Danny Baker

My Feedback: (2)

The rule has always been 10% mods from the full-scale. The mods can be in fuse length, stab span, rudder height, etc. Mods must originate from the 3-view of the full scale. Mods do not include hinge lines (you can make the hinge line where ever you want on the wings, stabs, or fin). At the TOC, they were very strick on the 10% rule. It even included gear height since that measurement could be obtained from the 3-view. TOC pilots had to send in documention months in advance so to be sure their plane would not get rejected the day before the meet started.

Yes, All QQ's planes are IMAC legal. QQ is a past TOC pilot, enough said.....

Perhaps SCAT (IMAC "one-off" out west) has a 20% rule. IMAC has always been 10%. At least in my 12 years of competing.

That Gator Giles And Hanson's Excess are both NOT legal for IMAC. I remember that Gator Giles. Looked like a pattern plane with a Giles windshield. The plane would only be legal in our Basic class.

Danny,

brknprops-deleted

Thing that I know for sure:

SCAT never had a 20% rule, in fact we never had any rule since at the time SCAT was operating we neither felt the need to have a rule, and for that matter neither did IMAC. The 10% rule was written out for an AMA rules cycle when research indicated that large fraction of airplane could not meet the current rule and the rule itself was a joke. It was later reinstated when some were fearful of being overrun by stretched airplanes.

The TOC and the IMAC rules were 10%, but there the similarity ended. An airplane could be built to be TOC legal, but not IMAC legal, because the TOC did not have a fuselage cross section requirement in back of the firewall, but IMAC did. The TOC rules were somewhat of a farce, as Billy Hempel was asked on year to glue a piece of 3/8 balsa under the tail of his AW 540T to meet the letter of the rule. Mfrs that paid attention to the 10% rule were concerned with the TOC, several that I talked during my own research didn't know or care about the IMAC rules, their planes were labeled IMAC legal because of marketing, not that they had been measured. There are plenty of planes out there today that I know would fail if tested, which is why the rule was repealed in the first place.

Things I think

I do seem to remember a 20% fuselage cross section rule that went away in around 2000, but the wingspan has always been 10%. In any case, I have always regarded the scale rules as ridiculous, as enforcement of one means enforcement for all, and neither competitors or CDs are equipped to handle the task. It does make for interesting dialogue.


Paul Kopp, once upon a time
SCAT CD
IMAC Rules Committee
IMAC Sequence Committee

rmh

Don't know why I saw this but my 300 EXCESS was within 10%of 300L EXTRA dimensions -I used EXCESS factory dimensions . There are hardly any of the current large IMAC EXTRAS which fit " 10% "rules
measure em.
Also there is NO dimension rule
Only if the CD chooses to measure the model.
Then 10% applies there better be scale drawings on hand to proove /disproove disputes -and in actual practice, this NEVER happens
I also built models flown TOC ( three different designs)and they were correct -however some entrants models did NOT fall within guide lines - they passed with a wink and a nod. Again, intent was the guiding idea
I was Line Chief at last TOC- and know what was /was not to the letter of the law.
For IMAC, if the CD thinks the model looks like the full scale - it's in
My EXCESS had retracts for pattern and fixed gear for scale here is a 300 version.
compare these photos with many presently accepted EXTRAS.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Hi Paul. Yes, I think you put your finger on it! I am the original misleader of Matt K. when I told him that IMAC once had a 20% fuselage deviation, then later realized it must have been width.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

This brings back some fun memories! I remember a few folks getting a little upset at some NE contests back in the day when Ron & Dave Lockhart used to show up and do some spanking with Ron's Excess. It's never fun getting whipped by a smaller, more capable airplane. I guess the pilots had something to do with it too!

rmh

And a capable flyer !

bodywerks

My Feedback: (4)

Another difference is that you can go to a contest in a 30MPG Ford Focus and still have a top-of-the-line plane in your car, ready to dominate the skies in Pattern. With IMAC, it usually also requires a trailer or large SUV...
Funny, though, a top-level 2M pattern plane will cost nearly as much as a top-level 40% IMAC plane.
Still, if there were more than 2-3 pattern contests within 350 miles of me I'd have a pattern plane as well.

Flyfalcons

I like to practice with $3/gal fuel versus $25/gal fuel.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Try going electric!

Flyfalcons

Try pricing a system to fly a 40%er!

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

My point exactly. Electric Pattern is very affordable however. Also, you can still do glow for under $10 / gallon if you buy 55 gallon drums. At 16 to 20 oz a flight, it works out to about a buck a flight. Fuel costs aren't really the big cost issue though. If you can afford the support system for hauling multiple 40% airplanes, more power to you. I never got past using a minivan for my 40% stuff, so I always had that chance that I would be at a contest with nothing to fly if I had an equiment failure. It never happened, but it always bugged me that I could not bring a backup.

Flyfalcons

Okay, price me out a system to fly an electric pattern plane including two flight batteries. I'd love to see what it takes to fly an 11 pound machine. Don't forget that lithiums don't last forever either.

ExFokkerFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Click the link below, it gives a good idea what can be done. It's simple, cheap, and tons of power. A little on the heavy side, but with the right airplane, 11 lbs is easily achievable. I have this set up in a 11 lb Black Magic. This link proposes Tru RC packs, and from what I hear they are great to deal with and have a good warranty. A set of 10s will cost you about $250, and they are guaranteed for about a year I think (don't have any myself). Right now I'm using the cheap batteries from Hobby City, a set of HXT 4100s is about $160 (that's 10S) and I have about 50 cycles on three sets with few issues. One set will puff ever so slightly, but that's not unusual, the power is still good.

The only trick I would add to the site is that if you buy a deep cycle battery from Costco, I think for about $60-80 (can't remember), they also have a warranty. I would use them for a year, take it back and say that it won't hold a charge (because it didn't at that point) and I got it replaced free. MUCH cheaper than a generator.

Other motors you could use include the Dualsky motor, a lot of power for half the price. Basically you can now put together an electric set up with two sets of batteries for the cost of a YS DZ with mount and header. The Cellpro charger from FMA seems to be the 'in' thing to buy these days and it's cheaper than the Thunderpower as well. My how times have changed.

Still nothing wrong with a DZ though, just different. The cost arguement no longer really holds water.


Tons of good info on this site too.

http://www.electric-f3a.com/Simple%2...le%20setup.htm

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Neither will gas under $2 a gallon!

Flyfalcons

That's why I said $3/gal in my original post

sweetpea01

My Feedback: (10)

No reason to debate......they are both fun.

In the SW pattern has started to decline in numbers attending while IMAC has ballooned. Also alot of flyers use IMAC planes to fly 3D and its bragging rights to have a large plane at your home field.

I fly both, I own both. I enjoy both. IMAC was more fun for me for 3 reasons.

1. Unknowns in IMAC
2. cost of glo fuel vs gas (without having to store a 55gal drum)
3. Number of competitors (had 15 avg in IMAC and 4 avg in pattern)

But if more folks showed up I would fly both (I did in '07

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Who stores a 55 gal drum? It goes straight into 55 jugs and the helpers take their share. The empty drum goes right to the recycling center, or to anyone you know who might be doing biodiesel in their garage. We've been doing this for years in D1, it's no big deal.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Unfortunately, in just a couple of years we may be seeing $5 gas. The goal has been set for higher than that. Let's enjoy it while it lasts. Hard to say where methanol prices will end up, but that trend isn't good either. This is why I will wind up going electric in another year or so. The future doesn't look great for glow fuel in the long run, but it really isn't too bad right now in large quantities. Anyway, don't be too suprised to see a relatively affordable electric solution for a 35 - 40% model in the coming years. Battery prices are getting better and the technology continues to improve too. I'll miss the sound of a 2C, but I guess it's progess.

sweetpea01

My Feedback: (10)

Again........not enough pattern guys around to justify that type of purchase all running the same brand and % of fuel.

Regardless of fuel costs; the main reason for IMAC was the amount of competitors. When it cost $30 to fly a contest and about $100-200 to get there and stay in a hotel I'd rather fly against 15 other people than 3-4.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

That's a shame, but maybe you'll see the situation change over time. Other areas have a really healthy turnout for both Pattern and IMAC. It's pretty much equal in the Northeast for the number of contests as well as the number of participants. Losing fields is the larger concern in the Northeast. This is where getting the noise foot print down as well as keeping the overflight area to a minimum can help. It's not easy either way.

Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

Personally I have found pattern to be a little easier to get involved with. I was able to get a Venus II and OS 120AX and have a setup that is competitive through the first two classes for only a few hundred dollars. When looking into IMAC, I found that nothing under 25% would be very competitive, and even that would be a bit small for the higher level classes.

As far as competitions, I've been in two pattern contests and only competed against 3 people total. However, one contest was during a Hurricane and the other was the weekend before NATS. But, there were plenty of pilots in the upper categories to watch and to work with. I feel that all the traveling and expenses has been totally worth it.

All that being said, I've got a ~25% Yak and plan on getting involved with IMAC this coming summer, and am excited for that. I don't see a van or trailer, or an apartment that will fit a 40% plane in my near future, so I'll probably focus my efforts on really competing in Pattern, but it will be fun to do both.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

I started with IMAC and eventually ended up in Pattern. I agree, it's definitely less expensive to field a competitive Pattern airplane, but like anything else, you could go out and spend about as much on a 2M Pattern ship as a 40% IMAC plane if you really want to. It's just that you don't need to. But it's a hobby and if you like the result for the extra $$$, go for it. I"m not one to buy junk to save money either. You can use great equipment and still keep the costs reasonable.

sweetpea01

My Feedback: (10)

I agree.

If I live in a place where IMAC and Pattern are more equal in the numbers of attendance than I'll fly both. But for me the cost was too much to fly Pattern in terms of contest fees/travel/lodging vs. flying IMAC with the amount of competition. When the numbers were more equal I had a blast doing both, though it made practice hard to do.

DwightMann

I couldn't agree more.... on both points

matt1977

Thanks for the replies guys.

I have another question.


Are the aircrafts themselves actually judged during an IMAC event? I watched a special on the Top Gun competition, and those were judged on both the aircraft and performance. Is this the same with IMAC?


Or is all that is required is that the plane be within 10% scale version of a real plane?

I also looked at a score sheet on IMAC webpage, and there was a box for sound. Is the sound of the plane also judged?

Thanks,

Matt