Hi Mike,
1. I do not think they make an ARC model. They deal with the 95% of the enlightened population on our spaceship who allow all types of models to "compete" in contests. They make beautiful works of art that are flight tested at the factory in both IC and ECL versions. I see no reason for them to deviate from their very successful business model that serves 95% of the worlds population. Sadly, for your stated needs, ARC or no ARC is a moot point.
2. The new (in 2015) BOM rules are very clear, if you don't meet the BOM rules you do NOT get ANY appearance points at any contest (not just at the NATs Open class)! You are allowed to "enter" the contest, but you are not really allowed to be "competitive". BTW, I hear that there are some enlightened AMA regions in the SE U.S. that don't use AP so that ARFs and ARCs, etc. can enter and really be competitive without having a handicap. :-) Any contest can do this. The CD only has to make this variance to the rules known to the entrants in advance, usually on the event flyer or AMA Mag. contest section.
3. Before anyone goes off on a rant about my comments in #2 above, , Please read my BOM article in this ARF section from a few years ago. I showed the impact of not having ANY APs has on your placing at a sample of several real contests. Due to the common problem of score "bracketing" at most club contests, and some larger ones as well, even a 10 AP gap can have a large impact on placing.
4. As you can tell, this is a subject that I care about. On the interesting "Jimmy Walker" web site, the great father of CL, for whom the famous Walker cup at the Nats is named after, he says ".... the best, and only way CL can grow and remain popular is through the use of ARF CL airplanes ....". Yet, here we are 60 years later going backwards. Mr. Walker would be very sad if he were here today. To see the amazing CL ARFs available today, and find out that the rules have been written to keep them out of competitive contests. Sad, very sad. If you read the new BOM rules carefully, you will see that they are aimed at destroying the ARF/ARC market in the U.S., and especially preventing the Yatsenkos from being competitive here.
5. CL is a dying activity, both literally and figuratively. In the long run, there is nothing we can do to save it. In the short/med. run (our lifetime), ARF/ARCs have the potential to delay the death for awhile. At last count there were over 12,000 CL ARF/ARCs sold. This is thousands more than the total amount of kits sold. I know that many CL flyers don't want, or need to go to contests and they just like to fly. But there are many in that 12,000 number that would like to "compete" in club contests in their region.
6. Over the years I have proposed that we compromise on this issue. I have good friends at the very top of the CL heap who are passionate about the BOM at the Nats "Open" class. I understand their reasons at this event in this top class. I do not understand why they are so unwilling to agree to a compromise that would keep the BOM rule for the Open class, but not require it for the other classes. It varies, but at most contests in the US the Open class is around 20%, and all the other classes account for around 80%. I would think that there is a middle ground for both sides to find a solution?
Sorry for getting a little off the topic, but still close? ..... I will have a word with our moderator and beg his forgiveness for my transgression! ;-)
Warm Regards,
Rudy