General Discussion

[TomZ]

I think what we mean by "operating" is flying through the air from point A to point B, landing at the airport or local lake, and then driving the extra 30 miles to the hotel. Or a boat/ship/submarine sailing across or under the lake/ ocean then driving/flying across the land to its destination. Folding or retracting wings, wheels or floats as required but all the parts have to stay on the vehicle.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I hope this helps.

Completely correct!

TomZ

[TomZ]

We have discussed the current questions in the upper council of moderators and we rule that indeed merely taking of from or landing on water or land does not qualify as operating in two mediums. That means a standard Catalina or a standard float plane is out. As is a XC-8A that lands on water on an air cushion.

However a DUKW that can operate on water and on land is in. As is a flying tank that flies in and then drives on land. Or a submarine that has tracks and can continue his journey driving on land or ice.

I hope this resolves the current discussions and makes clear where we aim to go in this group build.

Kind regards to all,

TomZ

[Weaver]

So just to be crystal clear, a flying boat with permanently fitted retractable wheels, that can land on water or land on a runway, without modification, is NOT within scope for this GB. Is that correct?

[NARSES2]

So just to be crystal clear, a flying boat with permanently fitted retractable wheels, that can land on water or land on a runway, without modification, is NOT within scope for this GB. Is that correct?

I've put you down on my list of prospective Moderators for next year....thank you 

[TomZ]

So just to be crystal clear, a flying boat with permanently fitted retractable wheels, that can land on water or land on a runway, without modification, is NOT within scope for this GB. Is that correct?

That is correct. What you describe is basically a Catalina. If it just lands on water or land it is out. If it can then drive to the Mac to get a hamburger it is in.

TomZ

[NARSES2]

Well said Tom 

[Weaver]

So just to be crystal clear, a flying boat with permanently fitted retractable wheels, that can land on water or land on a runway, without modification, is NOT within scope for this GB. Is that correct?

That is correct. What you describe is basically a Catalina. If it just lands on water or land it is out. If it can then drive to the Mac to get a hamburger it is in.

TomZ

Thank you - that's crystal clear. 

I asked because you used the example of a Catalina, but early versions of that aircraft didn't have wheels while later ones did, and were generally referred to as "amphibians".

[McColm]

So aircraft with skis fitted are out as well?

[zenrat]

[No names, no pack drill.  I haven't taken any note who said what above (only that it has irritated me) so none of what follows is personal.]

Do you want this to be another GB with only four finished entries?  If so, continue as you are with this odd definition of Amphibian.

We all know what an amphibian is without nit picking over the definition to the nth degree.
It is an aircraft that can take off and land on either land or water or it is a vehicle which can operate on either land or water.   Leave it at that.  If someone finds a loophole and bulds something "wrong", so what.  It's better to have a healthy number of entries than nothing.  The voters will decide.

[Mossie]

To call it an Amphibian/Amphibious GB then reject the actual definition is strange.

[TomZ]

All,

The following is my personal opinion so is not the official stance of the moderators as a duo.

I am completely fed up by the discussion in this thread. We do group builds with rules in order to build to a common theme and to build something that normally you would not directly build. If we did not have rules everyone can just as well build whatever they like and post it here. Oh, yes, that is what we do outside of the group build anyway......

The rules of a group build are defined by the moderators as a detailing of the group build title that was voted on earlier. In this case we only had the title and no further details. We decided to take the word amphibious back to its original roots, meaning "living in two environments" and not just go with the common explanation where everyone calls a Catalina an amphibian just because it can land on water and on land.
Whether you agree or not, that is what was decided as the rules of this build and that is what stands. If you don't agree to it and think amphibious means something else or if you just don't have the inclination to build something within the rules, don't participate.
If you think the moderators are wrong and too rigid, volunteer as a moderator next time and run your own group build.

I would ask everyone to stop trying to pick the current rules apart and get on with thinking of a build to enter here. If you have a concrete idea and want to run that by the moderators, send us a pm and we will discuss it.

End of rant.....

TomZ

[TomZ]

Again, just landing is not enough. So an aircraft that just lands on floats, air cushions, skies, balloons, wheels, wooden shoes, stilts, etc. is out if it does nothing else than just land and take off again on these things.

TomZ

So aircraft with skis fitted are out as well?

[PR19_Kit]

What Tom said.

If we allowed what has become known in the aircraft world as an 'amphibian' we would just be buried in models of Catalina PBY-5As and Canadair CL-415s with extra long wings (for example....) or spurious colour schemes, which would be boring.

The idea was to get some thoughts going and to produce whiff models of multi-use vehicles.

[McColm]

Okay,  what about a 'Flying Jeep' ?

Or a powered Hafner Rotabuggy , other 4x4s could be used?

[TomZ]

Okay,  what about a 'Flying Jeep' ?
Or a powered Hafner Rotabuggy , other 4x4s could be used?

That could go but do keep in mind that it can't add or shed parts when going from one environment to another. So the rotor or wings would have to stay on while driving.

TomZ