This issue has been beat to death all over the internet, it has been for years, and always for the same reason - someone feels at a disadvantage because they don't have the bigger hardware. what is amusing are the rather of "novel solutions" that are suggested, and the lack of effort that the complainers are willing to expend to advance their views.

a number of points: first, if you want to do a little airplane event, you don't need a waiver, you don't even need a sanction. if you want to put on a contest with a wingspan limit, just do it. whether you call it an imac contest really doesn't matter. it is worth consdering writing sequences that would be more appropriate for smaller airplanes. but keep in mind that limiting wingspan to 80" or whatever the number isn't going to make the guy with the .60 size extra and 4 channel analog radio feel any better. to him, it's still a money game when he is pitted against a well set up 80" airplane with one of them computer radios.

a rules proposal has little chance of success. the climate towards mini anything has never been warm, the originators of mini mac are long gone, and there were only a handful of them anyway. the imac "leadership" has never paid attention to mini mac, because there was no need - as long as contests are many, and attendance is bright, there is no need to dedicate resources to such a minor issue. moreover, recent changes in the rules process will result in greater scrutiny of rules proposals, and few CDs are going to want the headache of managing two contests. the best thing really is to write mini mac out of the rules, that proposal would probably go through.

i have said this for years, and here it is again. any limit iis purely arbitrary and has no basis in logic or reason. recently, i have heard some people advocate 50cc as a new upper limit - of course because that is what they have, but have you really leveled the playing field when you combine a .60 anything with a 50cc airplane? not at all. there are also serious safety issues - how many CDs would agree to accept liability for limiting basic by wingspan and putting a pilot in sportsman simply because his airplane is larger? is that something that would be supported by the AMA? highly doubtful.

if you guys really feel strongly about this, the "fix" is easy enough. do it youself. put on a contest, use existing or write your sequences, and put the wingspan limit and whatever you think makes sense. but if you really want to go that route, make sure you bring your rulers, because some guy that changed the wing caps on his MW Extra to 1/4" instead of 1/16" balsa is going to be over 80" and that is the kind of nonsense you'll be asked to enforce - and it was your idea in the first place!