Here a few shots of my new Ki-76 for carrier. This is the second model, the first met
 its demise a couple of years ago. It is an unusual subject, used by the Japanese Army as an ASW plane. Actually had a hook and flew from Army carriers. The Army had ASW responsibilities during WW II and had 3 carriers commissioned. Only one ever became fully operational. The US Navy could sink them faster than they could be made. Its flight partner was the controversial KA-1 Auto Gyro. Well maybe only controversial to Joe. I have one of those too. This Ki-76 has an OS 32F, the original used a Nelson and placed 3rd at the NATS a few years back.  Only the Pilot (me) held it back from a higher placing. The colors are Black and Orange, Japanese Training colors

I was thinking the same thing.  In fact it reminded me of Melvin Schuette's .15 carrier a few years ago.  In fact I used to irritate him calling it a Cub.  By the way the plane looks good.   

The Storch would be an interesting subject. Was there evidence of an arresting hook or other evidence of an arrested landing being made? I know Capt. Eric Brown flew one off H.M.S Triumph, but his landings were not arrested. They didn't need to be as he would just step on the brakes after touchdown and come to rest after a ridiculously short run.
Pete

Have already made a post about the planes with no hook.    But, I remember at the old air force base in KCMo there was a Fiesler there.  He taxied out away from his parking position, maybe 50 feet or so and faced the wind.   The pilot advanced the throttle and rose almost vertically.   I was awed at how he flew the plane at such low altitude and then landed with out even rolling the wheels.   Then taxied back and shut down.  As I suggested on the other post, how about score foe landing without a hook and staying on the deck?

Remember if the model is flown in the profile event it can be ANY fixed wing model that has 300+ sq in of wing area,44"max span. Now to get 10 bonus points the model must look like an actual aircraft of any kind and have a military paint scheme. No mention of hook or carrier landing of the full scale aircraft is mentioned in the rules. J3 cub or Boeing 747 is OK as long as it resembles the three view drawings of the full scale aircraft and has 300+ sq inches of wing area.
Now class I&II is a different story. Again ANY model can be flown but now with no wing area restriction, 50" max span. Howevert to get the 100 bonus scale points. AMA rules say:
"8. Bonus Points.
8.1. A scale model of a carrier aircraft of any nation, provided it displays the national markings of the using nation, shall receive bonus points. A carrier aircraft is any man-carrying aircraft which was successfully flown and which meets at least one (1) of the following requirements:
a. Aircraft made actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing on an actual or simulated carrier deck, or
b. Aircraft is designated as a carrier aircraft by an acceptable source (in cases where actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing are not documented).
8.1.1. Scale three-view drawings of the full-scale aircraft and proof that the aircraft meets the above requirements must be submitted to be eligible for scale bonus points. (See Proof of Scale rules in the Unified Scale Judging section for acceptable sources of plans and documentation"

It need not have made an arrested landing or even have a hook. It just needs to be designed to do so. The contestant must prove this intent.   Mike

The statement in the profile class that the major components must "resemble" is quite far from ClassI&II "within 5%"of scale rule.
                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                    Mike

The statement in the profile class that the major components must "resemble" is quite far from ClassI&II "within 5%"of scale rule.
                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                    Mike

When was the last time a carrier model for scale was ever measured?  Besides I thought was within 15%.  Look at some of the planes of the past.  I remember one in particular that the wing thicknes was as deep as the fuselage of the plane.   I still remember the antics of measuring th nose of MO-1's.   I have even been challenged when a plane did not look right proportionatally in scale carrier.   Especially in regards to fuel tanks extnding out side of the fuselages.  Had to fall back on previous NATS so the contestants could get their scale score.  I guess that is why I don't ED events at the NATS anymore.   

The rules do not require scale airfoil or wing thickness. Fat, skinny, symmetrical, undercambered, it's all allowed.

The 5% tolerance rule for scale refers to the parts of the model relative to each other. Let's say you wanted to build a Hellcat. You couldn't decide what size, so you went to Kinko's and had your three view blown up to 30" span, and also 40" span. If you built a model where all the components are within 5% of the size of the three view, it wouldn't matter if you built the 30" or 40" size. Either would qualify for scale bonus points. If you wanted to use the 40" wing on the small fuselage, that would not qualify because the components were not built to the SAME SCALE (within 5%).

As for Doc and the issue of tanks sticking out the side of the fuselage, the rules allow it. Carrier rule 8.1.2.2 discusses the engine AND ACESSORIES protruding beyond scale contours. There was a rule proposed to change this a few years ago, but it failed. I am sensitized to this issue because I felt it was directed pretty squarely at me personally. Someone complained about my models at the NATS one year, when in point of fact that year neither of my scale class models even had protruding tanks. That's the kind of thing that makes other hobbies look a lot more appealing!