IMAC just too expensive
#26
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boerne, TX
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
Aresti: I'm glad you can accept being wrong. "Based on my opinion" and I've been flying IMAC since 1994 when the "big" airplane at the contest had a 72" wingspan and a YS120 AC was the stuff, I cant remember how many contests I've flown, or classes I've judged, but I've never CD'd (too busy flying).... If you want to move out of basic and be COMPETETIVE, you better have a big airplane. People of a similar skill level (ie. a class like basic sportsman, intermediate....), one has a 72" wingspan aircraft, one has 120" wingspan aircraft - the bigger airplane wins every time. Unless you've got the skills of a TOC class flyer, you aint moving out of Basic - you said that yourself. Next time you get a chance, go fly against the guy you consistently beat by one or two places, you fly a .90 glow airplane while he flies a 40% with a gas 150 on tuned canisters. See if "the better pilot will still win." Get my point? (thats what these folks are trying to get across) Nobody is trying to "restrict" anything, or "level the playing field". IMAC is all about unlimited aerobatics. The idea being presented here is to open IMAC up to more people who either dont like to, or cant afford, larger aircraft, but still enjoy the sport of scale aerobatics and want to be competetive.
Bob: The idea was presented to have all the aircraft fly in the basic 4 classes and be judged accordingly. Then at the end of the day, identify the smaller aircraft and tally thier scores separately. No "extra" classes required. The additional requirement would only be a little more time to compute the final score, and double the hardware given away at the end of the contest. I kinda like that idea.
Roger
Bob: The idea was presented to have all the aircraft fly in the basic 4 classes and be judged accordingly. Then at the end of the day, identify the smaller aircraft and tally thier scores separately. No "extra" classes required. The additional requirement would only be a little more time to compute the final score, and double the hardware given away at the end of the contest. I kinda like that idea.
Roger
#27
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Grass Lake,
MI
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
I have written an e-mail to our new IMAC North Central Division director, Ken McGuire, asking him to read this thread, and proposing that the NC division take the lead in promoting mini-IMAC using a new rule of a 20" propeller limit, vice a .60 CI engine limit. Also, our club in Jackson, MI (JRCC), which hosts an IMAC contest in June this year will hopefully incorporate mini-IMAC using the 20" rule into our contest (if we can get permission). I am the club president, so hopefully I can do some arm twisting. Thank you everyone for your participation in this thread. If any of you know Ken, or CD's in your area, please talk to them about this.
Thanks,
Richard Fast
Thanks,
Richard Fast
#28
RE: IMAC just too expensive
ORIGINAL: Richardfast
I have written an e-mail to our new IMAC North Central Division director, Ken McGuire, asking him to read this thread, and proposing that the NC division take the lead in promoting mini-IMAC using a new rule of a 20" propeller limit, vice a .60 CI engine limit. Also, our club in Jackson, MI (JRCC), which hosts an IMAC contest in June this year will hopefully incorporate mini-IMAC using the 20" rule into our contest (if we can get permission). I am the club president, so hopefully I can do some arm twisting. Thank you everyone for your participation in this thread. If any of you know Ken, or CD's in your area, please talk to them about this.
Thanks,
Richard Fast
I have written an e-mail to our new IMAC North Central Division director, Ken McGuire, asking him to read this thread, and proposing that the NC division take the lead in promoting mini-IMAC using a new rule of a 20" propeller limit, vice a .60 CI engine limit. Also, our club in Jackson, MI (JRCC), which hosts an IMAC contest in June this year will hopefully incorporate mini-IMAC using the 20" rule into our contest (if we can get permission). I am the club president, so hopefully I can do some arm twisting. Thank you everyone for your participation in this thread. If any of you know Ken, or CD's in your area, please talk to them about this.
Thanks,
Richard Fast
You could offer it as a provisional class with unofficial standing on a test basis, but it cannot be used as any kind of official class until the rules are changed. And the only way to change the ruels is to submit an RCP, have the aerobatics contest board approve it, and then wait for it to come into effect. The next rules change cycle starts January 1 for rules that will take effect on January 1, 2007. That is the simple fact of how the rules are handled.
So, take the lead in your region. Get CDs to offer this as a provisional class and see if it works. If it does, then perhaps it can be made part of the rules. But answer me this. If so many people cannot afford big planes and/or are scared to fly them, why hasn't mini-mac caught on?? What's magic about the slightly bigger size you propose?? Why will that work where mini-mac has failed? I think it is because those that choose to compete understand what the requirements are and once committed to competition they acquire the equipment they need to be competitive.
#29
RE: IMAC just too expensive
ORIGINAL: Desertrat
A If you want to move out of basic and be COMPETETIVE, you better have a big airplane.
A If you want to move out of basic and be COMPETETIVE, you better have a big airplane.
The idea being presented here is to open IMAC up to more people who either dont like to, or cant afford, larger aircraft, but still enjoy the sport of scale aerobatics and want to be competetive.
If you really feel this strongly about it, why not CD a contest and offer it as a provisional class to test the waters. The official rules are locked through 2006 so it cannot be an official class until then. And then only if the official AMA ruels changes procedures are followed.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Harsens Island,
MI
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
I guess I have a question to present. Again I have no experience with 40cc size aircraft so please take this as a question from someone who just does not know. But will a plane with a .60 fly and present as well as a plane with a 20 inch prop to be able to be judged fairly by the flyer or is there so much more airplane that the same issue will exist that is already present in IMAC with larger planes?
bob branch
bob branch
#31
RE: IMAC just too expensive
Following the arguments of those above, there is no reason to believe that a .60-size plane will be any more competitive against a 50cc plane than the 50cc plane is assumed to be against a 150cc plane.
Also, the .60 plane is significantly cheaper than the 50cc plane, so I fail to undertand how creating a class to be populated by larger more expensive planes will help those who do not want larger more expensive planes.
The simple fact is that this is competition and most people simply do not like to compete. For instance, less than 10% of AMA members enter any kind of sanctioned contest in any given year. Not a year goes by that someone does not raise this issue. Let's limit the size of planes to get more people to compete. Yet, a size limited class exists and nobody flies it. Why not??
Also, the .60 plane is significantly cheaper than the 50cc plane, so I fail to undertand how creating a class to be populated by larger more expensive planes will help those who do not want larger more expensive planes.
The simple fact is that this is competition and most people simply do not like to compete. For instance, less than 10% of AMA members enter any kind of sanctioned contest in any given year. Not a year goes by that someone does not raise this issue. Let's limit the size of planes to get more people to compete. Yet, a size limited class exists and nobody flies it. Why not??
#32
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: germantown,
MD
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
PLH 23% edge = $260
RCS roto 35 rtr = $420
different servos + battery = 275
extras= $50
about $975- that is not that expensive and im 14. Watch i could win next year against you guys with $4000 dollar comp arf yaks lol! [sm=greedy.gif]
RCS roto 35 rtr = $420
different servos + battery = 275
extras= $50
about $975- that is not that expensive and im 14. Watch i could win next year against you guys with $4000 dollar comp arf yaks lol! [sm=greedy.gif]
#33
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hobbs,
NM
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
What are the size requirement on the size limited class you speak of?? The rules section of AMA and also IMAC are not posted and will not be up till Jan. 1, 2005. Secondly are these classes advertised as being available at you current meets? Until there is a discussion like this, no one is aware of the smaller class and it seems from the discussion here that people would rather not mess with it in a competition where the giant scales are flying.
Dang_it
Dang_it
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brandon, MS
Posts: 2,756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
Has the mini class ever been promoted in a big way? Just going form memory the only place I remember seeing it advertised much was in Great Planes adds for there Giles or Cap kits and one or two mag articles. Maybe it just needs to be out front more often.
Ed M.
Ed M.
#36
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boerne, TX
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
OK, I'll bite again.
Let me define competetive again, since it was left out of the quote above:
Competetive: being able to win over your peers if you are only slightly more skilled than they are.
A 35% aircraft has a fighting chance against a 40%, thats niether a fair nor valid representation of what is being presented here.. A 25% aircraft is at a disadvantage based on physics - higher wingloading, less power, and less momentum. I stand behind my "absurd" sweeping statement. "impression judging" has very little to do with the <fact> that a 35% or larger airplane is easier to fly through a manuever with fewer downgrades - period dot. How about this for an observation: How many 25% airplanes have won in classes above Basic (where there was a field of 5 or more airplanes) in the last three years? How long has it been since a 25% airplane competed at the TOC, or the Masters or any big boy contest? How many 25% or smaller airplanes were flown in classes above Basic last year? Bottom line: If (significantly) less expensive aircraft were competetive, why on earth are they not represented in larger numbers at our contests? How is that "absurd"? OBTW, what size airplane do you fly, and why?
Easy:
1. Poorly advertised.
2. Rarely offered. (has it ever been offered at the Nats?)
3. Difficult to add to a standard IMAC contest.
4. Weakly supported by IMAC as a SIG.
Hey this is just my lowly, obviously uninformed, inexperienced, opinion. to each his own.
FWIW
Roger
I know from extensive experience that this is absolutely wrong. I have personally witnessed 150-sized panes beaten handily in Advanced and Unlimited by smaller planes (33% & 35%). I will grant you that due to many factors, like simple impression juding, a .60 size plane will have a hard time against a 150-size plane. But to make the sweeping statement that you cannot compete beyond Basic without a large plane is absurd and not supported by observed facts.
Competetive: being able to win over your peers if you are only slightly more skilled than they are.
A 35% aircraft has a fighting chance against a 40%, thats niether a fair nor valid representation of what is being presented here.. A 25% aircraft is at a disadvantage based on physics - higher wingloading, less power, and less momentum. I stand behind my "absurd" sweeping statement. "impression judging" has very little to do with the <fact> that a 35% or larger airplane is easier to fly through a manuever with fewer downgrades - period dot. How about this for an observation: How many 25% airplanes have won in classes above Basic (where there was a field of 5 or more airplanes) in the last three years? How long has it been since a 25% airplane competed at the TOC, or the Masters or any big boy contest? How many 25% or smaller airplanes were flown in classes above Basic last year? Bottom line: If (significantly) less expensive aircraft were competetive, why on earth are they not represented in larger numbers at our contests? How is that "absurd"? OBTW, what size airplane do you fly, and why?
The simple fact is that this is competition and most people simply do not like to compete. For instance, less than 10% of AMA members enter any kind of sanctioned contest in any given year. Not a year goes by that someone does not raise this issue. Let's limit the size of planes to get more people to compete. Yet, a size limited class exists and nobody flies it. Why not??
1. Poorly advertised.
2. Rarely offered. (has it ever been offered at the Nats?)
3. Difficult to add to a standard IMAC contest.
4. Weakly supported by IMAC as a SIG.
Hey this is just my lowly, obviously uninformed, inexperienced, opinion. to each his own.
FWIW
Roger
#37
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Grass Lake,
MI
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
I have been to 8 IMAC contests in the past two years. I do not remember any plane under 27% competing above the Basic class (and then only a few 50cc planes in Sportsman). I don't think anyone will argue that general observation no matter what division there in. Regardless of what anyone else thinks is the reason , I went to a 33% plane because I felt that would make me more competitive (some thread contributors have missed the fact that I had moved up to Sportsman from Basic). I took third place at the NC regionals in 2003 in the Basic class using a 1/4 scale Lanier Extra 300 with a 32CC gas engine (heavy!). I had maybe $800 in that plane (but a lot of hours building from the kit).
For the 2004 season I bought a 33% Extra 260 ARF and a ZDZ80 engine, as well as expensive servos. Although I practiced a lot I just couldn't overcome the nervousness I had at the contests. I happened to believe it is because of the investment in money, and time, that I have such a hard time holding my composure at a contest. The "pull" instead of "push" that cost me this plane is a primary example of nerves going awry.
I just happen to think that there are a lot of people out there like me that don't want to put a large amount into a fun hobby but would still like to compete.I just think that flying 1/4 scale fits into that area. More and more guys at our club are getting into the 1/4 scale scene because good ones can be had for under $400. Put a $150 Super Tigre 2300 on the front and you have a good, inexpensive combination. I won't argue the difference in competitiveness between a 1/4 scale plane and a .60 size; that was never my point here. It is strictly a "bang for the buck" and have more fun by not having to explain to your family how you just trashed a $4000 airplane at a silly contest where the winner gets a $5 plaque.
Like I said before, I am submitting a rule change request to IMAC (they will forward to the AMA) to change .60 size engine to a 20" propeller limitation. Also, I will push to get this in as a provisional class at some of our NC contests. I haven't heard back from our new Director yet, so I have no idea what he thinks. Thanks for all of the inputs on this subject.
Richard Fast
For the 2004 season I bought a 33% Extra 260 ARF and a ZDZ80 engine, as well as expensive servos. Although I practiced a lot I just couldn't overcome the nervousness I had at the contests. I happened to believe it is because of the investment in money, and time, that I have such a hard time holding my composure at a contest. The "pull" instead of "push" that cost me this plane is a primary example of nerves going awry.
I just happen to think that there are a lot of people out there like me that don't want to put a large amount into a fun hobby but would still like to compete.I just think that flying 1/4 scale fits into that area. More and more guys at our club are getting into the 1/4 scale scene because good ones can be had for under $400. Put a $150 Super Tigre 2300 on the front and you have a good, inexpensive combination. I won't argue the difference in competitiveness between a 1/4 scale plane and a .60 size; that was never my point here. It is strictly a "bang for the buck" and have more fun by not having to explain to your family how you just trashed a $4000 airplane at a silly contest where the winner gets a $5 plaque.
Like I said before, I am submitting a rule change request to IMAC (they will forward to the AMA) to change .60 size engine to a 20" propeller limitation. Also, I will push to get this in as a provisional class at some of our NC contests. I haven't heard back from our new Director yet, so I have no idea what he thinks. Thanks for all of the inputs on this subject.
Richard Fast
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: corona,
CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
as bill said, historically, there has been very little interest in mini-mac, its origins trace back to only a few people. and at one time in one place there are never more than one or two people with an interest.
that being said, any limit in imac has never worked. the engine limit came and went, the 10% limit was ignored/unenforced, and again, there is talk of a new limit. the problem is that every limit has two things in common - one, they have no basis in logic, and two, they suit the agenda of person proposing it. take a 20" prop diameter - a 29% AW Edge, with a BME 50 and guided by a high end radio can compete. Against what? A .60 size GP Extra with a low end four channel radio? Does that level the playing field? Of course not. There is no way to make this work, and that is one of the reasons that mini mac failed - it is simply impossible to come up with rational methodology for a cut-off.
as for the bigger flies better garbage...the point that aresti is trying to make, and that i will echo, is that skill does not increase with wingpsan. wingspan don't mean squat when the pilot overrotates his snaps, misses points, has varying roll rates, go 90 over in a spin entry, or a litany of other things that are peculiar to the pilot's skill, regardless of what he is flying. to suggest that a 35% airplane has a fighting chance against a 40% airplane is absurb - like the 35% pilot is the underdog. but you want to really see people go nuts? show up at an imac contest with a scale inspired pattern plane - suddenly no one cares about wingspan, but they hoot and holler cause the pattern plane flies so good....
[X(] different people, same rhetoric.
that being said, any limit in imac has never worked. the engine limit came and went, the 10% limit was ignored/unenforced, and again, there is talk of a new limit. the problem is that every limit has two things in common - one, they have no basis in logic, and two, they suit the agenda of person proposing it. take a 20" prop diameter - a 29% AW Edge, with a BME 50 and guided by a high end radio can compete. Against what? A .60 size GP Extra with a low end four channel radio? Does that level the playing field? Of course not. There is no way to make this work, and that is one of the reasons that mini mac failed - it is simply impossible to come up with rational methodology for a cut-off.
as for the bigger flies better garbage...the point that aresti is trying to make, and that i will echo, is that skill does not increase with wingpsan. wingspan don't mean squat when the pilot overrotates his snaps, misses points, has varying roll rates, go 90 over in a spin entry, or a litany of other things that are peculiar to the pilot's skill, regardless of what he is flying. to suggest that a 35% airplane has a fighting chance against a 40% airplane is absurb - like the 35% pilot is the underdog. but you want to really see people go nuts? show up at an imac contest with a scale inspired pattern plane - suddenly no one cares about wingspan, but they hoot and holler cause the pattern plane flies so good....
[X(] different people, same rhetoric.
#39
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boerne, TX
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
that being said, any limit in imac has never worked. the engine limit came and went, the 10% limit was ignored/unenforced, and again, there is talk of a new limit. the problem is that every limit has two things in common - one, they have no basis in logic, and two, they suit the agenda of person proposing it. take a 20" prop diameter - a 29% AW Edge, with a BME 50 and guided by a high end radio can compete. Against what? A .60 size GP Extra with a low end four channel radio? Does that level the playing field? Of course not. There is no way to make this work, and that is one of the reasons that mini mac failed - it is simply impossible to come up with rational methodology for a cut-off.
as for the bigger flies better garbage...the point that aresti is trying to make, and that i will echo, is that skill does not increase with wingpsan. wingspan don't mean squat when the pilot overrotates his snaps, misses points, has varying roll rates, go 90 over in a spin entry, or a litany of other things that are peculiar to the pilot's skill, regardless of what he is flying. to suggest that a 35% airplane has a fighting chance against a 40% airplane is absurb - like the 35% pilot is the underdog. but you want to really see people go nuts? show up at an imac contest with a scale inspired pattern plane - suddenly no one cares about wingspan, but they hoot and holler cause the pattern plane flies so good....
different people, same rhetoric.
different people, same rhetoric.
But enough is enough, if you cant see my point by now, there is no use wasting time typing. <sigh>
Whatever, you're right, it'll never work.
Roger
#40
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Grass Lake,
MI
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
Whew!
I think it is time to say goodbye. I am going to go work on my new Carl Goldberg 1/4 scale Sukhoi kit for the new IMAC season (with the ST 2300 in front), a $350 investment, considering I already have the radio and servos; and yes I am going to give Sportsman a try again this year. Say hello if you see me at an NC event. Good night and happy holidays.
I think it is time to say goodbye. I am going to go work on my new Carl Goldberg 1/4 scale Sukhoi kit for the new IMAC season (with the ST 2300 in front), a $350 investment, considering I already have the radio and servos; and yes I am going to give Sportsman a try again this year. Say hello if you see me at an NC event. Good night and happy holidays.
#41
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: soldotna,
AK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
Hi Guys I have to admit I like flying 33-35%ers the best for there flying ability and ez of transporting I have flown 25% to 42%er's in IMAC but I saw a lot of guys get beat last year by a kid flying a 25% sig cap with a webra 120 on it. I like flying the bigger plane's but I wouldn't stop flying IMAC if I only had a 25%er its just to much fun. Mark
#42
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Las Vegas,
NV
Posts: 1,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
I think IMAC should provide each District with, let's say 10, 40%er's. That's two in each class for a contest. Start with one in your class and then switch to the other one when you fly again. That way there's no "that one was better than this one". We'd see the actual skills on the same aircraft for each pilot. Oh yeah, did I say the entry fee would be $2,500. It would be the IROC of IMAC..
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: corona,
CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
one point worth making is the referene to pattern...the pattern limit works because it applies to everyone, what is proposed here is exclusionary, it creates a class within a larger class - not the same thing and that's why the arbitrary limit doesn't work.
as for the other thing, maybe i haven't flown a 40% that was set up properly - the last one I flew was Jason's S's backup TOC airplane. Let's see I also flew QQ AW's 37% 300L - you know, his actual TOC airplane..does that count? I flew Peter Goldsmiths 40% Piper Cub. Does that count? Oh, I flew Bill Hempel's 36% Edge before anyone knew what an Edge was - the same airplane he took to the Masters, but I guess that doesn't count since it is so little.
I am not ignoring the benefit of a big airplane, I am simply not seduced by it.
as for the other thing, maybe i haven't flown a 40% that was set up properly - the last one I flew was Jason's S's backup TOC airplane. Let's see I also flew QQ AW's 37% 300L - you know, his actual TOC airplane..does that count? I flew Peter Goldsmiths 40% Piper Cub. Does that count? Oh, I flew Bill Hempel's 36% Edge before anyone knew what an Edge was - the same airplane he took to the Masters, but I guess that doesn't count since it is so little.
I am not ignoring the benefit of a big airplane, I am simply not seduced by it.
#44
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boerne, TX
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
I am not ignoring the benefit of a big airplane, I am simply not seduced by it.
I said I give up! You're right, it'll never work. There's really nothing to do or even try. What we have now is perfect. What was I thinking?
#45
RE: IMAC just too expensive
If you want a limit that works --limit the airspace flown in.
larger models have EVERYTHING to their advantage from a pure physics standpoint.
This includes time- smaller models if flown in the same space ( following the big model like ducks in a row ) - get the same time advantage -but you can't see em!
Limit just time and space and then you set a common denominator which effectively limits size of model.
Don't believe that?
OK, how about an event that is held inside a basketball arena?
Who would do that?
Easy answer - it is already underway .
the new electric stuff is self limiting in size -simply because an indoor event limits it.
If you think this isn't real fun -with real skills -guess again.
The products used in outdoor events are driven by the sponsored , winning setups .
that says bigger, newer, more money spent.
larger models have EVERYTHING to their advantage from a pure physics standpoint.
This includes time- smaller models if flown in the same space ( following the big model like ducks in a row ) - get the same time advantage -but you can't see em!
Limit just time and space and then you set a common denominator which effectively limits size of model.
Don't believe that?
OK, how about an event that is held inside a basketball arena?
Who would do that?
Easy answer - it is already underway .
the new electric stuff is self limiting in size -simply because an indoor event limits it.
If you think this isn't real fun -with real skills -guess again.
The products used in outdoor events are driven by the sponsored , winning setups .
that says bigger, newer, more money spent.
#46
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Nampa,
ID
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
Thanks - I know of those in the Spokane area but that is at least 8 hours away. There are contests held around Salt Lake and they are a little closer. I guess after I think about it a lot of what has come out in this thread is why I don't hit the contests anymore. I think that we all know that the 60 size ruling in mini-mac isn't working and I think that the idea that was presented has opened up some thinking that maybe there is a way to make a change that will benefit the sport. Part of the problem with competition is that we always look at it as a way to say who is better than another. Another way to look at it is a way to judge your self improvement and not against others but compared to yourself. Did I score better at the last contest than the one before? So what, if both times I was in last place. Flying IMAC should be about improving your own ability to fly the sequences better and helping others to do the same. Oh yes, my flying did improve when I went from 60 size to my now 120 size planes.
#47
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: N. Charleston,
SC
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
I think that the big picture here may be the same as it was when I was a kid and raced slot cars. More and more the PRO's and the well heeled began showing up at races and pretty soon the average kid with a few bucks to spend four himself unable to compete with the High Zoot $50.00 rewound motors and trick chassis that the factory guys were able to run. More and more the same few people were always at the winners circle and the rest of us couldn't afford to keep up.
This phenomena isn't only true with slot cars. I've seen the same with electric cars also. New and better technology is introduced and pretty soon, what was a field of players on the same level is stratified into many small factions. It seems by this thread that IMAC may be going the same way.
Sure, lithium batteries are great, but at $300+ to outfit just one airplane, who can continually do that for the sake of ounces saved. Then there are all the power boxes and assorted switches that cost a small fortune for what they actually do. I was thinking the other day that for over 20 yrs I flew with one battery, receiver, four servo's and never thought to back up anything, and in those 20 yrs I never lost a airplane to anything but my own dumb thumbs or lack of preparation.
I would sure love to see IMAC continue to be successful but I think it's far from what the original intent of the hobby may have been. I always thought it was to get guys together to compete on a less intent level than Pattern. Scale airplanes were to be the norm and no need for the exacting precision of a pattern airplane.
Seems to me that IMAC should now be called what it has become, Giant, Sort of Scale Pattern Competition. Nothing wrong with the level of precision increase but with smaller airplanes it wouldn't cost thousand of dollars to achieve. OH! Can we at least make the airplanes Scale again? To many slab sided carbon copies out there.
History is always repeating itself in one form or another it seems.
Just my opinion
This phenomena isn't only true with slot cars. I've seen the same with electric cars also. New and better technology is introduced and pretty soon, what was a field of players on the same level is stratified into many small factions. It seems by this thread that IMAC may be going the same way.
Sure, lithium batteries are great, but at $300+ to outfit just one airplane, who can continually do that for the sake of ounces saved. Then there are all the power boxes and assorted switches that cost a small fortune for what they actually do. I was thinking the other day that for over 20 yrs I flew with one battery, receiver, four servo's and never thought to back up anything, and in those 20 yrs I never lost a airplane to anything but my own dumb thumbs or lack of preparation.
I would sure love to see IMAC continue to be successful but I think it's far from what the original intent of the hobby may have been. I always thought it was to get guys together to compete on a less intent level than Pattern. Scale airplanes were to be the norm and no need for the exacting precision of a pattern airplane.
Seems to me that IMAC should now be called what it has become, Giant, Sort of Scale Pattern Competition. Nothing wrong with the level of precision increase but with smaller airplanes it wouldn't cost thousand of dollars to achieve. OH! Can we at least make the airplanes Scale again? To many slab sided carbon copies out there.
History is always repeating itself in one form or another it seems.
Just my opinion
#48
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 6,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: IMAC just too expensive
In the group of guys I fly IMAC with we have some guys flying .60 sized planes and some flying 40%'ers. The rest fall somewhere in-between.
We dont care who wins or beats who, we all just have fun and try not to take anything too serious.
If you go and fly against yourself and not worry about whats being flown in your class or who's going to win you'll have a much better time.
We dont care who wins or beats who, we all just have fun and try not to take anything too serious.
If you go and fly against yourself and not worry about whats being flown in your class or who's going to win you'll have a much better time.