General Discussion

[zenrat]

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

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.

So what you are both saying is that we have no say in the rules once the moderators have set them?
Put up and shut up in other words.
OK.  If that's the way it is then that's the way it is.

Carry on.

[PR19_Kit]

So what you are both saying is that we have no say in the rules once the moderators have set them?
Put up and shut up in other words.
OK.  If that's the way it is then that's the way it is.

Carry on.

We're trying to avoid the relative chaos that resulted from the 'discussion' over the previous Spacecraft GB, which has resulted in only a few models being built. Putting the limits of the rules down ahead of the game and sticking to them prevents the never ending update of those rules that happened with the Spacecraft GB, and resulted in a re-draw of the entire Build.

[McColm]

Would the 1958 Convair Ground Effect Takeoff and Landing (GETOL) concepts be allowed?
I refer to the low-aspect-ratio wing, it's the one that looks like a Britten-Norman BN-2 with the wings and engines rearranged with lifting fans in the wings.

On second thoughts the Canadiar CL-415 with the wings lowered and engines raised would be nearer more Ekranoplanish.

[zenrat]

S'OK Mods.  I've finished spitting my dummy and have calmed down now.
I was looking forward to this GB as it was originally my suggestion and I have something planned which now will not fit your rules.  It's happened before and it'll happen again.
One has to realise that unless one is a Mod one has very little say in the rules.  I should have been quicker to put my name forward.

[PR19_Kit]

Would the 1958 Convair Ground Effect Takeoff and Landing (GETOL) concepts be allowed?
I refer to the low-aspect-ratio wing, it's the one that looks like a Britten-Norman BN-2 with the wings and engines rearranged with lifting fans in the wings.

No, it wouldn't, for the same reason that the air cushion landing gear proposal isn't allowed.

It doesn't OPERATE in two environments, it just uses the GETOL system to take-off, just like a conventional aircraft uses its wheels.

[jcf]

Electric trolling motor mounted on aft end of one float of a Supercub.
You cannot view this attachment.

Rohrbach R II

[zenrat]

Метательное Копье MeКo 7c 19a by Fred Maillardet, on Flickr

Posted here.  https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=44463.msg793731#msg793731   - discussion on masted seaplanes from pg 3.

[PR19_Kit]

That'd DEFINITELY qualify. 

[Weaver]

So if a flying boat with a sail qualifies, how about a flying boat with an engine-driven water propeller?

[TomZ]

So if a flying boat with a sail qualifies, how about a flying boat with an engine-driven water propeller?

Same thing. It qualifies

TomZ

[McColm]

So aircraft that have sails is allowed or not?

[TomZ]

So aircraft that have sails is allowed or not?

If they use the sails to sail on the water, then yes. As Kit has already said.....

TomZ

[McColm]

So aircraft that have sails is allowed or not?

If they use the sails to sail on the water, then yes. As Kit has already said.....

TomZ

Thanks for the clarification 

[Weaver]

So if an aeroplane can float, and has a boat propulsion system that enables it to travel on the surface of the water, then it's in, yes?

You might want to give this one some thought...

[TomZ]

You might want to give this one some thought...

The picture depicts a boat that is driven by a air-propeller. It does not fly, it does not travel on land. So it does NOT qualify.
An aircraft that flies and has an engine or sail to propel it on water, operates in the air and on the water. So this DOES qualify.
An aircraft with a sail that uses the sail only to fly also does NOT qualify.

Please read the rules! It is about being able to operate in two (or three) environments.

TomZ