Prototypes G.B. the Rules

NARSES2 · June 17, 2020, 12:44:48 AM

Right here are the draft rules and can I just say that this has in all probability to define and as such I would like to thank both Jon and Kit for their input. Thank you gentlemen

1) Group Build runs from 00.01 Wednesday 1st July 2020 to 23:59 Wednesday 30th September 2020.

2) You may model a completely made up design as long as it is finished as a prototype and not as an operational machine. This particularly applies to the models colour scheme, it should not be shown in operational colours. Profiles and stories are more than welcome..

or you may model a design which was schemed on paper and maybe detailed plans were drawn up, but no prototype or model of the design was ever built. Please note that if you choose so your subject may be shown as representing a full-size mock-up which does quite often happen as part of the process in the "real world".

or you may model a prototype of a real aircraft/AFV/Ship/auto etc but which has had some significant changes made to it and exists purely as the prototype for the future evolution of the existing design. eg : a radial engined Spitfire etc.

Your model may be of any land, sea or air subject and you can also go down the sci-fi/fantasy route if you so choose.

3) You may build, draw (in its widest sense), or write about as many entries as you like (good luck!). The posting of in-progress pictures is encouraged as always. Back stories - however long or short - win extra points. Well OK they don't but they're always nice to see.

4) "Preparation" work is allowed prior to the start of the GB - this includes the cutting out and cleaning up of parts, even printing your own decals, but anything involving paint or glue is not allowed.

5) Part-started models will be considered by the moderators. You should explain what you have done or post pics (even better) and they will decide, their decision being final - we are relying on the honour of our membership to uphold this rule.

6) No rule 6 - is there ever a rule 6 ? (or is it 7 or 8 ?)

7) Moderators – Jon carrfarrelly and PR19_Kit, thankyou gents.

zenrat · June 17, 2020, 03:42:14 AM

Rule 8. Only finished work posted in the Finished Builds thread before the final deadline will be eligible for voting in the Poll.

perttime · June 17, 2020, 10:09:01 AM

There have been real world prototypes that were immediately painted in schemes that are indistinguishable from operational air/sea/land vehicles.

Should we strictly stay away from that?

kitbasher · June 17, 2020, 10:40:21 AM

Quote from: perttime on June 17, 2020, 10:09:01 AM
There have been real world prototypes that were immediately painted in schemes that are indistinguishable from operational air/sea/land vehicles.

Should we strictly stay away from that?

Well that's true of (for example) the Hawk T.1, but no unit markings were carried. So IMHO that's how I'd have interpreted the rule, but it's the Mods' call.

sandiego89 · June 17, 2020, 11:18:41 AM

As much as I am scratching my head on this GB, I do like the overall proposed rules, and think keeping it to non-operational schemes is sound. As I said in the other thread, I really hope this does not become a build whatever you want thread and call it a prototype, so whatever can be done to keep it within the theme is best. Things that never got really built, non operational schemes and significant changes to actual types helps keep with that.

Agree with the others that some prototypes have had some operational like schemes and splashy schemes to draw up sales at air shows etc. The black and gold super cobra come to mind. Agree unit and campaign markings would not be appropriate.

I really don't see an angle for sci-fi or fantasy here, but I am not into the genre at all so I defer to others. Seems like it would be a build what ever you want angle.

There are some quite popular prototype subjects that never made it to operational service such as the Arrow, TSR2, XB-70... so it might help to specifically state that these (or putting them into operational service) would not be permitted.

jcf · June 17, 2020, 11:32:17 AM

Kit and I understand that this GB is full of gray areas, so there will be some supplemental guidance

posted.

As far as the question of a prototype painted in a standard scheme, the markings will be the make-or-break.
Flight test markings, whether company, service or organization i.e. NACA/NASA, RAE, RLM etc., are fair game,
with the proviso that they are clearly identified as such.

Ditto civil registration on an aircraft prototype, which was common in pre-WWII Germany and today is done
on commercial transport based military aircraft while in flight test and before delivery to the customer e.g.
737 AEW&C, KC-46A and the P-8.

Cheers

PR19_Kit · June 17, 2020, 11:56:58 AM

What Jon said....................

And the 'supplemental guidance' will be applied with a rod of iron of course.

Caveman · June 17, 2020, 02:46:08 PM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on June 17, 2020, 11:32:17 AM
Kit and I understand that this GB is full of gray areas

I think this GB is offering the opportunity for all of those normally grey or drab WHIFs to be presented in all of their testing technicolour - Raspberry Ripple (other flavours are available) GB by another name

Old Wombat · June 17, 2020, 04:18:56 PM

Quote from: Caveman on June 17, 2020, 02:46:08 PM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on June 17, 2020, 11:32:17 AM
Kit and I understand that this GB is full of gray areas

I think this GB is offering the opportunity for all of those normally grey or drab WHIFs to be presented in all of their testing technicolour - Raspberry Ripple (other flavours are available) GB by another name

Fanta

zenrat · June 18, 2020, 05:34:31 AM

Fanta.

Mirage F-1C011 by Fred Maillardet, on Flickr

And I have the decals for this. Maybe on a Mitsubishi T2?

PR19_Kit · June 18, 2020, 06:48:34 AM

A superb colour scheme indeed, very much an Oz Raspberry Ripple.

zenrat · June 19, 2020, 04:55:35 AM

Quote from: sandiego89 on June 17, 2020, 11:18:41 AM
As much as I am scratching my head on this GB, I do like the overall proposed rules, and think keeping it to non-operational schemes is sound. As I said in the other thread, I really hope this does not become a build whatever you want thread and call it a prototype, so whatever can be done to keep it within the theme is best. Things that never got really built, non operational schemes and significant changes to actual types helps keep with that.

Agree with the others that some prototypes have had some operational like schemes and splashy schemes to draw up sales at air shows etc. The black and gold super cobra come to mind. Agree unit and campaign markings would not be appropriate.

I really don't see an angle for sci-fi or fantasy here, but I am not into the genre at all so I defer to others. Seems like it would be a build what ever you want angle.

There are some quite popular prototype subjects that never made it to operational service such as the Arrow, TSR2, XB-70... so it might help to specifically state that these (or putting them into operational service) would not be permitted.

I have to disagree with Dave. I think this GB is the perfect opportunity to build absolutely anything you can think of and then call it a prototype. It's the GB for all those ideas that seem too stupid to have actually been done. The stuff that makes one cry "that'll never work". Build the thing the manufacturer built to see if the concept had legs before they committed to more development.

Also, has anyone mentioned testbeds? I presume they are classed as prototypes. Plenty of scope for swapped or additional engines or weapons systems or radars or orgone accumulators or cloud seeders.

Are chase planes included? While usually standard they are often painted in bright non-military schemes.

NARSES2 · June 19, 2020, 05:23:55 AM

Quote from: zenrat on June 19, 2020, 04:55:35 AM

It's the GB for all those ideas that seem too stupid to have actually been done. The stuff that makes one cry "that'll never work". Build the thing the manufacturer built to see if the concept had legs before they committed to more development.

I agree with you re this point Fred, in the real world some seriously strange things have been built to "test a concept", but as always it's down to the Mods.

As for the other two points you raise, test beds and chase planes ? I do have views, but I think again it's one for the Mods.

zenrat · June 19, 2020, 05:36:30 AM

Quote from: NARSES2 on June 19, 2020, 05:23:55 AM
Quote from: zenrat on June 19, 2020, 04:55:35 AM

It's the GB for all those ideas that seem too stupid to have actually been done. The stuff that makes one cry "that'll never work". Build the thing the manufacturer built to see if the concept had legs before they committed to more development.

I agree with you re this point Fred, in the real world some seriously strange things have been built to "test a concept", but as always it's down to the Mods.

As for the other two points you raise, test beds and chase planes ? I do have views, but I think again it's one for the Mods.

Foremost in my mind while writing that was this.

NARSES2 · June 19, 2020, 05:43:21 AM

The one I always think of is the Stipa Caproni, but then Caproni had a bit of a reputation to maintain