Putting the Scale back in Scale Aerobatics

[IMAC FANATIC]

So how do we go about this topic?
Like to see a Scale Class in IMAC with judging both on the ground and in the air.
Scale Airframes flown in a Scale manner.

 

[IMAC FANATIC]

Not asking for anything that isn't already there.

 

[Terryscustom]

I just flew IMAC for the first time last year and LOVED it. I love dragging my plane on the grass and doing crazy stuff more but if there were more IMAC events in my area I would absolutely get involved!

That being said I like the competitive feel of IMAC but also like the nervous competitive feeling you get before a 3D throw-down as well. I suspect that doing scale aerobatic routines would be similar?

Just wrapped up a brand new plane tonight and plan to practice this exact thing you are shooting for.

 

[IMAC FANATIC]

Thats gorgeous Terry! Have fun with that one. Maybe find a Chappman routine on you tube to copy for fun.
I think that during the freestyle event done at most IMAC events a scale flight demo may draw some interest or it may seem boring now compared to sick 3D moves.
I know exactly what you mean about the thrill of competition! Keeps me coming back!

 

[Bartman]

Brian,

I agree that a scale performance category would be interesting and would certainly make IMAC even more like full scale IAC aerobatics.

My idea in the other thread was a displacement/weight/wingspan restriction to keep power to weight values similar to full scale planes. @Pistolera commented that the best full scale can do is roughly one to one so that should be an upper limit for IMAC.

FWIW, in full scale if a pilot has an upline with two rolling maneuvers then he/she is anticipating the energy needed to make that upline while he/she is completing the maneuver before. If the sequence is designed properly then there's going to be a downline right before it to build up the speed and the pilot will be full throttle on the downline to be able to carry the weight of the plane all of the way through the next upline. It isn't just horsepower, it's planning and anticipation of what's next that keeps things going from figure to figure. That's what I think is weird about IMAC, there's no reference to scale performance and, IMHO, it keeps IMAC from being as awesome as it should be.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've never flown in an IMAC contest. I was working on becoming an IAC judge and was building a full scale Pitts S1-SS at one point so I definitely have an interest in precision aerobatics but life presented me with a fork in the road which I had to take and so I haven't been involved full scale or IMAC ever since.

I'd like to try IMAC, maybe later this year if I can get a flying habit going, but the scale performance thing would be a really cool element to add that would challenge even the best pilots to do better.

for example.....
50cc, minimum weight might be 22 or 23 pounds and minimum wingspan might be 90" in order to get good long uplines but not half throttle, unlimited vertical uplines.

so you make a chart with engine displacements, minimum weights and minimum wingspans to get everyone performing similarly like in full scale and watch as guys have to relearn how to time an upline so that they're not falling over on their backs after two rolls in the vertical followed by a hammerhead or humpty.

now you're talking scale!

 

[Jlc]

Brian,

I agree that a scale performance category would be interesting and would certainly make IMAC even more like full scale IAC aerobatics.

My idea in the other thread was a displacement/weight/wingspan restriction to keep power to weight values similar to full scale planes. @Pistolera commented that the best full scale can do is roughly one to one so that should be an upper limit for IMAC.

FWIW, in full scale if a pilot has an upline with two rolling maneuvers then he/she is anticipating the energy needed to make that upline while he/she is completing the maneuver before. If the sequence is designed properly then there's going to be a downline right before it to build up the speed and the pilot will be full throttle all of the way down the upline to be able to carry the weight of the plane all of the way through the next upline. It isn't just horsepower, it's planning and anticipation of what's next that keeps things going from figure to figure. That's what I think is weird about IMAC, there's no reference to scale performance and, IMHO, it keeps IMAC from being as awesome as it should be.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've never flown in an IMAC contest. I was working on becoming an IAC judge and was building a full scale Pitts S1-SS at one point so I definitely have an interest in precision aerobatics but life presented me with a fork in the road which I had to take and so I haven't been involved full scale or IMAC ever since.

I'd like to try IMAC, maybe later this year if I can get a flying habit going, but the scale performance thing would be a really cool element to add that would challenge even the best pilots to do better.

for example.....
50cc, minimum weight might be 22 or 23 pounds and minimum wingspan might be 90" in order to get good long uplines but not half throttle, unlimited vertical uplines.

so you make a chart with engine displacements, minimum weights and minimum wingspans to get everyone performing similarly like in full scale and watch as guys have to relearn how to time an upline so that they're not falling over on their backs after two rolls in the vertical followed by a hammerhead or humpty.

now you're talking scale!

I think rather than getting engine displacement and wingspan restrictions involved which would just eliminate competitors a simple weight to output thrust ratio would be enough. Adjust throttle servo endpoints or whatever method is preferred to keep the thrust to not exceed 1:1.

 

[Pistolera]

What we are talking about with limited thrust is ENERGY MANAGEMENT. That is exactly what full scale IAC pilots must contend with in ANY aerobatic plane flying today, whether they're flying one of the latest and greatest at 1:1 or something with less thrust-to-weight. That would be a fairly easy criteria to measure and use for a "True Scale" contest. Of course, a pilot would be on the honor system to NOT reset the throttle endpoints beyond that.

Static scale judging must also be a part of the criteria, with a weighting for this score as well as flight scoring to determine the finishing order.

"True Scale" could be a contest-within-a-contest.....where pilots could elect to enter True Scale at existing IMAC meets, and fly either their current IMAC plane, or one scaled out specifically for it. Either way, each True Scale competitor must have their plane weighed and thrust measured so that throttle endpoints can be adjusted.

Alternatively, instead of doing that, the flight realism score could be factored in to help compensate for our overpowered planes, although setting a true 1:1 thrust/weight takes a subjective grade out of the picture.

Anyway....this is certainly an interesting subject and one that I would be very interested in doing

 

[SleepyC]

I love it. I think it would add so much to the visual experience too!
AND I could fly my big PIG Carden Cap and look cool!

 

[Jlc]

Class within a class definately the way to go. Really fairly easy to implement. How much should the static scores account for total scoring?

 

[IMAC FANATIC]

That's a good question. Ive not been to the Scale Nationals yet, anyone have a clue as to their scoring system, is it scale flying plus static display or two different scores completley?
we're going to need alot more votes before this can be presented to any kind if committee, pass this thread around a bit please.