We're getting a lot of ideas and proposals for the GB that seem to be losing sight of what the GB is all about.
You HAVE to change the number of engines that were fitted to the original airframe, not just plan a multi-engined aircraft that you've whiffed.
I have to admit that I thought the concept behind this GB was the simplest we have had for a long time. I was wrong :banghead: :angel:
This to my mind is the key section of the rules :-
" Quite simply your build must include/involve the addition of an engine/engines or the subtraction of an engine/engines from whatever is your starting point"
Chris
Oh I don't know, I agree there's been a lot of chat about ideas/projects that don't fit
the rules but the two entrys so far seem to be within the spirit of the GB :thumbsup:
Personally i found the rules nice and simple and easy to understand.
So easy that even I have an idea of what to build ;D
Regards
Keith
I tend to like tight rules for some GB's, otherwise it becomes "build what ever you want and stretch the rules". I much more enjoy entries that honor the theme well and are plausible, and strive to do so for most of my entries.
I also think the GB discussion threads tend have folks pushing ideas to the edge, and beyond, the rules more for discussions sake, or discuss real world articles along the lines of the topic, less for anything they actually intend to build... "what if I add a 15HP Yamaha outboard motor on the back of my 1/700 HMS TITANIC build, does that could as more engines???". I think this is more of banter, than actually serious questions, and it likely drives our esteemed moderators nuts! :o
I also think it gets a bit muddled when we overlap GB's. We have 2 still open for voting, and folks are already posting for the next one. While I admire the enthusiasm, it can feel like we are on the hamster wheel, or maybe just for me.
Quote from: sandiego89 on June 21, 2019, 02:26:26 PM
I also think it gets a bit muddled when we overlap GB's. We have 2 still open for voting, and folks are already posting for the next one. While I admire the enthusiasm, it can feel like we are on the hamster wheel, or maybe just for me.
Tell me about it, I'm a moderator for TWO of them! :o
Quote from: sandiego89 on June 21, 2019, 02:26:26 PM
I tend to like tight rules for some GB's, otherwise it becomes "build what ever you want and stretch the rules". I much more enjoy entries that honor the theme well and are plausible, and strive to do so for most of my entries.
I also think the GB discussion threads tend have folks pushing ideas to the edge, and beyond, the rules more for discussions sake, or discuss real world articles along the lines of the topic, less for anything they actually intend to build... "what if I add a 15HP Yamaha outboard motor on the back of my 1/700 HMS TITANIC build, does that could as more engines???". I think this is more of banter, than actually serious questions, and it likely drives our esteemed moderators nuts! :o
I also think it gets a bit muddled when we overlap GB's. We have 2 still open for voting, and folks are already posting for the next one. While I admire the enthusiasm, it can feel like we are on the hamster wheel, or maybe just for me.
Here, here, on all counts. :thumbsup:
I like tightly defined rules too, and where I can see an obvious loophole, my instinct is to point it out so that the mods can close it
before somebody either exploits it or falls foul because they misunderstood it. I rarely have any interest in actually exploiting it myself, since if the GB engages my enthusiasm in the first place, I'm unlikely to want to break with the spirit of it.
Personally I don't actually worry to much about rules as long as they are clear and enforced fairly. Once upon a time I liked hard, fast and clear rules but if you had to attend meetings at the European Union HQ you's soon get used to the "other" kind :angel: ;)
I'd like to apologise for the juxtaposition of the GB's again lads. I will space them out a bit better next year. Anyway it's all your fault by demanding extentions ! ;D ;D
I had lost sight of the basis of this GB. It's exactly as stated in the title.
"Engines -> More, or less" - means the build must have either more engines than the original did, or fewer engines than the original did - not different engines.
Swapping a 2Cv's engine for one out of the Queen Mary, whilst a spectacular build, does not meet the criteria of this GB. That's a completely different & distinct GB; an "Improbable Engine Swap" GB that we aren't doing right now.
Cramming said Queen Mary's engine into the 2CV's boot to power the rear axle whilst leaving the original engine under the bonnet to power the front axle ... does.
Honest engine.
;)
Sorry for stating the obvious, but I feel it wasn't perhaps, stated clearly enough - at least for me - in the original write-up.
Exactly............. ;D
One can get so caught up in the minutiae of the rules that one forgets the basic purpose of the whole exercise.......... or as my late father (a very practical engineer) said about such events "When you are up to your armpits (censored version, other body areas are available) in alligators, you sometimes forget that the job was to drain the swamp" So lets not get side-tracked.
Quote from: Scotaidh on June 29, 2019, 12:25:31 PM
...Cramming said Queen Mary's engine into the 2CV's boot to power the rear axle whilst leaving the original engine under the bonnet to power the front axle ...
But where would the stokers sit?
:o
Quote from: zenrat on June 30, 2019, 04:33:23 AM
Quote from: Scotaidh on June 29, 2019, 12:25:31 PM
...Cramming said Queen Mary's engine into the 2CV's boot to power the rear axle whilst leaving the original engine under the bonnet to power the front axle ...
But where would the stokers sit?
:o
The classic Cunarder was:- Installed power: 24 × oil-fired Yarrow boilers. Propulsion: 4 × Parsons single-reduction geared steam turbines 4 shafts, 160,000 shp
This (or even a quarter of it as a single engine) is going to take up a fair bit of the boot space.......but with even 40,000shp, your 2CV is going to be a contender at any traffic light grand prix.
I suspected as much but was too idle to look it up.
:-\
Quote from: Rheged on June 30, 2019, 07:54:29 AM
Quote from: zenrat on June 30, 2019, 04:33:23 AM
Quote from: Scotaidh on June 29, 2019, 12:25:31 PM
...Cramming said Queen Mary's engine into the 2CV's boot to power the rear axle whilst leaving the original engine under the bonnet to power the front axle ...
But where would the stokers sit?
:o
The classic Cunarder was:- Installed power: 24 × oil-fired Yarrow boilers. Propulsion: 4 × Parsons single-reduction geared steam turbines 4 shafts, 160,000 shp
This (or even a quarter of it as a single engine) is going to take up a fair bit of the boot space.......but with even 40,000shp, your 2CV is going to be a contender at any traffic light grand prix.
But where are the stokers going to sit? That is the eternal question! :banghead:
Oil fired = no stokers. :mellow:
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 02, 2019, 12:53:46 PM
Oil fired = no stokers. :mellow:
You still need a chief engineer in dirty overalls to supervise. Overalls MUST be filthy....the theory in RN was that every time Chiefy put on clean kit, there was a mechanical catastrophe that meant he had to get oily again putting it right.
We even have the submarine engines that wouldn't work on Sundays , or any other religious occasion according to Lt-Cdr John Pratt (author John Winton) Apologies for appalling infestation of Thread Drift Virus as quoted below:-
The two experimental HTP submarines, HMS Explorer and HMS Excalibur, also suffered from considerable problems once they were commissioned into the Royal Navy in 1956 and 1958. Both submarines were designated primarily as anti-submarine targets, but they were rarely used due to the high cost of HTP. HMS Explorer only managed 22 hours of exercises during its first commission, while HMS Excalibur only achieved 100 hours. They were also unsurprisingly regarded as unsafe. In Explorer, the hydrogen peroxide was fed into a catalyst chamber where oxygen became disassociated from water with a great release of heat. The resulting steam and oxygen were then passed into a combustion chamber where sulphur-free fuel was injected which burnt and considerably raised the temperature. Water was then injected to cool the gas, producing yet more steam, which was then used to drive a turbine. The steam was subsequently condensed in a condenser where carbonic acid was removed and then injected back into the combustion chamber again while the carbonic acid was pumped into the sea. The whole process of starting and running the HTP machinery in Explorer was known as 'fizzing' and to the unwary bystander 'fizzing' in harbor was 'like a preview of doomsday.' The sight of exhaust gases, emerging at speed, towered above the submarine in great plumes of grey smoke, and was accompanied by a roar which shook windows a hundred yards away. When Explorer first 'fizzed' after joining the 3rd Submarine Squadron at Faslane, HMS Adamant's officer of the watch was so convinced that the submarine was about to explode that he called out the fire and emergency party and summoned the local fire brigade.
Explorer was eventually confined to a small timber jetty a few hundred yards from Adamant and awarded the nickname 'Exploder' and her sister Excalibur.... 'Excruciator'
At sea, however, HMS Explorer's performance was both impressive and complicated. The HTP propulsion machinery gave short periods of very high underwater speeds. The same weight of hydrogen peroxide provided 35 times the energy that could be stored in an electric battery. But the HTP system suffered from repeated breakdowns and was notoriously unreliable. Those in charge of operating and maintaining it resorted to unusual practices to carefully nurture the equipment.
'If I, as Engineer Officer, failed to do my usual rounds and do my daily obeisances, the turbines would not perform' remembered John Pratt (hereafter referred to under his pen name, John Winton), one of the specially trained and highly attuned engineers who served on board HMS Explorer. 'They would not, in any case, perform on Sundays or holy days; break-downs on those days happened too often to be coincidence. Once, after we had slogged for 36 hours into a raging Atlantic gale, neither turbine would start. Later, I checked and found it was Yom Kippur.' It sometimes took weeks for Explorer to accept a new operator and superstition was widespread. Some members of the ship's company were forbidden to move aft of the Control Room bulkhead while Explorer was 'fizzing' because of the so-called 'evil eye' effect. Despite the dangers inherent in operating both Excalibur and Explorer, their crews grew very fond of the two submarines. 'We did not look upon her as being dangerous. The crew took the bangs and fires as a matter of course,'
John Winton. I'd forgotten about him. Excellent writer. I'm not sure if I actually have some of his books or if I got them from the library. I'll have to have a look on my shelves.
Quote from: zenrat on July 03, 2019, 04:12:55 AM
John Winton. I'd forgotten about him. Excellent writer. I'm not sure if I actually have some of his books or if I got them from the library. I'll have to have a look on my shelves.
I love his books. :)
Sorry for perpetuating the thread drift ... <insert penitent emoji here>