Right here's the proposed rules for the GB
1. This GB runs from the 1st November 2019 until midnight of 31st January 2020, all timings are local.
Extensions will be considered in the normal way nearer the date.
2. Quite simply your build must be of an aircraft/vehicle/ship/space craft/weapon etc that has been retired from active service and then for whatever reason brought back from retirement and put back into service. This can be in either the original or a modified state. If modified it should still be recognisable however when compared to the original. The build is not restricted to military types but includes both civil types and civilian users.
Finally if your choice of subject has more than one user and one of those has retired it, but the other ones have kept it in service, you are perfectly entitled to build a model of the type as brought back into service by that one user that retired it. As an example, when the R.A.F. retired the Harrier it remained in service with the U.S.M.C. and the Spanish A.F. Therefore for the purposes of this G.B. you could build a model of a Harrier brought back into service with the R.A.F. even though it had remained in use by the other services.
3. Models, drawings, artwork and stories are all eligible.
4. Models already started are allowed as long as major building work has not started before the GB begins. Check with the Moderators.
5. Finished models and profiles to be posted (with picture and link to build thread) in the finished builds thread within the overall GB thread in this Board. Please do not post comments in the finished builds thread.
6. Have FUN.
8. Moderators are Tom Z and Crude but Effective.
9. There is no rule 7, don't EVER ask about rule 7 (O.K. so sometimes it's another rule that doesn't get mentioned, but I like to mix it around a bit).
Sounds great to me!
Dave
Rules? You mean there are rules!? :blink:
Quote from: Old Wombat on October 08, 2019, 09:40:54 PM
Rules? You mean there are rules!? :blink:
Tragic, but true. :-\
So the way I read rule 2 para 2 is this. The end user must be someone who had previously used the subject of the build and had retired it. We can't bring something out fo retirement to be used by a new user?
Using the example of the Harrier - It would be OK to bring them out of retirement for use by the RAF but not for the RAAF as they hadn't used them prior to them being put out to grass?
I don't think it says that, it doesn't say it HAS to be the original operator, it just says it CAN be. ;)
That doesn't rule out other operators who dragged them back from the brink, repainted them (maybe with kangaroos on their roundels....) and flew them. ;D
Quote from: zenrat on October 09, 2019, 02:50:41 AM
So the way I read rule 2 para 2 is this. The end user must be someone who had previously used the subject of the build and had retired it. We can't bring something out fo retirement to be used by a new user?
Using the example of the Harrier - It would be OK to bring them out of retirement for use by the RAF but not for the RAAF as they hadn't used them prior to them being put out to grass?
That's a
GOOD question, because it may severely limit creative approaches! But if I read rule 2 para 1, the revival is not confined to the original operator(s), it could be something different?
Quote from: zenrat on October 09, 2019, 02:50:41 AM
So the way I read rule 2 para 2 is this. The end user must be someone who had previously used the subject of the build and had retired it. We can't bring something out fo retirement to be used by a new user?
Using the example of the Harrier - It would be OK to bring them out of retirement for use by the RAF but not for the RAAF as they hadn't used them prior to them being put out to grass?
I will discuss this with my
co-dictator co-moderator and we will come back on this one.
TomZ
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on October 09, 2019, 02:56:53 AM
Quote from: zenrat on October 09, 2019, 02:50:41 AM
So the way I read rule 2 para 2 is this. The end user must be someone who had previously used the subject of the build and had retired it. We can't bring something out fo retirement to be used by a new user?
Using the example of the Harrier - It would be OK to bring them out of retirement for use by the RAF but not for the RAAF as they hadn't used them prior to them being put out to grass?
That's a GOOD question, because it may severely limit creative approaches!...
Which is why I asked it. ;)
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on October 09, 2019, 02:56:53 AM
...But if I read rule 2 para 1, the revival is not confined to the original operator(s), it could be something different?
It is not specifically stated.
Simplest thing might just be to drop rule 2 para 2 altogether and just pretend I never asked the question. ;D
Two more quandaries about the specifics:
- An F-8 crusader flying in Filipino markings after being bought second hand from the American Navy is OK? Would the QF-8E be acceptable because it was originally American, sold to the Philippines, returned to America and then rebuilt as a Mach two target drone?
- The Battlestar Galactica... from the rebooted show. It was front line service, about to be turned into a museum ship and then forced back into service.
True, rather esoteric and pedantic questions but it could turn the line of creative builds from the obvious to the sublime...
-Hank
Quote from: zenrat on October 09, 2019, 02:50:41 AM
So the way I read rule 2 para 2 is this. The end user must be someone who had previously used the subject of the build and had retired it. We can't bring something out fo retirement to be used by a new user?
Using the example of the Harrier - It would be OK to bring them out of retirement for use by the RAF but not for the RAAF as they hadn't used them prior to them being put out to grass?
This was discussed in the high council of moderators and we graciously decided to allow bringing back a retired craft into a service that has not used it previously. So RAAF Harriers are OK (as long as they are ex RAF or RN airframes of course ;D), as are Filipino Crusaders, East German FW-190s, etc.
TomZ
Those mods are GREAT guys, I've always said so of course........... :bow: :bow: :bow:
Can we consider prototypes that have been tested, put into storage and then brought out for a new purpose?
Like taking the XB-70 out of the USAF Museum and using her for hypersonic missile launches, for example?
Buck Rogers Space Shuttle was frozen in orbit for several centuries - repair it with laser weapons etc.
Quote from: TomZ on October 09, 2019, 12:50:18 PM
This was discussed in the high council of moderators and we graciously decided to allow bringing back a retired craft into a service that has not used it previously. So RAAF Harriers are OK (as long as they are ex RAF or RN airframes of course ;D), as are Filipino Crusaders, East German FW-190s, etc.
TomZ
This is helpful in many ways, thank you for the clarification. :thumbsup:
And there was me thinking defining the rules for this GB would be relatively simple :rolleyes: ;)
I'd better start thinking about the next one now ;D
No, seriously lads The Moderators are addressing your questions and will get back to you :thumbsup:
Quote from: NARSES2 on October 10, 2019, 06:37:03 AM
And there was me thinking defining the rules for this GB would be relatively simple :rolleyes: ;)
So, what drugs are you taking, again? :unsure:
Probably those banned under rule #7?
Quote from: Flyer on October 10, 2019, 09:23:42 AM
Can the new operator be fictional, like a never existed mercenary air force or does it need to be a rw operator?
As this is a very respectable forum only doing real world topics, why would anyone want to do a fictional operator? ;D ;D ;D
Yes, as far as I am concerned fictional operators are fine.
TomZ
Quote from: NARSES2 on October 08, 2019, 06:53:23 AM
2. Quite simply your build must be of an aircraft/vehicle/ship/space craft/weapon etc that has been retired from active service and then for whatever reason brought back from retirement and put back into service. This can be in either the original or a modified state. If modified it should still be recognisable however when compared to the original. The build is not restricted to military types but includes both civil types and civilian users.
Finally if your choice of subject has more than one user and one of those has retired it, but the other ones have kept it in service, you are perfectly entitled to build a model of the type as brought back into service by that one user that retired it. As an example, when the R.A.F. retired the Harrier it remained in service with the U.S.M.C. and the Spanish A.F. Therefore for the purposes of this G.B. you could build a model of a Harrier brought back into service with the R.A.F. even though it had remained in use by the other services.
3. Models, drawings, artwork and stories are all eligible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but rule no. 2, as I read it, does not explicitly rule out that not only the second operator of the craft can be fictional, but also the craft and the first operator... the discussion in this thread seems to set these boundaries.
So does the first operator and the original retired craft itself have to be RW/ canon fiction/ canon sci-fi?
Do Ghost ships or Ghost aircraft count as out of retirement ?
After due deliberation among the exalted moderators (and the consumption of copious amounts of the elixer of wisdom, in my case whisky) the moderators have come up with the following clarifications:
- Tthe main idea behind the group build is the concept of "retired".
This means a period of non activity. That is fundamentally something different than "Sold to".
So WW2 Thunderbolts sold to let's say Holland in 1945 after the war and used there do not qualify. Because of the lack of retirement time but also because the US still had operational P-47s at the time.
But WW2 Thunderbolts retired from the USAF and sold in 1950 to South Korea would as they would have been inactive for a couple of years. It all boils down to the type having been taken out of service completely.
But that straight away raises the question of how long something needs to be retired to count. A day in transit is clearly not enough. It should be "A significant amount of time."
- A retired prototype brought back for another purpose / user is OK. Again the defining factor is "retired".
- Both the original and/or the new operator can be fictional as long as there is a plausible back-story. A retired NCC-1701 is possible but as there is no real-world way to check the "retired" part, that needs a back-story that is consistent with the series time-lines and story line.
This does require an existing(at least existing in movies, books or TV) craft. A completely fictional, scratch built aircraft retired from a fictional air force and brought back in another fictional air force is a step too far we think
Also: Remember rule 6!
TomZ
Quote from: tigercat on October 10, 2019, 01:54:56 PM
Do Ghost ships or Ghost aircraft count as out of retirement ?
A ghost ship could as long as it is a one of a kind.
Ghost aircraft is more difficult as there would probably be more of the type remaining in service and so the type is not "retired"
TomZ
Quote from: TomZ on October 10, 2019, 10:56:32 PM
But WW2 Thunderbolts retired from the USAF and sold in 1950 to South Korea would as they would have been inactive for a couple of years. It all boils down to the type having been taken out of service completely.
That counts a 2019 RAF Harrier out then, as Harriers remained in service constantly with the USMC and Spanish Navy, right?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 11, 2019, 12:44:51 AM
Quote from: TomZ on October 10, 2019, 10:56:32 PM
But WW2 Thunderbolts retired from the USAF and sold in 1950 to South Korea would as they would have been inactive for a couple of years. It all boils down to the type having been taken out of service completely.
That counts a 2019 RAF Harrier out then, as Harriers remained in service constantly with the USMC and Spanish Navy, right?
I think this rule answers that question kit?
Finally if your choice of subject has more than one user and one of those has retired it, but the other ones have kept it in service, you are perfectly entitled to build a model of the type as brought back into service by that one user that retired it. As an example, when the R.A.F. retired the Harrier it remained in service with the U.S.M.C. and the Spanish A.F. Therefore for the purposes of this G.B. you could build a model of a Harrier brought back into service with the R.A.F. even though it had remained in use by the other services.
It had better do or one of my ideas goes down in flames :rolleyes:
regards
Keith
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 11, 2019, 12:44:51 AM
That counts a 2019 RAF Harrier out then, as Harriers remained in service constantly with the USMC and Spanish Navy, right?
No it doesn't. The type was retired from the RAF/RN so they can be recalled to active service. Or ex RAF aircraft can be sold to Holland.
But ex RAF Harriers sold to supplement the USMC fleet would not be OK as they are still in service there.
So addendum to the post below:
It all boils down to EITHER:
- the type having been retired completely from the service it's coming back to
OR
- the type having been retired completely from one service and coming back to a service that never used it.
Does this make it more clear?
TomZ
Hmm, that probably killed an idea here, too. That's quite tricky, also because it is more difficult to find evidence when a type was eventually retired - service introductions are more common knowledge!
It's very simple. If your proposed build doesn't fit the rules then tweak your back story until it does. ;D
Quote from: NARSES2 on October 10, 2019, 06:37:03 AM
And there was me thinking defining the rules for this GB would be relatively simple :rolleyes: ;)
I'd better start thinking about the next one now...
It's in The Navy isn't it? i think I am modding that one.
It'll be easy.
It has to be in a navy. Full stop. Period. The end. ;D
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on October 11, 2019, 01:31:23 AM
Hmm, that probably killed an idea here, too. That's quite tricky, also because it is more difficult to find evidence when a type was eventually retired - service introductions are more common knowledge!
Well, it is called out of RETIREMENT.
But if you send me the idea (can be done confidentially via PM if you don't want to disclose here) we can give an opinion on it.
Promise we won't disclose it to the rest. (unless they pay lots of money)
TomZ
Quote from: zenrat on October 11, 2019, 01:44:02 AM
It's in The Navy isn't it? i think I am modding that one.
It'll be easy.
It has to be in a navy. Full stop. Period. The end. ;D
That's what I thought until I actually had a think about it yesterday. Seriously,
but the is not a subject for this board. if you want some early thoughts to mull over PM me.
Quote from: Old Wombat on October 10, 2019, 07:15:49 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on October 10, 2019, 06:37:03 AM
And there was me thinking defining the rules for this GB would be relatively simple :rolleyes: ;)
So, what drugs are you taking, again? :unsure:
5 different ones at the moment. Just coming off the sixth ;)
Just one small point lads.
Please remember that this is the What If site and therefore, in my personal view, some of the possible and perceived problems could be solved by a well thought out, constructed and conceived backstory ? Or am I overly simplifying the thing ?
Chris
Quote from: NARSES2 on October 12, 2019, 02:35:42 AM
Just one small point lads.
Please remember that this is the What If site and therefore, in my personal view, some of the possible and perceived problems could be solved by a well thought out, constructed and conceived backstory ? Or am I overly simplifying the thing ?
Chris
You are not oversimplifying, your statement is whiffery personified.
As one who prefers making backstories to molesting styrene , if anyone has apparently insoluble difficulties here, pm me and I'll try to write a way out of your problem for you if I can.
Just reading through the rules discussion is making my head spin... I've missed out on the last couple of GBs, so I was hoping to join this one, but I haven't got the foggiest idea what kind of entry I could bring to the table...
Wowsers, all this, and all the extra it'll cost me is some decals, and it will get a different paint job. I could enter this, and it solves a serious conundrum I was having. 😁
Quote from: strobez on October 13, 2019, 08:23:58 AM
Just reading through the rules discussion is making my head spin... I've missed out on the last couple of GBs, so I was hoping to join this one, but I haven't got the foggiest idea what kind of entry I could bring to the table...
At the end of the day the basic principle is relatively simple.
Ask yourself this question. "
In my scenario has the type been retired ?". If the answer to that is yes then build it, with or without modifications as long as what you build is still recognisable when compared to the starting point.
Quote from: NARSES2 on October 08, 2019, 06:53:23 AM
2. Quite simply your build must be of an aircraft (...) that has been retired from active service and then for whatever reason brought back from retirement and put back into service.
I am not sure I can participate, as rule 2 is not clear enough for me:
interpretations of it (2AB: I could participate; 2C: not for me)
2A: a dreamy creation has never been in service, but it may be seen as a new assembly of old parts from service (military or commercial) for possibly being used again, "in service" if successful in flight test;
2B: a crazy aircraft impossible to actually fly may be seen as retired from the drawing board (into garbage) but then later used as a basis for a toy for children (home "service" called scale 1/72nd but with no related scale 1);
2C: if no military roundel no commercial colours, there is no "service"; complete absurd dreams are rejected, as not realist enough.
So, 2A-2B or else 2C? :unsure:
(PS. I take my antipsychotic drugs again but they have not started to work yet, it seems) :-\
Tophe
I'll try and spell things out more clearly next week, but I'm taking a bit of a break from all this discussion as I'm really not in the right place to think about it at the moment.
Chris
It's turning out to be a real can of worms this time. :banghead:
Yes, it's really tough to find something and cook up a good story. It has been a while that I found myself to discard so many potential ideas for a build - but that's not a bad thing. ;D
Quote from: NARSES2 on October 14, 2019, 06:33:51 AM
Quote from: strobez on October 13, 2019, 08:23:58 AM
Just reading through the rules discussion is making my head spin... I've missed out on the last couple of GBs, so I was hoping to join this one, but I haven't got the foggiest idea what kind of entry I could bring to the table...
At the end of the day the basic principle is relatively simple.
Ask yourself this question. "In my scenario has the type been retired ?". If the answer to that is yes then build it, with or without modifications as long as what you build is still recognisable when compared to the starting point.
Chris, I think that is a great approach and explanation. I think a few folks are thinking about this too hard, or perhaps in the excitement that normally accompanies a group build discussion just thinking out loud. I don't think folks need to overthink it. Your proposed rules make perfect sense to me.
In my view the US Navy reactivating the F4U Corsair for service in Vietnam would fit the theme, even though Corsairs were lingering on in service with Honduras and as warbirds in civilian hands. In a similar aspect a hunter being re-activated by Lebanon as a fighter would fit the theme, even though they were being flown by Quasi-military organizations, as target tugs and on the air show circuit at the time. Likewise An armored or airborne Calvary unit could revert to horses even though horses were still being used in other applications.
As for the fictional and drawing board stuff I really don't think it fits the theme quite as well, but with the proper story it might. As for prototypes maybe. Dragging the XB-70 out of the museum as a test platform or bomber surely would.
I think there are plenty of subjects out there both military and civilian that could fit the theme. Drag out a Concorde, a covered wagon, a F-1 car, a school bus...
Keep up the good work Chris and mods! Thank you. Dave
Quote from: sandiego89 on October 16, 2019, 02:14:44 PM
As for the fictional and drawing board stuff I really don't think it fits the theme quite as well, but with the proper story it might. As for prototypes maybe. Dragging the XB-70 out of the museum as a test platform or bomber surely would.
Thanks for this temporary answer (to be confirmed?): it seems 2C, so (actual "service" scale 1 is required).
I can add another fairly simple approach:
Take an idea forward from the era it was primarily used in.
This works for prototypes and drawing board stuff and ignores a handful of a type carrying on decades later in niche roles.
Quote from: sandiego89 on October 16, 2019, 02:14:44 PM
...An...airborne Calvary unit could revert to horses...
You should see the images I currently have running through my head.
Quote from: zenrat on October 17, 2019, 03:00:43 AM
Quote from: sandiego89 on October 16, 2019, 02:14:44 PM
...An...airborne Calvary unit could revert to horses...
You should see the images I currently have running through my head.
Like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt0rURntFQE
More like this...
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51zpQ4dpKsL._SY445_.jpg)
...but with horses.
I'm taking a bit of a sabbatical from the rules discussion and will return to the fray this time next week.
I think I know where I'm heading as long as they don't take me to the asylum first :angel:
so you're retiring and will come out of retirement to give us a response?
Guys,
I think we are getting into hypothetical discussions just to see if we can find and bend the edges of the rules.
The rules are quite simple. Something has been in service, if only as a prototype. Then it was retired.
And then it was brought back into service.
Instead of making this an endless theoretical discussion, put forward your actual ideas and put them before the moderators when you have doubts about their eligibility.
Remember that we are all here to have fun and to split hairs about rules and regulations. If that latter is your idea of fun go study law or politics!
TomZ
One of the poor guys that was crazy enough to volunteer to moderate this group build.
Quote from: TomZ on October 17, 2019, 09:17:33 AM
Guys,
I think we are getting into hypothetical discussions just to see if we can find and bend the edges of the rules.
The rules are quite simple. Something has been in service, if only as a prototype. Then it was retired.
And then it was brought back into service.
Instead of making this an endless theoretical discussion, put forward your actual ideas and put them before the moderators when you have doubts about their eligibility.
Remember that we are all here to have fun and to split hairs about rules and regulations. If that latter is your idea of fun go study law or politics!
TomZ
One of the poor guys that was crazy enough to volunteer to moderate this group build.
Seconded
OK, thanks, this GB is not for me, maybe the next GB. :unsure:
Thank you for agreeing to moderate this event, which appears to have hit a spot of turbulence. I agree with your proposal and will submit my ideas for your comments. It seems a reasonable way to go!!
Quote from: TomZ on October 17, 2019, 09:17:33 AM
Guys,
I think we are getting into hypothetical discussions just to see if we can find and bend the edges of the rules.
The rules are quite simple. Something has been in service, if only as a prototype. Then it was retired.
And then it was brought back into service.
Instead of making this an endless theoretical discussion, put forward your actual ideas and put them before the moderators when you have doubts about their eligibility.
Remember that we are all here to have fun and to split hairs about rules and regulations. If that latter is your idea of fun go study law or politics!
TomZ
One of the poor guys that was crazy enough to volunteer to moderate this group build.
Bravo.
It does seem at the start of every rules discussion we have a few folks that love to push the envelope just for banter our discussions sake, not really intending to build it. Thanks so much and I agree, Keep it fun.
Quote from: sandiego89 on October 17, 2019, 01:19:10 PM
Quote from: TomZ on October 17, 2019, 09:17:33 AM
Guys,
I think we are getting into hypothetical discussions just to see if we can find and bend the edges of the rules.
The rules are quite simple. Something has been in service, if only as a prototype. Then it was retired.
And then it was brought back into service.
Instead of making this an endless theoretical discussion, put forward your actual ideas and put them before the moderators when you have doubts about their eligibility.
Remember that we are all here to have fun and to split hairs about rules and regulations. If that latter is your idea of fun go study law or politics!
TomZ
One of the poor guys that was crazy enough to volunteer to moderate this group build.
Bravo.
It does seem at the start of every rules discussion we have a few folks that love to push the envelope just for banter our discussions sake, not really intending to build it. Thanks so much and I agree, Keep it fun.
Can't help it mate. I see an envelope I wonder how I can push it.
One should never just keep schtumm and do what is expected.
Hopefully, by asking awkward questions we help Chris write some clear rules.
I get it Rat, all good.
I think I just tend to choose to build, and favor other builds, that really fit a GB theme well. Some are more natural than others. Straying too far can become a "build whatever you want, and make it fit the theme". I just tend to like tighter rules which can push me to build something that fits the theme well. But again it's all about the fun and camaraderie here and I understand others have different desires.
Quote from: TomZ on October 17, 2019, 09:17:33 AM
Remember that we are all here to have fun and to split hairs about rules and regulations. If that latter is your idea of fun go study law or politics!
TomZ
One of the poor guys that was crazy enough to volunteer to moderate this group build.
:thumbsup:
I like loose rules. More "anything goes, tweak your back story to fit" than "you will fit into these very specific criteria".
The voting public at the end should see to it that inappropriate builds do not get rewarded.
Or am I being too trusting in democracy?
Quote from: zenrat on October 18, 2019, 09:08:01 PM
I like loose rules. More "anything goes, tweak your back story to fit" than "you will fit into these very specific criteria".
The voting public at the end should see to it that inappropriate builds do not get rewarded.
Or am I being too trusting in democracy?
Personally I am more inclined to the opposite. A group build with stricter rules and come up with something that fits as opposed to "I want to build a SuperVickersFairey Wellingfire and now I have to invent a story to make it fit".
However I think this is not the place to have this discussion. Perhaps Chris can kick of a thread for discussion on further group build rules, strict or otherwise......
For now we have the rules as they are and we as moderators intent to be very, very, very strict about them. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
Unless of course persuaded otherwise by generous donations in liquid form........
TomZ
I think I can work within the rules well maybe not rule 7 . But if not you can have as much Peckham Spring water as I can lay my hands on . There's a guy down the market who can do me a good deal....
Quote from: tigercat on October 20, 2019, 12:20:51 AM
I think I can work within the rules well maybe not rule 7 . But if not you can have as much Peckham Spring water as I can lay my hands on . There's a guy down the market who can do me a good deal....
Carefull, don't mention rule 7! If you do your spring water might spoil.....
TomZ
oooops it's started to glow in the dark .....
I had a stash rummage today and have decided on two builds to start with.
A 'Stash Rummage', eh?
Be careful Fred, that way lies madness. (don't ask me how I know this............ ;))
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 20, 2019, 04:46:44 AM
A 'Stash Rummage', eh?
Be careful Fred, that way lies madness. (don't ask me how I know this............ ;))
Tell me about it. I looked in all my various car kit storages (I practice distributed stashing as a precaution against accidental discovery followed by spousal realisation and displeasure) and rather than making it easier to decide it just made it worse.
But I have decided. Kits are out and photos of boxes have been taken. I should prolly try and finish one or two current jobs in the next 11 days.
Quote from: TomZ on October 19, 2019, 09:39:20 AM
However I think this is not the place to have this discussion. Perhaps Chris can kick of a thread for discussion on further group build rules, strict or otherwise......
For now we have the rules as they are and we as moderators intent to be very, very, very strict about them. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
Unless of course persuaded otherwise by generous donations in liquid form........
TomZ
I've made a note so that when I kick next season's GB discussions off I can start a thread.
Right I was going to say "we will be going with the rules as they stand" but Tom has done it for me :thumbsup:
Anyone who has any questions as to whether their plans fit or not then ask Tom and Mark.
Quote from: Tophe on October 16, 2019, 02:29:30 AM
2C: if no military roundel no commercial colours, there is no "service"; complete absurd dreams are rejected, as not realist enough.
So, 2A-2B or else 2C? :unsure:
(PS. I take my antipsychotic drugs again but they have not started to work yet, it seems) :-\
Tophe. This may well be a confusion caused by language.
In English airliners and other civilian aircraft types are "in service" with their user. So you can build a model/do a drawing of a type that has always been in civilian use or one that was retired from military use and brought back into civilian use.
Chris
So the rules are as per post one of this thread?
Quote from: zenrat on October 21, 2019, 03:33:58 AM
So the rules are as per post one of this thread?
As this is the rules discussion I would say yes, they are. ;D
The original rules plus the various clarifications by your moderators.
TomZ
We have a little under two weeks to go in this group build. (deadline is midnight of 31st January 2020)
We moderators haven't received any bribes yet asking for an extension.
That means you will all finish your builds in time for the deadline?
Or should we start thinking about a wee extension?
TomZ
;D Cheers om
Well, I've got mine done, but I'll wait until Monday so I can take some pics outside in natural light. It's supposed to be 30 degrees warmer then ----
I won't finish the Dodge ute by the deadline. Not if I want to do a decent job with the paint.
I may get it finished with a 2 week extension but I can't promise anything.
As requested: We will extend this group build to midnight of 14th February 2020, whenever that is in your locality.
TomZ
Thanks Tom. It was really more thinking out loud than a request. But thanks anyway. I'll do my best.
14th Feb, now why does that date ring a bell?
:unsure:
Quote from: zenrat on January 23, 2020, 01:26:30 AM
14th Feb, now why does that date ring a bell?
New rule?
Anything entered on the last day of the build, the 14th of Feb, needs to have a red heart painted on it?
TomZ
Quote from: zenrat on January 23, 2020, 01:26:30 AM
14th Feb, now why does that date ring a bell?
:unsure:
A girl at work is getting married on that date - so that there shouldn't be any excuse for either of them to forget the anniversary... but of course "Your Mileage May Vary" or "The Best Laid Plans..." ;D
Two years ago I scratchbuilt Mrs z a scale V-Day card out of evergreen, about 30mm high. She keeps it on her desk.
I'm presuming this build closed as planned? I didn't see a time extension posted anywhere?
Quote from: Knightflyer on February 02, 2020, 05:21:59 AM
I'm presuming this build closed as planned? I didn't see a time extension posted anywhere?
TomZ posted on the 23rd of last month:
Quote from: TomZ on January 23, 2020, 01:21:42 AM
As requested: We will extend this group build to midnight of 14th February 2020, whenever that is in your locality.
TomZ
LOL - I obviously need new glasses :mellow:, among assorted other upgrades! ;D
Brilliant, that does mean that the helicopter I started on 1st February thinking I'd missed the boat might now sneak in
Looking back I now realise I hadn't seen the bottom half of the page 5 entries - I did wonder why we'd started talking about Valentine's Day :o :-\ ;D
THANK-YOU GENTS! :lol:
Uh, I just got a build in the pipeline that might qualify for the GB - but it will probably not make it with the usual beauty pics until the deadline.