Supplemental Guidance

[jcf]

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

I'm using aircraft as the example for this supplement, but it applies to any and all subjects.

Simple repaints such as putting the subject in the colours/markings of a country/service that doesn't use
the machine in the Real World wouldn't transform the subject into a prototype for the purposes of the GB.
Experimental cammos and research/testing organization schemes are included in this classification, except
when there is also a physical change in appearance.
Note that pure X-Planes and experimental only modified configurations are also not considered prototypes for
the purposes of the GB.

There needs to be an actual externally visible change to the base subject that alters its form/changes its
appearance to some degree. Internal systems changes that do not effect the look of the subject fall into
the same classification as repaints.

The F-5 based Iranian Saeqeh is a good example of fairly simple change that alters the look of the base aircraft.


In the case of underwing stores, simply hanging a targeting pod or weapon (bomb, missile etc.) that wasn't normally
carried by a particular type doesn't really make it a prototype. In most cases simply adding an IFR probe would fall
into this same area. Examples of exceptions are things like CFTs and the 40mm gunpods added to the Hurricane II.
In the former case they're semi-permanent rather than jettisonable, in the latter the installation required structural
changes and again they were semi-permanent.

In the maritime world the first of a class of ship or boat was considered the prototype in the formal sense of the world,
ditto major changes made in armament and/or modifications related to changing roles.

Entirely fictional machines are encouraged, that is things that haven't existed in physical, drawing or proposal form
in the Real World whether science-fiction, alternate history, any of the 'Punk genres etc. i.e. an X-Wing modified to
a protoype of some sort would qualify.

Mockups:
that is a generally non-functional representation of the physical form of a machine/product, they were very common in
the days before extensive use of CAD and still are in the automotive design world.

In the Real World these range from simple reduced scale maquettes to full-size representations that show both the shapes
and the systems of the proposed machine. For this purpose of this GB models representing full-size mockups are the intent,
with the proviso that they do not have to be fully detailed.
As an example aircraft mockups have been as simple as cardboard attached to a wood or metal frame that solely represents
the basic external form, no cockpit etc., to full-on physical representations in metal e.g. the Republic XF-103. Even in more
detailed airframe mockups it's not unusual for lengths of  pipe to be used to represent landing gear. Sometimes only half the
proposed machine was built etc., the options are numerous and the many unbuilt Luft'46 subjects would be good candidates
to be built as mockups.

A good cross-section of aircraft mockups here:
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/aircraft-mock-ups.38106/


McDonnell F3H-G mockup just sitting on jack-stands. 

The famous (infamous?) cardboard P.1154. 



In the automotive realm in the heyday of the '50s and '60s there were times when a single mockup would have two different
design treatments on one mockup, while the basic shape would be the same on the left and right sides, the details like grille,
bumpers, headlight and tailight assemblies, wheelwell shape etc. would be different.


This notion of asymmetry has led me to ponder building a CF-100/C-100S or CF-100/CF-103 mockup, regular CF-100 wing and tail etc.
on one side, C-100S or CF-103 swept wing and tail on the other.


A CF-103 mockup was built.


Another thing to keep in mind is that the prototype does not have to make sense nor does it have to have been succesful.
Brian 'da Basher' Perri type creations are encouraged.

As usual feel free to ask questions.

Cheers, the Mods.

[jcf]

The aircraft I had in mind would have been built by a different company to who originally built it, it would be the first off their line testing their jig's and tooling so the aircraft wouldn't look any different except for paint, would this count or should I just continue the idea outside of the GB?

That wouldn't be a prototype in the spirit of this GB.

[Spey_Phantom]

ok, so that rules out my F-104G MLU version i was planning, might have to look into something else.

[Knightflyer]

The aircraft I had in mind would have been built by a different company to who originally built it, it would be the first off their line testing their jig's and tooling so the aircraft wouldn't look any different except for paint, would this count or should I just continue the idea outside of the GB?

That wouldn't be a prototype in the spirit of this GB.

Mmm, so this is an interesting one as it describes a scenario very close to where my thoughts were going

The real-world (as was) - A country (who will remain nameless for the moment) builds 5 or 6 prototypes of an aircraft that then doesn't go into production

Whiff scenario (as might be) - A second country, which supplied the engines to the aircraft above, decides to buy into the project in a bigger way and either buys the jigs itself  or commissions to build and continues production of prototypes which appear in IT'S appropriate prototype markings with the potential of being developed for a role

a slight alternative to the above is that because of the second country's involvement more prototypes are built with some of the prototypes appearing in it's markings - think if Canada had remained involved in Tornado or France in Eurofighter?

So would those fit or not?

[PR19_Kit]

ok, so that rules out my F-104G MLU version i was planning, might have to look into something else.

Yes, I'm afraid so.

Internal mods don't count really, the overall shape of the vehicle isn't changed in any major way.

[sandiego89]

I think the heat of the Pegasus engine would have been too much for the cardboard P.1154.....

[jcf]

The aircraft I had in mind would have been built by a different company to who originally built it, it would be the first off their line testing their jig's and tooling so the aircraft wouldn't look any different except for paint, would this count or should I just continue the idea outside of the GB?

That wouldn't be a prototype in the spirit of this GB.

Mmm, so this is an interesting one as it describes a scenario very close to where my thoughts were going

The real-world (as was) - A country (who will remain nameless for the moment) builds 5 or 6 prototypes of an aircraft that then doesn't go into production

Whiff scenario (as might be) - A second country, which supplied the engines to the aircraft above, decides to buy into the project in a bigger way and either buys the jigs itself  or commissions to build and continues production of prototypes which appear in IT'S appropriate prototype markings with the potential of being developed for a role

a slight alternative to the above is that because of the second country's involvement more prototypes are built with some of the prototypes appearing in it's markings - think if Canada had remained involved in Tornado or France in Eurofighter?

So would those fit or not?

Selling the prototype of a canceled project, along with its engineering and sometimes partial tooling*,
is something that has happened in the Real World so the basic scenario is sound. The make or break
comes with the subject and if it's based on a Real World aircraft how does it differ from the normal
appearance of the subject.

* The sale of the British Power Boats PV70 design to Elco pre-WWII is an example of where this can
go awry. The PV70, Private Venture 70, was chosen as the basis for Elco's 70' PT-Boat and the deal
included the boat, all engineering data - drawings, lofting data etc., along with patterns and things
like the scriving boards (used to assemble the frames) etc. What Elco got was incomplete engineering
data, missing lofting offset tables, drawings for three completely different boats, patterns that had
nothing to do with the PV70 mixed in, and only about half of the scriving boards etc. Not one of BPB
and Scott-Paine's finest moments. Elco ended up having to recreate almost everything by taking off
the lines from the PV70, creating new tables etc. No big deal for them of course as it was their business.
The 70' design was later stretched to produce the 77' Elco PT and then further modified to produce the
80' boat that most think of as a US PT-Boat.


I relate this in part because it illustrates how many opportunities there are for errors to creep in with this
kind of transfer, so who knows what might result on the other end.

[kitnut617]

I'm wondering now if the Gloster CXP 1001 I'm thinking of joining in with, complies ---

[PR19_Kit]

I'm wondering now if the Gloster CXP 1001 I'm thinking of joining in with, complies ---

I don't see why not, it reached the mockup stage and was undoubtedly going to become a prototype. So long as the model isn't painted as if it had reached Chinese service I think you're OK.

What do you think Jon?

[jcf]

 

Real world projects that stumbled at the gate are more than welcome, with the proviso,
as Kit stated, that they be finished in a non-service scheme.

In the case of the Gloster it would have gone through manufacturer's flight testing etc. well
before being delivered to the customer, if it ever was that is, what with the rapidly changing
situation in China.

[kitnut617]

Thanks Kit, Jon for the clarification.

As you say Jon, it would have been thoroughly tested by Gloster, Given the timeline when the Gloster project started, I'm thinking that it would just be painted high speed silver with the yellow undersides and have some temporary serial number and roundels.

Sort of like this, does this fit in with the concept of the rules?;

[PR19_Kit]

It works for me, yes.

See my recent post about the prototype reggies in the Discussion pages though, they may have used that system, if we can find out how it worked of course. 

[kitnut617]

I answered your post on the other thread Kit, and I think I'll go with that registration that the Gloster Reaper had. IIRC, the aircraft were painted a light blue colour too ---

[PR19_Kit]

When I saw the Reaper at Farnborough, flown by the redoubtable Jan Zurakowski doing his amazing 'Cartwheel', it was all over silver, but it looked very newly painted and was probably spruced up for the occasion.

[jcf]

Private Ventures are a wide open field for both subjects and schemes as, in the latter case, there's no need for them to conform to any official requirements aside from
airframe registration.