I have a OS 1.6 that I would like to use in an IMAC type plane . What would you folks recommend? Tks

Wild Hare is has a 73" edge. I haven't flown one personally. But I do have a Wild Hare extra 300 and I can testify about the qualty of their planes. And they have great customer service!

Here's a link:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_2716958/tm.htm

Most pilots don't fly the Edge in IMAC for sequences. It is used for 3D more.

Great planes has a very nice Patty Wagstaff Extra. Also avaible is a Giles.
Check out http://www.americanpioneerhobbies.com/ for a selection including Extras, Sukhoi, CAPs and Katanas for this size engine from Black Horse. Lanier has a couple of new offerings from the Lanier Label and also from Goldberg.

EXCAP232

Check out the extensive H9 Extra 260 thread in the 3D Forum. Lots of folks running this engine in that airplane are very happy.

I'm trying to decide what engine to put in mine; gas or glow. I have this kit, and the WH 73" Edge. Both are excellent kits that are well worth the asking price. I bought them primarily because of the glowing flight reports on both. You'll read about minor gripes regarding build/hardware quality; but I've yet to read a post that said either one didn't fly GREAT.

FWIW, I too want to try IMAC and have been doing a lot of reading on the subject. Most folks agree that the Extra design does better at IMAC, while the Edge is better for 3D. Then you read about someone winning an IMAC contest with an Edge, and some flip-flop maven wowing the crowds with an Extra.

I imagine you're like me; a reasonably competent pilot who would like to try something challenging. As far as I'm concerned, most of the airplanes out there for IMAC use will fly much better than I can drive them. I feel reasonably confident that either this Edge or Extra will do me quite well for my entry into IMAC. IOW, buy what suits you. We would probably agree that a Big Stik would be a bit marginal for IMAC.

Both the H9 Extra and WH 73" Edge are really pretty airplanes. But there is a ton of other ones out there, too. I spent several months trying to decide between these two, and ended up with both.

What can I say?

BTW, I'm putting the OS 1.60 in the Edge, which will be assembled first. That's a big honker of a two-stroke, eh?

what about the QQ 72" Yak?

I don't remember the size off the top of my head, but I think it is in that range....

I am a pretty competant pilot with some 3D flying experience . I fly all kinds of planes including turbine jets with no particular leaning towards any facet of our very enjoyable hobby. I am basically a sport flyer looking for a nice handing aerobatic plane ( not pattern ) in that engine range but not for competition. I will check out the recommendations here. Tks

steve

The new OMP 29% Giles is a great all around plane on a OS 160.

I have a Great Planes Soucy Extra with an OS 1.6FX in it. Does fine, and a joy to land.

EXCAP232

Just wondering why the IMAC guys don't fly the EDGE. Seems odd, since its the premier full scale aerobat these days ( of course, the Sukhoi drivers might argue that).

Jack

BTW: I flew my 40% Edge 540 in imac sequence this year and it flies IMAc pretty good. Except 06 Im going to my new carden.
Ryan

I beg to differ with you on that one. I'm not denying that the full scale Edge is on hell of an aerobatic contender (the Zivko facility is right next door to the operation I used to fly pipeline patrol for in Guthrie, OK), and it will definitely fly beyond the limits of 95% of the pilots in the world, BUT... there have been more IAC competitions won with the CAP 232 and the Suhkoi than any others. Go to the IAC website and research the records, you'll see. True, there's alot of Edges in competition, but the major winners fly the CAP or Suhkoi.

Lowlevlflyer,

You are right - more IAC events are won by Sukhoi's - but not CAP's. But the last 5 (and maybe 6) IAC National Championships were won by EDGE's, flown by Kirby Chambless and Steve Andelin. The Sukhoi's usually outnumber the EDGE's on the podium though, but that's partly because there are more of them around as they have been scene for almost 20 years and are now more affordable. In international competition though, the Sukhoi's still dominate.

And, to a large degree, that explains the lack of CAP's on the podium here - there are only a few flown in competition in the US - most notably Robert Armstrong, David Martin and Debby Harvey-Rihn, all of whom almost always end up in the money. Of course, Mike Goulian flies the Castrol CAP on the airshow circuit, but not in competition lately. This year the CAP's have been almost totally absent from competition as they have been grounded due to a wing spar failure which took the life of one of the French team members.

No doubt, the Sukhoi, CAP and EDGE are all top level contenders. My question was in response to the comment that EDGE's are not popular in IMAC competition but used primarily for 3D aerobatics. I'm not challenging that statement (I don't fly IMAC), just wondering why. I'm also curious why the YAK54 is so popular when it is virtually non-existant in IAC and WAC competition. There are some YAK 55's which compete at the lower levels, but I don't believe I've seen one YAK 54 in full scale competition. Perhaps it's the aesthetics that makes them attractive, or maybe some superstar like Quique just popularized the design.

Jack

I've never seen a full scale Yak 54 in competition either. Come to think of it, I've only seen one at an airshow at all, and it didnt fly, just static display. I think you are right about the Yak in R/C competition, though. You never saw one until QQ won with his. Now, everyone has to have one. Just like everything else I suppose. Sort of a "keep up woth the Jones's" type thing. Truth is, in all the competitions I have been to and watched, I've never seen a Yak do ANYTHING an Edge, Extra, Velox, or CAP 232 couldnt do with a competent pilot at the sticks. I must admit, though, the Yak is a great looking plane!

As far as the Edge not geting used in IMAC competition much... I'm just trying to get started flying IMAC, but from what I've read and heard from a few other pilots, it has to do with the straight leading edge of the wing. It's just a better 3D machine than it is an IMAC plane, as far as R/C flying goes. But, I have seen several of them in competition. I thought they flew the sequences pretty well... better than I could have flown them for sure!

I flew my WH edge this year in IMAC. Great plane to fly. Roughly 90% of the planes I saw were extras. Reason prolly being, is the extra is easier to stall a wing out for some of the manuevers you have to fly. The le on the edge is straight, so its dang near impossible to stall out a wing. Dont get me wrong it can be done, but can be lil hard. Im flying the basic class again this year and my coach told me to keep flying the edge, so that when I do move up I can move to my extra , it will be abit easier so to speak. I think the reasoning is if I can get the edge to do the manuvers required then doing them with the extra will a snap. The season is over now so I have all winter to practice and get ready for the 06 season. If I were to pick a plane to start out with I would prolly go with an extra, for ease of flying I guess the edge would be a good one to go with. Ive flown both planes and love the way both planes fly, so its gonna be tough to pick LOL.
MC

OK...you contradict yourself...
in the first post... you are looking for an IMAC plane, but in the above quote..you say NOT pattern???

IMAC IS pattern, just using "scale" airplanes.....

"IMAC IS Pattern?" Hardly! IMAC is moving the Scale Aerobatics rules as agressively as they possibly can away from anything resembling Precision Aerobatics. They place a premium on copying IAC and generally refrain from applying what has been learned over decades of evolution in Precision Aerobatics (AKA Pattern). A couple of examples that stand out: Pattern has a well defined aerobatics box, whereas IMAC has eliminated it as anything more than an abstract concept that cannot be objcetively applied during competition. Pattern requires that you actually center your center zone figures and has well defined downgrades for missing. IMAC has eliminated the concept of zones and allows you to free range over the sky, mumblings about the miracle of the Presentation Score aside. There is more, but these two things, plus the incredibly poorly design sequences in the past few years in IMAC stand out the most for me at least.

Anyway, the question of whether an Edge is better than a Cap or an Extra is better than an Edge for SA competition etc has little to do with what goes on in full scale. Though there are many factors involved, some key things to looks for in a design include:

Avoid (or modify) designs that have huge, wonkin rudder counterbalances, as they tend to contribute to the model wandering in yaw. Oversized counterbalances tend to "grab" and deflect the rudder away from neutral, at which point, the model yaws, then often wants to swing the other way. Neat. Maybe this helps slam it around in 3D at low speeds, but it compromises precision flight.

If you are truly interested in having a model that "locks", that handles smoothly and has a low workload throughout the sequence, you generally don't want something that is very short coupled, i.e., some of the Edge designs out there. Stretched Edges will generally lock better than stubby ones. "Scale" Extras don't usually need stretching to behave, but you may want to look into designs that take advantage of the 10% rule.

Caps tend to have lots of pitch & yaw coupling with the rudder. Sure you can dial it out, but it's a safe generalization to say that you will have a higher workload using the rudder on a Cap in precision flying than an Edge/Extra/etc. However, you may want to try a Cap just to help you get a full appreciation of how to counteract these effects, which can only help you be a better pilot. You will also appreciate an Edge or Extra considerably more if you start with a Cap.

Anyway, lot's of other things come into play, mostly how well you trim the bird, but look at designs like the Extra 260 or even the Yak 54 and notive how much closer they are to a Pattern bird in terms of the force locations (where the wing/stab/engine is located). Check out older designs like the Godfrey Extra or the 37% Aeroworks Extra and note the "pattern lines". They are just fitting into the 10% rule, but fit they do and man, do those designs groove and lock. Lot's of choices exist today, but the point is that it's less important to be hung up on what it's called than it is to observe how they arranged things under the makeup.

Oops, meant to say lotsa pitch & ROLL coupling with rudder, re the Cap. Especially pitch. My bad.

What about the CAPX with the OS 1.6 ? Will this be a good combo?

Yep, it will be a great combo. I have the Exteme Aircraft Cap232 which is almost exactly the same plane and an OS160 hauls it well on an 18X6W prop. Just make sure you use 1/8 inch fuel line from the clunk to the carb.

As far as the Edge/Cap/Extra/Yak/Sukhoi debates go I feel like this. Fly whatever plane flies best for you.

I'm the type of person that strays from the "norm" quite often so it's not unusual to see me flying the sequences with my Sukhoi, WH Ultimate or my Cap232. I have also flown the 2005 basic and intermediate sequences with a little bitty VectorFlight Edge 540 and it did them very well. I'll be the first to admit the GS Extra flies the sequences just fine but for me the others fly it just as well and to me just plain look better doing it.

It all boils down to pilot skill and plane setup. Lots of practice and coaching gives the skill and there is nothing like flying any plane that has been run through the trimming procedures and has been properly trimmed and that includes taking the time to get the throws correct for a given maneuver.

Just my $.02 worth

Where can I find Extreme Aircraft Cap232 ? Tks

RCSuperstore used to sell them on their web site but the last time I was there it was not listed. Other than that I really do not know

I was planning on getting a Wild Hare 73" Edge but it is looking like mid-March or later until those come in. This puts me in almost the same situation as the OP. I am looking for a IMAC and 3D ship that will fly well on a 1.60.

I live at 6500' so it should be considered over-powered for someone at sea level. It needs good vertical power. I'm guessing 10-12 lb range.

Any suggestions for currently in-stock ARFs?

I flew the Great Planes Gene Soucy Extra last year on that engine and did well but I'm at 400'. It a beautiful flying plane and presents very well. Mine had no coupling at all in knife edge, inverted was just a breath of down and I was completely setup exactly as the manual recommends. I think I came in at 13lbs even using the slimline muffler

http://www.towerhobbies.com/products.../gpma1365.html

And there is a review here on it which includes video doing 3D work. I never did do any 3Dwith mine so I cannot help there

http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...article_id=262

Thanks for the reply Bill. Turns out that after some measuring in my car I need to go smaller or I have to have a removable stab. Sooo... currently I'm looking at the CG Yak 54, CG Extra and H9 Extra 260. Either the OS 1.60 or maybe a Moki. (who sells those anyway?) All are about the same weight and wingloading. I think any of those would be a good IMAC/3D combo.