rmh

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)

v-snap

My Feedback: (18)

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

rmh

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.

Tom Wheeler

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

rmh

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 --

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

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.

rmh

Yep - an there are some really slick new racers which may (?) also be rated aerobatic

Blow n Go

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