Good morning everyone,

Here's the first dumb question of the day: What is the real difference between NSCRA and IMAC? I believe that IMAC sponsors precision aerobatic contests, and it looks as though NSRCA does as well? NSRCA is a special interest group to the AMA, but is IMAC? And is that important? At surface level, it looks as though these 2 groups are very similiar, so I am just trying to understand the differences. Are the flying styles different? Does one allow different types of planes or equipment than the other? Is one more respected or "better", and why? You see what I am trying to get at!

Thanks for your help!

The difference is that IMAC must use scale planes of the a full size aerobatic plane.
Pattern uses a plane that is designed to do aerobatics well.

Both IMAC & NSRCA fly precision aerobatics competitions. The big difference is in the planes they fly. IMAC planes are scale (more or less) models of full-scale aerobatic planes--Extras, Sukhois, CAP's, Staudachers, etc.--"real" airplanes that have a human pilot sitting in the cockpit. Go to an IMAC meet and you will typically see gas powered 1/3 scale models weighing from the 'teens on up to 30 pounds and more.

Pattern (NSRCA) planes are not scale models of anything, but a design class unique to pattern, aimed at neutral trim and coupling to make them well-behaved in maneuvers. The model is limited by FAI rules to a two-meter span and two-meter length maximum, with a five kilogram weight limit. Most planes you'll see at a meet are close to these limits, although state-of-the-art composite materials can sometimes get the weight close to 10 pounds (5 kg = 11 pounds). They're powered typically with YS 4 stroke 1.40 engines, or with piped two-strokes in the 1.40 to 1.70 range.

Most of the maneuvers are the same between IMAC & NSRCA, although they may go by a diffferent name. There are fine points of difference in judging criteria, but on the whole both groups stress perfect geometry in maneuvers, smooth transitions from one maneuver to the next. Their schedules--the string of maneuvers to be performed in each class of competition--are similar but different, mostly made up of the same individual maneuvers, strung together in unique sequences.

Back in the days when the Bridi Chaos was the hot plane, pattern was popular and flown 'everywhere'; but pattern has shrunk over the years as the planes have become more expensive. I believe I saw a figure recently to the effect that there are maybe 400 active competitors flying pattern these days in the U.S.

IMAC on the other hand seems to be booming. The ongoing improvement in light & powerful gas engines and the wider availability of well-designed and constructed 1/3 scale ARFs has made it easier to break into formerly more exclusive IMAC competition (although these planes can be even more expensive than pattern models, especially as the size goes up).

Which is "better" is pretty much a matter of personal preference. Some fly both, but if you're driven to win your class, the level of practice and dedication required will typically drive you to one or the other. Personally, I have total respect for a good flyer in either category, especially for those who build what they fly. If I had to decide which way to go, I'd lean in favor of where I could get a good coach, accessiblity of practice fields, calendar of competitive events within easy travel distance, community of other flyers on whom I could depend for assistance and sharing knowledge.

You don't have to spend big bucks to sample the thrills of either style. You can compete in the entry-level class in either group with a .40-.60 sized ARF or kit-built, and fly a season or two with almost any model that can do loops and rolls. You'll find both groups welcome new members, happy to give advice on equipment & set-up. Finding a coach/instructor/mentor is to me the key to success, just as it was in breaking into radio control at the basic trainer level. Go to meets. Talk to people. Ask for help.

I would add that IMAC has no particular rules regarding airplane size. Small, medium, and large are welcome.

True, IMAC has a weight limit set by the AMA 55lbs
NSRCA has a 11lb limit

Thanks for the info everyone. Even though I will be flying a .40 size Ultimate and a Midwest Mach 1 for now, it looks like IMAC is where I want to focus as it is in line with what my future vision is. I am actually signed up to attend the IMAC Judging seminar on March 20th in Milford, PA, and I just wanted to make sure that I was understanding exactly what direction I was going in. So far, everyone affiliated with the IMAC group that I have spoken with has been extremely helpful, and I am really looking forward to getting started!

Thanks again,

John

WHile the ultimate will not present well, you could fly it in any class

What he means by "present" is the factors that effect your score that shouldn't. In other words, the wow factor. It can and has been argued that small planes score poorly when compared to larger planes even when flown exactly "by the book". I flew a 72" plane and did quite well in Basic class. There were a few big airplanes that I beat.

The biggest thing effecting your score is practice. One of my club mates said practicing was cheating. That made me laugh.

It's only natural to want to score well, but the main thing is to get out and practice with whatever you have, improve your flying, gain knowledge and confidence; then get to the meets and fly whatever you have, get involved, talk to folks, see what's happening. There will be plenty of time to draw your own conclusions as to the kind of plane you want to be flying. It does my heart good every time another flyer joins the fun!

Yes, I compete against myself. For me, it is the ability to fly all the maneuvers in the book. I am in need of one more to move to intermediate. So I try to practice rollers when I can.

The reality is that unless you want to spend the $$ for a 30% or larger plane you will not be successful in IMAC. Even though the rules say to judge the geometry - there is an absolute bias against smaller planes. How do I know - I was told by 2 "professional" judges who had judged the TOC that my maneuvers were "small" and my pace of flying was quicker, and therfore not scored as well. (this is with a 72" wingspan plane). Smaller plane = smaller maneuvers = bad scores??? Never was I told that they didn't like the geometry - the only parameter that is supposed to be judged. Like it or not there is a "WOW" factor that is judged. IMAC is going the way of pattern in a fast way. How many people want to spend thousands for a 30% plane and engine and thousands more for a trailer to pull your plane in order to be competitive? If they want it to be a large scale event, that's fine but don't fool the new guy into thinking he can show up with a .60 extra and have the slightest chance to be competitive regardless of how well he flies.

ual767, I agree and disagree. While a larger plane does present well, if you can stretch our your maneuvers the judges do seem to like them better. I think this goes against the zoneless box intent but judges do seem to hate closely flown maneuvers.

I agree with you about streaching out the maneuvers. That would help score higher but is just appeasing the bias that exists with the judges. I just don't like the idea that they say that the only parameter that is judged is the geometry, but in reality that's only one factor that is actually considered. The guy flying the .60 sized plane can only streach so far until his plane is too small to see the detail in a maneuver. (and gets downgraded). The only way for him to present a maneuver so that it can be seen is to keep it in tighter - now they can see the detail in the maneuver but downgrade him for flying too small and tight. The guy with the 30% plane can fly far out and larger - giving the judges more time to score it and making them happier (hence higher scores). If the .60 guy and the 30% guy fly identically correct (geometrically) maneuvers, but fly different sized maneuvers, the .60 guy will get a lower score (sometimes significally) than the 30% flyer and loose every time. If IMAC wants to make it a 30% or larger event - fine, but don't try to fool the .60 guy into thinking he has any realistic chance of doing well.

- Of course that's my opinion - I could be wrong

The only thing I will disagree with is the "loose every time" statement. I have seen guys fly competitively in sportsman and intermediate with smaller planes. If you are really good, it will not make that much of a difference. You also have to remember that bigger is easier to fly.

ual767, I could give a new guy Chip Hyde's 46% Ultimate that won the TOC and he STILL wouldn't be competitive. Why? Because he is NEW. As in any endeavor, it does take some homework to learn HOW to be competitive. He CAN, however, show up with his .60 sized model and have BIG fun getting his feet wet, learning the "ropes", checking out other planes and flyers, asking questions and getting answers and help, and in general, enjoying the show.

JBECK is helping himself tremendously by attending his region's upcoming Flying and Judging Seminar. He doesn't have to wait to start his homework, though, because he can download the 2004 sequences [link=http://www.mini-iac.com/DesktopDefault.aspx]HERE[/link] (in this case the BASIC sequences) so he knows what manuevers are required, and he can also download the IMAC flying and Judging Guidelines [link=http://www.mini-iac.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=90]HERE[/link] and REALLY get a headstart on what judges look for.

A flight sim is a GREAT tool for learning your chosen class manuevers (sequence). I'm going to fly Advanced this year, and I used my Real Flight to get the sequence down pat in BOTH directions (right to left, and left to right). When I went to the field to actually fly through the sequence for the first time, I didn't need a caller because I already KNEW the sequences. I could then use this valuable field flight time to concentrate on learning to FLY the manuevers well, rather than concentrate on trying to learn what the next manuever IS. To keep them fresh, several times each day, I'll fire up the sim and spend 10 minutes flying 2 sequences to the right, and 2 sequences to the left.

The next homework to be done on the road to becoming competive is as majortom-RCU stated, getting out there and PRACTICE "with whatever you have, improve your flying, gain knowledge and confidence". IMHO, the operative thought here is DON'T waste time worrying about the other guy's planes. You have ZERO control over that. It's more constructive to concentrate on things you DO have control over, like learning to fly YOUR plane to its best advantage.

Here's a quick update:

Yes, I have downloaded all the material from the website(s), and yes, I have been practicing on RFG2 (it's still too cold / windy to be outdoors too much). Yes, I agree that bigger planes look cool, are easier to fly, produce more "Wow" factor, and if all else is equal will win compared to my .40 size Ultimate. Yes, I am into having fun and learning as much as I can, so No, I don't care if I ever win a thing, as long as I learn something and have fun.

Someone once told me that to be truly great at something, you can focus on it and nothing else... Well, I work because I have to, but I truly strive to be a great husband and father. As for everything else (all these hobbies I have), I'll settle for being mediocre and having fun!

Hey, I LIKE that guy!!!

Then you have already won at what really counts!

One of the things a great pilot once told me is that the only thing that you can by to make you fly better is gasoline! (Tim, did I get that right? )

Interesting. I was also told to fly "bigger" and not so "close in". But, and this is a big but, I was never downgraded for flying the way I do. I'm only a Basic pilot moving to Sportsman this year, but my impression is that there is no bias toward bigger airplanes.

Geistware, I like your advise. I give that out as well. When somebody moans and groans about equipment I tell them to save the money and buy fuel and practice. It seems to work for me.

Oh yea, READ THE JUDGING CRITERIA. Over and over and over again.

I flew the Sportsman sequence for the first time last week end. Man did I stink up the house.