The original intent of this thread was to explore (in a positive manner) ways we might
expand the involvement of 35% aircraft into IMAC. Its not the only topic we can talk about
and I'm glad to see some good ideas coming around. I flew one IMAC contest about 25 years ago in Phoenix and won basic with a Q500. You wouldn't likely win basic today with one but ten
years ago I tried again and this time it stuck. obviously there are many planes you can fly in the five classes and if you are in it for fun and not so much the glory, than plane selection may not matter as much. Some pilots fly to improve and the scores are a way to see that. Others are all about the trophy. Either way, it can be a fun and challenging experience and I for one enjoy it.
The fact is, maybe there isn't any one perfect approach but maybe a few that collectively help
achieve some amount of growth.

I can see making a dedicated class for 35% aircraft, but would not like to see everything limited to 35%. Many people such as myself have invested a lot of money into our 40% IMAC Planes. Like said before a 35% plane can easily beat any 40% plane just due to skill and setup. I have defiantly been beat by 35% planes before...

Maybe consider 2% for the lower classes such as Basic - Intermediate as these seem to be the most popular classes.

Another thought I always had is make a dedicate electric <70" wing span class. Actually make two.... Basic Electric and Advanced Electric. Many people own <70" wingspan electric aerobatic planes. They would fly 1 sequence per round.

Originally Posted by Sukhoikid

I can see making a dedicated class for 35% aircraft, but would not like to see everything limited to 35%. Many people such as myself have invested a lot of money into our 40% IMAC Planes. Like said before a 35% plane can easily beat any 40% plane just due to skill and setup. I have defiantly been beat by 35% planes before...

Maybe consider 2% for the lower classes such as Basic - Intermediate as these seem to be the most popular classes.

Another thought I always had is make a dedicate electric <70" wing span class. Actually make two.... Basic Electric and Advanced Electric. Many people own <70" wingspan electric aerobatic planes. They would fly 1 sequence per round.

Good ideas Kevin and I am with you...no need to try and rule out 40% aircraft or any other size or type. If that were to happen, we would only lose pilots in the process. My personal approach will be to fly a relatively competitive 35% plane and show by example that it is a size that can work well for some folks.

When the TOC went to the 2% rule for biplanes, something like 13 of the 20 pilots flew bipes. It's really how the Ultimate Bipe became popular.


FGNewbie is correct.. If you want to try something new, don't wait for someone else to give you permission.. Just try it.

I think you will find that IMAC as an organization is generally not all that interested in change. They very mush want to maintain the status quo.

There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from doing an event using the AMA Rules for Scale Aerobatics. IMAC wants badly for people to think they are "IMAC" rules, but they are not. They are in the AMA Rulebook.

Trust me, the world will not end if you do something outside of IMAC. I know for a fact that if you build it, they will come

There would really be no risk involved for IMAC to implement a 2% bonus for 35% planes. You are not excluding 40% planes, simply giving a bonus to the guys flying the smaller planes. Please show me where this might be detrimental for IMAC... I don’t believe we need to get too far into the weeds with creating subclasses to accommodate this, it will only increase the complexity. In my opinion, if they are unwilling to consider something like this it speak volumes to the comment that judge made about IMAC being unwilling to change.

Originally Posted by eheliflyer

There would really be no risk involved for IMAC to implement a 2% bonus for 35% planes. You are not excluding 40% planes, simply giving a bonus to the guys flying the smaller planes. Please show me where this might be detrimental for IMAC... I don’t believe we need to get too far into the weeds with creating subclasses to accommodate this, it will only increase the complexity. In my opinion, if they are unwilling to consider something like this it speak volumes to the comment that judge made about IMAC being unwilling to change.

I agree and the last few entries have left me wondering how IMAC members as a whole would feel about a 2% bonus for 35% planes. I think a poll would be a good idea and if anyone has the skills to do that (I don't)...I think it would be great to determine how the 2% is viewed by our members and if it is positive then submit an RFA to the board with the proposal. I would be happy to do both if someone can coach me through it, feel free to call me at 520-954-0021

Randy, research, polling....it’s just noise. The idea is to drive attendance by handicapping smaller planes. Don’t expect the iMac faithful with their trailers and 40s to support you. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying but you have to be prepared for the criticism because it will come.

I think its a great Idea. Try it what is the worst that can happen? Maybe go off of engine displacement size vs what is called a 35% . Makes it a little easier to tell then proof of scale . We know that we can fit a 150 in a 35%. The other upside to engine displacement would be to drive new techniques for building. Look at Gernots TAS plane! 3.6 meter wing and 38 lbs. imagine if guys started pushing a 40% with 120s ! Might be a smaller footprint and less noise. You could easily lose 5 lbs just by switching to a smaller engine in a 40% . I know rick from Fibertech has done it.

Originally Posted by eheliflyer

There would really be no risk involved for IMAC to implement a 2% bonus for 35% planes.

Not a matter of risk. It is a matter of attitude. IMAC has proven to be very resistant to change, especially when tried from the outside.

Originally Posted by Surfer Dude

I think its a great Idea. Try it what is the worst that can happen? Maybe go off of engine displacement size vs what is called a 35% . Makes it a little easier to tell then proof of scale . We know that we can fit a 150 in a 35%. The other upside to engine displacement would be to drive new techniques for building. Look at Gernots TAS plane! 3.6 meter wing and 38 lbs. imagine if guys started pushing a 40% with 120s ! Might be a smaller footprint and less noise. You could easily lose 5 lbs just by switching to a smaller engine in a 40% . I know rick from Fibertech has done it.

I like new ideas and don't disagree with the premise of this conversation. This is is exactly what might happen and would defeat the purpose in reality. It would push people back to 40%, trailer or big SUV, custom built, etc. the only difference is the cost of the engine. People would be doing all this to get the 2% bonus and the guys flying normal 35% planes would be back to the disadvantage and no bonus because everyone else is getting it too.

You are very right about that Judge!

An interesting thread.
As someone who is new to IMAC, but a regular F3A flier, it seems to me that the size of the plane isn't the issue. The issue is a commitment. If we wish to draw people into the sport, be it competition or not, we need to sell the commitment. You will always have people at different economic levels flying expensive, or not so expensive aircraft. I'm sure I could outfit a 35% plane at over $5k. I'm also sure I could outfit a 40% for less.
In the F3A world, the same rule applies. I came from a 26 year layoff from RC, jumped back into Pattern flying in the Intermediate class last year with a $1,000 setup.(including radio) I won 5 out of the 7 events we attended, and took second in the other two. And I flew against folks with some expensive setups.
If you have the means to fly a 40% setup in Basic, go for it. I suspect your committed.
I think expecting the local flier to build a 35% plane to receive a 2% "bonus", who may fly 1 or maybe 2, local events a year, may not be very realistic, at least not to draw them in.
Where we fly, it is by invitation only, and only IMAC, or in my case, Pattern. There are no visitors to watch and become interested, only established competitors. Our local club has banned "sequence" flying.
You will never draw people into the sport with out a support network.

Playing devils advocate here... so.. I decide I want to fly.. I have a 40% airframe.. and you are going to punish me for wanting to come out and fly?

So my comeback is sound score Curtis.