Yep, those were the good ol days for sure.  Build it pretty and fly it till the gas was gone, then glide it in for landing. Sounds plenty good 'nuff fer me!   

Occasionally, some contests awarded bonus points for aerobatic maneuvers.  One such memorable meet was at Millville, NJ in 1950 -- where I saw a couple of entries splattered on the apron while attempting loops and/or eights.  As I recall, the winner there was a Cleveland Stinson Station Wagon.  Also represented were beautiful examples of Sterling SE-5s, Wacos, a Mr. Mulligan, and a gorgeous Miniature Aircraft kit of the F2G Corsair.  (Amazingly, there was also a Monogram Speedee-Bilt "Long Midget" powered  by a K&B .020.)

There are some aeronautical  situations with model airplanes that still can be argued. Speaking of the aerobatics and scale, for CL in those days, the PT-17 was a good choice. Now here is one that really baffled me way back then however not today, well maybe,  'er yeah !?!?
I had this old 36" wingspan Sterling Corsair. NO FRILLS, just very heavy. I flew it with a Madewell .49, my favorite for those days. Due to some stories concerning my paint job, mixing wrong paints, it was HEAVVY! It was also FAST as I determined "fast" in those days. It went right over the top in a wingover, but then had to be nursed to pull out as it was trying to stall out with any small "up" applied. When the eng. quit it had to be kept fast until just a foot or so off the ground and then a decent landing resulted as it slowed.
Then I replaced the Madewell with a Super Cyclone. Well that reduced the speed by at least 20% if not more. Then using a 12-6 prop it handled better but very slow. I tried a wingover and when I started to come out at about 60 degrees, it DID! Then soon I was pulling out with no problem at under 10 ft. I got brave and did a loop to about 60deg. high. No problems. Then I was doing Lazy 8s. Totally baffled!  So I learned that there are things that work differently than the standing rules.    I seem to see that even today.

CL Scale was once highly popular when the only requirment besides accurate supporting documentation was the ability to complete ten-or-more laps then land smoothly.  What killed it was the creeping insistence by some on "prototype" functions.

No argument about that from me.  Of course how does being tied to a couple wires and going around in circles display all this "Realism of Flight"? How does "Profile Scale" equate to a real airplane? If we must go in circles, why do we need to retract a landing gear. Unfortunately, NOT as a true hard-core competitor, but trying many model aviation disciplines and entering numerous contests, I recognize that the hard-core in any do have a need for more and more difficult flight patterns among themselves to separate them selves in competition. Yet there are more and more classes evolving so everyone can possibly get into a winner's circle.
Then those that do get into the winner's circle soon get the Halo Effect and winning just ain't all flying better. Remember back in the late '60s-mid '70s winning stunt required first and foremost a uniform: WHTE Sneakers, WHITE Trousers, WHITE Shirt and Cap. Next came flying. 

Oh Yes, these young fellows missed the good times. I really wonder how they will think about these days some 40 years from now. 

Well I probably won't be around 40 years from now,  but,  look at what Mike Keville did for stunt with old time.   Can you imagine building scale kits from the years past according to the instructions in the kits, like Sterling, SIG and Jetco.

Heck, John, I never built to instructions back then. 

See that Thunderbird. It didn't look much like a Thunderbird'
That Nobler was a Tri-Gear and some other differences, such as wing flaps different. George Aldrich was Judge that day and didn't like changes to the Nobler, but I still won first.

Heck. This green thing was a Midwest P-51.