Supplemental Guidance

[PR19_Kit]

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.

It was me who wrote that.

In the true linguistic sense of the word there can only be one prototype, and I used the example of people talking about something being 'almost unique'. That's impossible, something either is or is not unique, just as a woman can't be 'almost pregnant'. There are some words which cannot have degrees of truth, they're either black or white, if I can say that these days............. 

Truly there can only be one prototype, it's the first one of anything that's made, but if the definition IN THIS GB is to be different, then we have to re-define it.

[Glenn Gilbertson]

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.

It was me who wrote that.

In the true linguistic sense of the word there can only be one prototype, and I used the example of people talking about something being 'almost unique'. That's impossible, something either is or is not unique, just as a woman can't be 'almost pregnant'. There are some words which cannot have degrees of truth, they're either black or white, if I can say that these days............. 

Truly there can only be one prototype, it's the first one of anything that's made, but if the definition IN THIS GB is to be different, then we have to re-define it.

Sorry to have stirred it up amongst the mods - and thanks to you for volunteering.

Respectfully, as has been shown by the F-15, "prototypes" could be plural. I think that the nub of the GB should be that, whoever has paid for the device, the design has not yet been approved by the customer.

In the case of the USSR, the aircraft would have been still controlled by the OKB but not yet accepted as suitable for series production in a government approved factory..

I have more creative thoughts re the MiG-21 - a pity Soviet prototype markings in RW were so dull, bit in whifworld...

I still think that plural "prototypes" allow more creativity while keeping within the GB spirit; e.g., think of a diorama showing how different configurations were trialled in early testing.

Hope that is helpful not awkward.

[zenrat]

...think of a diorama showing how different configurations were trialled in early testing.

But, to play devil's avocet, would those not be experimental or trials aircraft which then led to the production of a prototype?

[Weaver]

...think of a diorama showing how different configurations were trialled in early testing.

But, to play devil's avocet, would those not be experimental or trials aircraft which then led to the production of a prototype?

Depends.

I'd say that, for instance, an Avro 707 wasn't a prototype of the Vulcan even though it represented the aircraft's aerodynamic shape. It was a research aircraft doing work on delta wings that was directly relevent to the Vulcan.

On the other hand, an Avro 698 Vulcan prototype, with a straight leading edge and Avon engines, was a prototype, since it was largely representative of the production type, even though some things would subsequently be modified  (wing leading edges) and some things (Olympus engines) wern't available yet.

[PR19_Kit]

It's a case of tuning the rules to suit what the Forum members want. But WITHOUT opening them up so much that anything goes.

After all, you voted for this Prototype GB as it was discussed originally, and an 'Anything Goes' GB isn't really a GB, it's what we do when we're NOT taking part in a GB.............

[Knightflyer]

So basically there is the dictionary 'single item' definition

and then there is the engineering 'loose' definition which allows for a series (more than one) of prototypes

The latter seems to be doable without losing the spirit of the GB? Without decending into the " 'Anything Goes' GB isn't really a GB, it's what we do when we're NOT taking part in a GB" as Kit correctly puts it

The backstory would be quite an important part of it I suppose.

And thinking of changes (off the top of my head) there were differences between the YF-22 and the F-22 but they were 'broadly' the same aircraft

Whereas say the Avro 707 'IS NOT' the Vulcan prototype, but a YA-707 (okay I know I'm using the American system, but it's to illustrate the point!) could be a prototype based on the Avro 707 for a delta-winged attack aircraft of roughly the same size and shape

And my apologies as well ....I think I was a leading annoyist for the 'many' prototype faction!

[PR19_Kit]

And my apologies as well ....I think I was a leading annoyist for the 'many' prototype faction!

That's OK, we're a broad church here and we'll go with as near a majority vote as we can manage. 

[Knightflyer]

And my apologies as well ....I think I was a leading annoyist for the 'many' prototype faction!

That's OK, we're a broad church here and we'll go with as near a majority vote as we can manage. 

Ahhh....but come the Revolution brother! 

[tigercat]

Would a Starwars Snowspeeder  work as a prototype Ekranoplane ?

[zenrat]

...After all, you voted for this Prototype GB...

How can you know what I voted for?  Have you been granted sight of Chris's files on me?  He won't let me see them, how come you got a look?

[PR19_Kit]

The 'you' was a generic you, meaning all people on the Forum. 

[zenrat]

So you admit you know how all the people on the forum voted?
Chris has allowed you access to everyone's records?!

[PR19_Kit]

Nonononononononnoooooooooooooooooo................

The results, as quoted by our esteemed Chief Moderator, came up with the Prototypes GB at the top. Therefore most members must have voted for it.

Or maybe they voted more than once.............

[jcf]

There is a difference between a block of prototypes like the F-15 example, which were originally all built
to a single engineering design, and a series of noticeably different prototypes of varying configurations.

Quote from: Glenn Gilbertson on July 02, 2020, 04:50:11 pm
...think of a diorama showing how different configurations were trialled in early testing.

But, to play devil's avocet, would those not be experimental or trials aircraft which then led to the production of a prototype?

Fred nails it, going back to the MiG-21, it was developed through the series of aircraft I linked previously and
only the Ye-6 aircraft are considered to be prototypes of the MiG-21, the earlier configurations were part
of the developmental process and don't qualify as prototypes.

This applies to other experimental/developmental pre-design freeze engineering configuration work, thus a
diorama of various 'tested' prototype configurations wouldn't be in the cards for this GB.

The subject of the GB is "Prototypes" not "Engineering Design and Development", the former derives from the
latter but for the purposes of this GB the assumption is made that the configuration definition had been completed
and the engineering was then released to the floor for construction.

[Glenn Gilbertson]

Thanks for the clarification - back to the  gin unbuilt projects books for inspiration!