Supplemental Guidance

[NARSES2]

Models of paper projects in prototype colours are eligible as far as I'm aware.

Therefore the whole gamut of Luft 46 kits are mostly eligible for those not into cut and shunt for whatever reason as the vast majority of them were never more than sketches on paper. However they need to be in prototype not operational colours.

Obviously there are for more fields than Luft 46, but most people understand what the term means.

[jcf]

As far as paint schemes are concerned in reference to the RAF, as it seems the usual focus, , it's
obvious that most interwar aircraft would be in the typical bare metal/silver dope with a serial number
and roundels, or as discussed use a B reg code, this is pretty much unavoidable, although to my mind
that gives excellent scope to invent 'What-If?' paint and markings schemes such as house colours with
civil registrations etc. Private ventures offer many possibilities, the Hawker PV.3 had the rather odd
code of I-PV3.


Ditto post-war, most will be in a standard scheme with serial and roundels, that's just the reality, but
again it gives scope to make up stuff.



The main consideration is no squadron badges etc.

[jcf]

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.

Cough, cough XFV-12. 

[Weaver]

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.

Cough, cough XFV-12. 

"Generally..." 

[PR19_Kit]

Private ventures offer many possibilities, the Hawker PV.3 had the rather odd
code of I-PV3.

Not that odd, it fits with the Class B regulations at the time, 'I' being the code letter allocated to Hawker until 1947.

The listings are here :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_aircraft_test_serials

[jcf]

Yeah, I twigged to that after I posted. 

It gives rise to all kinds of possibilities for the era. 

[kitnut617]

As an aside, After giving my latest issue of Air-Britain's Aviation World a perusal, I got down to reading the articles in earnest. In the 'Bookshelf' section, what do I see --- a new book published by Air-Britain called 'Under B-Conditions' by Doug Revell, ISBN 978-0-8513-534-9. It goes back to 1929 and covers all aircraft which used the B-Conditions from then and is apparently crammed with rare photos. I think this might be a book to get ---   

[PR19_Kit]

Funny you should say that. 

There was an advert for that book in the latest Aeroplane Magazine and I ordered it right away, although it was a right pain to find on the Air Britain web site. It should be on its way to me now even. 

[kitnut617]

When you get it Kit, could you give a review of it please.

[jcf]

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! 

Yes, in 'engineering terms' there can be multiple prototypes, the F-15 program had 12 prototypes, all with
1971 fiscal numbers, ten single-seaters and two twin-seaters. These were followed by pre-production aircraft
with 1972 fiscal numbers. The Category I testing was carried out by McDD pilots using the original twelve
aircraft, the Category II testing was done by USAF pilots in the pre-production machines.
Some of the prototypes went to NASA, McDD kept some for their own purposes.

This document gives more details and shows the various schemes:
http://www.aviationarchives.net/F-15%20prototypes%20-%20Jan%20van%20Waarde%202012.pdf

Here's the first F-15 prototype, note the scheme and the company logos:

71-0280 was the trials aircraft for flight envelope exploration, general handling and external stores carriage
tests. Although it had been rolled out in a grey color scheme, for the first flight the aircraft had received
day-glo tail and wing markings. The rest of the prototypes had the same scheme minus the logos.

71-0290 was the first of the two-seaters and, like its sister 71-0291, remained with McDD, it is in
McDD house colours in the early '80s:


One of the things that makes them identifiable as prototypes is the square wingtips.

So why you ask have I gone into this detail with the F-15? Because it's a good example of a multi-prototype
program and demonstrates how a machine can go through various paint scheme changes over time and still
remain a prototype and be retained by the manufacturer.

Using similar high-vis panels and logos would be one way of differentiating a prototype from a production
aircraft if using a kit of a standard version, throwing in something subtle like a slightly differently shaped
wingtip/vertical fin/horizontal stabilizer etc., would add to the Whif. House colours as on 71-0290 would
also fit into this GB, even if painted in those colours years after first flight, the only caveat being that the
prototype was always in the possession of the manufacturer, demonstrator colours would also qualify under
that scenario. Note that I'm talking in context of whif backstory, not stating a RW prototype had to have
been retained by the manufacturer.

Note also that a prototype does not have be the very first one of a type full-stop - unless of course it
was the only one ever built, you can also have prototypes of a mildly altered version, a heavily modified
derivative or anywhere in between based on a production machine. The proviso being the modifications
are intended for production rather than just test purposes and that they are readily visible.

Speaking of the Javelin, the old Frog kit has the original planform wing like the prototype, building it with
the rotating wingtips that were schemed during development would make it easily different, jazz up the
colour scheme a bit and there you are.

HTH and if you have any specific concerns you'd like answered, please ask.

Cheers, J

[Glenn Gilbertson]

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! 

Yes, in 'engineering terms' there can be multiple prototypes, the F-15 program had 12 prototypes, all with
1971 fiscal numbers, ten single-seaters and two twin-seaters. These were followed by pre-production aircraft
with 1972 fiscal numbers. The Category I testing was carried out by McDD pilots using the original twelve
aircraft, the Category II testing was done by USAF pilots in the pre-production machines.
Some of the prototypes went to NASA, McDD kept some for their own purposes.

This document gives more details and shows the various schemes:
http://www.aviationarchives.net/F-15%20prototypes%20-%20Jan%20van%20Waarde%202012.pdf

Here's the first F-15 prototype, note the scheme and the company logos:

71-0280 was the trials aircraft for flight envelope exploration, general handling and external stores carriage
tests. Although it had been rolled out in a grey color scheme, for the first flight the aircraft had received
day-glo tail and wing markings. The rest of the prototypes had the same scheme minus the logos.

71-0290 was the first of the two-seaters and, like its sister 71-0291, remained with McDD, it is in
McDD house colours in the early '80s:


One of the things that makes them identifiable as prototypes is the square wingtips.

So why you ask have I gone into this detail with the F-15? Because it's a good example of a multi-prototype
program and demonstrates how a machine can go through various paint scheme changes over time and still
remain a prototype and be retained by the manufacturer.

Using similar high-vis panels and logos would be one way of differentiating a prototype from a production
aircraft if using a kit of a standard version, throwing in something subtle like a slightly differently shaped
wingtip/vertical fin/horizontal stabilizer etc., would add to the Whif. House colours as on 71-0290 would
also fit into this GB, even if painted in those colours years after first flight, the only caveat being that the
prototype was always in the possession of the manufacturer, demonstrator colours would also qualify under
that scenario. Note that I'm talking in context of whif backstory, not stating a RW prototype had to have
been retained by the manufacturer.

Note also that a prototype does not have be the very first one of a type full-stop - unless of course it
was the only one ever built, you can also have prototypes of a mildly altered version, a heavily modified
derivative or anywhere in between based on a production machine. The proviso being the modifications
are intended for production rather than just test purposes and that they are readily visible.

Speaking of the Javelin, the old Frog kit has the original planform wing like the prototype, building it with
the rotating wingtips that were schemed during development would make it easily different, jazz up the
colour scheme a bit and there you are.

HTH and if you have any specific concerns you'd like answered, please ask.

Cheers, J

Sorry if age is catching up with me, but have the rules now expanded (as I think would be helpful) to admit prototypes that are not necessarily just the very first but are still clearly in the control of the manufacturers? I am thinking, for instance, of MiG trying alternative delta configurations before committing to the MiG-21 arrangement. Just my ha'porth - but I think that it would allow for wider creativity while still being in the spirit of the build.

[Knightflyer]

Sorry if age is catching up with me, but have the rules now expanded (as I think would be helpful) to admit prototypes that are not necessarily just the very first but are still clearly in the control of the manufacturers? I am thinking, for instance, of MiG trying alternative delta configurations before committing to the MiG-21 arrangement. Just my ha'porth - but I think that it would allow for wider creativity while still being in the spirit of the build.

Yes please,  I second that, some clarification required as there does appear to be some contradictory advice

[PR19_Kit]

Sorry if age is catching up with me, but have the rules now expanded (as I think would be helpful) to admit prototypes that are not necessarily just the very first but are still clearly in the control of the manufacturers? I am thinking, for instance, of MiG trying alternative delta configurations before committing to the MiG-21 arrangement. Just my ha'porth - but I think that it would allow for wider creativity while still being in the spirit of the build.

Good question, we'll consult and report back.

It may be difficult to answer in a Soviet context as 'private ventures' and 'manufacturer owned' aircraft didn't exist there, almost by definition, but hang in there.

[The Wooksta!]

TSR2 had two prototype batches of nine aircraft each and then 9 pre-production.

[jcf]

See post #1 in this topic:
https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=48034.msg887105#msg887105

Prototype:
a first, typical or preliminary model of something, especially a machine, from which
other forms are developed or copied.

I'm not sure where it has to represent the first and only the first example entered the discussion,
we didn't state that in the rules, and I purposely emphasized the relevant terms in the definition of
the word prototype. Yes, a project can have several 'prototypes', as shown in my F-15 examples.

Bearing in mind that most of the series production aircraft of the past 100 years have had some sort of
prototype just taking a kit of a common type and marking it up as a prototype wouldn't make it a Whif,
unless it has, or is missing, some feature that didn't make it onto the production version. Said feature
doesn't have to be a dramatic difference. You could even have it where the type flopped and wasn't
produced. There are exceptions i.e. the B-24 and B-26 which didn't have prototypes and thus would be
prime Whif fodder.

As stated previously the only hard and fast requirement in the build is that the  subject must have been
intended for production rather than purely research/experimental/proof of concept i.e. the Miles M.35
Libellula, nothing says it had to be a successful prototype.


As to the MiG-21, it was developed through a series of aircraft; the Ye-2s with swept wings ala MiG-19,
the Ye-4s with delta wings, and the three Ye-6 which were the actual prototypes of the MiG-21.
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/e2.html
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/e4.html
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig21f.html