<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Ed:<BR>Well, I'm also a pattern newbie as of
this year, but I've competed in Scale Aerobatics for a few years and was a
past IMAC Regional Director. IMAC is the SIG, Scale Aerobatics is the
event.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You are correct about the basics of the scale
appearance aircraft requirement. Except for Basic class, it's supposed to
be an approximation of a full scale aerobatic aircraft (single engine gas or
electric, bipe or monoplane) known to have either competed in any IAC
competition or known (thought?) to be capable of doing so. So
it could be a clipped wing Cub (known) through a Turbo Raven (assumed
capable at one point in time). The fact that the full scale Turbo Raven
was a gas turbine would not make it illegal, unless you stuck a gas turbine in
the model. Any size and AMA legal weight is permitted. It's
pretty much a wide-open field.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As for proof of scale, the rules do place the
burden on the pilot, but I've never seen it enforced. Occasionally there
has been a minor dispute over things like Hanson's version of the Extra 300 (I
think it was called the Excess). Look at the Aeroworks Extra and squint
real hard and you can convince yourself it evolved from a full size Extra 300,
but to me it looks more like a big pattern ship. If a CD really wanted to,
he could probaly disqualify either, but you'll probably never see it happen.
I always figured that if a better pilot beat me, I wasn't going to quibble
over whether the fuselage looked a little too skinny or long from 10
feet away. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I can't say much about the differences in handling,
since I've only logged about 30 minutes on a Focus and I have been just
getting basic adjustments done, but I can tell you that many of the designs that
are available for Scale Aerobatics are well evolved for precision flying.
Designers do fuss with stab placement, a little dihedral here and there etc and
wind up with fairly neutral handling in some cases. Some other things
that you see showing up in the larger models add quite a bit to their ability to
do so-called 3D flying and sometimes detract from things like easy spin
entries and good snapping habits.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Generally speaking though, the large majority of
what is commonly fielded for SA competition would not be legal for most
pattern events. Conversely, it's more difficult to be competitive with
smaller, pattern legal models in SA Basic. To sum it up, there are probably
just a handful of "crossover" models available that would be legal and capable
in both events. Personally, I would go with optimizing my equipment choice
for the particular event, because in SA, size most definitely matters.
Whether it should or not is a different question.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed Alt</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ehernan3@peoplepc.com href="mailto:ehernan3@peoplepc.com">Edward C.
Hernandez</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:16
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> The Big One</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Ed "naive as hell" Hernandez<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>