<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Ron:<br>
By and large, you'd get the same answer. Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
Ron Van Putte wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid8954FFAE-884A-11D8-A99E-000A27AE0394@cox.net"><br>
<br>
On Apr 6, 2004, at 10:16 PM, Edward C. Hernandez wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><!-- Arial --><font size="-1"> Ok, I've waited
long enough and I'm ready to pop the big newbie question: what is(are)
the difference(s) between NSRCA and IMAC? I understand that for IMAC
you need a scale model(except for basic class), while it is clear to
me that NSRCA models have evolved into a characteristic shape. From
this I deduce that scale models just don't perform NSRCA schedules as
well as pattern models do. But I have a sneaky, perhaps
incorrect, suspicion that the differences go beyond the models. What
are these differences, and does anyone compete in both aerobatics
groups?</font>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ed - You are going to get a lot of different answers to your question.
My view is that the people who fly NSRCA events like to fly aerobatic
airplanes with no limits other than weight and size. The IMAC people
like to fly aerobatic airplanes which are scale-like. There is a
difference. There are a few other differences, like box size, but the
type of airplanes are the main difference. Neither is better than the
other. It is a personal preference, like preferring vanilla to
chocolate ice cream.
<br>
<br>
I wonder what answers you'd get if you sent the same question to the
IMAC discussion list (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mini-iac@yahoogroups.com">mini-iac@yahoogroups.com</a>).
<br>
<br>
Ron Van Putte
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>