I don't know John, I have had real good luck with low wing planes and would never consider high wing over low wing as a prerequisite. My feeling is first you look for the carrier plane that had the least frontal area and then you make some drawing (maybe lots of drawings) to see if you can build the plane close enough to the "PROFILE" carrier rules so that anyone who looks at it can say "oh I know what that is, its a whatever. If it is a low wing plane you have another advantage, you can line up the engine, fuel tank, and the thickest part of the wing to reduce the frontal area that much more. As long as the trailing edge of the wing appears to be at or near the bottom of the fuselage the plane will look OK.
     The Bf 109T, the F2G-1, and the Seafire MK 45 that I fly are all built in that manner and have always past the muster in scoring. This is the beauty of the "AMA Profile Rules" they give you quite a bit of leeway when designing and building the profile carrier plane. I've always felt that its to bad the AMA CL 1 and 2 plane cant be built the same way. Then you could put something together that could compete with the MO-1.

To me the MO-1 should have been illegal from day one as it never in reality had a carrier hook as we know it.  Going thru processing at the NATS it was always amusing that they worried more about the width of the nose than they did about hook placement.  Really only a few of the scale planes had the hook in the proper location.  Sterling Gaurdian was the closest.   Landing gear location was the other nit pick item.  I remember a plane that had been published and then told it would not get scale points because the wing filets were too big.  Even the contestant had pic and plans of the filets.  I still remember the Gaurdian with a wing thickness of 3 inches.  What happened to the 15% rule back then.  

Hi Bill,
In MA Oct. 1991 Dick Perry blessed it? What does that mean. He proved it made an arrested landing? Please explain we don't have to look for the mag, etc.
Love your Zero.
Chris...

     I noticed in reply#3 John mentions ''wing fillets'' as a cause for withholding scale points. In that case they were to large. My problem with fillets is I cant stand to build them on a plane. I notice that the scale rules say ''Major components'' are; and one of them is ''profiles of the wing and horizontal tail surfaces. So does that mean that you have to re placate the fillets or can you leave them off completely? Most of the WW-2 Japanese carrier planes had some pretty large fillets, at least the ones that make the better proportioned carrier planes (one being the B5N2 Kate) and also the British Seafire series. I would really like to build a Cl-1or2 carrier plane that is not a MO-1 but am put off every time I come to the fillets. Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

<snip 
Breaks of Naval Air, skid marks in the sky.

Wow! been a while.... that brings back memories 

In regard to authenticity of 3 views, the carrier rules refer back to the scale rules, and on page SC-5 of the Unified Scale Rules it discusses acceptable sources of  scale documentation. Joe Modeler's home drawn 3 views are not automatically acceptable.

Bil, I didnt say anything about Joe Modeler's three views. Published three view drawings of the same airplane are not always the same. You got a list of acceptable sources I can show you diverging drawings of the same airplane thats why in scale you would be ill advised to show several differant three views for supporting a specific airplane.
Wayne

Fair enough. When I read "builder furnished" 3 view, I automatically defaulted to "builder created" 3 view. I agree that 3 views don't always match, even if they are from "approved" sources. Which one do you believe? The one you show up with, of course!

There have been reports of three views of certain airplanes that showed up in carrier over the years that came from dubious lineage. I remember the Spearfish scandall concerning tapered or straight leading edges. Nuff said, Christmas is coming.
Wayne

Found a nice three view at http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/kokusai_ki-76.php but the only place I could confirm carrier operation was on wikipedia... which hopefully an event director would accept.    Looks like a viable high wing alternative.  With the straight wing it would be an easy build.
Bob