Supplemental Guidance

[Knightflyer]

What Fred said, yes.

Pre-production anythings are definitely out as far as this GB goes, prototype means what it says on the tin, the VERY first item that was built, be it aeroplane, car, truck, boat, ship, tank or shopping trolley.

Hi Kit - must query this - the Panavia Tornado had nine prototypes "The first of fifteen development aircraft (nine prototypes, P01 to P09, and six pre-series, PS11 to PS 16) flew on 14 August 1974" So if Tornado had been a 'What-If' only the very first airframe could be modelled?, not numbers 2 to 9?

I notice that Typhoon had 'development aircraft'!

Even our old favourite the Gloster Javelin had five (I think) prototypes

Gloster GA.5
Five prototypes GA.5s were built by Gloster, the first order for four aircraft to Specification F.4/48 was placed by the Air Ministry on 17 Jun 1949. Subsequently two aircraft were cancelled but additional prototype aircraft were ordered in 1951:
WD804 - Unarmed first prototype with Sapphire Sa.3 engines first flown from Moreton Valance on 26 November 1951.
WD808 - Unarmed second prototype first flew on 21 August 1952.
WT827 - First flew 7 March 1953 it was the first armed aircraft and the first fitted with a radar.
WT830 - First aircraft with powered controls, first flew 14 January 1954. Used for aerodynamic and stress trials.
WT836 - Productiom standard aircraft with improved canopy. first flew 20 July 1954

[PR19_Kit]

If anyone want's to whiff up a prototype shopping trolley for this GB they have my full backing.

Bandai probably do a kit of one, with an 'Accessories Kit' of stuff to put in it as well................ 

[PR19_Kit]

What Fred said, yes.

Pre-production anythings are definitely out as far as this GB goes, prototype means what it says on the tin, the VERY first item that was built, be it aeroplane, car, truck, boat, ship, tank or shopping trolley.

Hi Kit - must query this - the Panavia Tornado had nine prototypes "The first of fifteen development aircraft (nine prototypes, P01 to P09, and six pre-series, PS11 to PS 16) flew on 14 August 1974" So if Tornado had been a 'What-If' only the very first airframe could be modelled?, not numbers 2 to 9?

I notice that Typhoon had 'development aircraft'!

Even our old favourite the Gloster Javelin had five (I think) prototypes

But all of them were marked up as service aircraft to a greater or lesser extent, and were already owned and paid for by the three Defence Ministries involved.

Unlike the very first MRCA in the red/white scheme, which was owned by Panavia, even if the Governments eventually forked out for it of course.

The problem is the language, it's like people saying '...it's very unique...' NOTHING can be any degree of uniqueness, it's either unique or it isn't.

And likewise a prototype is or isn't a prototype, if it's the 2nd, 3rd or 4th anything it ISN'T a prototype, no matter what the builders may call it.

[tigercat]

How about the first shopping trolley to evolve out of a snow globe .

The Antonov A40 has just pinged onto my radar  so much inspiration .

[Knightflyer]

What Fred said, yes.

Pre-production anythings are definitely out as far as this GB goes, prototype means what it says on the tin, the VERY first item that was built, be it aeroplane, car, truck, boat, ship, tank or shopping trolley.

Hi Kit - must query this - the Panavia Tornado had nine prototypes "The first of fifteen development aircraft (nine prototypes, P01 to P09, and six pre-series, PS11 to PS 16) flew on 14 August 1974" So if Tornado had been a 'What-If' only the very first airframe could be modelled?, not numbers 2 to 9?

I notice that Typhoon had 'development aircraft'!

Even our old favourite the Gloster Javelin had five (I think) prototypes

But all of them were marked up as service aircraft to a greater or lesser extent, and were already owned and paid for by the three Defence Ministries involved.

Unlike the very first MRCA in the red/white scheme, which was owned by Panavia, even if the Governments eventually forked out for it of course.

The problem is the language, it's like people saying '...it's very unique...' NOTHING can be any degree of uniqueness, it's either unique or it isn't.

And likewise a prototype is or isn't a prototype, if it's the 2nd, 3rd or 4th anything it ISN'T a prototype, no matter what the builders may call it.

Ah well, that's me out out then....along with a goodly proportion of the aircraft industry in the 80 years! 

[PR19_Kit]

I think the original idea of this GB was to encourage people to actually modify a kit, or kits, to look completely different to its original shape, and not just to do a repaint job on them. However, repaints of original shaped kits would be OK if they were painted in prototype markings.

While I don't necessarily agree with the original premise, as I'm a mod for the GB I just have to 'enforce the law'  .

Which sounds a bit like a politicians answer of course.

[kitnut617]

IIRC Rolls-Royce persuaded the RN, so the twin-Spey version was the official RN proposal up to the point where the RN version was dropped entirely in favour of the Phantom.

The Spey had an intake mass flow of 204lb/sec so two of them would need 408lb/sec.

The BS.100 had an intake mass flow of 650lb/sec.

This implies that a single BS.100 would actually need more intake area than two Speys.

I think there's something wrong with those numbers H, here's a pic of the BS.100 running in a test bed. The intakes don't look a lot different to the standard intakes.

That isn't a BS.100 in the test rig, it's a Pegasus with two Tornado afterburners grafted onto the cold nozzles in order to test ground circulation effects: https://aviationheritageuk.org/news/harrier-test-bed-on-the-move/

The BS.100 wasn't just a Pegasus with PCB, it was a completely new and bigger engine. The Pegasus had a 48" diameter fan while the BS.100 had a 60" diameter one.

Hmm! that pic was passed on to me as being the BS.100 test rig ----

[Weaver]

IIRC Rolls-Royce persuaded the RN, so the twin-Spey version was the official RN proposal up to the point where the RN version was dropped entirely in favour of the Phantom.

The Spey had an intake mass flow of 204lb/sec so two of them would need 408lb/sec.

The BS.100 had an intake mass flow of 650lb/sec.

This implies that a single BS.100 would actually need more intake area than two Speys.

I think there's something wrong with those numbers H, here's a pic of the BS.100 running in a test bed. The intakes don't look a lot different to the standard intakes.

That isn't a BS.100 in the test rig, it's a Pegasus with two Tornado afterburners grafted onto the cold nozzles in order to test ground circulation effects: https://aviationheritageuk.org/news/harrier-test-bed-on-the-move/

The BS.100 wasn't just a Pegasus with PCB, it was a completely new and bigger engine. The Pegasus had a 48" diameter fan while the BS.100 had a 60" diameter one.

Hmm! that pic was passed on to me as being the BS.100 test rig ----

The confusion arises because the account on that page talks about the rig being used in support of the P.1154, but that makes no sense if you look at the dates. The rig was in use from 1983 to 1986, but the P.1154 and the BS.100 were both cancelled in 1965, nearly 20 years earlier. The rig was in fact used for ASTOVL research, as was the VAAC Harrier, and probably also fed into Kingston's P.1216 studies. This led, via a long and tortuous path, to the F-35.

[zenrat]

I would have thought that this GB was the ideal opportunity to slap together some unrelated parts from the spares heap, anoint it with brightly coloured paint and the make up some bullocks and a silly name and call it the prototype of its type.

There seems to be too much focus on "real" prototypes.  This is irrelevant because if they are real then they don't qualify because they are not whiffs.  Take inspiration from them, yes, but don't build one.  Make up something of your own.

[Weaver]

The discussion of real prototypes seems to me to be driven by trying to refine what is or isn't a 'prototype' for the purposes of this GB, hence the reference to real aircraft as exemplars which do or don't qualify. The insistance that it be the prototype of an intended production model rather than a pure research X-plane limits the scope for credible craziness, since the people who have to pay for hundreds of planes are generally more conservative than the ones who paid to come up with crazy ideas. Likewise, the insistance on a non-operational colour scheme means that you either have to design and self-print decals (which not everybody can do) or adapt an existing prototype scheme available in a kit or an aftermarket decal sheet.

[Knightflyer]

The discussion of real prototypes seems to me to be driven by trying to refine what is or isn't a 'prototype' for the purposes of this GB, hence the reference to real aircraft as exemplars which do or don't qualify. The insistance that it be the prototype of an intended production model rather than a pure research X-plane limits the scope for credible craziness, since the people who have to pay for hundreds of planes are generally more conservative than the ones who paid to come up with crazy ideas. Likewise, the insistance on a non-operational colour scheme means that you either have to design and self-print decals (which not everybody can do) or adapt an existing prototype scheme available in a kit or an aftermarket decal sheet.

I would have thought that this GB was the ideal opportunity to slap together some unrelated parts from the spares heap, anoint it with brightly coloured paint and the make up some bullocks and a silly name and call it the prototype of its type.

There seems to be too much focus on "real" prototypes.  This is irrelevant because if they are real then they don't qualify because they are not whiffs.  Take inspiration from them, yes, but don't build one.  Make up something of your own.

The discussion about real prototypes (from my point of view) was as Weaver says, an attempt to understand what might (or might not) be acceptable, the fact that Governments and Aircraft companies in the real world do think in terms of several prototypes, but the strict definition is that a prototype is a single item contradicts what has actually been the accepted defintion in Real World.

As for not using 'real' prototypes, for those of us who are not 'chop and change' whiffers, but only 'paint-job' whiffers, that could be a little exclusive 

[PR19_Kit]

All of which are very good points, and JCF, Chris and I are in almost constant discussion over these matters.

As we've never done this kind of GB before, something with such tight RoEs I mean, we have to think on our feet, and the rules may change as we go on, in either direction.

[zenrat]

I blame the electorate.  Who voted for this anyway?

[Knightflyer]

I blame the electorate.  Who voted for this anyway?

Let me guess , you believe in one man, one vote.....and you are the man! 

Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time....' 

and apologies if that strays into Politics! 

[Weaver]

All of which are very good points, and JCF, Chris and I are in almost constant discussion over these matters.

As we've never done this kind of GB before, something with such tight RoEs I mean, we have to think on our feet, and the rules may change as we go on, in either direction.

I do sympathise. I ended up moderating a 'gunships' GB on BTS. It was very clearly stated in the description everybody voted on AND the rules published well in advance, that this referred to aircraft with multiple side-firing (i.e.off-axis) guns in the style of an AC-130. Despite this, I still ended up fielding queries from people who wanted to submit everything from bombers with noses full of forward-firing guns through to armed helicopters, and having ruled both of those out, participation ended up being very low.