I fully realise where the responsibility lies just seems that with the fact finding statiscal oriented society we are in this sts would have been recorded some where...such as the toc competition...all planes would have been listed with dimensions this would have afforded some crucial data and a valuable resource....pops

The main reason I see that it is the contestants responsibility is that if you modify the airframe. For example, if you had an airplane that when built stock was exactly with in 10% of scale, but you clipped the wings or changed the length of the fuse... it may no longer be within scale and since you modified it, you would be the only one who could technically prove that it is or is not within scale.

Now, these rules were made long before ARF's were as popular as they are now and most people today do not build nor modify the stock airframes... but those of us that do, still need to be responsible to prove scale. This is a standard practice for most "class" competition.

Another reason is that if I decide to design my own plans and it is a 43.75% scale Extra 260... the dimensions I would need to prove are within scale to the original design, as there may not be any other 260's in this scale on the market. Or if I build a model that was a modified version of the full scale plane... for example, let's say I model my airplane off of a specific Red Bull air race plane... the plane that I am copying may be a modified version of the original design, but only one is built with the modifications. Then again, this may give me more room for modification.

So, if we all really wanted to play the rules and funds were unlimited... someone could design a giant pattern plane that requires ZERO mix and fly's true as can be. Then could commission someone like Mr.Kimball to build a full scale one that was "intended" for IAC competition... then it would be legal!

Originally Posted by MattyMatt

So, if we all really wanted to play the rules and funds were unlimited... someone could design a giant pattern plane that requires ZERO mix and fly's true as can be. Then could commission someone like Mr.Kimball to build a full scale one that was "intended" for IAC competition... then it would be legal!

Something like this was tried years ago in scale. A guy wanted to enter an Ugly Stik in scale. So he built a VW-powered man carrying Stik. I think they still disallowed it!!

Originally Posted by Judge

Something like this was tried years ago in scale. A guy wanted to enter an Ugly Stik in scale. So he built a VW-powered man carrying Stik. I think they still disallowed it!!

Usually the way around that in the full scale world is to require that some minimum number of examples are out in the wild. E.g. in some auto racing series you cant enter a car that's not a production car with at least 100 sold.

Originally Posted by kjkimball

JAS,

BTW, why have you STILL not stopped by here for a visit after all these years.........It'll take all of 20 minutes to get up here......

I think it's more than 20 minutes... but that's still no excuse...lol. I need to make an appointment and just run down there.

Originally Posted by gareth.ky

Usually the way around that in the full scale world is to require that some minimum number of examples are out in the wild. E.g. in some auto racing series you cant enter a car that's not a production car with at least 100 sold.

If that was the case in airplanes then the Extra 260's, python, cap 580, Yak 54, Yak 55sp... just to name a few wouldn't be legal. Production runs are very small and more build to order in airplanes...

Hi JAS

Mate, you've entered a big world of "grey area" here.

When Baldrick and I built our 42% PBG Extra 260 for the 1997 TOC, we did it from scratch, so we went through all the 10% stuff. All we did was stretch the fuselage by about 8%, between the stab and the wing. The hardest part was getting accurate 3 views. They only made a couple of real 260's, and all we could get was a side view, and a top view. We got some photos of a fullsize 260 in Germany, which also helped a lot. We had to use the profiles / fuselage sections off an Extra 300 3 view. The canopy on our 260 was as per the 2 view, but we have since seen a lot of 260's with way smaller (shorter) canopies, and it makes me wonder if there is are some other drawings for a 260. Can you post yours.

At the TOC, models all had to pass the processing, which was done the night before. I reckon this was a great part of the event. It brought an element of fear into it ... all that practise and hard work to get there ... but will the model pass processing ? A couple of guys pour over your model for 20mins with tape measures, and paper work, as you nervously wait nearby, with a beer in hand. This is character building stuff !

This year at the TAS I flew a new 3.1m Raven. Before it was built, EG Aircraft sent me their drawings, and I wanted to check it was going to be within 10%. We stretched the fuselage a little. 4% I think. Since getting back from the Shootout, I wanted to make a few other slight tweaks to the Raven. I wanted to stretch the fuselage further. So out come the drawings again. The more I measure things, the worse it got. I started to find things wrong with the 3 view. Measurements on the top view, do not match up with measurements on the side view. In particular, the fuselage length. I start searching for wingspan and fuselage length dimenions of the real Raven on the net, and find more conflicting information. I think I know where you are headed with the spinner thing. The spinners on the full scale are huge, longer too. I suspetc at some stage, the spinner on the real raven was changed. So all this affects the fuselage length measurements.

Years ago when we made a that big 3.4m SU-31m, I found some 3 view stuff on the F3M website. http://www.f3m.com/index2.html There is a handy spreadsheet that someone has spent a LOT of time working on. Its got most of the current designs we fly in IMAC on it (but a shame no 260!). So you just stick your wingspan in, and it gives you all the tollerances with +10 / -10 ... but take a close look at the drawings to see how they determine the wing and stab placement tollerances. Its not quite as we have all discussed in this thread. So how did they decide on all this ?

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I reckon we need to keep with the 10% rule, it just needs defining better in the IMAC rulebook. For big comps like the Shootout, yes, get the tape measure out. Process the models. If its a hassle to process all the models, then do it like in racing, just measure the winners. Woo, that could spark some controversy. Perhaps just some random measuring is all thats needed. Easier ... when a new design comes out, someone meaures it up and verifies its bonifide, and its gets some sort of official "Its within 10%" approval from a committee of guys who all wear sandals and long socks.

Some guys spend a lot of time scratch building, and making sure their models are within 10%, but I have to agree, there are some ARF's out there that are starting to look a mile off scale, and kind of look like they'd fail the measure up test.

Cheers
Frazer

BTW - We are 5 days away from Summer down here ... happy times ! .. you guys up there enjoying the snow yet ?

Originally Posted by BreadBowl

Get a 3D pattern plane, then.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

there once was a push for "Artistic Aerobatics"... basically a pattern plane with huge flippers.....

I think QQ or Chip won the first few contests... in Japan or something like that

Originally Posted by Jim Woodward

This is the plane that folks should be trying to un-scale to 10% The Slick 360 looks like a GREAT candidate to turn into a 40% pattern plane

Looks like a short nose..... might need a little ingenuity to make a tail light enuff for every day equipment..... maybe the 10% allowance would facilitate the lengthening of the nose a bit.......


we need to step out of the paradigm that does nothing but limit our planes, our manuevers and our flying....

Write this down in your calender.....

by 2019, the scale requirement will vanish from IMAC rulebooks....


ha ha ha... you laff at me now.......

time will prove me right!!!!

Scale Aerobatics has been around for some time now. I don't see the ramblings of one lazy pilot changing the basic concept of IMAC.

Does Mithrandir not fly IMAC?

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons

Scale Aerobatics has been around for some time now. I don't see the ramblings of one lazy pilot changing the basic concept of IMAC.

I'm trying not to be lazy about this like I am other things. This is for a business that others are involved in so not only does it need to be done right, but it needs to be 'legal' so many can enjoy them in competitions.

I'm not trying to change anything in IMAC. I am just looking for concrete answers so that the airplanes I am designing meet all the criteria when the time comes to break out the tape measures.



Frazer,

It's always nice here in FL (as I sit here watching the rain fall and temps drop below 60...lol). And thanks again for the TOC memories. Nothing like pacing in the parking garage waiting to see if the planes were legal.

Jason, I wasn't referring to you.

Originally Posted by wingwall

Does Mithrandir not fly IMAC?

I am just a beginner... but I manage....

http://www.giantcircus.com/VIDEO_PAGE.htm

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons

Scale Aerobatics has been around for some time now. I don't see the ramblings of one lazy pilot changing the basic concept of IMAC.

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons

Jason, I wasn't referring to you.

I am predicting what will happen

not expecting that what I write will precipitate any change...

"LAZY"

sheesh... wtf do you know?

Originally Posted by gareth.ky

Usually the way around that in the full scale world is to require that some minimum number of examples are out in the wild. E.g. in some auto racing series you cant enter a car that's not a production car with at least 100 sold.

No such rule exists in the Scale events of which I am aware. There is also no such requirement in IMAC.

Originally Posted by wingwall

Does Mithrandir not fly IMAC?

Yes, Mith does not fly IMAC.

He flies Three-Dee. He's old and cannot see a 40% plane when it is more than a few feet away from him.