OK, I'll bite again.
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.
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?
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??
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