Losing sight of the target

[PR19_Kit]

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.

[NARSES2]

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   

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

[TallEng]

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
Personally i found the rules nice and simple and easy to understand.
So easy that even I have an idea of what to build

Regards
Keith

[sandiego89]

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!   

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.         

[PR19_Kit]

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! 

[Weaver]

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!   

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. 

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.

[NARSES2]

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 

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 ! 

[Scotaidh]

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. 

[PR19_Kit]

Exactly............. 

[Rheged]

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.

[zenrat]

...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?

[Rheged]

...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?

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.

[zenrat]

I suspected as much but was too idle to look it up.

[rickshaw]

...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?

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!   

[jcf]

Oil fired = no stokers.