The one aspect I think IMAC was trying to address early on was lack of spectators during standard "pattern" contests. The pattern crowd back then flew planes that didn't resemble anything real, nor did they perform maneuvers that the average Joe could relate to.

IMAC was a breath of fresh air to the general modelling community IMO.

------------------------

Did anyone notice the rolling circle in that Unknown #2? 4 rolls... all the same direction. Pretty much standard for the TOC crowd back then.

I remember practicing with Dean Koger before a TOC. He'd say "I imagine some of the unknowns will have rolling circles; so make some up for me to practice with". I'd look for pencil & paper at the field, and Dean would say.... no - no... just make them up right here & now.

For example I'd say...

start inverted.
3 roll - rolling circle outward with full snaps at the 180's.
Dean would crush that, and then turn around and fly it from the other direction.

One roll - rolling circle inwards
reverse rolling direction at the halfway point (when inverted). Dean would fly that., and then going the other direction as well.

I was never able to do a rolling circle myself; and to watch all the TOC pilots master them was quite amazing.

Going way back with this pic:

Yep.. things have changed. The 1994 TOC was really the revelation for me.. Airplanes were getting bigger, and the bigger they got, the better they flew. They got bigger at the TOC due to Mr Bennett's failing eyesight (rumor.. can't verify it), but the end result was we started seeing BIG airplanes (for the time). It was shortly after that TOC that I submitted the rule change to remove the engine restriction from IMAC, and started the journey towards the 40% airplane sweet spot we have today.

FWIW.. 1997/98 Masters I flew in at Pat's house was among my most cherished competition memories. I flew down there.. stayed with Dennis and Caroline (Carden Aircraft) at their house, and flew Dennis' Cap 232 both years. In 97 I flew the Patrick Paris scheme, and in 98 I flew the Carden scheme (patterned after the Breitline all yellow). I really wish I would have taken my own airplane, but I just couldn't make the money work shipping it down there. Plus, I was never really a freestyle pilot, so I never had a shot at winning it.. I held my own fairly well in the precision flights though..

The best part though.. meeting Pat and getting to know him a bit. He's an incredible man, and really gives a ton to this hobby. The thing people don't realize is, there isn't a job at Triple Tree (or his home back then) that was beneath him. He is truly the salt of the earth, and worthy of EVERY platitude people give him. Him letting me fly his Stearman at his house didn't suck either.

I would love to see a new event created though that doesn't require scale fidelity at all. Come up with a truly unlimited contest format..

110" span minimum, with no scale requirements, and design sequences to better cater to model airplane flying. Of course the K-factors would have to be adjusted for non-traditional maneuvers, but that could be done pretty easily.

Oh.. Known, Unknown, and Freestyle flying would all be scored, with the same airplane being used for all 3 flights. By removing the scale requirement (not really followed well anyway anymore), designs could be optimized differently..

So what kind of plane would you want this to evolve into Shaker? I guess they would look more pattern like? Would you still use the twins and quads for engines? Would you just tweak the scale planes with out regards to the 10% rule? They are all kind of ending up that way anyways. And guys are flying the pattern with unbelievable precision with the planes we have now. Do you think that would improve much at all. I would like to see what someone would come up with for an all out competition plane with no restrictions. Would be cool to see a giant pattern plane with that little wing thing on top of the canopy. Would put an end to the arguments as to whether a plane was legal or not. But don't change the manuevers. I like all of the sequences that we have been flying. Might shake up all the manufacturers that have put so much time and money into making scale aerobatic planes.

On the flip side of that I would also like to see an event with planes that have to be as close to scale as possible. Or an all biplane event or even an all Pitts Special contest.

Originally Posted by Shaker

FWIW.. 1997/98 Masters I flew in at Pat's house was among my most cherished competition memories.

I might have pics of that... somewhere.

Originally Posted by Shaker

I would love to see a new event created though that doesn't require scale fidelity at all. Come up with a truly unlimited contest format..

110" span minimum, with no scale requirements,

an unlimited attempt would still require a lot of rules though, or all entrys would end up being 110" versions of this:

http://gearopen.com/wp-content/uploa...85-695x521.png

Here is a link to a story I wrote a while back on an RCGroups Pattern thread;

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...&postcount=133

The attached image shows an expendable R/C target that Steve and I designed in 1984. These had a 120" span and weighed about 22#. They were very "Stand-Off" Mig 27 ish. This was the prototype, 99% cardboard -paper-EPS foam. The 1% was some 1/4" hardware store plywood. Later versions used a Sachs single 100 cc motor. Even with a NACA 2415 airfoil these things flew great. Basically a Giant Scale Kaos. With the right prop they would book ~ 130mph.

My point, airplane size and presentation matter to judges. Flying anything that is too far from the norm is very BAD for your scores, regardless of how great you fly and the TOC rules although restrictive to the 10% scale rule were minimal which drove innovation.

I'm drawing up a 100" FAI/IMAC-ish bird tonight for my DA-150!

Chris

Originally Posted by TimPro

an unlimited attempt would still require a lot of rules though, or all entrys would end up being 110" versions of this:

http://gearopen.com/wp-content/uploa...85-695x521.png

Nah.. It would still be aerobatics.. just with sequences engineered more for what our airplanes are capable of including power to weight and controllability.

I just discovered this cool Aresti tool online;

https://openaero.net/

Some of the more interesting unknown sequences at the TOCs I attended had long down line rolling combinations. Made for some very exciting pull outs at the bottom. As a caller, one of the most important things to do was count points and partial and complete rolls with enough time left to complete an exit at the appropriate height.

During the '88 contest we had continuous issues with RFI from poor ignition shielding (my fault). I never could completely solve the problem. During the last Unknown on day 3, Steve was sitting pretty good in 4th with the Ultimate. Throughout the flight we were getting occasional lock-out but kept going without missing anything major. On one of the last maneuvers there was a very long down line rolling sequence the final part was 1 -1/2 roll to a upright exit. At the 1-1/2 roll point we were locked out and ended up rolling about 3/4 more. That was a zero and dropped us to 6th.

more TOC plane pics.

This is an Extra 230 Wayne made and Dean flew at the 1990 TOC. Pics taken during practice, plane doesn't have any trim or decals yet.








powerplant was a Tartan Twin with belt drive reduction. This was needed to fly a large plane... but stay within the engine size limits for that year:

Awesome pics TimPro! Thanks for posting them. Could the Tartan cylinders be rotated to 0 or 180 deg. ?

Makes sense, its a reed valve case inducted engine, like an .049. Cylinders can be positioned at any 90 deg point.

Originally Posted by Whiplash48

Awesome pics TimPro! Thanks for posting them. Could the Tartan cylinders be rotated to 0 or 180 deg. ?

Makes sense, its a reed valve case inducted engine, like an .049. Cylinders can be positioned at any 90 deg point.

I believe so. I had one plane with a Tartan Twin and seem to remember the exhausts ports were on the same side of the engine.

I'd ask Jim Cline, our engine guru, but sadly he passed a few years ago.

Good ole Tartan Twin...
I had a Godfrey Lazer with a Tartan 3.0 on chapman tuned pipes - OMG!!
Converted to methanol..
Very finicky at idle but plenty of power for 3.0cuber...

Omega came out with Bully/Tartan fuel and idle was much better.

Ronster

Speaking of Wayne Ulery, I saw that today is his 81st birthday. Happy birthday to a true RC icon and one of my idols!

Originally Posted by mmcconville

Speaking of Wayne Ulery, I saw that today is his 81st birthday. Happy birthday to a true RC icon and one of my idols!

Howdy Mike.