True or False
 

I am planning to attend the Cullum, GA IMAC contest. One of my flying biddies said I would not be able to fly because I did not have a pilot in my plane. Is it true that IMAC requires a pilot?

RE: True or False
 

[edited]edited for correctness......... see answer below from the rule book


BUT..if you are flying and competing...haven't you read the rules yet??


OK...straight from the rules:

6.6. A realistic 3 dimensional human pilot and viewable instrument
panel shall be appropriately installed in all Scale Aerobatic aircraft.
(A one (1) percent flight score penalty will be assessed for noncompliance.)



Rules here:

http://www.mini-iac.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=90

RE: True or False
 

FALSE - you can be docked up to 1% but that is only if the CD actually applies the rule. Many are not.

Many of us black out our canopies. The rule is rediculous and needs to be ammended anyway, but until then, word has it that most of the CD's are overlooking it. Unless you plan on flying a perfect score, the 1% is really no big deal.

The rule should be applied so that black out or pilot is acceptable. I can understand dolls, dogs, and other "non-pilot" gear being disqualified so I am sure that is why the rule was put in to begin with. On the ground the plane should look real.. and a tinted or blacked out canopy does look real.

Pilots add weight, they break loose, they are expensive (for a good one)... a waste IMO... tinting is a lot more effective.

DP

RE: True or False
 

Looks like there is a proposal to change this rule. The new proposal is as follows: "A non-opaque canopy is required for all scale aerobatic aircraft competing in any class other than basic"

RE: True or False
 

The proposal is also for doing away with the penalty for no pilot and instrument pannel

RE: True or False
 

Wouldn't you know... I just finished doing a panel in my new WH Extra,
but I am still looking for a pilot. I will NOT pay 60.00 to 70.00 bucks
for one.

RE: True or False
 

Is that one of those 3-D cockpits? Whatever it is, looks great! I'm not competing yet ('06 is the plan) but the pilot rule seems a bit silly to me. I attended my first IMAC a few weeks ago and most guys had a pilot sitting on a little stringer between the fuse sides with no cockpit floor. Looked ridiculous. (IMO) Plus, what if the pilot bust fell off into the rudder arm or something? Would be a shame to lose a 35% multi-thou $$ aircraft because of a $25 piece of plastic junk. It should either look 100% real or be tinted/blacked out... I prefer blacked out. I think the rule oughta be dropped... with maybe an award/bonus for "best cockpit in class," "best scale aircraft," or something like that???

RE: True or False
 

It is not one of the 3d cockpits you can buy from the guy online.

I found a picture of a Extra cockpit and worked on it a little in paint
shop... same idea as the ones he is selling, but no where near as nice
as his. I have about 1 hour time editing and sizing the picture, and it
is a little grainy up close. On top of that my only color printer is about
10 years old so its not the best.... But it is a lot nicer then a balsa floor!

RE: True or False
 

The whole idea of flying basic is to have fun and experience what IMAC is about...It is not about knowing all the "RULES" and having the perfect IMAC airplane...
GO! FLY! and most of all HAVE FUN!
Don't worry about the rules just ask and they will answer......

RE: True or False
 

I for one think if it is a rule then it should be followed. In my experience pilots are not penalized for lack of pilot and/or dash. I say get rid of the rule. I'm not even for the non-opaque proposal. What happens if someone shows up with a painted canopy?

Ryan

RE: True or False
 

You are right, Ryan, that if it is a rule it should be followed. Problem is, in some parts of the country it isn't followed. If this rule passes, then that person would not be allowed to fly. Pretty much the same thing that happens at a pattern contest when someone shows up with a plane over the size or weight limit.

And it should be noted that in Basic, there is no requirement for a panel or pilot. Give it a try - you will have a great time.

Ken

RE: True or False
 

As a rule, it should be followed. The original idea of IMAC is to be scale, and a pilot and panel should be part of the price to pay when calling your aircraft "scale". After all, how many opaque canopies do you see at IAC competitions? We followed that rule when I was competing in the northwest, though I do not think any contests were decided by the 1% penalty, at least in the classes that I flew.

PS Basic no problem, let's get as many people involved as we can. No need to get a fully IMAC-qualified plane just to test the water.

RE: True or False
 

I like the idea of changing the rules to the non-opaque canopy. If you've noticed, the hobby hoarders out there have really taken advantage of this rule. A good 40% pilot costs about $200. Look at the helmet heads? $200+. Sure, there are some $69 ones out there but they're pretty much crap. Hell, Mattel can make a Barbie, with hair, toe nails, fingers and just about everything else you can imagine and sell the thing for $15.00. There are a few companies that have just totally abused this rule knowing what the IMAC requirements are. If the rule change doesn't pass, it's not becuase, "us", the IMAC contestants didn't want it. It's because some of these pilot producing outfits don't want the change. You can always put a pilot in if "you" like the idea.

RE: True or False
 

John,

I don't buy the argument of the costly, heavy pilot figures. Yes, you can pay lots of $$ for a figure, but you don't have to. I got mine at Aircraft International. For my 40% airplane, I paid $40 and it weighs less than 1 oz. On a 40% airplane this cost and weight are negligible. Plus, I think they look pretty good - but that is just my opinion. Have a look if you haven't seen them. Maybe you'll see something there you like:

http://www.aircraftinternational.com/

Ken

RE: True or False
 

Ken.. Thanks for the info and the link. Really, not a bad price if they're a good quality. I've seen many a "required" pilot really deform out here in the Vegas sun. Heck, I've seen many a canopy melt too! I think I'm going to hold my breath here and see what the IMAC Board of Directors decide before buying my next pilot. I've got one in my 35% and if I fly in any events, that's the one I'd use anyway. I've got a 42% going together now and I needed something real quick because the canopy was going to be enclosed.

To tell you the truth, the one percent penalty, even if it were enforced, wouldn't make or break me. I'd just like having the flexibility of putting one in or not and... that call being up to me.

RE: True or False
 

The 1% may come into play way more than you guys think, if the rule were enforced. I have witnessed at leat two standings this year alone in the SC where the 1st & 2nd place finishers were within 2 points of one another out of 7000 or so points. 1% of 7000 is 70 points. How many of you would like to have a 70 point advantage on someone without a pilot & a dash? That is why I say enforce it or get rid of it.

Ryan

RE: True or False
 

John,

The AI pilot may well melt in the AZ sun! Don't know - it doesn't get that hot here.

BTW guys, the IMAC Board of Directors is asking for input on a bunch of proposed rules as this is a year in the AMA rules cycle when changes can be made (only happens every 3 years). Get onto the IMAC website and leave your vote for the proposed rule changes. The Board is looking for your input, so make sure you speak up!

Ken

RE: True or False
 

How many 2 bladed props have you seen on Extras, Edges, Yaks, etc. at an IAC contest??

How many of the above have you seen in IAC with no spinner??

How many of the above have you seen in IAC with no wheel pants (designs that have them)??

How many of the above have you seen with absurdly disproportionate control surfaces??

Point is that we allow all of the above, but somehow it is the pilot and panel that makes it scale. Having seen some of the junk people put under their canopy in an attempt to meet this rule it is simply laughable to say that this is what makes us scale. Plus, given today's engines there is simply NO performance penalty for having a cockpit/pilot, so why reward it??

Amusingly enough not even SCALE REQUIRES a pilot panel. They suggest one, but there is NO downgrade for NOT having one.

Beats me why they came up with the clear canopy requirement. It makes very little sense.

RE: True or False
 

Just a note. The 1% penalty, where used, is taken off your RAW score PRIOR to normalization. So say you had 3800 points in a round and the guy who won it had 3900 you would normally get a 974.36. However, if the penalty is used your score would be 964.62 points. This is a difference of 9.74 points. We have had contests this close out here in the SW. Frankly, I think that contests should be decided in the air.

RE: True or False
 

IMAC needs to get rid of the rule all together. Pilot, dash and non-opaque canopys are all optional. LETS FLY!

RE: True or False
 

How many pilots do you see at an IAC contest sitting in their plane on the ground for the whole contest? :D

Dan

RE: True or False
 

LOL!!!!!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

RE: True or False
 

Be careful there bro.. They may want us to have removable pilots and ask that we take them out between rounds..

RE: True or False
 

Actually, they have little bottles so the pilot can stay in the cockpit on long flights. These should be required at ALL IMAC contests.

RE: True or False
 

That's fine. I will draw the line when they require me to make a pilot capable of walking out to the plane and firing it up for me.

I am for getting rid of the rule. If you want a pilot and panel put it in.

Dan

RE: True or False
 

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

RE: True or False
 

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.

RE: True or False
 

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

Fred
+ * + * + * + *

RE: True or False
 

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".

RE: True or False
 

"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.

RE: True or False
 

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?

RE: True or False
 

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

RE: True or False
 

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.

RE: True or False
 

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.

RE: True or False
 

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.

RE: True or False
 

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.

RE: True or False
 

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

RE: True or False
 

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.

RE: True or False
 

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

RE: True or False
 

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