Dan.. Buddy.. If you find a pilot like that, LET ME KNOW. I might just buy one of those!

My 2 ounce pilot figure that costs $50.00 works just great in my$6000.00 40lb plane. Just PDB.

Pattern planes use solid canopies.

CD's who let the pilot/panel rule slip over the years are causing the problem, not solving it.
If a rule is a rule and people just ignore it, then there is not much of a rule there. It is up to our CD's to apply the rules and not personal judgment because "they" themselves don't want to spend $$ on a part that is not vital to the airplane being flight worthy.

On the 2 blade prop, wheel pant arguments, you can fly any of those planes on a two blade prop but the forces on the crankshaft flange are increased so for safety they run 3 and 4 blade props. Any of those planes can fly with out wheel fairings but nobody wants to because the plane looks just silly with out them.
I have not seen any IAC plane fly with out a pilot in them (yet).

Scale such as military scale planes are made to look real on static display but have to be able to fly. Way different type set up than what we have where our focus is on a scale looking plane that flies great.

I can see some argument for high temperature or high altitude locations and the extra 2-4 ounces of weight.

I am not going to change minds here and that is OK. Like Ken said, pop over to the IMAC site and vote on it so the board can make an accurate decision on what the membership wants. I suspect that only the people the don't want a pilot bust or panel will vote because only they care.

Till then, we should be using the rule and CD's should enforce the rule.
Will B.

Thank you, Will, .. I agree with you.

Fred
+ * + * + * + *

Seriously, was it that hard to answer my question? "none" would have been an okay answer. I guess I could rephrase my question to "CAN an IAC plane fly with a painted canopy and no pilot?" To answer your questions, here is a picture of a Yak with a two bladed prop, no wheelpants, no spinner, and large control surfaces. How much are we willing to bet that it has a clear canopy?

The intent of IMAC is to fly scale planes in miniaturized IAC contests. Every time we give up some requirement holding us to flying scale planes, we might as well be calling ourselves "oversized pattern aerobatics".

"The intent of IMAC is to fly scale planes in miniaturized IAC contests. Every time we give up some requirement holding us to flying scale planes, we might as well be calling ourselves "oversized pattern aerobatics".

Pretty much how I feel.

I voted, hope everyone on either side of the issue votes. Without us there are no rules, scale aerobatic planes to fly or contests to go to.

Best wishes all!
Will B.

I make my own pilots -which strangely enough look like humans.
The motorcycle helmeted figures really puzzle me - -or do some full scale fliers actually wear them?

Bullard,

Coming in late on this topic but wanted to see if you meant the Cullman, Alabama contest this coming weekend. Since you're in the NW Fl. area that's what I'd assume. If this is your first, come fly and have a good time with the Alabama gang. This the second contest this season in Al. (Prattville Al. meet was in April) and we hope to attract all those guys that are too far from most of the other SE region IMAC activity.

If you're flying basic, ANY airplane is acceptable (within AMA regs o'course).

Look forward to seeing you.

Chris

This isn't even close to reality. If it were, then we would fly 3 times at a contest. Once flying the Known as a sort of check out to make sure you are safe, once for your Free Program and then finally the Unknown. That's it. We would also not be wind correcting and a whole host of other things. Plus our planes would have more realistic power loadings too. But NONE of those things make us different from IAC, it is NOT having a pilot / panel. OK.

Aresti you are spot on with everything you have said.We allow all sorts of non scale things in IMAC(electric motors,up to now an opaque canopy was fine, etc) the 10% rule is also there.The QQ yaks would only just scrape in but scrape in they do.Lets look at the bigger picture not make silly little rules over opaque or non opaque,pilot or no pilot.If we are to go hard line scale then we would all be flying new planes.Unless formula one drivers are flying IAC then those using them in RC planes are not flying scale.I believe that the plane should be a good representation of the real thing from a standoff point of view and then let the competition be decided in the air like it should be.Also until I see a full size extra,edge etc using electric power then that is way off scale in my mind,but given noise restrictions etc it would be a SENSIBLE rule to allow them to fly.

I guess it is like NASCAR driving "cars" that represent what you can go to the dealer and purchase.

Those guys are making millions driving something that is not even close, good luck winning that argument with them.

Everyone has great points listed here. I hope our new friends coming in don't get the idea that all everyone does is argure around here. We do really just enjoy the hobby and we all have our own views to share.

Lets fly!
Will B.

I cant believe that nobody has mentioned this. The airplane is judged while in the air. Yes people look at the planes on the ground and yes the pilot sitting on a small cross brace may not look real but as someone stated in this post, the plane should look scale from a standoff distance. However most of the planes are looked at while flying, I have some old pics of my first third scale and even photos taken that werent close in, the pic looks rediculous with no pilot. Personally I like a pilot that looks somewhat scale in all of my planes. I hate the "toy" look when people put homer simpson dolls or whatever in them. freestyle flying may not be totally scale but on the other hand the full scale guys are doing what they can to achieve this type of flight. Actually it probably could be done if someone had enough money to to use the same technology in their full scale as there is in say F1 racing, thats not cheap. Anyway low and slow with no pilot in the cockpit is really odd looking, especially in photos.

to me all the pics taken when I had no pilot in this airplane look like #%*@

Okay, so the intent of IMAC isn't to emulate full scale IAC aerobatic events? I'm getting confused here. From the IMAC website www.mini-iac.com (note the IAC reference there), "IMAC (International Miniature Aerobátic Club) is the organization that grew out of the interest of flying scale aerobatics. The group was founded in 1974 with 97 charter members. Their intent was to emulate the IAC, which was dominated by biplanes at the time, so the IMAC initially called themselves the National Sport Biplane Association. In 1976 the National Sport Biplane Association became affiliated with the IAC and became IMAC."

More good stuff:

"A most recent example of cooperation between the IMAC and IAC boards is the writing of our proposed Flying and Judging Guide (F&JG). Our present document is very outdated, and IMAC was allowed by IAC and further endorsed by FAI/CIVA to use the JAG Red Book as a template for our new F&JG. A big thanks to Rob Dorsey, Brian Howard, Mike Heuer, and Fred Johnson for helping IMAC Rules Chairman Ben Perreau create and check our new F&JG."

Maybe we aren't talking about the same IMAC here, so forgive me if the references above seem very basic. For sure we aren't going to be exactly like our full scale counterparts due in some respects to technology (our power to weight, though full scale is catching up, as well as power source, etc) and in other respects due to the inherant differences between flying from the ground and flying in the cockpit (different box, wind correction, etc). However, a line must be drawn as to how far we are going to allow ourselves to fall away from the concept of scale aerobatics, and for me it is this issue. I am not saying that your opinion is wrong or that mine is the only way to go, but the more we give up, the less we can really call ourselves scale aerobatics.

ryan:

if you take a critical look at IMAC in the early days, you might agree that "emulate" was used in the broadest of contexts. There was no Intermediate, no uniform source of figures (now the FAI catalog), no methodology for training judges, no guide for creation of unknowns, no consistency or uniform resource for K factors, sequences were hand drawn and often included figures did not reconcile with the judging material...on and on. So with or without a pilot panel rule, i think you will agree that the IMAC of today is much closer to "emulating" IAC then whatever was done - not stated - in the beginning. Bill's point, and one with which I completely agree - is that IMAC is models, and these models have long past lost their relationship to their supposed full size counterparts.

Paul

Did anyone else look at the photos from the pattern world championships. CPLR, BPLR, and the entire Japanese team had clear canopies and pilots. Even witha weight limit they still put them in there. Goes to show you that even without a rule some will still run the pilots. I just thought it was interesting because one of the arguments were that we would just be flying big pattern planes if we got rid of the pilot panel rule.

Dan

For the record, I have no problem with requiring pilots and panels. What I do have a problem with is not properly defining what exactly "realistic" means and associating a score with it. NO score should ever be effected by anything EXCEPT what happens in the air. Period.

So IF we MUST have pilots to be "scale" then define what is acceptable and REQUIRE them for entry to a contest. No pilot, no fly. But STOP using it to effect scores.

Would you call quiet IMAC planes realistic?
If we wished to emulate full scale, wouldn't they be a lot noisier?

There really is no consistency....but there are rules......