Tom,

I took a few minutes and put together the results for Nats this year and the NCS top twenty. I am sure about the Nats as we took very good notes of what was flown. The NCS top twenty is what I remember and should be pretty accurate but I can't be 100% sure. As far as what designs are used (what vintage for each model) I can only attest to my plane which is a Bill Calkins designed Vampire. Others in Profile I am somewhat sure about are: Bill Bischof and Dale Gleason usually fly the "Texas" MO-1, with foam wings. Rons Guardian I don't know about, but its a very pretty model. Eric Conley's ME-109 is his own design. Randy Bushes plane is an older design, not sure from where.

Not sure if this will help you but its some current data.

Here's the table I put together:

NATS 2006 Scores         

Class I                  Airplane           Motor              Points
Marc Warwashana   MO-1           MVVS 40           414.9
Ron Duly         MO-1         K&B 40          382.4
Pete Mazur       MO-1       Tune Hill          346.8
Dale Gleason       MO-1        K&B 40           327.9
John Vlna        MO-1         Wiley            319.4
Richard Perry       MO-1        OS 40          276.8

Class II         
Marc Warwashana   MO-1          Rossi 65           396.4
Dale Gleason       MO-1      OS 65       394.6
Ron Duly        MO-1       Jett RC 50        383.5
Gary Hull         SBD         OS 45           332.8
Art Johnson       MO-1      Rossi 60        177.9

Profile         
Ron Duly              Guardian     Nelson   281.2
Marc Warwashana         MO-1       Nelson      277.4
Melvin Schuette            MO-1          Nelson        275.5
Dale Gleason             MO-1           Wiley          244.1
Gary Hull               Brewster     TT Pro   227.1
Art Johnson             Guardian   K&B 5.8         218.1
John Vlna              Ki-76      Nelson    108.4
Bob Frogner             Vampire   Nelson         97.8
Pete Mazur             MO-1           Tune Hill      97.7
Richard Perry             MO-1            Nelson          95.9


NCS Top Twenty         

Profile      
Pete Mazur        MO-1   367.2
Eric Conley         ME 109   362.48
Jim Schneider        MO-1   337.31
Bob Frogner        Vampire   336.77
Randy Bush        Bearcat   320.5

Class I      
Eric Conley         MO-1   439.17
Marc Warwashana   MO-1   434.91
Jim Schneider       MO-1   417.64
Bill Bischof          MO-1   402.8
Ron Duly        MO-1   382.4

Class II      
Pete Mazur         MO-1   488.3
Eric Conley          MO-1   438.61
Jim Schneider         MO-1   428.08
Bill Bischof            MO-1   411.5
Marc Warwashana     MO-1   396.4

I am not an expert but I have a few thoughts on why the MO-1 is so dominant (especially in class I and II). First, there are a number of designs that have been perfected by many years of flying. Some think the high wing is important and the proportions of the plane seem to work well. Remember in Class I and II you have to be within 5% of the original dimensions to get the 100 scale points. Second, keeping the 5% rule in mind, it takes a lot of research and careful design to meet the scale requirements. Since MO-1's are known to work well its just easier to use a proven design.  The guys from Texas have developed a foam wing that is quick and easy to build so most of them use that. One other additional point is that the landing gear must be positioned as on the actual plane. The way the gear is on the Mo-1 with the gear coming out of the fuselage its easy to build and is strong. Planes with gear that comes out of the wings need extra bracing in the wing to take the hard carrier landings and that adds weight.

You can see in profile there is a larger variety of planes used and designs other than MO-1s can be successful. Ron Duly's Guardian is a good example. Bill Calkins Vampire is also very different and flies extremely well when trimmed properly. Eric Conley has built a number of different planes that do extremely well, Seafire, ME 109 and most recently a very nice Cosair. The scale factor is much more lenient and you just have to have the overall shape and lines of the original plane, so you can be adjust the proportions somewhat and still get the bonus points.

Just my observations.

Ya know Tom, just about anything is competitive if you practise with it and get the reliability up. To be really competitive at a high level you need to be under 19 sec on the high end and over 4 min 30 sec on the low. But that is if all your competition is up and going as planned. If the competition is having a bad day you can be #1 with less than a stellar flight. So build what you have ,get working every time up, and go for it.
 I think some of us fly just to fly and have the comradery of the other old geeks the still flying our toys on strings, I know I do. To heck with the trophies and other awards.

 Gentlemen,
 Thank you for the input. At the least now, I have some numbers to work with. I threw the class I on the scale with the engine, and tank, less the rest of the hardware and I'm hovering right around 2lbs. looks to be I'll be in that 3lb. range, so I think we'll move on with it. The goal is to have three planes ready for the season which should be a little on the tough side with 4 kids under 12. Going with the Nelson in profile ,class II? My father has his old Rossi .60 said he used to get really consistent runs with it but Carrier was a different animal then. I'm open to suggestion always, as I really do appreciate the help.
  thanks again,
     TOM

Thanks Steve,
 I used to fly a lot of R/C with Tom Schaefer, I should be able too hunt him down. Brian I also remember him from our Memorial Day meet I think I'll shoot over to Middlesex on a Sunday and see who's around.I recall one year it started pouring down rain Brian fired up his Class II guardian put it on the deck went to tweak the needle and his feet came right out from under him. Staring him right in the face was a screaming Rossi .65, scary moment. Got to get my hands on that article from Bischoff.
 Tom

Dennis,
I'll be shooting for the May contest. This weeks meeting, I have a commitment, but I will get there at some point.
  Thanks,
          Tom