There's a long list of Rules Change Proposals on the AMA site.  Several deal with attempts to further define "realism of flight" standards and ultimately reduce flight scores while leaving  Static Scoring alone. Thus if, approved, Profile Scale and Sport Scale will migrate from equally weighted Static and Flying to heavy on the Static.

It's already difficult enough to build a scale model and get it to fly without having the judge further downgrade the Flying score based on his personal opinion of what "realistic flight" is.  Did the judge actually SEE the prototype fly?  What about pre-1930 prototypes?  Did anybody at the contest ever see one fly?

All control line models inherently fly in an unrealistic way, unless the prototype was tethered to ground from the left wingtip.

Nobody can really define what "scale speed" is.  Is it defined by linear dimensions or area or maybe volume.  No matter how you define it, CL models can't come very close to it. 

Real airplanes tend to do loops with a diameter greater than 50-to-100 times the airplane's length.  But a model needs to do a loop less than 12 times it's length or less, or else it goes over center and looks like a bad wingover.  So ALL loops could and would be degraded for being too small.  A great "equalizer" for guys who can't do aloop at all.

The current rules define the tasks well enough.  Judging flights by how well the maneuvers are one vis a vis these rules is a pretty good system. 

The "realism of flight" proposals would effectively help POOR-FLYING models by creating a new way to degrade the Flight scores of all models and thereby moving the whole event toward the "musemum scale" scoring balance.

I agree that rules changes that skew the scoring are unfair to existing models.

There are so many proposals, it takes some effort to connect the dots.  To me, there seems to be a pattern of downgrading things you can do with mechanical controls, and (if passed) making electronic controls mandatory to have a chance of winning.

One good example is the landing gear cycle thing.  It's hard enough to do retracts at all, but if you get killed for not duplicating the "open gear doors"-"retract gear"-"close gears doors" sequence, they've effectively said: 'ELECTRONIC CONTROLS REQUIRED", which is clearly the intent.

These things are in the hands of eleven appointed voters.  If they want tethered RC, that's what they will have.

I dont understand what the problem with judging gear sequences and proper shutting and fitment. We are trying to replicate a full size airplane in minature. having gear legs, and doors that retract like pattern ships is not scale and should not be given as many points as gear that sequences properly and at an appropriate speed. I doo not beleive that I have to have seen an Air Camper fly to understand how it should look while its flying. It is fairly obvious that an air camper will fly differntly than a P-51, which will fly different than a B-17.
Paul I agree to some extent with what John said, I dont get where your coming from, unless its your fear of electronics showing up perhaps? The mission statement is to present a scale model that replicates as closely as possible a full sized prototype. If you can devise a method to do that without electronics, more power to you, however, should the person who CAN use electronics be penalized because you dont want to understand them?
this is SCALE its about the mission statement for the class, not about technology

Chuck,
       I need to clarify your point on 11-15. Do you say the current rule as written says if you remove the spinner and do not replace it with a flying spinner the flight will be disqualified? If so I agree and will remove the proposal. Thanks for your input. On 11-16 it will not be necessary to continue this one as the previous one will accomplish my point. It will be removed if you concur.

Dick, Chuck
At my first NATS in 1983 I succeeded in thowing the props off of both engines of my P-38 trying to get the engines started.  I was told to leave the spinners off to save time but I put them back on to be able to use my electric starter.  I thought that must be covered in one of the rules as it sounded fair at the time.  Which one, I never found out.

Clancy

Dick, thank you for your gracious response.
Chuck