Should Giant Scale "Rules" be updated?

[Twowingtj]

I'm with a Giant Scale club that has been hosting Giant Scale events for the last 32 years. We used to be under the AMA Special Interest Group (SIG) IMAA (International Miniature Aircraft Association) until it was dissolved 3 years ago.

Under IMAA, Giant Scale aircraft were defined as:

Monoplanes - 80" wingspan and above
Multi-winged planes - 60" wingspan and above
Jets - 140" or more combined wingspan and fuselage length

Planes could be smaller IF they were at least 1/4 scale of an actual human carrying aircraft.

Now there is no definition of what constitutes a Giant Scale aircraft in AMA rules or classifications. Most Giant Scale events are Class C non-competition Fun Flys. For our next event in August we have followed the old IMAA standard guidance with one exception. For jets we are saying 130" combined wingspan and fuselage length.

Now Motion RC has a jet that falls under our definition of Giant Scale, that being the new 80mm A-10.

Since there is not currently any "Official" organizational definition, maybe it's time to update the criteria to be more inclusive of current manufacturing measurements standards. In addition, if done right, it could increase event participation by those that would be excluded under the old IMAA standards.

Suggested updated standards could look like this:

1) Monoplanes - 2m (78 3/4") excluding sailplanes and powergliders
2) Multi-winged planes - 1.5m (59 1/16")
3) Jets - 3.2m (126") combined wingspan and fuselage length
4) Sailplanes and Powergliders - 3m (118").

These new standards would allow companies like Motion RC and others to now enter into the Giant Scale market. If there is sufficient support by AMA members and the RC industry, it could become the new standard.

What are your thoughts and input?

[OV10]

Well well well my friend, yes it is time to update that arcane standard. ;)

#1 Absolutely......when you told me the other day that my PBJ was an 1-1/4" short of qualifying for your event I was pretty bummed.
#2 Like to see it at 1400mm(55 inch). The FMS Pitts and the Sonic Modell Pitts Python both at that span have pretty substantial presense in both land and air visuals.
#3 Agree
#4 Agree

"More inclusive of current manufacturing measurement standards" is a very good benchmark.
MAKE IT SO..........O Captain My Captain of the Festival of Giants. :)

[davecee]

The IMAA went out of existence for a reason.

[Twowingtj]

The IMAA went out of existence for a reason.

Welcome to Hobby Squawk davecee. Having been involved with IMAA for several years, there were several things that contributed to the organization fading away.

Those issues aside, there are many RC pilots who are still passionate about building and/or flying giant scale aircraft. There are numerous websites, forums and manufacturers who's focus is that aspect of our hobby. The purpose of this thread is to explore the need to update the giant scale "standard" to something more relevant as our hobby has evolved. Any constructive input is welcome.

[F106DeltaDart]

Totally agree with all of these changes, only thing I would add is that for helis I would define giant as 700 size and up. Not sure if they would be included under the same banner, but would be nice to see scale helis lumped in to the scale airplane organizations as well. In my opinion, a nice scale heli fits in much better with warbirds than any of its 3D cousins.

[Twowingtj]

Totally agree with all of these changes, only thing I would add is that for helis I would define giant as 700 size and up. Not sure if they would be included under the same banner, but would be nice to see scale helis lumped in to the scale airplane organizations ass well. In my opinion, a nice scale heli fits in much better with warbirds than any of its 3D cousins.

Agree completely Delta. Thanks for reminding me about helis. There actually was a "standard" for autogyros (60" rotor span). 700 size scale helis should be included. There are some really nice examples out there.

[smdub]

Found this thread in a search of why Motion considers the FW A10 as 'AMA giant scale'. I'm all for rounding to metric! 2.032m->2m and 1.524m->1.5m makes lots of sense and its a SMALL difference. But suggesting jets going from 140"(3.556m) to 120(3.32m) is nuts. 3.5m(137.8") would be more appropriate. You have to set the limit somewhere. Shrinking it arbitrarily to make one company feel good about themselves is sort of silly and will never end. Its only a matter of time until UMX planes are advertised as giant scale:(

Edit: IMAA used to consider anything 1/4 scale and up to qualify even if it didn't meet the requirements. A 1/4 scale GeeBee for example is <80" but qualified as giant. A 1/4 scale BD5 would only need to be 105.25" combined.

[OV10]

Found this thread in a search of why Motion considers the FW A10 as 'AMA giant scale'. I'm all for rounding to metric! 2.032m->2m and 1.524m->1.5m makes lots of sense and its a SMALL difference. But suggesting jets going from 140"(3.556m) to 120(3.32m) is nuts. 3.5m(137.8") would be more appropriate. You have to set the limit somewhere. Shrinking it arbitrarily to make one company feel good about themselves is sort of silly and will never end. Its only a matter of time until UMX planes are advertised as giant scale:(

Edit: IMAA used to consider anything 1/4 scale and up to qualify even if it didn't meet the requirements. A 1/4 scale GeeBee for example is <80" but qualified as giant. A 1/4 scale BD5 would only need to be 105.25" combined.

The reduction is not about a company (inferred to as Motion because asked here on the Squawk?) but more about the general standard of size the industry is building to and the growing reduction of participation in these events because of an arbitrary SIG that no longer exists and that this category needs to stay relevant as the hobby evolves. Insinuating that the latest release of the Freewing Twin 80mm A-10 is not a giant scale EDF based on arcane measurements from a defunct SIG is nuts. I totally support what Twowingtj is attempting to do and he does have a clue as to what is going on, see his intro sentence on his opening post.
Best regards,

[smdub]

Planes are getting bigger, not smaller (well, w/ UMX they are getting smaller too.) Look at the number of enormous foamies now that didn't exist 5 years ago. CZ T28, Flex Cessna 170, CZ 150 are legit (metric) GS. Can't throw a servo w/o hitting a 30%+ balsa plane manufacturer anymore. Tons of GS ARFs. In a couple evenings, anyone can be flying GS. They are more now than there have ever been. The yardstick doesn't need to get smaller to include more. The yardstick simply needs to be changed to a meterstick;)

IMAA died because no one needed it not because the rules weren't a good idea. IMAC has similar membership problems though the number of capable planes out there is likely higher than ever. Look at the number of GS models that still advertise they are IMAA legal. Those planes were built that size because of the rules. The OPs local club can do anything they want but Motion shouldn't use one local club's rule to advertise their product is GS when it doesn't meet any current (or past) national definition of it. I went from zero to four GS planes last year. I love big as do lots of guys in my club. But very few of us would go to a GS meet. We just don't care. I like flying not travelling around wasting a weekend for a few minutes of air time. SIG participation does not necessarily correlate w/ the interest/ownership of the planes.

Without a doubt there will be bigger foam planes next year then there where were last year. Manufacturers are going bigger. FMS makes at least three 1.7m warbirds. The new FW A10 is 0.2m bigger than anything before. They are getting there. Give them a (GIANT) target to aspire to. I would *LOVE* a 2m A10 and P38! We are within 10% of having a 1/4 scale foam Pitts avail. Don't stop now! We have big now. We want giant.

Edit: If you want to boost participation at SIG events, you can change the entry rules w/o changing the SIGs rules. Example: BMWCCA and PCA (BMW and Porsche car clubs respectively) used to me marque only track events. W/ numbers falling, they now allow others in yet they are still BMW & Porsche only clubs. Giant scale / IMAC / etc meets can create categories for things that fall outside the rules to boost attendance numbers but still stick to their guns for scoring. That doesn't doesn't take a rule change.

[Twowingtj]

Greeetings smdub. I definately see several of your points. I was surprized to see the giant scale mentioned on the A-10 page as well. I'm affraid I must take responsibility for that one. I was talking with Alpha one day and mentioned that the A-10 was large enough to fly at our 32nd annual giant scale event. I only spoke with him briefly. What he did not know was that in order to increase enrty level, particularly youth, participation in the event, we made an adjustment to the old IMAA jet size standard for our event. I've had some communication with some of the MRC team to get the giant scale reference changed.

On to more about possible rules change.... Yes, you are correct that there are more giant scale birds out there than ever before. As you mentioned, paticipation at many events is down. If you look at the age groups at any particular event, at least where I am, you don't see the number of young people flying as you could see. Our team feels that if the size standards were to be adjusted so that affordable entry level PNP bigger birds were allowed, more enthusiastic young poeple could get started.

Yes the CZ Cub and others would fit the old standard and so might some 25% Edges and Extras. There are a lot of young flyers that like warbirds and EDFs. There aren't a lot of options there for giant scale that are affordable at the IMAA size standards especially in the jet category. So we looked at current options and threw some numbers at the wall that could help people, particularly young people, get started in giant scale without negatively impacting the giant scale branch of the hobby. Our hope is that it could be a starting point for a path on to bigger and better things. We also wanted to include groups typically "left out" such as rotorcraft and gliders.

With out a sactioning SIG to set the size standards for us, we have an opportunity to adapt to the current state of the hobby and the new generation of participants. We have to be forward looking and take the steps needed to keep the hobby thriving. Part of that is to see where the interests of the new generations lie. Many are into 3D, and the options are boundless. Many are into quads. Not many giant scale options there and likely little interest. The EDF and Warbird area is where reasonable tweeks could be made. A 2m P-51 should be fine. A combined wingspan and fuselage length, in an EDF, of even 3m doing 120mph is nothing to be sneeze at.

Many of the "Old Guard" will no doubt be opposed to the suggested changes, and for some defendable reasons. Many others feel the time has come to adjust a bit. It can be done and still maintain the spirit and tradition of Giant Scale.

[smdub]

A combined wingspan and fuselage length, in an EDF, of even 3m doing 120mph is nothing to be sneeze at.

Meh. A HSD super viper is 3.16m. Fellow brought one to maiden at the field last weekend (forgot two of the wing screws at home so I didn't go into the air.) First time I've seen one in person. Big and pretty looking in all red? Yes. Giant? Hardly.

The HSD F16 sneaks in a little over 3m too. Its a mere 10% scale wise too small to meet the existing GS spec. They can do it!

As I stated, the definitions and participation really have nothing to do with one another. A giant scale event can choose to let others in. Easy to say anything over 3m combined or 105mm can fly. *OR* since most giant scale are actual scale aircraft why not have a "scale day"? Our field does an annual "all the worlds aircraft" (anything scale is allowed) and its *BY FAR* the largest day at the field. All the giant stuff comes out of hiding and shows up that day. SIGs can be exclusive (is the point of a SIG.) But if they have membership problems they shouldn't be so exclusive at their meetings;) Hard to get interested in a club if you aren't allowed to come play w/ them as an outsider.

As for new participation and the younger generation its a different topic all together. *NONE* of them are starting in giant scale (financial or flying skill reasons.) You want the next generation to get interested in GS? Let quads/drones attend your GS events. (THAT isn't going to go over well w/ the "old guard")

[F106DeltaDart]

As for new participation and the younger generation its a different topic all together. *NONE* of them are starting in giant scale (financial or flying skill reasons.) You want the next generation to get interested in GS? Let quads/drones attend your GS events. (THAT isn't going to go over well w/ the "old guard")

You won't find out if you don't try ;). I am one of the very few fliers in their early 20s that is into large warbirds and jets and scale choppers. For reasons both financial and spacial, 1700mm and foam is the biggest I can see myself going for the foreseeable future, and maybe tolerating larger spans for multi-engine bomber like the HK B-17 V2. It may not make it "giant" in your book, but I just got the Lander 90mm T-33 at 1634mm and it is HUGE. Like, takes-up-my-entire-living-room-floor huge. The A-10 is going to be even bigger at 1.7m. I would love to go to a giant scale event, but otherwise it is just not going to happen. If you want to make the limit higher, so be it. But, just be aware that there are younger fliers out there who will be interested. Or, you can keep it in the retired-folks club it is now. I think TJ's suggested change keep things restricted to large airplanes, but really open things up to more affordable levels. I know its different than the established traditions, but that's what necessary to get youth participation more than anything else. I could go on for a while about how difficult (and badly) youth interaction is done by most clubs, save 1, that I have been a part of, but that is it's own topic..

[Twowingtj]

I am one of the very few fliers in their early 20s that is into large warbirds and jets and scale choppers. For reasons both financial and spacial, 1700mm and foam is the biggest I can see myself going for the foreseeable future, I would love to go to a giant scale event, but otherwise it is just not going to happen. But, just be aware that there are younger fliers out there who will be interested......but really open things up to more affordable levels......but that's what necessary to get youth participation more than anything else...

A few of my other club members, myself and our event team members go to several events. We have met and know alot of flyers like F106DeltaDart. These folks are the current state of evolution and future of our hobby. They are who we were when we were in our teens and twenties. These are the doers in the clubs and events with the passion to keep the hobby moving forward.

If a reasonable adjustment opens the door for a few passionate flyers that can't plop down $2400 for a single 30cc gasser, but still keeps it to large birds, what's the harm.

I happen to be the Pres of our Giant Scale club. We've been around a lot of years. Oue rules say "you must own or intend(intend is a recent change) a giant scale aircraft" to be a member. We have 32 members and only 1 is a youth member. Several of us want to open it up, but many senior members that haven't flown in years block it every time. But that's our problem.....it certainly doesn't help the club grow.

Delta, you're welcome at my field anytime:Cool:

[F106DeltaDart]

Delta, you're welcome at my field anytime:Cool:

Thanks TJ and likewise! I'll let you know if I'm ever up in that area for sure.

[smdub]

If a reasonable adjustment opens the door for a few passionate flyers that can't plop down $2400 for a single 30cc gasser

This just isn't true and you have to know it. I was given a 33% Edge 540T bare airframe and have spent exactly $1664 for everything to get it airworthy. Have a spreadsheet down to and including the glue. Top of the line new HV digital Hitec servos. Spektrum 12300T powersafe rx (that is now recalled:() Only the DA100 (and airframe) was used. Even if I bought a new airframe I wouldn't be at your price level. I bought a gorgeous receiver ready Ziroli Corsair w/ retracts and a GP 1/3 Pitts for $700 and $450 respectively earlier this year. Lots of 1/4 Cubs and similar go for ~$500 on RCG. Heck, even H9 has a bunch of GS ARFs that can be built for a fraction of your price. No one needs to shell out remotely close to $2400 to get into the sport.

FWIW, All three will likely fit into our small coat closet w/ the wings/stabs off.

but still keeps it to large birds, what's the harm.

No harm letting them join your club. Its a semantics issue. As I have stated multiple times you could let people in w/ smaller planes that aren't giant scale. Its what other SIGs do.

[OV10]

Well TJ...............It looks like Mr. smdub would prefer to turn your thread into a manner of semantics (word used by him) by arguing that your number that I'm sure is an average that you've seen over the years is beat down to a level that is palatable to his perception of entry cost. He was given a plane that if he had to buy would range in retail value depending on the brand anywhere from $650 to $1600 plus his own actual outlay $1600+ has him right in the ballpark of the average number you used.
Our club was not founded on a Giant Scale foundation but we've got the same old guard in our club that have not flown in several years or at best fly very infrequently. They want to hold fast to the dwindling involvement in the pattern and pylon activities that the club was started 60 yrs ago with but which also got us a bad rep because of the perception that there is no room for non-competition fun flyers.
As the VP of our club it has been a hard row to hoe the past three years trying to get fun activities for the up and coming younger members. These same younger folks have expressed how they would be interested in events like your clubs but are outcast by the rules of a bygone era due to costs. As DeltaDart has indicated, the future of this hobby is in the hands of the new generation and the old guard needs to recognize that the wind is changing.
So I'm off my soap box now of defending your attempt TJ to bring about a positive change to a sector of this hobby that does need to get a breath of fresh air. ;)
Would enjoy hearing what others may feel about the proposed changes to invigorate this portion of the hobby.
Best regards,

[smdub]

beat down to a level that is palatable to his perception of entry cost.

I've given several examples of new foam giant scale that are in the $500 range. Plus several example of excellent used gassers I bought are also very affordable. The one w/ the perception that entry cost is high is TJ, not myself.

He was given a plane that if he had to buy would range in retail value depending on the brand anywhere from $650 to $1600 plus his own actual outlay $1600+ has him right in the ballpark of the average number you used.

You must have missed where TJ said his price was for a "30cc gasser" where my cost was for a 100cc and i bought top of the line components. **BIG** difference in cost (especially the electronics.) And the other two examples where my average outlay was almost exactly one FOURTH the entry cost number thrown out by TJ.
Edit: The kit my plane was from was $325.

[Twowingtj]

The price mentioned was not meant to be an exact amount. I was refering more to a full function warbird, not the CZ or common aerobatic airframes. That aside, it's about expanding a branch of the hobby. Nothing more.

[smdub]

Sorry, OV's "Mr. smdub" tone rubbed me the wrong way. Warbird: Can get a new 30cc H9 Spitfire for $840 shipped w/ engine. Add decent servos and thats a little over a grand all in. The 60CC H9 Corsair isn't TONS more. H9 stuff isn't exactly the lowest priced stuff out there either. I agree the bottom line is about expanding the hobby (in all branches!) Just one of the things that put me off of GS initially was how much I was told they cost (I think people like to brag how much they spend and its like a fishing tale and gets bigger over time.) Heck, even the airframe I was given everyone was telling me I had to have XYZ super servos. I ended up w/ $400 of servos for the tail alone. Once we found the manual it spec'ed FAR smaller servos. I could have spent half what I did on electronics and still been overkill. But the guys who I thought were experts basically told me to I had to go huge (go big or go home seemed to be the motto.)

So now I parrot how cheap entry into the sport CAN be. Peoples eyes light up when they hear real examples of what things cost. If I would have forgone buying just 3 or so foamies I could have been flying GS earlier. Who knew!

I'm doing the best I can to get more people into the sport! Last year I was the only pilot in my office. Today there are 4 more flying, 3 of which are in their 20s and one has also gotten his brother interested. One of those was ONLY interested in quads but now owns 2 planes and likes them more then than his quads. I'll let anyone fly my CZ T28 on a buddy box. Most are surprised how easy it is. Im making an effort this year to try and donate time and money to the club to help new people and kids especially (STEM programs have approached us for help.) I'm convinced quads are the gateway drug for the latter. My 6yr old can fly a E010 micro quad around and knock legos over.

[Twowingtj]

I'm doing the best I can to get more people into the sport! Last year I was the only pilot in my office. Today there are 4 more flying, 3 of which are in their 20s and one has also gotten his brother interested. One of those was ONLY interested in quads but now owns 2 planes and likes them more then than his quads. I'll let anyone fly my CZ T28 on a buddy box. Most are surprised how easy it is. Im making an effort this year to try and donate time and money to the club to help new people and kids especially (STEM programs have approached us for help.) I'm convinced quads are the gateway drug for the latter. My 6yr old can fly a E010 micro quad around and knock legos over.

Good to hear that you have and are taking steps to keep the ball rolling so to speak. This hobby has come a long way and there are so many options now that weren't even possible not that many years ago.

Don't let what OV10 said get under your skin. He's a great guy. He and I are both club officers of neighboring clubs. We both have simular experiences where it's like trying to push a rope up hill. Trying to get our clubs to grow and flourish when some of the members would rather that it stayed the way it used to be. Like George Carlin used to say, "It's hard to start a path because you've got to hold the grass down all by yourself at first". It's all good.