IMAC just too expensive
 

Not complaining, just a fact. I don't want to put 3 to 4 thousand dollars into a plane that invariably is going to crash ( I just get too nervous in competition because of my investment.) Last year I lost two! But instead of just giving up scale aerobatics as too stressful, something like mini-imac (.60 size engine limit) would have been fun. Alas though, our division (NC) just doesn't have the support for that category of competition, nor do any others, I believe. I am thinking that mini-imac didn't make it because that is just too small a scale to get the right juices flowing.

Proposal: A mini-imac class with a propeller diameter limit that corresponds to about a 40 cc engine. I can put together a nice 72" wingspan scale plane with a 1.6 to 2.1 glow or 30 to 40 cc gas engine for under 1200 dollars. That is a big difference from my 33% scale planes that I lost. The beauty of a propeller diameter limit is there is no way to cheat. The CD just gets out the ruler.

Some may say that a 1/4 scale plane can compete equitably with a 33% or 40%, but that isn't true (except if Chip Hyde is the pilot :)). The much lower wing loading, and better presentation of size to the judges with a larger plane makes a huge difference in scores for the average pilot.

IMAC is growing really fast. I understand the nationals this year expects over 100 entries in scale aerobatics. That's great, but I just don't want to invest the kind of money it takes in a hobby. Maybe there are others that feel the same way. You can build a 55 pound scale plane that will be a fabulous aerobatic performer, even for an average pilot, but it is going to cost you 10 thousand dollars and the stress of flying it is going to be out of sight. Just watch, that is exactly where IMAC is headed. Pretty soon liability insurance is going to become an issue, just like jets, and we sure don't want that.

Any comments, other than "if you can't stand the heat get out of the fire"? :D

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I have to agree with you on all points. Rather than worry about loosing a $4,000.00 airplane, I sold my 35% Carden Extra and backed down to a 1/4 scale plane with a 50cc engine. I can afford the larger airplane but am not willing to put that much money at risk for a hobby. I'm much more comfortable flying a $400.00 arf than I could ever be with a $4000 airplane. I think in time the novelty of flying very large models will probably wear off and things will settle down to a more normal aproach to this hobby. I'm much more relaxed with my smaller airplane and enjoy flying more.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I have already determined that Intermediate is as far into IMAC as I can go, as I can not afford a bigger plane than a 1/4 scale.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Richardfast:
How did you wreck your 33%er?

I am going the other way, started with a smaller heavier plane (82" Staudaucher w/G45) and went to H9 Extra w/ZDZ 80 and glad I made the move.
Easyist flying plane I have had. You have heard Bigger Flies Better, and I believe it.
I had to sell 4 airplanes to offord this one 33%er, and have not regretted it.
I do know what you are talking about $ wise as I have two daughters in college, and money is tight, but glad I have my bigger airplane.

Moving up to Sportsman this year in IMAC and looking forward to the practicing and first contest.

Roger

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Roger,
You are going the exact route I did. Sold some smaller equipment to get my 33%er (Extra 260) with a ZDZ80 also. I practiced a lot and I had no problems at the practice field. I entered my first contest this summer, gave too much throttle on takeoff (nervous as hell), and immediately did the famed left turn ground loop. Cost me a 40 dollar propeller and tore my engine mount loose. I was really embarassed because my club was hosting the contest and I had a lot of friends there. I repaired the plane, practiced some more, thought I was doing really well, and entered a contest in Dayton (Sportsman, should have stayed with Basic but it seemed so easy). On my last maneuver of the sequence, I am too low, too far out, and I do my required positive snap role. Only propblem is I over rotate and come out inverted. I pulled instead of pushed in front of about 50 people. This is something I had done in practice many times (over rotating)and I had no trouble recovering from! Not true at Dayton.. This was a spectacular crash. Were talking straight in and total (including my ZDZ80) destruction. I had at least $3000 in that plane. I think the embaressment hurt more than anything.

I told myself no more competition and built a GP Giles 202 kit with a Tower .75 up front. Oh my gosh do I love this plane. I have maybe $400 in it and it will do everything I ask. The big difference is my composure while flying. I care that I don't crash but I don't worry about it. Soooo, I can't resist, I practice Sportsman pattern and take my Giles to the local contest. Guess what? No sweat, I take third out of six people, I don't get very nervous and I have a great time!

Anyway, that's my story. I am still thinking what to do for the upcoming season, because I do want to compete.

Richard

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Sounds to me you have everythjing under control.
Glad to see you are still going to compete.
Above all in this sport??? is to have fun and not worry what you are flying.
It is the freinds you meet along the way that counts in the end.
Hope to see you at some of the contest this summer.
I might make up to one in MI, as of now I do the Chicagoland in August and a couple in IL and IN.
Have sent mey money in for th NATS in early July.
Hope to see you.

Roger

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Hi All ,

On the other end of the spectrum is my perspective...All of my friends are grateful that I fly Imac , They don't want to see me in a Full scale Extra or Pitts flying IAC.."There's old pilots and there' s bold pilots, but there's no old ,bold pilots.."

I would fit into the bold pilots category,hence any model flying on the ground is better for me...


;) Dave

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Thanks for the reply guys. What about my idea of mini-imac being around 1/4 scale size vice .60 size? When our club holds our IMAC contest this year (Mid-Michigan IMAC in Jackson, MI in June) I am going to try and convince the CD's to give that category a try. We have a lot of guys in our club flying the 70 to 80" scale planes. Maybe I can convince them to get involved if they can compete among themselves and not against the real high dollar stuff. I am glad no one is taking this thread the wrong way. I love the big IMAC planes and I am in awe at the talent of the pilots. I just can't seem to get the mental grip it requires.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I like your idea! Our club has kicked around the idea of holding an IMAC style competition but limiting to 1/4 scale and smaller. We currently have no one at our field that flys anything bigger than 1/4 scale. I am gonna try basic this year but it is gonna be with a 1/4 scale or just a little smaller. I don't want to invest the amount of money required for a 27% or larger plane and find out I don't like the competitve route of flying. I think your idea proposes a level playing field in a category that many people can afford to be in and could turn out to be a whole new class of flyers and competition.


Dang_it

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I guess before I fly in a competition, I get as comfortable as I can with the plane. After a while, it really doesn't make me nervious to fly low and slow. Just flying around people gets me nervious and I will always be that way!

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Richard - why a different "Mini" class??? Basic was created to provide
for just the issues you guys are talking about:
- An opportunity to try the competitive environment with
zero investment - assumming you have a plane......
- Fly "ANY" plane - doesn't have to be scale and can be any size
- Straight forward manuvers
- No unknowns

If you are worried about entering Basic and finding youself up against
a 40% plane and hence not being competitive I think you are
"worrying" too much. In my experience here in the NW where I spent
last year in Basic, almost all the guys did in fact fly 1/4 scale planes.
There was only one instance that I recall (out of five contests) the
there was a 40% plane in Basic - and that was only because the guy had
crashed his plane the week before and borrowed the 40 perecenter
so he could make the contest. Also,
I believe it is generally true that most guys who do fly 40% planes
will not even consider Basic but will move directly to, at least,
Sportsman.

Give it a try. IMAC is fun and need not break the bank. It is more a test
of pilot consistency - and the people are really great.
Bruce

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

That's not exactly the way it works. You will all still fly in the same class, 1/4 scale and 40%, but seperate tallies will be kept for the mini mac placings. The NC's never had a mini mac competition that I know of, not saying it can't be held. Doing it the way you suggest would require 5 more classes as not everyone in this category would be flying the same class, hence the reason everyone flies one of the 5 main classes with seperate tallies for mini mac. Does that make sense?

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I believe that IMAC is an orginization that allows anyone who wants, to compete. You have to start somewhere. The Basic class allows for anyone to compete, period.

I also believe that it's a competitive sport like so many others. Try drag racing, stock car racing etc. Talk about expensive!

I agree that to be competitive in the Unlimited Class that you've got to have an airplane that belongs in that category if you expect to take home the throphy. But not having a 40%er doesn't eliminate you from competition. Each contest is really a contest against yourself. If you fly the best you can, and if you fly even better than the time before, then you're advancing. If you take a whole season of first places in Basic, then that's where the decisions comes in as far as whether you're willing to invest more in your abilities and your airplanes if you want to advance.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

How far do you think someone could go in IMAC before it was necessary to move up to a lager aircraft to be competitive. I mean, if someone win's first place in basic and then moves to sportsman, does that person have a chance in sportsman if he's flying an 80" vs a 33% airplane if his skills are comparable with everyone else. If it's possible then what about the advanced class. Has anyone ever tried this route? I've never been to a contest yet but wonder if the judging would be partial to the larger aircraft no matter what.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Don’t forget SPA http://www.seniorpattern.com/ Awesome looking and flying aircraft at a very reasonable cost!

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I have seen very competitve pilots do very well with 27% and 35% size planes. At some point you have to stop obsessing about the size of the plane. A good plane will allow a good pilot to perform even better. But a big plane that is set up poorly is not going to help the unskilled pilot compete. In many ways it is like golf. After a certain level, equipment does make a large difference. But below that level, equipment is not as important as learning the skills necessary to take advantage of better equipment.

I have seen LOTS of big planes flown poorly and beaten by better pilots flying smaller planes.

Chip, or Bill, or Quique and so on are going to kick your butt with a .60 ARF. But they need the best when going at each other.

Trust me, I have never seen better equipment allow the unskilled pilot to win against a more skilled pilot.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Richard, It sounds to me that the incident with your 33%er was just from nerves. (By the way......the nerves happen to all of us our first contest......just not everyone is ready to admit it :D) Why don't you fly your G202 in Basic for the whole season next year to "get the butterflies under control". As JMordoch said, "...fly the best you can, and if you fly even better than the time before, then you're advancing..." Then go back to the larger planes the following season. The bugs will be all gone as you'll be a pro at all that Imac stuff plus those 50 people watching you will all be freinds and not 50 strangers. No more nerves to worry about plus you'll be a better pilot from all the practice so the higher price tag of the larger plane will not be much of an issue.

Best of luck with whatever you chose..........Mark

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Your point is a good one and I think IMAC should definitely consider changing the mini-mac rule. I could easily afford a 40% and I don't think I would have a problem flying it. I just simply will not put that kind of money into a model airplane. I love flying my Goldberg Extra and Sukhoi. They fly well and don't represent near the cost of the big ones. On the other hand I don't think I would be competitive. There are no IMAC contest in my area so I don't have to worry about it. I just fly the routines for my own enjoyment.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Laser - There are contests in Spokane and Cour de Lene. Hopefully they
are not all the way across the state for you. Give it a try.
Bruce

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I began in the sport last year. Many years ago I used to fly CL aerbatics. I left it because spending an entire winter weighing every piece of balsa to check that the density was under 4 pounds and building a new scratch airplane every year just got not to be any fun. Whe I started flying RC last year, it was with the intention of competing in IMAC. Then I began to read on these threads that you had to have a 33% plane to compete. Sorry, just not interested. Its a fun hobby for me. Bying an ARF or building a .60 to .90 size plane that fits in my car without having to buy a truck or trailer is fun. All that other expensive stuff is not. I mastered the basic pattern last year but did not go to a single contest because it was apparent it was a dead end. Basic was all I would be able to fly in and be competative. That's like flying the beginner pattern in CL, it ain't the real thing. If I wanna fly something big I get in my real airplane and go fly it. I dont' begrudge people who fly big planes, its just not where I want to put my money. If there were someplace I could fly and advance in the sport with somewhere to go where I could be competative, then I'd work at it. As it is it sounds like a dead end, so I'm just sport flying.

When I got started I thought mini imac was a reality. It should be. I like the prop size idea. It really makes it apples and apples as far as what you compete with. The .60-.90 size cases are all the same and the planes really fly alot better vertically with the .90 in them (2 cycle), I think that is a really good size range. I find most of the .60 planes underpowered with a .60 but fly very well with a .90. I have done the .60 to .90 change in all my planes so far, a 4 star .60, a VectorFlight 58 in extra 300S, a Modeltech Cap 231, and a Harrier .90. Same result with all the planes, they fly ok with a .60 but if you want to make it so someone can progress with the kits and arfs that are out there, it seems like a .90 is a better top end.

bob branch
harsens island, MI

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

A big plane just makes it easier for the judges to see that your wings aren't level and you don't draw straight lines....:D

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

I cant believe there are people out there who honestly believe that a .60 - .90 sized aircraft can be competetive above Basic. Be real! Even a "poorly set up 40%" flies 10 times better! AND, when you fly in a class, you arent in competition with Qui Qui or Chip or CPLR, you're in competition with your peers of like skill - meaning they (of the 35-40%) WILL mop the floor with you and your little airplane. Bigger airplanes have a lighter wing loading, a better power to weight ratio, are easier to see, present better, and handle wind better. To deny that is just silly.

That said, I like the idea of a class of smaller aircraft, and the idea to run it within the current class framework as a subclass is a great one.

Roger

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

OK, then I'm silly [sm=bananahead.gif]

I based my opinions on having flown in over 50 contests, being the CD of nearly 30, and spending an enormous amount of time in the judges chair. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll accept that. But come up with whatever restrictions you want on size, color or whatever you need to do to "level" the playing field and at the end of the day, the better pilot will still win.

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

Roger

I do not doubt for a minute a larger plane flies better than a smaller .60 - .90 sized plane. My guess is alot better. That really does not mater to the group of us who are not going to fly bigger birds however. I think the question is can there be a competition for planes that size that does not dead end at basic? Would some of the world's top competators win if they flew in this size range? Undoubtably. But I think it would bring another group of fliers into the arena if they were not faced with a dead end. The question that begs is probably that the folks putting on the contests are probably those flying the larger airplanes. Are they going to want to add to a competition additional classes with the additional judges and all that goes along with that? Putting on a contest is a large amount of work no mater how you cut it. From what I've heard in this thread, no one has wanted to do it to this point.

bob branch

RE: IMAC just too expensive
 

It's like chasing a mirage..............