The Engines - More or Less GB :The Rules

[PR19_Kit]

Does an additional engine or engines have to be an integral part of the structure? If not, then the addition of RATO bottles or a ZELL booster to just about anything could count as 'adding an engine'...

Boosters like that almost certainly WOULDN'T count as an extra engine, but I'll consult with my fellow mod and report back.

[NARSES2]

There is actually a rule 6.

I feel a great disturbance in The Force.

Yea, but as I said I was getting complaints from various on-line groups and other "focus"groups that I was persecuting the poor thing, so.........

[PR19_Kit]

Does an additional engine or engines have to be an integral part of the structure? If not, then the addition of RATO bottles or a ZELL booster to just about anything could count as 'adding an engine'...

Boosters like that almost certainly WOULDN'T count as an extra engine, but I'll consult with my fellow mod and report back.

We've discussed this and decided that extra 'drop-off ' engines of any sort won't be allowed. Any extra engines must be an integral part of the airframe, but strut supported ones, as on the Ford Tri-motor etc. are allowable.

[Weaver]

Does an additional engine or engines have to be an integral part of the structure? If not, then the addition of RATO bottles or a ZELL booster to just about anything could count as 'adding an engine'...

Boosters like that almost certainly WOULDN'T count as an extra engine, but I'll consult with my fellow mod and report back.

We've discussed this and decided that extra 'drop-off ' engines of any sort won't be allowed. Any extra engines must be an integral part of the airframe, but strut supported ones, as on the Ford Tri-motor etc. are allowable.

Okay thanks for that, and don't worry, I'm not going to be testing the limits of this in anything I build.

Just to play devil's advocate though, what about the RATO boosters on a B-47 Stratojet? They were only used for take-off assistance and expended all their solid fuel in the process (just like a strap-on RATO unit), BUT they were an integral part of the airframe and remained attached to it throughout the flight. By the same token, what about the braking rockets fitted to the Credible Sport C-130s (the one intended for the Iranian hostage rescue)? They were also an integral part of the airframe (well allegedly...) and were carried for the whole flight, but were only used to slow the aircraft down on landing...

Can I also suggest a route out of this minefield?

"Any extra engines fitted must be a permanent part of the airframe, and must be for use DURING FLIGHT, i.e. after take-off and before landing. They don't have to be running all the time during flight."

[ericr]

In the 2017 1WGB Tophe posted this pic combining Mustangs and Dinahs.

I have been planning since then to build the left hand one.  Is it eligible for this GB?
I strongly believe it is a Mustang with two engines (in line with Tophe's goal of drawing every possible Mustang variation) even if about 2/3 of the plastic will be Dinah.

[NARSES2]

Can I also suggest a route out of this minefield?

"Any extra engines fitted must be a permanent part of the airframe, and must be for use DURING FLIGHT, i.e. after take-off and before landing. They don't have to be running all the time during flight."

Did you train as a lawyer ? 

I'm more then happy to add that to the proposed rules if that's what the Moderators would like ?

[PR19_Kit]

Just to play devil's advocate though, what about the RATO boosters on a B-47 Stratojet? They were only used for take-off assistance and expended all their solid fuel in the process (just like a strap-on RATO unit), BUT they were an integral part of the airframe and remained attached to it throughout the flight. By the same token, what about the braking rockets fitted to the Credible Chase C-130s (the one intended for the Iranian hostage rescue)? They were also an integral part of the airframe (well allegedly...) and were carried for the whole flight, but were only used to slow the aircraft down on landing...

Neither of those would count as they're not added to an airframe with less engines, they're already there in the RW, so unless they have even MORE engines they don't count.

[Tophe]

I have been planning since then to build the left hand one.  Is it eligible for this GB?
I strongly believe it is a Mustang with two engines (in line with Tophe's goal of drawing every possible Mustang variation) even if about 2/3 of the plastic will be Dinah.

And he's doing every IMpossible variation too! 
And yes, you're good to go with that idea Fred.

Thanks zenrat! Thanks Kit!

[kerick]

What about a Saturn 5? Those engines fall off in normal flight!
Hmmmm..... Saturn 5 with space shuttle solid fuel boosters?

[PR19_Kit]

What about a Saturn 5? Those engines fall off in normal flight!
Hmmmm..... Saturn 5 with space shuttle solid fuel boosters?

No to the first idea, it's NOT changing the number of engines, but maybe yes to the second.

[Weaver]

Just to play devil's advocate though, what about the RATO boosters on a B-47 Stratojet? They were only used for take-off assistance and expended all their solid fuel in the process (just like a strap-on RATO unit), BUT they were an integral part of the airframe and remained attached to it throughout the flight. By the same token, what about the braking rockets fitted to the Credible Chase C-130s (the one intended for the Iranian hostage rescue)? They were also an integral part of the airframe (well allegedly...) and were carried for the whole flight, but were only used to slow the aircraft down on landing...

Neither of those would count as they're not added to an airframe with less engines, they're already there in the RW, so unless they have even MORE engines they don't count.

No but my point is, what about whiff equivalents of the same things? A Tu-16 with B-47-style RATO 'farms'? French hostages rather than American ones in Tehran, leading to a C-160 Transall being modified with Credible Sport-style gear?

[PR19_Kit]

Yes, I think both of those would be acceptable. 

[Scotaidh]

Hmmm - I think I've just been given the green light on a long-wanted project.    I'll say only that the base kit will be a Whirlwind. 

Oh, well - never mind.  Having re-read the rules, my idea doesn't fit.  :p 

[sandiego89]

..... rather than American ones in Tehran, leading to a C-160 Transall being modified with Credible Chase-style gear?

I believe you mean "Credible Sport".

[TheChronicOne]

This may help the distinction a bit... those actually would be more "motor" than "engine" anyway, yeah? Case closed. *Bangs Gavel*