*Attention Notice" -----
Welcome to the new "Hangar"! ***Please Remember*** To access and the forums, You must use your actual name for Login Name! We require your "Given Names" and not Aliases please to verify with mini-iac.org. If not used then access to these forums with be slowed or not accessible at all.
These forums will require an account to be setup, email verified and approved to use this system. It does not use your mini-iac.org account.
Our forums are being changed to this platform going forward. This is being done for security risks placed on the old website due to forum modules that were outdated and at risk from attacks and spammers. These forums are built within a cloud based delivery and the back end of system is constantly updated to address these ongoing threats and attacks.
Again this system is not connected to our current forums system thus all users will need to create new accounts here with Given NAMES and NOT ALIAS's Your Login Name must be your Given Name.
I’ve seen the old H9 Beast listed as an IMAC competitor. I’m looking for a fun plane that could be used as a backup IMAC plane, and I have a real love of biplanes. The Flex Mamba is based on the Pitts Model 12, but there are a few modifications. Would it qualify?
Note, the reason I’m asking is that the Mamba is based on the Pitts Model 12, but the tail feathers are based on a full scale plane that was designed but never built (Inverza?). The difference isn’t much, but I don’t know if it fits in the 10% rule.
I fly Advanced now, and I realize that a biplane may not present as well. Like I said though, I’m not looking at this as a primary aircraft. Winning is not my primary goal when flying IMAC anyway. I just want the competition to push myself to be a better pilot. Placing well is a bonus.
I think in scenarios like this, the spirit of the rule should used as a guideline, not the letter of the rule.
The intent of the rule was to keep scale aerobatic planes from turning into purpose built precision aerobatic planes (such as pattern planes) which would give a pilot an unfair competitive advantage and move away from the spirit of IMAC which mimics the full scale IAC community.
In my opinion, the Mamba represents a version of the full scale variant (Pitts Model 12) that has competed in IAC and this model has not proven to have any characteristics that give it's user a competitive advantage. That should be enough to consider it legal without pulling up manufacturer 3 way plan views.
Matt Komar
- North Central ARD
- Team AJ Aircraft / Team Makin Bacon
- 2018 IMAC Worlds Team USA Member
I also agree with Earle and Matt. And Matt took a step further even then my own research for the model. A member from the SE (Dan Baker) and spent some time in SC flying IMAC because of work competed with a 40% Ultimate biplane regularly and quite well. I think they are beautiful planes and according to Dan quite competitive and he flies Unlimited class.
Thank you all! Now, I have a decision to make since I can't have both an Extra and a Mamba. Rule is the hanger is limited to what can fit in my trailer.
Tweet
Comment