About the only thing that IMAC and F3M have in common is they fly basically the same type of planes. As I've said before, if people are hot to have F3M here there is nothing stopping them from putting a contest together and having at it. I just do not see IMAC ever integrating F3M into their format.

F3A works with pattern fairly nicely since the similarities are much closer. The only real difference is F3A judges to full points, no half points. Other than that it is the same 1 point per 15 degrees and pretty much all the other criteria are the same.

Mike (Mith) you seem hot for this, so why not put together a contest?? VVRC would be a great venue. So why not take a shot at surmounting those "not insurmountable" obstacles!!

Originally Posted by Judge

Mike (Mith) you seem hot for this, so why not put together a contest?? VVRC would be a great venue. So why not take a shot at surmounting those "not insurmountable" obstacles!!

+1

You could also try out an IMAC contest and see how boring the figures actually are to fly....

Pete

Originally Posted by Judge

Mike (Mith) you seem hot for this, so why not put together a contest?? VVRC would be a great venue. So why not take a shot at surmounting those "not insurmountable" obstacles!!

+2
It REALLY is not hard to do Mith.

Originally Posted by pcastine

Unfortunately, not quite that simple.... Just a few of the differences (I'm sure I've missed some):
* F3M has a 150 degree angled "box" (similar to F3A Pattern) - IMAC has a retangular "airspace"
* F3M has centering criteria - IMAC does not
* F3M judges speed and flow of a figure - IMAC does not have these criterion
* IMAC has airspace control and noise scoring - F3M does not have these criterion
* F3M allocates scores among known, unknown, and freestyle flights - IMAC doesn't include freestyle (plus: the way the scores are allocated between known and unknown flights are different between the two)
* F3M considers a one-sequence flight as a known round - IMAC requires 2 sequences

Pete

All this is true, except that in F3M the angle is 140 degrees and that we also measure noise at max 96db. If you like you could take quick look at the F3M sporting code here:
http://media.wix.com/ugd//013782_e8e...330dfcbc76.pdf

In large scale we fly the same airplanes and use more or less the same technology, therefore there are strong basis for integration.

In order to come up with something uniting, I think it is essential to share a common goal or purpose that should drive the integration decisions.

In my view the goal could be that Large Scale Aerobatics should be used as the most powerful tool to capture the attention and the interest of the large public, in order to revamp the interest for the model airplane practice in general. I believe this would be quite useful in order to better attract so many young people who, in my view, spend too much time in front of a playstation or some other devil computer tools that, in the end, do not teach them much.

Experience shows that Large Scale Aerobatics can capture the interest of the general public, to the extent that we have also been able to involve TV channels into some of our events, achieving a decent success (of course we will never be televised like a football game).

If I apply this goal to the differences you mentioned, I come up with the following results:

1. 140 degree is good since, otherwise, planes tend to go too much out of site, but it could go up to 150.

2. Recetangular air space is fine, expecially if you consider that when performing rolling circles we already live the straigh line and that manouvers like the humpty-bump or hats can be use to move from the line. Let's fly on a rectangle

3. Centering I believe is good for the public, since it places the most interesting manouvers in front of spectators creating an expectation. Centering also helps to shoot videos, therefore I would keep it.

4. In F3M judges measure precision, position and elegance. The sense of elegance is often impacted by speed. However, except for precision, that is already a shared criteria, I believe that position and elegance could go away. Why not? Let's use IMAC rules to judge the maneuvers.

5. IMAC airspace control and noise scoring should be adopted

6. We should have known and unknowns, since they work well in both standards. The presence of free style I believe is important because it is very attractive for the public and it really makes the show. However, since it is impossible to be judged accurately, I would give it a small weighting factor on total score. In F3M the relative weight is now 20% versus 35% for knowns and 45% for unknowns. In my view it could weight even less, but is should be performed, because it is spectacular and because it attracts the interest of many excellent young Pilots who actually consider F3A quite boring.

As a last thing, I would give this competition a different new name, like for expample: LASAER (Large Scale Aerobatics). But it is important that both IMAC and FAI should support the new category at the same time: creating a common Baby and, one day, only one World Championship.

In a previous post I said that I had the impression the IMAC executives do not fly anymore. I am very happy to hear I was wrong and I really hope I did not offend anybody.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. However, I do not count anything, I am just a pilot and a judge and I do not cover any position within FAI, but I care about the future of large scale aerobatics.

Have a good flight,

Manrico

We used to fly the 150 degree box here in NZ, but eventually we got lazy, and putting the poles up got too hard. Put a centre pole up and bring on the rolling loops I say !!

I'm glad to see there is so much support for IMAC. We have generally done IMAC schedules here in South Africa but for a short period they moved to doing F3M. I am flying more F3A at the moment but I really hope that Large scale aerobatics doesnt follow that style of maneuvers. I dont agree with Mith that IMAC is behind and needs to think out the box or that it has anything to do with being a leader or follower. Pattern never had snap rolls or roliing maneuvers until they took a page out of the IMAC book. Leave pattern maneuvers for pattern planes. The fantastic thing with IMAC is it is different, and much more entertaining for spectators with flick rolls and combination rolls/pt rolls. Most full size wont do multiple snaps on an up line and continue pulling afterwards but IMAC have catered for the models being more powerful so have these such maneuvers. Pattern maneuvers are smooth and graceful and IMAC maneuvers are exciting and extreme and both suit the style of planes being used to fly them. I wish the FAI would stop trying to run scale aerobatic planes with the same rules applied to pattern. How boring would it be if all aerobatic disciplines looked the same. How about a bit of variety. Well done to IMAC for bringing this form of flying to us modelers. FAI have done an amazing job with F3A but their F3M schedules are not great and make no sense to me. Basically like a aerobatic muscle machine doing ballet. What was with that multiple top hat center maneuver they had in the 2011 schedule....

Hi guys!
I am Martin Pickering, I compete all over Europe with a decent degree of success.

I have flown both F3M in Spain (won the Nats twice) and also IMAC both in Spain, and in Europe.

My point of view is the following:

-First and formost, we do this for fun, because we enjoy it. The competition in Europe is very friendly and this should stay the same

-From a pilots point of view, other than the "box" and the center manouvers, I dont see any difference in my practice for an F3M or IMAC competition. With both I want to fly as smooth, precise and constant as possible...

-Even with or without the 140º being obligatory, most competition pilots will keep within this angle anyway (approximately) At the end of the day, this is just space control...

-And again, even with or without center manouvers being obligatory, most competition pilots will center manouvers, to keep a symetry...

So, really, what is the difference? A slighly different judging criteria, both of which could be improved, and I feel could be improved taking into account the best of both categories...

As for restrictions, I understand a maximum weight being quite sensible, noise restrictions might be better being based on the club restrictions, and not so general (full scale make a lot of noise, and it is awesome!! )

I think it is a real shame that this year there was the first official F3M European Championships, organized by FAI, and that it has been cancelled due to a lack of participation...

All the best,
Martin

Originally Posted by Judge

Mike (Mith) you seem hot for this, so why not put together a contest?? VVRC would be a great venue. So why not take a shot at surmounting those "not insurmountable" obstacles!!

+3

Come on, Mike. If you want to see F3M, make it happen.

Originally Posted by pcastine

You could also try out an IMAC contest and see how boring the figures actually are to fly....

Pete

+1

Come on, Mike. Enough guessing about what you think it would be like. Come fly a contest with us.