Soviet GB Suggested Rules

[Weaver]

I'm going to build at least one of two ideas and I'd like to confirm if they're OK.

An Antonov AN-2 transport in Japanese markings

An aircraft based around the Spiteful but Sovietised and in Soviet colours and markings

Any problems with either?

No, no problems. The first one is clearly a Soviet design, and the second is clearly in Soviet service.

[Librarian]

Many thanks .

[Weaver]

Digging for ideas and potential builds to run under the Soviet GB, I came across a scope problem: what about license-built or bluntly copied Russian/Soviet designs that might have been built, developed or operated elsewhere? This concerns specifically China, where several MiG fighters (and the Il-28) were produced at first, and later these were the basis for local designs (but might also be true for Czechoslovakia and Poland, and other countries that might be whiffed to the list). Would such an aircraft also fall under the Soviet GB (as long as the Russian roots are still visible)?

One such case is the J-7FS, a rather "illegal" mutation of the MiG-21MF - not that I want to build one, but it's a good example for the "problem". 

Any official comment?

Okay, the Mods have decided:

1. Overseas copies of Soviet hardware are allowed if they are straight, or near-straight copies of a Soviet original. So to use Chinese examples, the regular J-7 is definately in.

2. Overseas versions of Soviet hardware that are significantly modified from their Soviet original are allowed IF the Soviet origin of the source design is still CLEARLY apparent. The Chinese examples would be the the J-7FS (MiG-21 with a nose intake) or the J-7E (MiG-21 with double-delta wings). They key consideration is: if the Russians had produced this modification, would it have been a MiG-21 variant or a completely new type? In these cases, it's clearly the former.

3. Overseas designs which are inspired by Soviet hardware, but which share no, or only a few, drawings with the original are NOT allowed. The Chinese example here would be the J-8I. This was clearly inspired by Chinese engineers getting a good look at the MiG Ye-152A ("Ye-166 'Flipper'"), but there was never a formal licence agreement or a significant transfer of engineering information before relations broke down, and the Chinese continued the design as a 'parallel evolution'.

Obviously, Mods will have to decided on borderline cases on a case-by-case basis: please ask before starting work on any such project.

[Dizzyfugu]

Thank you for the clarification, Weaver.  The license/copy issue is blurry, but I agree with the "borders" (e .g. the J-8 not being eligible). Opens the door for a potential build under the GB roof, though... 

[jcf]

Whatabout a J-8II done as Soviet development of the Ye-152A into an alternate Mig-25? 

What-if that design line had been continued rather than being dropped in favor of what
became the Mig-25 in the RW?

[Weaver]

Whatabout a J-8II done as Soviet development of the Ye-152A into an alternate Mig-25? 

What-if that design line had been continued rather than being dropped in favor of what
became the Mig-25 in the RW?

Interesting question - mods discussing...

[zenrat]

Whatabout a J-8II done as Soviet development of the Ye-152A into an alternate Mig-25? 

What-if that design line had been continued rather than being dropped in favor of what
became the Mig-25 in the RW?

Build it in Soviet service and there is no problem.

[Dizzyfugu]

Think so, too. Slab some Red Stars onto it, and it should be fine. 

[Mossie]

If the back story covers it as Soviet development rather than a Chinese one, it's a Soviet machine and you can do it any markings?

[JasonW]

Whatabout a J-8II done as Soviet development of the Ye-152A into an alternate Mig-25? 

What-if that design line had been continued rather than being dropped in favor of what
became the Mig-25 in the RW?

Build it in Soviet service and there is no problem.

Bingo. This is basically the discussion we mods have had. As long as the build is in Soviet markings it is fair game for the group build regardless of origin of design as stated in the revised rules posted after the poll.

To reiterate, origin of vehicle/aircraft/ship design must be USSR or markings of vehicle/aircraft/ship must be USSR.

[JasonW]

If the back story covers it as Soviet development rather than a Chinese one, it's a Soviet machine and you can do it any markings?

Not exactly. The revised rules state that the origin of design must be USSR. We have bent a bit to allow some Chinese copies, but drew the line at the J-8 as it is more Chinese design than Russian. That said, if the builder puts the J-8 in USSR markings it is moot as that would meet the build must be in USSR markings criteria.

[Dizzyfugu]

 

[Weaver]

If the back story covers it as Soviet development rather than a Chinese one, it's a Soviet machine and you can do it any markings?

Not exactly. The revised rules state that the origin of design must be USSR. We have bent a bit to allow some Chinese copies, but drew the line at the J-8 as it is more Chinese design than Russian. That said, if the builder puts the J-8 in USSR markings it is moot as that would meet the build must be in USSR markings criteria.

Just to add to that a little, it depends on the backstory. If a kit of a real non-Soviet vehicle is being used to provide bits for a model of a what-if Soviet vehicle, then the non-Soviet origin of the bits doesn't matter. For instance, if your backstory has the MiG-21 being a tailless delta, which you make a model of using a MiG-21 fuselage and Mirage wings, then the fact that the wings came from a French aircraft doesn't disqualify the model. On the same principle, if you use a J-8 kit to donate 'parts' (in this case a LOT of parts) to a model of a "production-spec Ye-152A developed by the Soviets", then that's okay. If you use the same kit to build a "J-8III developed by the Chinese" then that's not okay.

[Mossie]

If the back story covers it as Soviet development rather than a Chinese one, it's a Soviet machine and you can do it any markings?

Not exactly. The revised rules state that the origin of design must be USSR. We have bent a bit to allow some Chinese copies, but drew the line at the J-8 as it is more Chinese design than Russian. That said, if the builder puts the J-8 in USSR markings it is moot as that would meet the build must be in USSR markings criteria.

Just to add to that a little, it depends on the backstory. If a kit of a real non-Soviet vehicle is being used to provide bits for a model of a what-if Soviet vehicle, then the non-Soviet origin of the bits doesn't matter. For instance, if your backstory has the MiG-21 being a tailless delta, which you make a model of using a MiG-21 fuselage and Mirage wings, then the fact that the wings came from a French aircraft doesn't disqualify the model. On the same principle, if you use a J-8 kit to donate 'parts' (in this case a LOT of parts) to a model of a "production-spec Ye-152A developed by the Soviets", then that's okay. If you use the same kit to build a "J-8III developed by the Chinese" then that's not okay.

Thanks guys, Weaver's bit about putting it in the back story was what I was thinking about, the alt history ignores the fact it's a Chinese aircraft.

[Geoff]

I am being thick - a Mig-23 Flipper is kosher, but a J-8 development is not, unless in Soviet service; ie. Soviet IAPVO strai J-8III as a Mig-23? Sorry if I am muddying the waters, not my intention.