Originally Posted by sweetpea

Mith......That is because you were trying to compete in intermediate with a H9 Mustang PTS trainer.

1. Its not 10% scale of a mustang
2. Mustangs can't perform the IAC sequence in the "box"

this isn't the true story... but it is way more interesting so I will let it stand!!

lol

Originally Posted by Judge

Kermit Weeks flew a P-51 as a demo at a World Aerobatics Championship. I cannot recall the year. He flew his Freestyle routine as I recall.

Keep in mind that the rule does not say what sequence or what needs to be flown. Only that the aircraft is known to be capable of doing so. Any number of warbirds could qualify based on that criteria.

Quite right, but a "True" mustang can't fly the sequence in the box because it can't fly inverted long enough. Guess it would be how one decodes the rule.

Either way.......it was funny and Mith liked the story so that is all that matters

Originally Posted by JAS

What if the fuselage and rudder are +/- 10%, then how is it measured?
I'm assuming it is wing/stab centerlines that are used as the starting point?
Also, isn't the top of the canopy usually the tallest part of the fuselage?

Still wondering...

yep, me waiting to hear the wing stab theory too !

its right up there with the ruling on a std length of string.

but I'm pretty excited that I can make a 3m Mustang and fly it in the Shootout. Always wanted to do 4mins of warbird style beatups for my freestyle. Bonus points for a twin mustang ?

If you can use the twin, do it... I'll even share half of it with you if you want. Chip and I had a blast with his twinvision.

Originally Posted by JAS

I'm still waiting on wing and stab placement.

If no one questioned Quique's "Yak" - how can this be an issue?

Originally Posted by Judge

This comes back around to one of my favorite discussions and that is the pilot panel rule. The main argument is that without a pilot and panel that we are not really flying scale planes. Which of course we are not really doing in the first place.

Agreed, although my opinion as a full-scale competitor is generally minimized. If you want to emulate full-scale, then fly attitude and not flight path - it is, afterall the same as IAC - isn't that the goal?

With all this discussion about scale outline, what about power loading? It would be about like running a 150cc airplane with a DA-85. Why isn't that a consideration if 10%, a pilot, or a silly dashboard are an issue? Seems to me that power loading has far more to do with performance than any of the other items noted...

Just sayin.

Scott

Originally Posted by sukhoi26mx

Agreed, although my opinion as a full-scale competitor is generally minimized. If you want to emulate full-scale, then fly attitude and not flight path - it is, afterall the same as IAC - isn't that the goal?

With all this discussion about scale outline, what about power loading? It would be about like running a 150cc airplane with a DA-85. Why isn't that a consideration if 10%, a pilot, or a silly dashboard are an issue? Seems to me that power loading has far more to do with performance than any of the other items noted...

Just sayin.

Scott

The answer to your question is easy.....

... because the people who do it are stuck in a paradigm!

If you could reduce the wing loading of your full size Su26 to half of what it is now.... I bet you would
If you could increase the power of your full size Su26 by a factor of two right now, I bet you would.....
If you could make your Su26 Pure in KE with ZERO ail & elev coupling right now... I bet you would....


We can do this with our models..... but were yuh'all (who fly IMAC/design IMAC planes) to approach this from a new perspective, (With no preconcieved notions about being scale or emulating poorer performing real planes)... I bet the planes would fly better... and the precision would be better and even the sequences would be more interesting....

But hey..... I don't fly imac, prolly won't any time soon.... so if everyone really enjoys it as it is now.... then I fully support you doing what you are doing.....

but... the state of the art would be furthered if you abandoned the scale thing....

JS... the Compy SX is tolerated in IMAC, and that stab is no where near a scale location.... kinda tells me you can do alot and no one will make a stink....

I'd have to double check, but the SX (and original 3M) I think, are legal, even stab position.

Originally Posted by JAS

I'm still waiting on wing and stab placement.

Hi Jason,

I think all this is interesting discussion and there are no simple answers. As an IMAC wannabe I have listened to and been in many of these conversations. I am still trying to make my plane do what I know it is capable of. Some well known guy piloted it on its second flight and let me know without a doubt that the plane has skilz. You might know him.

That said. The planeform wording should answer the question but it appears to still leave questions. So if you grow the dimension from tip to bottom of the rudder, can you then use the new dimension to adjust the position of the stab? Or is the movement allowed based on the original dimension? Same with wing placement. If you make the fuse dimension taller at the wing root, how much can you adjust the wing location. If you move the wing forward 10% and the stab back 10% you have increased the distance between them more than 10%......right? Sheesh. No wonder there are headaches in what you are trying to do.

To me, if this is going to stay the rule, there should be a standing group that will receive three views and verify that they meet the rule as drawn. Then the kit or ARF could carry an official IMAC logo. Perhaps there could even be a small fee to have a plane certified that could help IMAC funds. If the plane is built to specs with no mods we would be fine. If we clip the wings all bets are off and we are on the hook to "prove it", as it were.

Come on IMAC BOD. Someone step in here and address this. We are holding up the economy! hehehe.

DARN GOOD IDEA....IMAC BOARD COULD OR SHOULD PUT TOGETHER A PRECERITIED-NON-MODIFIED LIST OF POTENTIAL AIRCRAFT....MAYBE EVEN AN AVID ENGINEER COULD PRESENT A LIST OF FULL SCALE AIRCRAFT WITH DIMENSIONS AND -OR 3-VIEW SCALE LISTING FOR SAID PLANE IN COMPLIANCE WITH IMAC RULES.

Originally Posted by Outlaw Pops

DARN GOOD IDEA....IMAC BOARD COULD OR SHOULD PUT TOGETHER A PRECERITIED-NON-MODIFIED LIST OF POTENTIAL AIRCRAFT....MAYBE EVEN AN AVID ENGINEER COULD PRESENT A LIST OF FULL SCALE AIRCRAFT WITH DIMENSIONS AND -OR 3-VIEW SCALE LISTING FOR SAID PLANE IN COMPLIANCE WITH IMAC RULES.

now were talking...............................

Originally Posted by Outlaw Pops

DARN GOOD IDEA....IMAC BOARD COULD OR SHOULD PUT TOGETHER A PRECERITIED-NON-MODIFIED LIST OF POTENTIAL AIRCRAFT....MAYBE EVEN AN AVID ENGINEER COULD PRESENT A LIST OF FULL SCALE AIRCRAFT WITH DIMENSIONS AND -OR 3-VIEW SCALE LISTING FOR SAID PLANE IN COMPLIANCE WITH IMAC RULES.

No way this could ever happen. Too many designs to cover.

The Extra 300 has at least 8 differnt designs alone.
300S Single seat with the wing reduced 1'7"
330SX
300L
300LP
300SP
300SHP
300SR
300SC

Thousands and thousands of other scale aircraft too.

Just do the one's there are models of. Maybe 30.

Article 52 shows a site that can be used to determine 3view computations and lists 6 aircraft..Maybe we should start here and look to comprising a list of full scale aircraft first and the apply this list toIMAC applications....Good place to start...They list....EXTRA 300....EXTRA330...ULTIMATE BIPLANE(WHICH I DONT THINK FALLS IN THE 10PERCENT REALM) ...THE RAVEN....CAP580...EDGE 540......Well this is a partial list and I hope there can be some more contributions.....pops