAC sequences are all constructed from figures pulled exclusively from the Aresti catalog of aerobatics figures. Aresti developed the catalog starting in the '40s to bring a common "language" to the full scale aerobatics community. Every base figure is assigned a K (difficulty) factor. Base figures are then supplemented with roll elements which have there own k values. A figure's k value is the base figure plus any roll elements, the sequence k the total of the whole mess. With respect to IMAC and total k, it is very important to keep in mind that the k system was designed for full scale aerobatics. The difficulty value takes into consideration pilot g loading, cockpit perspective, power requirements, and airframe limitations, all of which are just a wee bit different in our arena. So, as has already been pointed out, total K in IMAC is not really indicative of the sequence's actual difficulty level.

    t
     
Loading...

Share This Page