How "human" does the "Human Pilot Figure" have to be in contests that require a pilot? Would the letter of the law disallow cartoon charters as pilots?

Thanks

Rob

Depends on your cartoon character......


Homer simpson....not human

Popeye....human.


Its all about intent. A realasitc human figure that is 3d.....according to the IMAC rules. It doesn't go into scale size, but if your gonna put a pilot in, might as well make it look good.

Why? some guys use the painted egg type motorcycle helmeted things --
So far I can't find any record of an aerobatic pilot wearing one of those things - unless he is on his motorcycle.

Under the G forces experienced by a pilot doing a sequence the helmet would rip his head off! So why can I not use snoopy...etc.

First off the rules don't state that the pilot must be an aerobatic lifelike pilot.

It does say a realistic 3D human pilot. I've attached the rule below. So no, Snoopy would not count.


A motorcycle helmet or F-1 driver is a 3D realistic Human pilot. Whether or not anyone choses to wear a full helmet in an airplane is up to them. The rule doesn't say that the pilot has to be an example of an actual pilot. If that was the case, then the one with the lady with all the cleavage wouldn't be "realistc" as she would fall out of that outfit.

As for saying that you couldn't wear a helmet like that due to G forces........Have you ever pulled 9G's before? Have you ever weighed the AF helmet with mask compared to a F-1 helmet? They are about the same. I've pulled 9+ G's in an F-16 numerous times and my head didn't rip off.....if anything your head is forced down into your body. If I did say -9G's then maybe your thought would have some validity.....but at -9Gs the last thing I'm worried about is my head ripping off.

sorry no sympathy here - those "helmeted" things are just as goofy as the Snoopy figure - in my book.
They only exist because they are easy to make .
Good profit margin
Ok - to be real - most model pilot sculpurers , are not very accomplished - I just did a Great Planes Cap for a friend-- and the big pilot looked like a figure rescued from a Totem Pole- I scrapped it .
And -in aerobatic planes -not AirForce planes - I know of NO ONE who wears the military type gear . The best wear only a mike set.

Edited by me....


there was a proposal to drop this requirement, but it failed in the voting......

While I'll agree that the full face racing helmets are not what I'd like in my IMAC airplane, the top airshow and competitive aerobatic pilots do wear "military - type" headgear. Sean Tucker and Matt Chapman are two examples - see the photo. Present pilot busts are pretty crude and I wish a real artist would get a nice, realistic pilot into production.

big difference between a helmet and sun goggles and a bike / F1 headgear -
I know this falls on deaf ears-as some think the painted eggs are Kool.
Peter Besenyei IS kool

Your Pilot figure can be as "goofy" as you want as long as its not Goofy.

It just needs to represent a 3d Human. The rule is pretty simple. I didn't make the rule and it wasn't voted out for 2007.

Not all contests enforce the rule. Find a 3d Human pilot that "YOU" like and use that. Who care's what everyone else thinks.


Also the main reason most Aerobatic pilots don't wear helmets.......No ejection seats. The helmet won't save your life in a crash whether its full face or not. The field of view is the same in a half helmet vs F-1.........I've worn both.

I tried an easter egg helmet -- for a motorcycle -- it was simply very uncomfortable and really restricted field of view .
I am not against helmets - just think the full helmet is a p-poor representation of an aerobatic pilot .

I was the chief cheerleader for getting rid of this rule. As written it is too broad and ambiguous For instance, at a contest I went to a couple of years ago the CD allowed points for a 40% planes equipped with a 1/12 scale William jet pilot bust - UNPAINTED no less. His reasoning was that at least he tried. So he gave him the points.

I agree that the full face pilots, while they look cool, do not meet my idea of a realistic pilot. But they DO meet the requirements of the rules.

My reasoning was either write this rule to CLEARLY define what is and is not "realistic" or get rid of it.

Unfortunately the Scale Aerobatics Board failed the attempt to get rid of this rule. Part of the reasoning is that this is what makes us "scale". I'll say this as clearly as possible, that is just plain stupid. We allow absurd power to weight ratios, disproportionate flying surfaces, a B/W photocopy of a 747 dash is OK, and all kinds of other variations, but it is the PILOT that makes it look scale. OK, got it.

But for now we are stuck with it and it is 100% up to the CD to decide what meets the rule. Good luck at figuring that out.

Well put.


The rule should be more specific or gone. but not until next year though........

Its a tough one.........do you let a person with a .40 size pilot who puts it in a 40% get away with it? According to the rule it's ok....doesn't say the pilot has to be scale...only represent a human.

The rule should at least say the pilot must be within 10% scale of the size plane its in.

Why yes he is...so is the red head that is on his team. KAPANINA Svetlana



Hows the leg Dick?

That's about the size of it----

i think we need to get matt chapman or one the other top aerobatic pilots to adorn some of the disney characters' costumes you see at disney land and go fly in a plane once. then you could fly snoopy, goofy, scale human pilot busts, helmet heads. heck, whatever you wanted as long as it is scale inside the plane (i.e. proportionate to the size of the aircraft).lol toby....

The next rules cycle will not allow for a rule change to go into effect until January 2009.

As far as what the pilot can get away with, that is up to the CD. The rule says "realistic". If that is a 1/12th scale jet pilot in a 40% plane to the CD, then it is OK.

As I said, it either needs to be defined or dumped. In the interim I urge CD's to ignore it. It is just too poorly defined to be of any use.

The rule, as poorly written as it is, does NOT say that it must be a representation of something that has actually flown. It says "realistic" human.

And besides, one of the major defenses of this rule is that it is what makes IMAC scale aerobatics. So I love the logic that putting a Snoopy or troll doll would be OK.

I'm trying this with that whole pesky "1 pt per 10 degree" thing too!

I'd like to know this..............with all those supposed people against it.......

Where where you when the rule vote came about? Its like real politics. You should have wrote your District Pres with signatures of all those in IMAC that wanted it gone. Instead you sat back on your hands and let someone else vote without voicing. You are to blame for the rule not being dropped or changed.

Everyone just assumed that the Districts would vote "Drop"........we all know what assuming makes out of you!


So if you want it gone......start working now, you've got 1 yr to get your voice heard......and R/C forums really are not the place to do it. A presonnal letter to those that vote is the correct way.

Has anyone thought about spectator apeal. I get tons of comments on my pilot (the foam goat-tee guy) from my non rc friends and local club spectators. Its usually one of the first things they notice. They could give a crap about the 3:1 thrust to weight, or that I have 3000+ ounces of servo tourque. It looks like a full scale plane to them and I think they dig it.

Well, if you are talking to me, I wrote the rule change and was the one who championed it with the IMAC BoD and got the IMAC Rule committee to propose it. It passed the preliminary vote of the SACB, but then they failed it in the final vote. I for one did not see it coming.

I have no idea why the SACB decided against it at the last moment. It is only 1 of 2 proposed rules changes that they failed. I will try it again for the next rules cycle.

Basically if it cannot be defined precisely it needs to go away. And it also violates my idea that the only thing that should effect the outcome of a contest is what happens in the air.

My original idea for this rule was to tightly define the requirements AND make it so that if needed a pilot and panel to even compete, no points BS. Either that, or kill it.

Beyond that, I am not aware of any great lobbying effort one way or the other. I know that in my District the contest board member told me he was voting in favor of killing the rule ad then changed his mind sometime later. Go figure

And to be clear, the way this works is that it is an AMA process. The SIG (IMAC) proposes the rules changes it wants along with any others submitted by the general membership. Then the Contest Board takes over. They have an initial vote, publish the proposed rules, and then have a final vote. It is the members of the contest boards who decided these things in the end.

Then if you like pilots and want one, do it. But it should have NOTHING to do with the outcome of a contest. The original intent of the rule was in the early days of IMAC when having a pilot and panel actually hurt performance due to weight. So the idea was to ding a pilot for not having one due to the performance gain he got from not having the weight. That reasoning is long gone. Now we try to use silliness about how it makes the planes scale, etc.

Like I keep saying, pilots are fine, if you want them. But they should have ZERO to do with scoring the contest. And if you ARE going to require them, then it needs to be defined and made an absolute requirement. No pilot, no fly. Period.

That's the first I heard of that idea...........No pilot figure no fly.

I'm onboard for that rule. Further define it to be a realistic human/ size and we have a real winner!


My comment wasn't slated for you in particular. Just in general. Most people sit back from their computer and complain. Instead they should lobby to the folks in charge. Public forums are not the place to lobby.......maybe generate support, but not lobby.

Don't expect any return to scale like flying or appearance -
All motor sports evolve toward performance -
When we built first types and even later TOC models , the rules were pretty tight - 10%+- from documented drawings -this rapidly started to slide as everyone pushed the rules and what was really wanted was to develop a lot of interest in people seeing the event as the Premier flying model event .
Which it did ,quit successfully
Hanno Prettner tried to "800 lb gorilla" his way one year and got the boot for his efforts .
Why? there was ONE voice which reigned supreme and the verdict was " you abused the intent and you knew it when you did it ."
IMAC will continue to shift to fit the desires of the competitive groups flying it- whomever they are at the time .
That is the nature of the thing--