Have we (they) officially gotten rid of the STATIC score sheet for fun scale?.  If not, we need to.  Now that it's just all-or-nothing, 10 points or ZERO, we don't need the excess paperwork.  Just put 10 or 0 on the flight score.
Maybe this is already policy.  What do the experts say?

I may not be an expert, but it was a bad rule change.

Keith

Maybe so.  But it works OK for me.  I flew a pretty-much near scale plane & only got 8 to 8.5 points, which was a killer the way they generously give out points.  Now it amounts to flying the the scale program with whatever you want.

The 10 static points were awarded to factory-made RC ready-to-fly toys which were, in fact, PERFECT scale with no achievement by the buyer.  The current rule has brought me back into the event, while still allowing the RC buyer the right to compete.

 The current rule has brought me back into the event, while still allowing the RC buyer the right to compete.
[/quote]

Then why did you even bother to even do that thing in some sort of a scale profile shape and green color?  Why not enter your profile Perky, put a Fox .15 or anything else out of your drawer (maybe a Cox Olympic or a Cox Conquest or a Rossi .15 or anything else that could drag that thing in the air), color it pink or whatever color you decide and call it a Japanese Zero or Napier Heston Racer or whatever you want?

They left the static score sheet for 526 Fun Scale, but Paul is correct that it is not really needed.  The Fun Scale score sheet states "Zero or 10 points".

As far as the other comments...
Fun Scale is intended to provide a Scale event which, while requiring a realistic Scale flight, minimizes the Scale research and model construction efforts. The idea is to encourage folks to fly a scale event without having to commit to building a "more scale" model.  RC made this same change a couple of years ago and have seen increased participation.  In fact, many RC scale contests break up Fun Scale (they call it Pro-Am) into sub-categories like turbine/EDF (high performance models) being separate or breakout by era (pre-WW2, post-WW2, etc).

In a separate post, there was discussion about flying Rabescale stunters in Fun Scale - I welcome them all.

And then if folks want to continue in scale events, building models of increasing precision and/or complexity, there is 1/2a scale, profile scale, sport scale, team scale, authentic scale, and F4B scale.  All these events have BOM rules (except F4B) and weight static score much more.  Yes, some folks will grumble about ARFs (or Rabescale stunters) in Fun Scale, but it is all to encourage additional participation.

The rule, as recently amended, does a good fair job of allowing store bought toys to compete without giving them an overwhelming advantage over models actually build by modelers.


An RC factory toy with two electric motors, flaps, retracts, and "throttle operation" still has five out of six options covered with no effect by the contestant.

Quote from: Paul Smith on May 28, 2026, 12:11:54 PMAn RC factory toy with two electric motors, flaps, retracts, and "throttle operation" still has five out of six options covered with no effect by the contestant.

But the pilot still has to fly it and perform those in-flight options.  This sometimes becomes an issue for some pilots - some pilots are better with in-flight operations/flight controls than others.  (As in any CL flight when in-flight options are available.  Uh -- Examples are maybe CL Carrier and CL Aerobatics).

Even while flying a model from a mail order catalog when all the pilot had to do is add a bellcrank, tip weight and a leadout guide, the pilot still has to remember the appropriate sequence of operations and to remember the appropriate order of things and which switches and buttons to push.  Sometimes not so easy for some older guys with little experience with these things and/or fading memories.

Keith

Quote from: Trostle on May 28, 2026, 02:16:05 PMBut the pilot still has to fly it and perform those in-flight options.  This sometimes becomes an issue for some pilots - some pilots are better with in-flight operations/flight controls than others.  (As in any CL flight when in-flight options are available.  Uh -- Examples are maybe CL Carrier and CL Aerobatics).

Even while flying a model from a mail order catalog when all the pilot had to do is add a bellcrank, tip weight and a leadout guide, the pilot still has to remember the appropriate sequence of operations and to remember the appropriate order of things and which switches and buttons to push.  Sometimes not so easy for some older guys with little experience with these things and/or fading memories.

Keith

Keith

Great point Keith.  My wife Kathy is learning to fly scale.  She can fly a plane just fine, but when you add in throttle and flaps, the buttons and switches start to become a distraction from just flying level.  Then when you add in touch & go or missed approach (especially in the wind), there is a lot for a new flyer to remember.  I am a terrible instructor.  There are things that I just take for granted (without explanation or a poor explanation) that she initially struggled with.  What we came up with is just adding one new item at a time until she feel comfortable with it.

From the peanut gallery- I'm not seeing anything that would entice a person to fly Fun scale over the other events. Theres no real difference between the flight requirements in Precision, Sport, Profile or Fun,  yet the complaints are over the complexity of flying those said elements. If the flying portion is too difficult maybe adopt the 1/2A flite plan with minimal options for throttle?

Here's the quagmire- Do I build for Fun scale and get no assessement of my scale skills, and stunt the ribs off of it... or build for Sport scale and take the point hit for not having the proper retracting gear with sequenced doors. fowler flaps and the like, even though it's correct on outline, color and markings?

Decades ago there was an allowable %age of deviation from scale in Sport. Does that still exist?

I got a set of hard copy AMA Rule Books.
They did, in fact, include an 8.5 x 11 score sheet for Fun.  So I will print and copy it. Question #1 answered.

Question #2.  Name the model and flyer on the cover.

Issue #3.  See page 12.  1/2A is not a sub-set of Fun Scale.   1/2A Static Scoring needs to be enlarged and emboldened and numbered like a real event.  Hopefully, the committee chairman can get AMA to fix this typo without going through a whole rules cycle.

Quote from: Michael LeGate on June 01, 2026, 07:55:00 PMFrom the peanut gallery- I'm not seeing anything that would entice a person to fly Fun scale over the other events. Theres no real difference between the flight requirements in Precision, Sport, Profile or Fun,  yet the complaints are over the complexity of flying those said elements. If the flying portion is too difficult maybe adopt the 1/2A flite plan with minimal options for throttle?

Here's the quagmire- Do I build for Fun scale and get no assessement of my scale skills, and stunt the ribs off of it... or build for Sport scale and take the point hit for not having the proper retracting gear with sequenced doors. fowler flaps and the like, even though it's correct on outline, color and markings?

Decades ago there was an allowable %age of deviation from scale in Sport. Does that still exist?

Thanks for the comments Michael...
Let's start with what the AMA rules say:
Fun Scale is intended to provide a Scale event which, while requiring a realistic Scale flight, minimizes the Scale research and model construction efforts. The contestant is not required to be the builder of the model.

So the event name says it all - have FUN with it.  Yes, I have seen some folks in Fun Scale go the route of an aerobatic model with flight options of loops, etc. while others go the route of throttle control with flight options of touch & go, etc.  My wife Kathy competes in Fun Scale with an old Goldberg Shoestring using a 3-line throttle control.  She has FUN with it and is also competitive - and the model is easy to fly (very stable).   

Others might disagree with me, but putting the events in order of increasing complexity would be Fun Scale, 1/2A Scale, Profile Scale, Sport Scale/Team Scale, Authentic Scale, and F4B Scale.  A part of that increasing complexity is that the more scale-like model you build, it tends to not fly as stable/easy.  And there is no "allowable %age of deviation from scale in Sport".

A suggestion - go ahead a fly Fun Scale with a "stunter" type plane, and also build a more scale Profile with throttle to see how you like that route.

PM me if you would like to discuss further.

Quote from: Pete Bauer on June 02, 2026, 08:06:11 AMOthers might disagree with me, but putting the events in order of increasing complexity would be Fun Scale, 1/2A Scale, Profile Scale, Sport Scale/Team Scale, Authentic Scale, and F4B Scale.  A part of that increasing complexity is that the more scale-like model you build, it tends to not fly as stable/easy.  And there is no "allowable %age of deviation from scale in Sport".

Thats why I'm exploring the fun scale concept. I want to put something unusual and seldom seen in front of the public eyeball.  I've a project that requires certain omissions and deviations to make it flyable that would drop it out of the sport category.

Quote from: Michael LeGate on June 19, 2026, 08:18:20 AMThats why I'm exploring the fun scale concept. I want to put something unusual and seldom seen in front of the public eyeball.  I've a project that requires certain omissions and deviations to make it flyable that would drop it out of the sport category.

My dad used to fly a profile Burt Rutan Boomerang - very unusual.  I do not know how my father built it since nothing is straight or parallel with it.

so why give any scale points at all. and just have a flying free for all ,best flyer wins
 are there any one flying fun scale that is not flying one of the other scale events

Quote from: bob whitney on June 20, 2026, 09:21:58 PMso why give any scale points at all. and just have a flying free for all ,best flyer wins
 are there any one flying fun scale that is not flying one of the other scale events

Bob - I typically see about half of Fun Scale pilots just flying Fun Scale, with the other half flying multiple scale events.

Let's start with what the AMA rules say:  Fun Scale is intended to provide a Scale event which, while requiring a realistic Scale flight, minimizes the Scale research and model construction efforts. The contestant is not required to be the builder of the model.

So the event name says it all - have FUN with it.  Yes, I have seen some folks in Fun Scale go the route of an aerobatic model with flight options of loops, etc. while others go the route of throttle control with flight options of touch & go, etc.  My wife Kathy competes in Fun Scale with an old Goldberg Shoestring using a 3-line throttle control.  She has FUN with it and is also competitive - and the model is easy to fly (very stable).   

I see the intent of Fun Scale as an introduction to scale events, and I hope that these folks get hooked and start flying other scale events.

Fun Scale went pretty good at The Brodak.  It collected nine entry fees of which seven flew successfully.  Pete Mazur couldn't fly because of a knee injury.  I suspect that the other no-show was doing good in stunt and blew off scale.
John Vlna's score of 82.5 was not totalled-out because he did not tell the score ladies that he had passed on his last two attempts.
The score board shows that five out of seven flyers were able to improve on their first round scores, thus keeping the game alive to the end.

The ten point is just like Profile Carrier.  It allows somebody to fly a non-scale model and participate, but with a slim chance of winning if there is real competition.

Quote from: Paul Smith on June 22, 2026, 07:21:48 AMFun Scale went pretty good at The Brodak.  It collected nine entry fees of which seven flew successfully.  Pete Mazur couldn't fly because of a knee injury.  I suspect that the other no-show was doing good in stunt and blew off scale.
John Vlna's score of 82.5 was not totalled-out because he did not tell the score ladies that he had passed on his last two attempts.
The score board shows that five out of seven flyers were able to improve on their first round scores, thus keeping the game alive to the end.

The ten point is just like Profile Carrier.  It allows somebody to fly a non-scale model and participate, but with a slim chance of winning if there is real competition.

Paul - thanks for the update.  Great to see that turnout.

Guys - I believe that the final scores were not calculated correctly. From the AMA Rulebook...
6.6.1 – Fun, Profile, Sport, Team and Authentic Scale:
If three (3) or four (4) official flight rounds are scheduled and flown, then the flight scoring is the average of the two highest flight scores.

So the recalculated scores (attached) would put Albert Campbell (1st), Bob Whitney (2nd), and Angstrom Eberenz (3rd).

Congratulations to all pilots.

Any descriptions of flights? Plane photos? Would like to see how the competition is shaping up for next years Southwest regional/VSC event.

The Brodak Fly In was scored by the static points plus the best ONE of three attempts in all classes.

Scale at The Brodak is just one of many events in a four-day contest.  The judges and contestants don't have the time for the best two of four attempts.

Quote from: Paul Smith on June 23, 2026, 12:25:46 PMThe Brodak Fly In was scored by the static points plus the best ONE of three attempts in all classes.

Scale at The Brodak is just one of many events in a four-day contest.  The judges and contestants don't have the time for the best two of four attempts.

We will be using a modified Static score sheet at the Nats this year for Fun Scale because of the rule change. So, the only form the pilot needs to fill out is the flight score sheets. I will have a listing on one form for all of the names registered in Fun Scale for the judges fill in either 0 or 10.

If someone arrives with a Sig Senior trainer they would probably get 0 points if it does not resemble any full size aircraft.

Fred

 I flew in Fun Scale with a converted ducted fan R/C F-35. The challenge was to figure out what flight elements to include, make sure the plane could do it all (practice), provide photo documentation and a 3-view, fly the elements and signal the judges correctly. The things you need to do to get decent scores in a scale contest.
  It was fun! Spectators seemed to enjoy it also.

  No way will I build a real scale airplane. They are nice to look at but many are hard to fly. Why would I spend all that time on an airplane that would be too risky to fly on a regular basis? And if you don't fly regularly (practice) the chances of crashing increase as well. And no, I don't try to build 20 point stunt planes either. But I am willing to risk my stunt planes on Fun Fly days.

How about giving static points based on "relative" scale appearance? Most accurate scale plane gets full static points, Least accurate gets zero and everyone in between gets a relative score. Sure, it is subjective, so?

The idea is to encourage participation. If you want people to participate, let them fly whatever they are willing to fly.

Quote from: Jess Walls Gresham on June 28, 2026, 03:47:36 PMI flew in Fun Scale with a converted ducted fan R/C F-35. The challenge was to figure out what flight elements to include, make sure the plane could do it all (practice), provide photo documentation and a 3-view, fly the elements and signal the judges correctly. The things you need to do to get decent scores in a scale contest.
  It was fun! Spectators seemed to enjoy it also.

  No way will I build a real scale airplane. They are nice to look at but many are hard to fly. Why would I spend all that time on an airplane that would be too risky to fly on a regular basis? And if you don't fly regularly (practice) the chances of crashing increase as well. And no, I don't try to build 20 point stunt planes either. But I am willing to risk my stunt planes on Fun Fly days.

How about giving static points based on "relative" scale appearance? Most accurate scale plane gets full static points, Least accurate gets zero and everyone in between gets a relative score. Sure, it is subjective, so?

The idea is to encourage participation. If you want people to participate, let them fly whatever they are willing to fly.

Thanks for the comments Jess...
Let's start with what the AMA rules say:
Fun Scale is intended to provide a Scale event which, while requiring a realistic Scale flight, minimizes the Scale research and model construction efforts. The contestant is not required to be the builder of the model.

So the event name says it all - have FUN with it just like you said.  Yes, I have seen some folks in Fun Scale go the route of an aerobatic model with flight options of loops, etc. while others go the route of throttle control with flight options of touch & go, etc.  My wife Kathy competes in Fun Scale with an old Goldberg Shoestring using a 3-line throttle control.  She has FUN with it and the model is easy to fly (very stable).   

Others might disagree with me, but putting the events in order of increasing complexity would be Fun Scale, 1/2A Scale, Profile Scale, Sport Scale/Team Scale, Authentic Scale, and F4B Scale.  A part of that increasing complexity is that the more scale-like model you build, it tends to not fly as stable/easy as you said. 

A suggestion - try building a Profile Scale plane with throttle to see how you like that route.  Profiles tend to fly very well (not too heavy), and not the large time commitment build a sport scale, authentic scale, or F4B scale model.

PM me if you would like to discuss further.