ilikeplanes

Mini-Mac seems like a great ides, but by todays standard, the 60/90 rule seems too small. I see virtually no Mini-Mac contests in the schedule. If the Mini-Mac rules were changed to allow up 72" or maybe even 80" airplanes, with no engine restriction, would people be interested? I sure would be. Or, is IMAC really about flying large and there's no particular need for Mini-Mac?

Flyfalcons

If I remember right Minimac started with an engine displacement limit of .50cid for 2 strokes; not sure about 4 strokes. My GP Extra .40 doesn't even fit into that category because I installed a ST75 in it after the ST45 failed to perform.

I really like the idea you bring up: 80" max for monos, 65" for bipes (60 just seems too small for me to consider IMAA-legal), with an engine limit of maybe 62cc? This will encourage guys with venerable Midwest Extras, H9 Caps, or DP Ultimates to compete with inexpensive powerplants such as up to the G-62. Keep the nonscale rule for Basic class and either keep or lose the Unknowns. I like the Unknowns but they might keep some people away. Sounds like it would be a lot of fun!

EXTREME FLIGHT

The aircraft you are describing are more than adequate for competing in the Lower classes of IMAC. I have seen many events won with the Midwest Extra and Cap. Practice is what really matters.

Flyfalcons

Yes but I'd like to compete in the upper classes. I once competed against a 3W 40% Extra with my GP .40 Extra and won. So practice does matter. I'll be competing this year with my Midwest Extra in Sportsman which is fine, but by the time I get to Advanced I'll be outclassed in terms of size. The MW Extra will make it through Unlimited but the 40% planes do it much easier.

IMAC is unfortunately becoming a money game, with only very large aircraft competing in the upper classes. I think if you want to be competitive but can't afford to set up a 33%-45% aircraft then you shouldn't be placed at a disadvantage. A class that limits the aircraft to a size that most people can afford but become very popular. Let the big money guys do their thing and let everyone else have fun with each other while still being competitive.

Rendegade

If you allow pilots with 72" and 80" aircraft to compete, it'll make mini-mac another "he who has the biggest wallet wins" affair.

I can't afford a 72" aircraft, so I'm bound to get downgraded when I fly a 40 sized plane, as it flies a lot faster, and closer, the judges DO penalise you.

I'd be more inclined to see the old F3a rules brought in for mini-mac.

10cc engine, and maximum wing area. That would be enough to keep things pretty sweet.
That way you would have such a cavernous divide between the 40 sized pilot and a 60 sized "bigger" ship. It'll also mean that a lot of the older (now defunct) pattern technology would get a look in making the planes more economical to set up.

Desertrat

My Feedback: (2)

I for one like the idea of up to 74 inches. I think at that size you might actually see it pop up again, and it shouldnt be rediculously expensive. I havent seen a minimac contest since conception.... heard a lot of talk about it, but never a contest.
As for the practice vs size, IMO it takes a lot less practice with a bigger airplane to make the same score on a manuever. To simply say practice can make you competetive with a .40 sized cap against a 40% Carden is a stretch. Face it, its easier to make a pretty manuever with a bigger airplane. You might be able to take home some hardware in Basic and sometimes in Sportsman, but from there up forget it.

ilikeplanes

Just look at how many people are flying 24-25% SA on glow power. Look at all the airplanes that are readily available for cheap money in this class. Big glow engines are cheap too. The numbers are probably ten times the 33-42% on big gas.

I think it would really take off if properly advertised. Set the limit at 74" and no limitation on weight or power. I think this could effectively limit the aircraft cost to $1000 or less. Sure guys will build flying bricks with 50cc gassers. It won't be a competitive advantage though.

I believe it could eliminate or reduce the intimidation factor and change the image of IMAC as a rich man or second mortgage sport. Sure, I can fly my electric 32" GWS Extra and beat a gigantic Aeroworks (with enough practice), but who would really be interested in trying. Not me.

Like I've said before, people are most interested in participating if they are doing so with their peers. That means similar airplanes, budgets, and personal investment in the hobby.

Desertrat

My Feedback: (2)

Well put, and I couldnt agree more, there have to be at least 10-15 guys that fly glow SA aircraft at my field that are great flyers yet are discouraged from IMAC because they dont feel they would be competetive with a smaller airplane, and cant afford a 28% or larger. Additionally, it might open a larger market for smaller more powerful gas engines that are already severely needed in pattern.

Tim_Indy

Heard all this stuff before.........the reason you don't hear of Mini-IMAC contests is because when they WERE tried, turnout was disappointing. Even when a Mini-IMAC class was added to the regular classes at some IMAC events, contestants didn't show up for that class either. Maybe YOU guys want to compete, but there's no question in my mind that lotsa other guys that TALK competion aren't actually gonna DO competion. When informed there was a class to accomodate their size plane, they just found another excuse not to come.


For some, being the local club "hot dog" beats going to a meet and finding other pilots equally or more skilled than they are (Big fish in a little pond syndrome). You won't see these guys at a contest regardless of their plane size.

I say that if you want to compete, then go ahead and compete. I understand one's reluctance when he considers that he can't win, but don't blame the plane. Understand that if this is your first or second contest, YOU AREN'T GONNA WIN, EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE BIGGEST PLANE THERE!!! Winning is something you learn how to do, and you must realize you're starting at the bottom. The guys that consistently win are the guys that burn the most fuel!!! Stick time shows!!!

Tim_Indy

Boy, you guys can't even agree on specs for "Mini".

IMAC has no size restriction. If you want to compete....well.......compete!

Tim_Indy

There you go!!!!!

The key here is that it DOES take a better tool to do the prescribed manuevers in Advanced and Unlimited class!!!
Let me get this straight.....you want to take the UNLIMITED class and place LIMITS on it, right?

I dunno, my thought has always been that planes don't win contests, PILOTS do. If you want to beat me, you've gotta burn more practice FUEL than I do. I, too, have taken smaller and beaten larger, and for me, that added to the thrill of victory! Again, everyone doesn't want to compete. You'll see competitors at contests. Those that don't want to compete will continue to recite well rehearsed excuses about why they can't win.

ilikeplanes

I'm going to try some real IMAC competition this year. I'll be flying basic. I really don't care if I win lose or get sick from a bad hot dog. I'm going to do it to improve my flying skills and have some fun.

However, I see no harm in discussing ways in which a larger group of potential participants can be encouraged. Last time I checked, encouraging participation is a good thing. At least it always has been in my club.

Flyfalcons

Tim, of course unlimited means the flying; it doesn't have to mean the plane. The point of this thread is that, like you said, mini-mac turnout was disappointing, and I for one feel that the reason for that was the .50cid displacement limit. I think there are many people flying 120 size planes, which by today's standards means mini, so why not band together and have their own competition? If you don't want to compete that's fine. No one is saying that IMAC should impose size restrictions. Sort of like the SPA that is flying less expensive pattern planes. They are having fun, and the idea is working. Why can't it work with IMAC-style planes? Try to interperet this thread from the perspective of a guy that really doesn't have 4 grand to finish a 35% plane.

What about the idea of limiting the first, say, two classes to a certain size or engine displacement?

Desertrat

My Feedback: (2)

Noone said to limit IMAC in its current form. Just relieve the minimac restrictions and allow up to a 74" wingspan. IMAC in its current form is very popular, and succesful, why mess up a good thing? Minimac on the other hand isnt, but could be.

I agree that a very seasoned pilot with a small airplane can beat a not so seasoned pilot with a big airplane. When you level the playing field, put two guys of similar stick skills out there that have spent the same effort on practice, and one of them is flying a GP .40 cap, and the other is Flying a 40% Carden Cap, who is going to win? The argument that there is no advantage to a larger airplane doesnt hold up to the reality test. If you could win with a little airplane, how come you dont see them at contests?

Tim_Indy

I think you've hit the nailed squarely on the head!!!! If guys would think in terms of improving one's OWN flying skills, then IMAC can be viewed as providing a reason to practice, a place to have fun, another venue for learning, and IMAC provides a yardstick to measure one's progress. Kinda like joining Weight Watchers. Here's a program that sets attainable goals, provides a program to reach those goals, have fun with others with the same goals, and provides a yardstick to measure progress, provides encouragement and recognition if you do well, and offers assistance and encouragement if you don't. My focus is on how much weight *I* lose, and my progress is measured with *MY* weight loss record from the last meeting. If you lost more weight than me, I'm happy for you, and I realize that I can't sneak that pizza and donut!
I hope it's understood that my posts aren't meant to be mean spirited, because I really think we have the same goals (increased participation). I really feel that a promotion based on learning to fly better would go far in acchieving those goals. After all, now I can focus more on MY plane rather than worrying about YOUR plane.

Tim_Indy

The example is kinda extreme, but the key here is level of experience. If both pilots are seasoned (realize that a loop is more than simply pulling elevator) and spent the same time practicing, then the variable is the plane, and the biggun wins because it IS the better tool. If both pilots aren't seasoned, then they BOTH get beat by a better pilot flying another GP .40 cap who DOES know that a loop is more than simply pulling elevator.

Tim_Indy

Guys, several have mentioned the 1.20 size planes. They ARE popular, and inexpensive but personally, I don't see the need for a separate class for them. My reason is that the manuevers in Basic, Sportsman, and Intermediate class are WELL within the flight capabilities of a properly setup and powered aerobat of about 74". There aren't any manuevers that require deep vertical penetration so power isn't an issue. What IS an issue is how well the pilot is able to control HIS airplane. For example, Basic has a 2 turn upright spin as a center manuever, that means the stall occurs directly in front of the pilot, and is downgraded if before or after the "centerline". Downgrade if plane is snapped into the spin (nose lifts). Judges want to see the nose and a wing drop identifying the stall. Must be exactly 2 turns, downgrade if over-rotates or under-rotates. Nose should be pointing straight down at completion of second turn and a short line flown demonstrating straight down heading (yep, downgrade if not straight down, or no line drawn). Smooth pullout to upright flight on same heading as manuever entry. (downgrade if heading changed). Lotsa opportunities for points and downgrades here, and if you haven't practiced your spins so that you can do it with precision EVERY time, in either direction, you'll not score well. (Oh yeah, I forgot, if you had a bigger plane, you'd have scored better, right?).

When you break down each manuever into its parts in Basic, Sportsman, or Intermediate classes, none of them puts a properly powered and setup 1/4 scale aerobat at a disadvantage to a larger plane, because they are all about manuever placement, precision, and attention to detail. Additionally, you'd not fly your smaller plane in the same airspace as a larger plane, because that would emphasize your plane's smaller size. Fly your manuevers closer, in a smaller box, and slower and your plane can present as well as a larger plane flown farther away. Your task is to fly YOUR plane to your best, and not worry about the other guy's plane.

The manuevers in Advanced and Unlimited DO require more vertical penetration and larger planes get that without penalty. You can hang a larger engine on a smaller plane, and only have a high powered brick that only does straight up well.

My point is that there are already 3 classes where a 1/4 scale plane can do well, and the pilot is already flying with his peers.

Desertrat

My Feedback: (2)

Tim-indy:

In basic and most of the time in sportsman, a 72" airplane is quite competetive, but starting in intermediate and on up, regardless of vertical capabilty of the aircraft (and I've got a 72" that is perfectly capable of flying all the manuevers in the advanced pattern) it becomes increasingly more difficult no matter how much you practice - more due to reynolds factor than power. I think everyone is in agreement here.
I like your point about bettering one's self, and the camraderie associated with the sport, I think as a group we should advertise that, I know thats what I am going to use to get some of the fence sitters at my field to at least try it.

If I take everything here at face value, I come to two conclusions:
1. Minimac is unnecessary.
2. We have a perception problem. Any aircraft would be equally competetive in Basic and Sportsman, but the perception is they wouldnt.

In keeping with discussion, and I really like that this is discussion and not argument, If point 2 is true, what happens to these guys when they are ready to move up into a class where the airplane they can afford is no longer capable of being competetive? How then do we support them?

JimTrainor

Desertrat, Could elaborate on the Reynolds number factor, or perhaps point me to a thread discussing the issue. Thanks

ilikeplanes

Oh what the heck, I'll chime in again.

We all agree that encouraging participation is a good thing right? If IMAC, as an organization, really wants to do that, the insiders need to look at IMAC through the eyes of an outsider. Determine what the barriers to entry are, and knock them down. It is just as simple as that, in my opinion. If Mini-MAC, with the current rules and personal investment of experienced IMACers, does not bring in beginners, we should question why. Do the current 60/90 rules represent the demographic of most potential beginers? Maybe not. Could a more modern interpretation of Mini-MAC bring beginners in? Only if experienced IMACers commit to it.

I suppose another interpretation is that IMAC is really a group of giant SA pilots that have followed the natural progression of ever increasing airframe sizes and that cost is no object. I can tell you from an outsiders view, that's what it looks like. My own experience is based on one local IMAC competition. The financial resources sitting on the flight line was mind boggling (even in Basic class).

Although that doesn't deter me too much, I bet many people just go home feeling that participation in IMAC is an exercise in futility.

Tim_Indy

Well, it's just MHO, but I agree wholehartedly with that assessment. Regarding the perception problem, I drag raced motorcycles at the track for 16 years (and was VERY good at it) and I always realized that they only way for me to win is to concentrate on what *I'm* doing, rather than worrying about what *You're* doing!! When I fly IMAC, I understand that the only thing in my control is *MY* performance. I can't control what plane *YOU* brought, or how well you fly it, so no need to worry about something I can't control. I can control how much homework I do regarding things like:

(1) Setting up my plane - For many this means just getting the plane to fly hands off the length of the field, and that's it. It takes me 30-40 flights to get a new plane flying the way I want, in terms of control response (roll rate, pitch rate, rudder effectiveness, "feel" around center (exponential), full rate response, etc). Other factors needing correction might be adverse rudder pitch and/or roll coupling, pitch change with throttle position change, aileron differential adjustments, etc. I want an honest plane that's transparent, and does what I tell it with little input of its own.

(2) Learning how to "listen" to my plane - I know what manuever I want the plane to do, and I need to watch and be able to "listen" to the plane tell me how *IT* wants to do it. Doesn't matter how my LAST plane did 8 point rolls, this plane is different.

(3) Breaking down each manuever into its parts and detailing each one to get it right. For example, manuever #8 in the Intermediate Sequence is a Humpty Bump. Since its a CENTER manuever, I've got to position it centered through an imaginary line straight in front of me. I pull up and draw a vertical line making sure it's straight up, not cocked to one side, or forward or back. I realize the manuever has to be kinda tall, since on the downline, there is a 3 of 4 point roll, and I need room for the point rolls AND drawing a short straight line before, and after the point roll portion of the downline. Now that I know how tall to make the upline, at the center of the upline I do a 3/4 roll and then draw another vertical line equal in length to the first line. I also consider that since the 1/2 inside loop at the top is done cross box, that I can use this to position my plane either closer or farther away. For example, if I enter the manuever flying right to left and my entry line is kinda far away from me, then by doing my 3/4 roll to the right, the inside loop at the top brings the plane closer to me for the downline. Likewise, if my beginning line was close, rolling left would move the plane farther out on the downline, and better position it for the next manuever. Anyway, I've drawn my second vertical line to show the judges that the 3/4 roll didn't throw me off heading, then I pull my 1/2 loop over the top, throttle back and draw a line straight down. If I've done the upline tall enough, then I can do the 3 points of a 4 point roll in an unhurried manner and still have room to draw another line straight down to show the 3-of-4 didn't throw me off heading. I then pull to a smooth upright exit. Another thing to consider is if my plane lacks vertical penetration, then I can help set up this manuever with the manuever right before it, which is a split Ess. By ending the Split Ess higher than normal, it makes the entry to the Humpty Bump higher than normal, which is all right since the entry and exit of this manuever doesn't have to be the same altitude. this way I can "cheat" the upside, and still have a bunch of room for the downline of the Humpty and score well.........Gosh.........Lotsa words, but that's the homework idea that separates one pilot from another. Then again, it's much easier to just say that you didn't win because his plane was bigger than yours, right?
Yepper, I like discussions also! Actually, guys know they are ready to move up when they have WON class more than once. By this time, he knows what homework is, and has the desire to do it, resulting in success. He's not one of those fence sitters with excuse after excuse. Yeah, I've got a 1/3 scale GP Extra, I'm not made of money, and it came with sacrifice. We support the guys you're talking about by making sure that if their situation changes, that advanced classes are still there. We don't need a "less than advanced" class, we already have them.

baronbrian

My Feedback: (13)

I would say get rid of mini-mac, but since i have never seen a contest, I guess that it is a non-issue.
I do know however, that the planes being brought to the contests these days are mind boggling. I fly a 25% scale Sig Cap, powered by a Moki 1.35. It has Digital servos all around, and well over $100 dollars in hardware. The plane cost about $1200 total. Now I am very good at rolling circles, and With a 17X6 prop I can hover at 1/2 throttle, and I can do every 3-d manuver that I have read about. I have flown in Pattern, Imac, and scale for the last five years, and burn over 30 gallons of fuel per year. Now, if you think I could compete against 40% stuff that I faced in the Advanced class last year you are mistaken. I would almost like to see a restriction put on this thing like we see in pattern- a weight limit or something.

Tim_Indy

Brian, you're right, and I definitely said in a previous post that the manuevers specified in Advanced and Unlimited class do require better "tools". Your Cap is definitely competitive in Intermediate, and Sportsman classes even against the big ships, mainly because the manuevers specified in those classes is well within the flight envelope of your Cap.
A weight limit that does what? Make ALL the planes smaller and the same size? Since you fly a 1/4 scale Cap, what do you think the weight limit should be? If it was made, say 25 pounds, your 12 pound plane would still be small so I'm guessing you'd like the limit to be closer to 12 pounds, right? A weight limit doesn't limit the costs necessarily because I've seen several competitive pattern planes whose total cost is more than I've got in my 1/3 scale GP Extra. Remember, cost was the apparent issue for guys in earlier posts.

I dunno, to my way of thinking, each higher class has more complex manuevers and that's to be expected. Intermediate class manuevers challenge a 1/4 scale aircraft to the end of it's flight envelope. Beyond that, better tools are available to do the job.

You gonna continue flying in Advanced class?

Desertrat

My Feedback: (2)

Encyclopedia

Reynolds number

Reynolds number [for Osborne Reynolds], dimensionless quantity associated with the smoothness of flow of a fluid. It is an important quantity used in aerodynamics and hydraulics. At low velocities fluid flow is smooth, or laminar, and the fluid can be pictured as a series of parallel layers, or lamina, moving at different velocities. The fluid friction between these layers gives rise to viscosity. As the fluid flows more rapidly, it reaches a velocity, known as the critical velocity, at which the motion changes from laminar to turbulent (see turbulence), with the formation of eddy currents and vortices that disturb the flow

A larger airplane actually does fly differently then a smaller airplane, based on its size and mass. IMO, it flys better


Tim: you're my hero, your fingers must be sore from all the typing Overall, I think nothing would hurt IMAC more than imposing restrictions on aircraft size. IMO, the big airplanes are the draw, and it draws spectators as well. Unlimited needs to be unlimited, period dot. If one wanted like airplanes of a particular size, and a level playing field from that respect, NSRCA will always be there.
Now, for SA, I still think it would be neat to have and additional class of aircraft. The aircraft should be of a size and scope affordable to the average modeler (74"). Level the playing field of aircraft, and have them fly advanced and/or unlimited pattern since this seems to be the agreeable point at which aircaft size begins to become a significant factor. This in turn protects those not fortunate enough to be competetive at the next higher level due to aircraft cost.

.... if only I made all the rules GREAT discussion y'all!

Flyfalcons

What about limiting the first, say, two classes in IMAC to a certain size? Something like 62cc engine or less. That way beginners are encouraged to bring out what they have, and give it a shot, rather than compete against very large aircraft from the beginning. Yes, people are flying 35% aircraft in Sportsman and while smaller aircraft are definitely capable of the maneuvers, it is discouraging when you have to compete against a 'trophy collector'. Something to even the playing field at least in the lower levels would encourage more participants.