IMAC Rules - Requirement for a Realistic Pilot and Visible Panel

[b0Bro's dad]

I've started this thread for IMAC Contest Director's and all those modellers who compete, or aspire to compete, in IMAC.

I've become aware, as I build a 40% Xtreme Composites Extra 260 for IMAC competition, of a school of thought among the wider Australian IMAC community that says I've added unnecessary weight by incorporating a realistic pilot and a visible panel. This surprises me as Rule 5 the current MAAA Official R/C Aerobatic Rules 2006 which I believe apply to IMAC clearly states:

5. Proof of Scale

5.1. To prove that the model resembles a particular aircraft some proof of scale is required.

5.2. Proof of scale is the responsibility of the contestant.

5.3. The general outlines of the model shall approximate the full size outlines of the subject aircraft. Exact scale is not required. The model shall be judged for likeness at a distance of approximately 3metres.

5.4. If the contestant presents no proof of scale material with the model, and the CD can determine that the aircraft is a replica of a full-size aircraft, then the contestant will be allowed to have his/her entry considered.

5.5 For all classes with the exception of the Basic class 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 non-compliance.).

I suspect that the real reason some builders haven't fitted a realistic pilot or visible panel (judged from 3 metres) is that they are either unaware of Rule 5.5 or haven't got the skills or patience to build in 'extra' bits that didn't come with their ARF kit. The fact that it makes the plane fly better is just an incidental bonus.

Having spent a little bit of time and effort in complying with Rules 5.3 and 5.5, I can attest that compliance is not that difficult to achieve, even in a composite airframe. It does however add about 300g aft of the CG which needs to be balanced. Moving the engine too far forward for balance would fall foul of Rule 5.3, so an extra 100g or so of weight might be required in the nose to achieve the proper CG. Now 300-400g doesn't sound like much but not many people will argue that it doesn't make a perceptable difference to flight performance (otherwise we would't spent $300 plus on carbon wing tubes).

The IMAA and MAAA have recognised the need for a level playing feild for IMAC competition and imposed a (mandatory) 1% penalty for those competing aircraft that do not comply. Given the number of planes at Bendigo that did not have either a pilot or panel or both, I can only assume that Contest Directors are also either unaware of Rule 5.5 or are loathe to apply the required penalty (IMAC is after all a fairly social competition). It should not, however, be the Contest Director's problem to fix. The rules are very clear, as are the contestant's responsibility to comply.
If, however, the general feeling among the Australian IMAC community is that Rule 5 has outlived it's usefulness or no longer reflects the general concensus for the sport, then please use the democratic processes in the MAAA to have it changed. Until that happens, the Rule exists and should be enforced. Otherwise we are not really competing in IMAC at all!

My intention in starting this thread is NOT to cast aspersions on my fellow modellers. I would, however, really like to generate some serious debate on this subject, particularly among the Contest Director's and Judges who have to deal with the issue on a regular basis. If there really is a ground swell to do away with pilots and panels in IMAC, I'd like to know so I can also save a bit of weight on my aircraft.

Thanks in anticipation,
Ian

[SENEKAfive]

so in theory you could use a little hanger 9 trainer?

[Wild Thang]

Luke look: size limit ?
Read Zee's post.

[sweetpea]

boBrosDad--

Here in the USA.....that rule is still in the AMA Scale Aerobatic rules which IMAC uses for its rules.

Though a CD can request to AMA to not include those and if approved they are not enforced (this is typical in regional competitons).

I know of 3 contests for sure that require the pilot/dash in the USA(at least in 2007)

1) Las Vegas Sin City IMAC
2) AMA NATS
3) Tucson Aerobatic Shootout

Now you would think that the rule would have been changed, but it was voted to not dismiss the rule in the last cycle and the next cycle isn't for 2 yrs......(in the USA)

[1bwana1]

Yeah,
I wish they would have gotten rid of this rule. The only South West Region IMAC contest that enforced it last year was Sam in Las Vegas. He is an Air Force Officer so his training demands enforcement. He can't get me this year because both of my IMAC planes now have both pilot and panel. The Tucson Shootout does not impose a score penalty, they are more strict. No Pilot and Panel, you don't fly. They were pretty liberal on the "realistic part though. One guy had a skull for a pilot, looked cool, but not realistic. Probably a better policy than a 1% penalty. Either it's a rule or it's not.

[FlyguyXII]

I heard that the pilot/insturment panel requirent was going to be dropped here in the usa on the next rule cylce is this true?

[sweetpea]

Rumor only......

What happens is that the rule goes to the BOD and they vote on it. This happened for the 2007 season and it was voted to stay by the District Presidents.

I would suspect that for 2009 it will be looked at again to be dropped, but that doesn't mean it will be.


I for one prefer the TAS way (which by the way is not IMAC but used most of the rules that IMAC did) Either you have it or don't fly!

[alec taylor]

i say keep to the rules. and noise test every plane before first flight. its not hapening in our contest area. we couldnt hold a imac contest in my area at mandeville because field is a private one and colin wont allow noisy planes. us pilots with lite aircraft are welcome if we play by the rules. the others who dont are told not to come back. my strip has the same rule. i didnt pay mege bucks for a private field with houses around to lose it due to noise complants. i have spent most of my life competing in various sports and had to follow the rules or dont enter. . alex

[Richo]

The ASAA has never applied the pilot and dash rule, and at present dont intend to. The MAAA didn't write the rules, they were adopted by the ASAA from the IMAC rule book.

[excelpoint]

As Richo said the Pilot/panel rule has never been enforced in Australia which i agree with whole heartedly. Yes we are flying scale aerobatics and should fly scale planes but to penalise a "flying" competition because of a cosmetic issue is just ridiculous. I would think enforcing the 10% rule would be a lot better idea, but thats a whole other argument. I dont have a pilot in my 260 and dont intend putting one in. Do I have the skills? Yes. Do I have the patience? Probably. Do i want or need one? Absolutely not. As a judge of IMAC in this country I would be devestated if the better "PILOT" on the day was beaten because he/she did not have a barbie doll and a couple of dash stickers in their plane. IMAC is about flying Scale aerobatic planes not judging a static display. JMO
I am still yet to see one sound argument why this rule should be enforced.

"The fact that it makes the plane fly better is just an incidental bonus." Thats something I would really like to see.

[morerevsm3]

if pilot and dah is needed to make planes "reallistic", all the schedules had better be re written to sequences that real planes can fly...

[pcastine]

Here in the USA, the pilot/panel requirement was voted on during the last rules cycle, and the majority of the IMAC pilots supported keeping this rule. That being said, not many contest directors enforce the rule. (I flew Intermediate at the NATS in 2004 and the rule was not enforced there.) It is possible to avoid the rule, all the CD must do is list a "waiver" on his contest application, stating that he/she intends not to enforce this rule.

My personal opinion is to keep the rule. The main intent of IMAC is to fly scale aerobatic airplanes. There are really only two main rules defining "scale": the 10% deviation rule, and the pilot/panel rule. These rules don't put any pilot at a disadvantage. (Just be thankful there isn't a scale power/weight ratio!!!!)

I added 5.5 oz to my new Comp ARF Yak by installing a pilot and panel. The addition had no effect on the CG. I can't tell any effect on the wingloading or any flying characteristics (positive or negative).

If you want to modify your plane to fly at its absolute best (which includes eliminating "unnecessary" items like pilots & panels) then you probably want to fly a pattern airplane.

Pete Castine
IMAC 2701