General Discussion

[Weaver]

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

The airboat is floating by displacement and moving on water using an air-propeller. This, apparently, counts as "operating" on water.

A flying boat floating by displacement and moving on water using an air-propeller apparently does NOT count as "operating" on water, even though it's doing the same thing as an airboat.

A flying boat that uses a water propeller apparently does count as "operating" on water, because a water propeller is "boat like" propulsion.

An airboat using an air propeller is unquestionably a boat, but apparently an air-propeller isn't "boat like" enough for it to count as "operating" on water when a flying boat uses one.

If a flying boat qualifies as an amphibian because it can move on water using a water propeller in the manner of a boat, then why does it not count as an amphibian when it moves on water using an air propeller in the manner of a boat (an airboat)?

Two flying boats taxi 2 miles at 5 knots. One uses a water propeller, the other uses its air propeller. What's the difference in "operation"?

[TomZ]

Just to state it clearly (again.....):

A flying boat or float plane lands on water and yes, it can move around a bit using its propeller(s). Just like a landplane lands on wheels and can move around a bit over the runway.
That does not qualify as "operating". If we did that, we would allow any plane because all planes have to land somewhere.
I have no way in which I can see the crraft in the picture as anything as a boat.

So NOT allowed.


A float plane that lands on water and then uses another propulsion method (water propeller, sails, oars) to really move around operate as a ship on the water does qualify. So, allowed
An aircraft that lands on land and then uses some other means to move around as a car and really operate as a car does qualify. So, allowed.

Operating is not the same as just moving.

TomZ

[PR19_Kit]

Goodness gracious, why do we have to have endless arguments about the tiniest nuances of the GB rules?

It seems it's become part of every GB these days to pick the tiniest hole in the rules to try and bend them to a particular way of thinking, rather than to pick, or invent, a subject that FITS the rules and to just BUILD THE MODEL!

[Weaver]

Just to state it clearly (again.....):

A flying boat or float plane lands on water and yes, it can move around a bit using its propeller(s). Just like a landplane lands on wheels and can move around a bit over the runway.
That does not qualify as "operating". If we did that, we would allow any plane because all planes have to land somewhere.
I have no way in which I can see the crraft in the picture as anything as a boat.

So NOT allowed.


A float plane that lands on water and then uses another propulsion method (water propeller, sails, oars) to really move around operate as a ship on the water does qualify. So, allowed
An aircraft that lands on land and then uses some other means to move around as a car and really operate as a car does qualify. So, allowed.

Operating is not the same as just moving.

TomZ

I wasn't suggesting that the airboat in the picture was anything other than a boat, indeed the fact that it's a boat was entirely the point. It's a boat that moves around on water using an air propeller. Therefore if a flying boat becomes an amphibian by using "boat-like propulsion" (sail, oars, water propeller), then logically, a flying boat that moves around on water using an air propeller is ALSO using "boat-like propulsion" because airboats are boats. My point was to alert you to the can of worms you opened up by saying a flying boat with a sail is an amphibian, not to get an airboat into the GB.

Also, the limitation on flying boats "operating" as ships isn't propulsion, it's seaworthiness. ALL flying boats are, by ship standards, extremely fragile and unseaworthy: it doesn't matter how they're propelled on the water, their abilty to do any practical "boat" job is severely limited by weather and sea state.


Here's a constructive suggestion. This wording seems to me to express your intention in an unambiguous fashion:

"A plane that lands on water and then uses a propulsion method other than the one it uses to fly through the air (water propeller, sails, oars) to operate (not just move) like a ship on the water does qualify."

It makes zero sense to me, but it seems to be what you want.

[Weaver]

Goodness gracious, why do we have to have endless arguments about the tiniest nuances of the GB rules?

It seems it's become part of every GB these days to pick the tiniest hole in the rules to try and bend them to a particular way of thinking, rather than to pick, or invent, a subject that FITS the rules and to just BUILD THE MODEL!

I would suggest, Kit, that if you've written the rules in such a way that a flying boat with wheels doesn't count as an amphibian, but a flying boat with no wheels and a boat propeller does, then that's a bit more fundamental than a "tiny nuance" because it flies in the face of most people's understanding of the term "amphibian". Many people will have seen this GB on the roster and confidently expected to enter a wheeled flying boat in it, and may, indeed, have bought kits with that specifically in mind.

[McColm]

Is this GB only limited to planet Earth, what about using kits that were meant for the previous GB such as a lunar Ekranoplan?

[PR19_Kit]

Is this GB only limited to planet Earth, what about using kits that were meant for the previous GB such as a lunar Ekranoplan?

By definition an ekranoplan on the Moon can't possibly work, there's no air for it generate any lift at all!

[Mossie]

Is this GB only limited to planet Earth, what about using kits that were meant for the previous GB such as a lunar Ekranoplan?

By definition an ekranoplan on the Moon can't possibly work, there's no air for it generate any lift at all!

Kit's 2nd rule. Arthur C. Clarke's book A Fall of Moondust has a partial solution to the problem. The Selene is a lunar 'boat' that skims on the surface of a deep concentration of regolith (and gets into serious problems when it sinks).

If you created a boat that also could leave the dust and 'fly' to a base then it operates in two different environments. A moon 'ekranoplan' in principle, if not in the exact application of the term.

[Andrew Gorman]

RE:Airboats, On a project in Alaska we commuted to the site in an airboat-over the frozen ocean at first, then over broken ice and areas of open water. The displacement hull was covered in a sacrificial layer of orange polyethylene to protect the hull- the Marine Services guys said it would last about a season, and they would run the airboats up on the gravel beach at the end of the day. Does Ice count as another environment? A boat for open water can't function in it. Here are some videos of airboats in action on ice and other surfaces:
https://www.1000islandairboats.com/1000islandairboatsvideo

[TomZ]

All,

Please stop this endless and completely pointless discussion about all kind of hypothetical situations. Read the rules!

I don't know how we came into this discussion about propulsion methods. The rules state nothing about the propulsion method. So we don't care about them. Aerial propellers, water propellers it is all completely irrelevant.

The rules only state that the craft needs to operate in two or more environments. And we stated that an aircraft just taxiing to its stand or mooring does not qualify as "operating".

That is all.

Now please everyone start planning a build and stop trying to find the borders of the rules with all kinds of hypothetical discussions.
I for one will not read, let alone respond to to any of these kind of messages from now on. I am a model builder and not a lawyer, nor do I want to become one!
If you have a concrete proposal and want to know if it fits, just outline your specific proposal and ask, either here or in a pm to the moderators.

TomZ

[NARSES2]

I've just caught up with this, and I swear some people purely argue about the slightest nuance of the rules simply for the sake of it. So sad.

[Old Wombat]

I've just caught up with this, and I swear some people purely argue about the slightest nuance of the rules simply for the sake of it. So sad.

Something I've been aware of for many years.

Try watching lawyers in a court room, it's as head-bangingly infuriating as this lot! Because, despite the words "in the spirit of the Act", every lawyer wants to pervert the "spirit of the Act" to suit their own purposes.

Back when I was in the NT Police I was in the Magistrates Court when the magistrate got so fed up with the lawyers arguing what the 'spirit" of this particular Act was that he actually swore, said " FFS! This is the spirit of the Act" & spelled it out to them, then said "Now, stop arguing about what the Act means & get on with arguing the case, or get out of my Court!"

[jcf]

I've just caught up with this, and I swear some people purely argue about the slightest nuance of the rules simply for the sake of it. So sad.

It seems to be that some are always looking for loopholes that allow something they've already thought of to squeeze into the GB, rather than figuring out something that will work within the parameters of the rules.


It ain't rocket surgery folks.

[Rick Lowe]

Goodness gracious, why do we have to have endless arguments about the tiniest nuances of the GB rules?

It seems it's become part of every GB these days to pick the tiniest hole in the rules to try and bend them to a particular way of thinking, rather than to pick, or invent, a subject that FITS the rules and to just BUILD THE MODEL!

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

[Weaver]

This is the last thing I'll be posting on this thread. It's rather long, for which I apologise, but I consider it important that I'm not misunderstood, and if a picture paints a thousand words, then the reverse must also be true.

This post is NOT intended to provoke a response or to stir up a debate, argument or controversy. I would much rather people just quietly accept it and move on.

It used to be the case that before a GB started on here, a discussion thread was opened in which anyone could comment on, or critique, the rules. Rules were often revised three or four times in the light of this feedback, and the result was that they commanded broad acceptance, which in turn encouraged broad participation. This is no longer the case. At some point in the last few years, the approach has changed to presenting the rules as a take-it-or-leave-it done deal, and any comment or criticism is rejected out of hand as "nitpicking" or "rules lawyering". I'm told that this is because people are unwilling to moderate GBs if they think their decisions are going to be scrutinised. Some people think this is an improvement, but I do not. However, in deference to members who've been here longer than I have, and are both willing and able to do far more than me to keep this place running, I am choosing to stop fighting it and put peace first. I've seen a number of websites tear themselves apart with infighting over the years and I have no wish to see it happen here.

I have thus made a decision:

I am removing myself entirely from the business of GBs. I will no longer be suggesting them, commenting on them, participating in them or voting on them. This does NOT mean I am leaving the forum, just that I won't be engaging with some aspects of it going forward. Those who wish to Mod GBs in the future will not face any comment or criticism from me. I sincerely hope that this will end any current problems and prevent similar ones from arising in the future. In all honesty I suspect that those problems will arise anyway, but if they do then it won't be by my hand, and if they don't then I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

Now it is notoriously easy to mistake someone's tone and intention on the internet, to read their bare words in your head in your impression of their voice, informed by your imperfect understanding of their mind and your least charitable interpretation of their purpose. With that in mind, I'm going to do my best to nip that process in the bud by describing my current mindset as best as I can and anticipating what might be said and thought.

I am neither angry, nor bitter, nor petulant. I am not being sarcastic, snide or snippy. I am not sulking, and I will talk to anyone who wants to talk to me.
So how do I feel? Mostly peaceful and relieved, a little bit sad, but tempered by the certainty that I'm doing the right thing, and somewhat energised by the prospect of getting on with my own stuff.

I am not accusing anybody of anything, either explicitly or implicitly, nor am I trying to make anyone else feel sad, bad, angry or guilty.
I'm trying to move on in a way that lets everybody do what they seem to want to do.

Nobody has bullied, pressured or persuaded me to do this. I haven't been involved in any behind-the-scenes discussions at all. Literally nobody knew what I was going to post here because I've haven't discussed it with anyone.

 I'm not taking my ball home, flouncing, or being a drama queen. I don't regard this is as some sort of bombshell mic-drop (it doesn't matter a damn in the great scheme of things), nor is it part of some manipulative psychological 4-D chess game to get my own way in the end. I am not manufacturing drama in order to justify flouncing off to start my own website. Believe it or not as you choose, but I actually hate drama, and I despise grandstanding and manipulation. I don't believe in making empty gestures either, so no, I won't be back to GBs in a year or two.

This was actually a remarkably easy decision to make once the thought had crossed my mind. Since this website got me back into modelling in 2008, the overwhelming majority of models I've built have been for GBs. I'm neither the most prolific nor the most motivated modeller, so I have amassed a HUGE list of projects that I want to build, but have never got around to because I always gave GBs priority. Because of this, I've always had a love-hate relationship with GBs. I enjoyed the inspiration, I appreciated the motivation, but at the same time I felt frustrated at the way they controlled my build schedule and created perverse incentives. I'm also now the wrong side of physical, mental and emotional health issues caused, in part, by stress and anxiety. The truth is that I don't need GBs: if I never had another idea in my life, I could build what-ifs for the next 20 years based on what I've got now. I don't need the anxiety caused by an extra set of deadlines, I don't need the guilt that comes from missing them, and I certainly don't need to be arguing with people on the internet.

That's all.

Peace to everyone.

Have fun.