Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > IMAC
Reload this Page >

acceptable intent.

Notices
IMAC Discuss IMAC style aerobatics in here

acceptable intent.

Old 03-31-2004, 09:42 AM
  #1  
rmh
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: , UT
Posts: 12,630
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default acceptable intent.

I am doing a Cassut for IMAC.
Legal according to any standard - (IAC entrant - placed -etc--)
But the rules also allow any type which is an aerobatic type which could fly IAC-If I understand that.
Forget about fudged scale outlines placement of stabs etc..
In the full sized racing classes - there are many types which are home builts .
If you read the specs on the kits/plans,etc., it is apparant these homebuilts are designed for sport flying, racing and aerobatics.
They are designed to +/- 12 G's in some cases.
So - are they within INTENT for IMAC?
The ailerons/elevators rudder sizes are too small in some cases - but these have been fair game for modification -on just about all currently accepted designs.
Airfoils?
some are OK as is -again - these have never been a bone of contention.
Are some of them good aerobatic designs?
Careful-- The Bud Lite etc., were simply lightly modified racing designs-
So -before someone cries foul fowl!!
what do you all think?
I see using these designs, as simply a bit of fresh air for the IMAC flyers.
There a scads of em -and well documented to boot.
lots of the pilots also fly models ( no surprise)
Old 03-31-2004, 10:06 AM
  #2  
v-snap
Senior Member
My Feedback: (18)
 
v-snap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: brownsburg, IN
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: acceptable intent.

I followed homebuilts and the IAC for many years and there are alot of variations on these planes. The planes of today such as the EXTRA, SUKHOI, EDGE are relatively manufactured aircraft so they will be consistant. Now turn to the old aerobats and you will see quite a change. You have multiple wings designed for the laser alone, so which do you follow. The Pitts has been modified so many times you could conceive that any wing length or chord will fit the rule. If these planes are one off how do you prove it fits the rule. What if I take the fuse of one plane, use the wing of another, and the tail feathers of two others (same basic airplane design. ie pitts, laser etc). Technicaly this would be a laser however simply using the mods of different lasers built over the years.
I have plans for a 33% eagle I am finishing up that will not have eagle wings or tail feathers, only cowl and fuse. There is a full scale with the same outline (highly modified) but will I get complaints if I try to fly in IMAC? It is 10% I will have pictures to show general outline but is it a true eagle within the scope of IMAC?
Well thats next year anyhow.

Oh yea another good design is the POGO plans by Joe Farris. It has a nice outline and I think with the right reshaping of the tail feathers it would be a nice performer (not to mention stable).

Good Luck
V-Snap
Old 03-31-2004, 10:23 AM
  #3  
rmh
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: , UT
Posts: 12,630
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: acceptable intent.

My understanding is simply that -IF questioned - show documentation.
FWIW - One of the new 40+% models on the market - has the fuselage width squashed to aprox 20% under width.
This model is -to many IMAC flyers absolutely the pinnacle of IMAC design- and it is a good one .
But on a scale test - -it simply is not scale.
So what? That -was never the intent of IMAC inthe first place.

IMAC was for scale like representations flown in a scalelike manner juged to the same type criteria.
This has been *******ized (member voted and approved *******ization!) a bit -which is a normal course for any competition event.

So --- as long as one can document - is there problem.
I don't see any of these planes as having some super secret design feature which will run rough shod over all others.
They should and could offer some new choices for those who (dare I say it) BUILD (gasp!) their own stuff.
BTW The Pogo is really slick-- Just think - you could put "I go Pogo " on the side.
Old 03-31-2004, 10:44 AM
  #4  
Tom Wheeler
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: MI
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: acceptable intent.

The intent of the rule is that we in IMAC fly a scale model of an aircraft that has been built and is capable and legal in FAA terms to fly an IAC sequence within the aerobatic box. This opens the door to many homebuilts, racers, manufactured GA aircraft, and some warbirds.
There are indeed many variations of Pitts, Eagles, Lasers, Skybolts and so on. So generally you will not have any problem if it's within the normal mods that the full scale guys do. On the other hand if your model is "very different" than what one would normally expect from that type, like maybe a Pitts fuse with a Edge wing and a Skybolt tail group, you better be able to show documentation that such a full scale did exists.
When choosing a type to model, you want to make sure that the type is certified for aerobatics, including spins, and that it would be able to perform a sequence within the 3300 ft box.

Tom Wheeler
IMAC President
Old 03-31-2004, 12:00 PM
  #5  
rmh
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: , UT
Posts: 12,630
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: acceptable intent.

Perfectly clear -
If anyone doubts the aerobatic capabilities - these are noted on any of the designer's plans I have seen.
The only "what the hell is that?" designs I have seen are the bipes with special wings and the many permutations of the Cassut -
Again- some of these fit the aerobatic requirements.
With the huge inventory of "homebuilt specials" on the Web, you can easily document just about any design which fills the bill.
And when in doubt---
ask
here are two full size planes - the Yellow one is easy to document -- working on the white one now --
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Ay75415.jpg
Views:	22
Size:	12.3 KB
ID:	117257   Click image for larger version

Name:	Vr53156.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	46.2 KB
ID:	117258  
Old 03-31-2004, 02:11 PM
  #6  
Doug Cronkhite
My Feedback: (34)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,821
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
Default RE: acceptable intent.

Dick,

You can trace the lineage of the Edge 540 all the way back to the El Bandito, a formula one racer many moons ago.

El Bandito
|
Stephen's Acro (modified and enlarged El Bandito)
|
Laser 200
|
Laser 200 w/Zivko wing
|
Edge 320
|
Edge 540.


So if you're asking if it's ok.. absolutely.
Old 03-31-2004, 05:03 PM
  #7  
rmh
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: , UT
Posts: 12,630
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: acceptable intent.

Yep - an there are some really slick new racers which may (?) also be rated aerobatic
Old 03-31-2004, 06:45 PM
  #8  
Blow n Go
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Granbury, TX
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: acceptable intent.

The attraction I have to IMAC is they are NOT anal about the rules like FAI pattern. Let's continue to keep it loose!

Has anyone ever been asked for documentation in IMAC?

CJ

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.