RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

What we are seeing is the result of COMPETITION , good bad or otherwise it is what what it is .
I have raced just about anything that moves and the question of how much is this going to cost
always comes along and there is only one answer . How much money do you have ?
Australia is a country that loves a "controlled class" . We do not have the population to sustain
true open & unrestricted classes in just about anything so we put limits on equipment used ,
duration of competitions etc but the result ALWAYS is the same .
The COMPETION drives the level of comitment required to stay on top up & up & up . This
dose not have to be cash , it may well be time spent in pratice , that being said time is the most
valuable thing we have .
If you think that restricting plane size will have net effect of lowering the cost it will only
be for a VERY short time . The result we have in this country is that every few years some
smart people sit down and say "We need a new class "because the costs have got out of hand
and guess what the user cops in the ass because we all have to buy new equipment .
This is going to sound poor but you have to sort out how much competition "YOU" can handle,
plane size/cost is not the problem .

Merry Christmas Stu .

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Everyone wants to argue about how much size matters and not address the point of this thread....very typical of RCU.

Richard, Nervousness at contests is your issue, not the size of the plane. In my opinion there are two things you can do to overcome this and be able to fly what you want in competition. First, get more competition experiance. Fly higher than you have been untill you get over the yips. With time you'll learn to relax, I went through the same thing in Pylon. Second, get a bigger plane, not a smaller one. As long as you have a bigger more expensive plane at home the one you are flying will be easier. You can relax knowing if you crash it's not your best plane. Everytime I get a new bigger plane I relax more with my old planes and fly them better.

So now you have to go bigger not smaller and enter every competition you can.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Dick has the answer so far as HOW goes----no doubt about it-------

HOWEVER, so long as the BIG DAWGS are flying the large stuff all the worlds' wannabees will try to follow. Some will become legitimate competitors------few------most will keep on tryin'!

I've flown the large stuff and frankly wasn't THAT impressed. Also, ten years of retirement will limit your ability to justify the cost vs a good-----I fly my own----quarterscale model. I'm quite comfortable there.

Shoot, I prefer the way my quarter scale presents-------just don't expect a goodly number of judges to do likewise even when you are flying tens close in and the big stuff is really flying eights at best.

Suggest some of the rest of you just draw the line (from a personal standpoint) and enjoy the hobby.

Size, like retracts in pattern some years ago, is a requirement today. One day it too will be gone as the necessity for retracts is today.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

After reading a few posts where there is a common theme of too much expense to a large Scale Aerobatics model, a large bird being required to be competitive etc., it makes me wonder why more guys don't get into Pattern. I flew Scale Aerobatics competition for 7 years, ending up in Unlimited and kept going bigger and better as part of developing a competitive edge. After a while, it became apparent that I could never afford to keep a primary and backup 40% airplane and be able to haul them to the Nationals and all around the NE region. Between the fact that my season could end with one midair or careless flip of another transmitter switch, and the nutty direction that the rules have taken recently, I just punted and began flying Pattern in '04.

I found that you can literally keep four (4) top competitive 2M Pattern airplanes in running shape for the price of a single tricked-out 40% Scale Aerobatics airplane. You can build a simple rack out of PVC pipe and haul all them then around in an average mini-van. If you know what to look for in either an ARF or the right pattern plane kit and do not fall susceptible to the hype to make you run out and buy the latest $800 4 cycle engine, you can absolutely do this. Example - the OS 1.60 FX is about $250 and is the easiest darn glow engine to adjust and maintain that I have ever owned. Gobs of power, is totally non-critical in settings, fantastic throttle response and only needs 10 to 15% fuel. Since I get fuel in batches with other guys from 55 gal drums, I pay only a little over $6 / gal. When you work out the consumption rate of a 2M sized, 2C glow powered pattern bird against what it costs for gas & 2C oil for a 40% gas powered model, guess which one is cheaper? The 2M glow powered pattern bird is. Put a stinger extension on the back end of the tuned pipe and it cleans up as quick as your big gas bird at the end of the day.

So what's more likely to allow you to enjoy success in aerobatic compeition flying? An expensive, one-shot setup that if the worst happens, your season is over? Or one where you can roll all over the region with an arsenal of 2 to 4 models ready to do battle under any conditions? I was very pleased to discover how superior today's 2M pattern airplanes fly as compared to ANY of the top 40% Scale Aerobatics airplanes. I've flown most of the 40% stuff out there, still have one and it's a fact, the 2M pattern stuff just flies better. 2M pattern birds handle as much or more wind than anything in the 40% class. They're simple, easier to trim and much easier to maintain. Think about it, try it, you will not be sorry!

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I don't compete, I just fly for the fun of it because I love it and the bigger the better, with this year being a 52% Edge.

That being said, you make very good points not to be taken lightly.

Hmmmm.

Roger

Forgues Research

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I saw a 52% extra fly it was sweet :) bigger puts on a better show for the spectators i think

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I am quite new in RC compared to most of you guys flying alittle over 1.5years, also quite new to the world 26 years old compared to most of you :)

I believe I am doing quite good in terms of flying, gone to watch couple of NE IMAC competition enjoyed it a lot and want to compete however I don't want to get rushed into a 33% or 40% plane due to fund priorities and most importantly not having the proper experience and skill to get most out of it.

And unfortunately I do know that I won't be able to compete against a 33% in basic with a 60 size plane. Now for the 60 size and 40% comparison of course the pilot is important however it is just not fair.

Formula 1 cars don't race in Formula 2 -3000 races or in a go-cart race, motor sports had always restrictions on the car, bike, boat used as well as engines to make it competitive, exciting and growing.

The number of engines and tires you can bring to a track is limited to reasonable so that a big buck sponsored racing team can compete against a team that has 1/10 of its sponsor money.

Letting a Formula 1 or Indy car race in a go-cart race will not do anything for the development of motor sports most of the today’s top Formula car racers start from go-cart and proceed to Formulas to develop their skills necessary for the Formula 1 competitiveness cars and tracks.

A glow powered airplane with displacement and fuel type and delivery restrictions would be a good starting point for basic. If everyone flying basic has same max size engine than it would be more enjoyable to go and watch an IMAC basic class. a 60 or 90 size plane could easily fly the imac basic.

As the schedules become more difficult the planes need to have more power and $ that is obvious and a basic pilot who had developed necessary skills will move on to that class.

One of the big complaints here I see is people moving from basic to other classes too fast well, If I have a 40% plane and could use it anywhere I want I wouldn't want to stick to basic even though I really need to.

Engine sizes .90 glow, 50cc, 100cc, 150cc seems like a good separation of classes and several engines from various vendors are available. Also put some safety restrictions like pcm receiver for gas engines, demonstrations of working fail safe.

Put a restriction on digitals, $100 servos should not be in a glow powered basic plane, as servos are one of the big costs in an IMAC airplane.

I know most of you don't like restrictions but some restrictions will help development of the IMAC in my opinion by limiting the money spent.

Motor sports all have it as a great example, yes some of the restrictions might not be so good or make sense but no restrictions do not make sense at all.

Just my opinion

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I flew Pattern comps for 4 years in the UK in the mid to late 80's and flew in the national championships in the end with my own design.
The way I gained confidence/reduced nerves was by my friend continuosly challenging me to beat him and fly inverted very low and stay that way for about 3 minutes at full speed and I recall we both got grass stuck in the tail fins/rudder at one point or another as we touched the deck, (or in his case it must have been from him attaching the wing to the fuz at the start of the session. [sm=lol.gif]) Anyway that was intense flying as those pattern ships made a loud noise and flew fast at full bore on a piped 61 rx. Pushing you out of your comfort zone builds confidence as then flying pattern will feel low risk.

I recall getting nervous in the national championships when in front of a a sizable crowd, during a horizontal square 8 I pulled up hard from inverted and one foam wing panel folded. As I cut the throttle back on the piped OS 61 RX, the plane wobbled around like it had eaten some jelly, and I saw half of the wing moving around but still in tact. My caller announced I had a problem and the bloke on the tannoy who was commentating announced it to the spectators - great, why not add some more pressure - and then after a wavering and wobbly final approach it somehow touched down perfect - to some applause. I think had I crashed it nice and hard the applause would have been double though. Ring any bells, that's life. Then I crashed a few new expensive planes properly, one after another (we say crashes come in sets of threes in the UK) and called it quits for a while. Anyway now in Aus, I plan to fly some more comps here (that is, as long as I don't have to drive a minimum of 2000 km to get to each meeting - I mean hey it takes 5 hours to fly to Perth from Sydney and, like, I am still in the same country ! this place is not small).

So I have now got myself a (well past its sell-by date) quarter scale WM Extra ARF with a DA 50r and I am keeping it as light as I can. Just for all those light = the best preachers though, heavier can = good in a strong wind, better momentum and damping through rough air. Anyway, got a great engine and the best radio equipment I can buy, digitial servos all round, expensive switches etc, but kept the plane costs down by buying this relatively cheap 1/4 scale ARF plane. This way I will feel I have a "cheap" plane up there and if it goes in then I will reflect and see if I want to get another one or if I want to move to a Comp ARF model - I have all the gear now that would drop straight in. Yet the plane I have selected is "low pressure" and yet will likely be great fun to fly pattern with, the objective of why I do this. I once built an Extra 300 with a OS 1.40 and extended the turdle deck behind the wing by about 3 inches to improve tracking, it flew, bad, because one wing panel was not true. Fortuantely, that plane decided to have a fight with a tree on landing. It was a great aeromodelling moment for me though, I recall, as I thought it was going to pass in front of the tree on the approach to landing, and then it either went in or behind the tree as it dissapeared from sight, - so I eagerly and somewhat tensely awaited auditory confirmation - oh please, could I just be passing behind the tree ? ...WHWCRACK came the confirmation, that plane fully rekitted itself.

I reckon this sport could be just like Golf, someone mentioned that, at least when I look in my golf bag I always see that the nice expensive golf balls are gone, hit into a lake or lost out of bounds, only those balls I want to get rid of stay as they cost nothing and so there are no nerves about hitting those balls. You get slightly more nervous hitting the expensive ballls and that difference is enough in Golf to ensure you end up with a majority of crappy balls. Could it be the same with our models ?? The nice ones will go in but the ones you are not worried about will hang around forever ? Whoever said that it is good to fly with your best model at home, that is a wise comment, as it will relax you more as you fly safe in that knowledge.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

At our last IMAC comp in my state in Australia intermediate was being well and truly one by a guy flying a 72" somenzini yak.He was competing against mostly 2.6 comp arf extras and yaks.The weather was horrible with rain and very gusty winds.It just shows that bigger is not always better in every case.Being 100% familiar with your aircraft in all conditions is a major advantage.Take clay target shooting for instance I no guys who shoot at the highest level in the WORLD with 20 to $30,000 guns but when given the opportunity to shoot with a $2000 gun only shot 2 targets less then with their expensive guns.You dont always need the most expensive airplanes to be competetive just the right experience and practise.On a jugeing point of view the judges should be basing thier scores on the manouver and how its done. If you think its harder for a judge to see a 25% airplane practise bringing it in a bit closer. I believe you only have to be a min of 30m out.JMO

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Richard

last year i flue a 25% Aeroworks EDGE w/ ST 2000 in sportsman and came in second in the NC regional points. my moto last year was "who says you need a big plane to win." and i proved it last year. I would fly it this year in intermediate but the next kid in line has got the "rent-a-EDGE jr"

brian

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Sorry if this is a stupid question but I just have to ask:
What is a "rent-a-EDGE jr"
Bruce

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

i WAS next in line, but i orderd a new plane. its a 25% aeroworks edge that one of the instructers at our field loans to kids for an imac starter plane...lol....the sr. is a 40% carden edge that he lets anyone fly if they dont have a plane to fly (aka crashed their only imac'er)

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Here is my $.02. The only way this sort of issue would ever be resolved would be with a "fomula" class or a "one design" class. I don't think either of those is acceptable or desireable. This is an expensive hobby. Deal with it or move on.
Z

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Problem is that a lot of quality RC pilots don't consider competing and "deal with it" by moving. I know a lot people that don't compete because of the percieved need and cost of a big plane. Maybe thats the idea. So that unless you have a, 30% oh wait 35, no 40, 45, no 50% plane you feel like you are some how inferrior and can't compete. Keeps out most of those those pesky 16-20 year olds, with natural video game skills and young quick reflexes. Q500 class 424 and 428 come to mind. Often held at the same place on the same day. Many people who would never consider competing in 428 show up to compete in 424 because they can. Doesn't seem too difficult. Maybe simply promoting mini-mac is a start. I doubt most people even know mini-mac exists.

As far as size. If a person were to take a 25% Extra and a 40%, Extra set them up the same practice the same with each, enter the same contests in the same classes with the same judges I would imagine that the 40% would tend to have a higher average score. Or maybe not but thats what we are all suposed to think.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Myself, being new to IMAC this year, would like to see a "Class system" of sorts.
Where as 25% would be the bottom and 50% the top.
In this "system" 25% would fly with 25% only, 30% with 30% ect.
This takes the WOW factor in to account for all sizes.
True that a 50% has a WOW factor.
Should this be allowed to compete in the same class as a 25%?
Knowing that the 25% will not have the same impact for scoring?
As the hobby / competion becomes more popular I think that more will join in, if they can justify the cost / comfort level.
This is just my $.02

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I don't see it as being that simple. Which class would a 28% or a 33% plane fly? Would a 30% yak which is typcially larger than a 30% extra be allowed to compete in the same class?

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

IMAC competition is a lot like golf, you are not as much competing against others as you are against yourself. Everyone has the same chance, large planes or not. Thinking that you MUST have a giant plane to be competitive is just an excuse - same as saying "if I only had a better set of clubs I might win a tournament" In the amateur ranks like basic and sportsman, the development level of our skill and talent are the limiting factors in our success - NOT always our equipment.

About the financial issue - if we could not afford to pay, we would not play. This is also a hobby. It should be enjoyable, fun, and rewarding, NOT stressful or create hardship. Like golf, IMAC is not for everyone and not everyone can master it or afford it. If IMAC is too big or too expensive it is only a perception.

So for now, I am neither an accomplished golfer nor an accomplished IMAC pilot, but I have a hell of a lot of fun trying!
DP

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

DP,
While it is true everybody has a chance big planes or not it is also true that bigger flies better or "easier". Perhaps a scoring multiplier for size the same as the way harder maneuvers count for more of the total points than easier maneuvers would balance things out. It would in essence handicap larger planes for their inherent ability to make a pilot look better. The net result would be to reduce the desire or mindset that you have to go big to have success and make IMAC more accessible to more people.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Practise,Practise and more Practise.before we start handing out bonus points for smaller planes etc we need to clean up our own back yard,so to speak.Speak to the judges who judged you and find out where you went wrong then practice eliminating those faults out of your flying.Until you can score perfectly on all manouvers and only get deductions because the size plane does not allow you to present the manouver as well then either its time for an upsize or rertirement from comps knowing in your heart there is absolutely no way you could score higher with a your small plane.Im only very new to IMAC(basic/sportsman) but wont be making any excuses for my unperfect flying.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

My point exactly... practice, practice, practice...

I believe Mark Leseberg Jr likes to use that line a lot!

DP

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I'd suggest that all you guys who are convinced that IMAC is broken actually come out and fly some contests. You know, learn a little something about the thing you want to fix.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Bill,
I plan on doing exactly that assuming I don't have another mid air with Barry and I have a plane to fly. I don't have a problem with the way IMAC works but there is obviously a perception that you need a big plane to be competitive. The rules are ever evolving to keep things fair and balanced and discussing ways to continue that process isn't a bad thing.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Its a balancing act between making IMAC atrractive to new comers but also maintaing a standard of flying for each class.The more extra points for this or that we start giving out could possibly lower that standard,not a good thing.You are right though basinbum disscussion is always a goodthing but so is not trying to fix something that is not broken.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Remember we all friends at the end of the day. I know the discussion here has gotten heated. Coming from somone just getting back into the hobbie I have learned alot by reading the post. It was not discouraging at all. These discussion are what will make the hobby impove. you can not believe how much has changed since the last comp I went to (NATS in Lake Charles, LA....i think mid 80's).

So keep up the discussions and remember...we are all friends at the end of the day.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

You can fly your trainer or 'foamie' in basic if you want or the cheapest airplane you own. ;-)
There is no restriction in basic on the airframe. I CD the contest near St. Louis and have seen many competitors fly several kinds of planes in basic.
Cheers

From the 'Official IMAC' Scale Aerobatics Ruels, Flying, & Judging Guide
General Rules Scale Aerobatics:
3. Open Events
3.1. The events accomodate aerobatic monoplanes and biplanes which are replicas of types known to have competed in International Aerobatic Club (IAC) competition, or replicas of types known to be capable of aerobatic competition within the airspace known as the "Box".
3.2. All classes except Basic require that the pilot must meet the requirements defined in Rule 3.1. The Basic Class is open to all competitors with a monoplane or biplane aircraft. There is no minimum size requirement for any class. Contest Directors may make an exception for a model of a full-scale aircraft that was built for IAC competition, but has not yet completed. Proof of the latter is the responsibility of the contestant.