Warbirds in IMAC???

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by notorious_benny
	Aircraft known to have competed in IAC competition or capable of competition is what the rule says. Go for your life with your warbird mate. Even an old Zlin will poop over it. The point is fullsize warbirds were never designed with the power/weight for COMPETITION aerobatics. I would love to see how many seconds of vertical a stearman will give you. The rule is pretty easy to follow, if the type has never been used in competitive aerobatics there is probably a bloody good reason why......... Why do you always insist in flogging dead horses....................

Because the same people who will jump all over a question and say something that is "legal", even though it's very questionable, will then (in their PROFESSIONAL judgement) categorically decry and denounce an entire type of aircraft simply because they do not fall into an extremely narrow spectrum of what THEY think is acceptable. No one even considered the idea plausible, even though it is.

The S-1 Pitts is hardly competitive in IAC, yet it's a legal IMAC model. the Stearman competed, so it's legal (and with proper modifications could be competitive in IMAC), but can hardly get out of it's own way, and planes that never even got into the air are "legal' simply because they were designed to fly competitively.

I merely asked a question. The one "official" answer I got was not an answer. Perhaps someone would care to offer suggestions as to which "warbirds" would be acceptable in IMAC, since many would be capable of competing. You'd be surprised how differently a lot of these planes fly without armor and guns on board.

A reminder . . The Piper Cub is a legal IMAC model, since it has flown in IAC competition. . Variants of that plane also serve as a warbird dropping bombs and firing rockets, and had guns mounted. Let's not categorically denounce the Cub now, shall we?

[xtra330]

but....why?

[Biff]

Kris, I see where this is headed and like it already! PLEASE go with HUGE power on this one!!! If you're deviating from the norm, go all the way and OVER POWER!!!!

[Judge]

KrisW wrote:

	Quote:
	The S-1 Pitts is hardly competitive in IAC, yet it's a legal IMAC model.

That will be news to many who have done very well in this plane in IAC over the past few years. Of course, they probably were not aware that the plane was not competitive, yet they chose to fly it anyhow. The Decathalon is a very popular plane in IAC as well, but we never see any of them in IMAC either.

As far as measuring planes at contests, not really an issue. Once again let's look at the actual rule rather than what we think we remember somebody told us it said:

6.1. To prove that the model resembles a particular aircraft some
proof of scale is required.
6.2. Proof of scale is the responsibility of the contestant.
6.3. 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 10
feet.
6.4. 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 fullsize
aircraft, then the contestant will be allowed to have his/her entry
considered.

6.5. Scale shall be determined by the wingspan. A change in wingspan
will become a change in overall Scale. Fuselage width, height
and aircraft planform or any other variations shall not exceed 10% of
scale, with the exception of airfoils and size/shape of control surface
within the scale outline rule.

Notice that actual measurement is NOT mentioned. Rather, that the model shall be judged for likeness at a distance of 10 feet.

I encourage people to read the rules to see what the actual intent and wording is rather than try to parse them so finely to support whatever fringe argument is the current topic.

[Matt Chapman]

Pitts still wins at IAC contests. It's how much fuel you put through the tank, not the plane all the time. Same for IMAC!
I have seen the following fly "in the box" at IAC.
Stearman, T-6, T-28, PT-19, and...wait for it....yes.... A P-51 ! (minus the spin)
However the best one yet has to be Dale Snort Snodgrass do the first 3 figures of the unlimited known at the 1996 World Contest in an F-14. Again, no snap down. Very cool.
I say let e'm enter! we'll send them home with their tails between their legs!
just my 2C

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Matt Chapman
	Pitts still wins at IAC contests. It's how much fuel you put through the tank, not the plane all the time. Same for IMAC! I have seen the following fly "in the box" at IAC. Stearman, T-6, T-28, PT-19, and...wait for it....yes.... A P-51 ! (minus the spin) However the best one yet has to be Dale Snort Snodgrass do the first 3 figures of the unlimited known at the 1996 World Contest in an F-14. Again, no snap down. Very cool. I say let e'm enter! we'll send them home with their tails between their legs! just my 2C

A P-51??

Hmm. . sheds a whle new light on the subject.

Thank You Mr. Chapman

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Biff
	Kris, I see where this is headed and like it already! PLEASE go with HUGE power on this one!!! If you're deviating from the norm, go all the way and OVER POWER!!!!

Biff .. DAMMIT!!!!!

you know my warped, depraved, demented, out-of-the-box mind TOO DAMNED WELL!!!

SHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

You'll ruin the surprise.

[sweetpea]

sooooooooo you won't let a warbird fly in IMAC because it doesn't fit the rules----

but "we" will let a plane fly without soundscore and no pilot or dash.......seems those are rules also.


I say let them prove the sequence the day prior or morning of. If they can swing it, let them fly

[GremlinX]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Toro
	aerobatics is very broad description.... FAA defines aerobatic as pitch and roll maneuvers not to exceed certain degrees, I believe +/-20 for pitch, and 60 for bank.... With that description, I could fly a Cessna 152 aerobat in IMAC. I think DMICHAEL is right on this one, One caviat though, you can fly "ANY" aeroplane in basic... Who was the guy that one the basic class in a contest with a EF extra 300 electric in the wind ? Warbird in IMAC would be the right tool for the wrong job in this case I believe.

20•??? Then how could you do a loop? Maybe I don't know what you mean by 20 pitch...

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Matt Chapman
	Pitts still wins at IAC contests. It's how much fuel you put through the tank, not the plane all the time. Same for IMAC! I have seen the following fly "in the box" at IAC. Stearman, T-6, T-28, PT-19, and...wait for it....yes.... A P-51 ! (minus the spin) However the best one yet has to be Dale Snort Snodgrass do the first 3 figures of the unlimited known at the 1996 World Contest in an F-14. Again, no snap down. Very cool. I say let e'm enter! we'll send them home with their tails between their legs! just my 2C

Did the F-14 stay in the box!??? Amazing. But at least that's an easy one, IMAC only allows piston or electric, no turbines, so even the turbine Raven is out!!.

Of the others listed, were they demos, or actually flown in competition?

But the bottom line is still that this rule is clearly intended to restrict aircraft to known competitive aerobatic types, not just any plane that has ever been witnessed doing a loop. In the end it is a non-issue. I really can't see anyone showing up with the giant P-51 that is out for an IMAC contest. If they did I suspect that they would get their head handed to them.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by sweetpea
	sooooooooo you won't let a warbird fly in IMAC because it doesn't fit the rules---- but "we" will let a plane fly without soundscore and no pilot or dash.......seems those are rules also. I say let them prove the sequence the day prior or morning of. If they can swing it, let them fly

The sound score and other rules can be waived by the CD if announced in the sanction, or at least 30 days prior to the event. The same could hold true for the plane rule as well. Publich it or request a waiver in the sanction.

The difference here is that the sound score or pilot panel is not really interpretative. The plane issue is to those that want to split hairs. The first two are either used as is or not, no interpretation involved. The plane itself is up to the CD in the event of any true questions, and as I said, as a CD I would likely not allow it. But on the other hand I doubt it would hurt anything, so who knows. Maybe.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	The sound score and other rules can be waived by the CD if announced in the sanction, or at least 30 days prior to the event. The same could hold true for the plane rule as well. Publich it or request a waiver in the sanction. The difference here is that the sound score or pilot panel is not really interpretative. The plane issue is to those that want to split hairs. The first two are either used as is or not, no interpretation involved. The plane itself is up to the CD in the event of any true questions, and as I said, as a CD I would likely not allow it. But on the other hand I doubt it would hurt anything, so who knows. Maybe.

C'mon Bill . .Stand your ground.

[50%plane]

Crap!

Kris I think we both have the same warped twisted minds here. I've been looking at a Cub for IMAC comp. Also I'm thinking my B26 that I'm currently building would work. I guess I need to have one fly in a real IAC comp though. They did fly a B26 in Reno though.


50%

[Toro]

	Quote: Originally Posted by GremlinX
	20•??? Then how could you do a loop? Maybe I don't know what you mean by 20 pitch...

if you exceed these degrees than therefore you are engaged in aerobatic flight, and by FAA rule require a parachute and to be in certain airspace unless performing in an airshow. So if your going out doing loops, than you are exceeding 20 degree departure and should be wearing a parachute, and flying in certain airspace as you are engaged in aerobatic flight.

Im sure Matt can define totally.... Ive forgotten some of the rules as I havent been current for a couple of years now.

[Kiwi]

Gremlin,

Any departure that exceeds 20 degrees on the horizontal axis or 60 degrees on the pitch is termed an aerobatic manouvre. Toro you say you havent been current for a few years, I can add 18 to that so the memory is rusty.

Take a Cessna 172 as an example. It is not rated for aerobatics but it is rated for restricted aerobatics below a certain AUW. Those approved manouvres include fully developed stalls, steep turns etc. Even though most of those are included in your basic training they are still determined to be aerobatic because they take the aircraft outside that envelope of the 20 60 rule.

If I'm wrong on that then the rules have changed guys, but back in the old days. HHMmmmm. Them was the rules.

Kiwi