Out of Retirement - The Rules

[NARSES2]

Just one small point lads.

Please remember that this is the What If site and therefore, in my personal view, some of the possible and perceived problems could be solved by a well thought out, constructed and conceived backstory ? Or am I overly simplifying the thing ?

Chris

[Rheged]

Just one small point lads.

Please remember that this is the What If site and therefore, in my personal view, some of the possible and perceived problems could be solved by a well thought out, constructed and conceived backstory ? Or am I overly simplifying the thing ?

Chris

You are not oversimplifying, your statement  is whiffery personified.

As one who prefers making backstories to molesting styrene , if anyone has apparently insoluble difficulties here, pm me and I'll try to write a way out of your problem for you  if I can.

[strobez]

Just reading through the rules discussion is making my head spin... I've missed out on the last couple of GBs, so I was hoping to join this one, but I haven't got the foggiest idea what kind of entry I could bring to the table...

[nighthunter]

Wowsers, all this, and all the extra it'll cost me is some decals, and it will get a different paint job. I could enter this, and it solves a serious conundrum I was having. 😁

[NARSES2]

Just reading through the rules discussion is making my head spin... I've missed out on the last couple of GBs, so I was hoping to join this one, but I haven't got the foggiest idea what kind of entry I could bring to the table...

At the end of the day the basic principle is relatively simple.

Ask yourself this question. "In my scenario has the type been retired ?". If the answer to that is yes then build it, with or without modifications as long as what you build is still recognisable when compared to the starting point.

[Tophe]

2. Quite simply your build must be of an aircraft (...) that has been retired from active service and then for whatever reason brought back from retirement and put back into service.

I am not sure I can participate, as rule 2 is not clear enough for me:
interpretations of it (2AB: I could participate; 2C: not for me)
2A: a dreamy creation has never been in service, but it may be seen as a new assembly of old parts from service (military or commercial) for possibly being used again, "in service" if successful in flight test;
2B: a crazy aircraft impossible to actually fly may be seen as retired from the drawing board (into garbage) but then later used as a basis for a toy for children (home "service" called scale 1/72nd but with no related scale 1);
2C: if no military roundel no commercial colours, there is no "service"; complete absurd dreams are rejected, as not realist enough.
So, 2A-2B or else 2C?
(PS. I take my antipsychotic drugs again but they have not started to work yet, it seems)

[NARSES2]

Tophe

I'll try and spell things out more clearly next week, but I'm taking a bit of a break from all this discussion as I'm really not in the right place to think about it at the moment.

Chris

[PR19_Kit]

It's turning out to be a real can of worms this time. 

[Dizzyfugu]

Yes, it's really tough to find something and cook up a good story. It has been a while that I found myself to discard so many potential ideas for a build - but that's not a bad thing. 

[sandiego89]

Just reading through the rules discussion is making my head spin... I've missed out on the last couple of GBs, so I was hoping to join this one, but I haven't got the foggiest idea what kind of entry I could bring to the table...

At the end of the day the basic principle is relatively simple.

Ask yourself this question. "In my scenario has the type been retired ?". If the answer to that is yes then build it, with or without modifications as long as what you build is still recognisable when compared to the starting point.

Chris, I think that is a great approach and explanation. I think a few folks are thinking about this too hard, or perhaps in the excitement that normally accompanies a group build discussion just thinking out loud. I don't think folks need to overthink it. Your proposed rules make perfect sense to me.

In my view the US Navy reactivating the F4U Corsair for service in Vietnam would fit the theme, even though Corsairs were lingering on in service with Honduras and as warbirds in civilian hands. In a similar aspect a hunter being re-activated by Lebanon as a fighter would fit the theme, even though they were being flown by Quasi-military organizations, as target tugs and on the air show circuit at the time. Likewise An armored or airborne Calvary unit could revert to horses even though horses were still being used in other applications.

As for the fictional and drawing board stuff I really don't think it fits the theme quite as well, but with the proper story it might. As for prototypes maybe. Dragging the XB-70 out of the museum as a test platform or bomber surely would.

I think there are plenty of subjects out there both military and civilian that could fit the theme. Drag out a Concorde, a covered wagon, a F-1 car, a school bus...

Keep up the good work Chris and mods! Thank you. Dave

[Tophe]

As for the fictional and drawing board stuff I really don't think it fits the theme quite as well, but with the proper story it might. As for prototypes maybe. Dragging the XB-70 out of the museum as a test platform or bomber surely would.

Thanks for this temporary answer (to be confirmed?): it seems 2C, so (actual "service" scale 1 is required).

[Mossie]

I can add another fairly simple approach:
Take an idea forward from the era it was primarily used in.
This works for prototypes and drawing board stuff and ignores a handful of a type carrying on decades later in niche roles.

[zenrat]

...An...airborne Calvary unit could revert to horses...

You should see the images I currently have running through my head.

[loupgarou]

...An...airborne Calvary unit could revert to horses...

You should see the images I currently have running through my head.

Like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt0rURntFQE

[zenrat]

More like this...

...but with horses.