Militaries in the GB

[Ed Nirel]

I know how to get the Mod's attention!

Just keep compromising on the subject matter until it's all Military, and you'll not only get the Mod's instant approval, but have hoards of Military builder participants as well! You know, the same old same old.

The original idea was for an "Airliner" GB; cool, but then it was narrrowed down to those that are no longer flying, and now will include civilian acft in Military service? Civilian Air Commerce covers a huge spectrum of aircraft and companys, with a rich past AND present history, with many more miles/hours logged than ANY Military platform, so why should it be compromised or polled away at all?

2 cents for the gumball machine.

Frank

I think that the group build is still a work in progress and we're all, as a group, trying to figure out just what we want it to be. All ideas are, and should be welcome. I don't think that anything is necessarily being compromised, I think that folks are just throwing out ideas of what they think the group build should be. I went back and re-read the original thread for some clarity. To me, it was the idea of an airliner group build being thrown out to all of us, with a suggestion of a "gone but not forgotten" theme to make it a little more specific. The idea of an airliner group build has generated a nice amount of interest and discussion, which I think is awesome. It has even gotten me to set aside my usual F-15 for all the airliners that have been collecting dust in my stack of unbuilt kits.

I do agree with you, though. In the spirit of an airliner group build, military aircraft should be excluded. This is especially a valid point due to the fact that there is a "Trash Haulers" group build ready to kick off in January. However, one cannot ignore the fact that there are airliners in military service. Yes, one can classify it as a military transport, because it is in the military and it is transporting stuff, but one can also not disregard the fact that Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, or Airbus designed, built and placed the aircraft into service as a passenger carrying airliner. I don't think that anyone here envisions this proposed group build morphing into a military transport build, nor should we let it.

One of the key moments in this discussion is when Joe the Connie Builder, as I now call him, expressed an interest in participating with his Connie kit. Now if Joe had only asked if he could build a Connie, I think that everyone would agree that he could, since, well, a Connie is pretty widely recognized as an airliner. But, JCB asked if he could build his Connie in MATS colors, and the issue was raised. Discussion ensued. What's an airliner? What's a military transport? What is the average airspeed of an unladen swallow? All good questions, and all part of a good discussion. Again, discussion that should be encouraged (isn't that what a forum is for?). My main point for joining the discussion on the side of allowing military airliners is so that the group build is inclusive rather than exclusive. I think we're still working on that discussion and trying to come to a consensus.

The key here is, for the purposes of the proposed group build, defining what an airliner is, and that is what the discussion has been about. I think the poll has been great to not only help us figure out what we're going to define as an airliner, but it is also helping us gauge the level of interest in this build.

So to sum it up, I think you have great ideas and valid points, and I hope that you see that what is going on is not compromise in the sense of degrading the airliner concept, but rather healthy discussion that is needed to get the group build defined. The best part of the whole deal is that we seem to have generated a lot of interest in building airliners!

[Aussie_superbug]

Just like the 707: the VC-137 yes; the E-3 no.

The 707 was originally designed as a military transport, then Boeing put hedges on it that they could sell it as a passenger

airliner, so that raises the question should the 707 be allowed even tho it was sold as an airliner?

Just my 2 cents worth

Brendon

[flyfort17]

I think that the group build is still a work in progress and we're all, as a group, trying to figure out just what we want it to be. All ideas are, and should be welcome. I don't think that anything is necessarily being compromised, I think that folks are just throwing out ideas of what they think the group build should be. I went back and re-read the original thread for some clarity. To me, it was the idea of an airliner group build being thrown out to all of us, with a suggestion of a "gone but not forgotten" theme to make it a little more specific. The idea of an airliner group build has generated a nice amount of interest and discussion, which I think is awesome. It has even gotten me to set aside my usual F-15 for all the airliners that have been collecting dust in my stack of unbuilt kits.

I do agree with you, though. In the spirit of an airliner group build, military aircraft should be excluded. This is especially a valid point due to the fact that there is a "Trash Haulers" group build ready to kick off in January. However, one cannot ignore the fact that there are airliners in military service. Yes, one can classify it as a military transport, because it is in the military and it is transporting stuff, but one can also not disregard the fact that Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, or Airbus designed, built and placed the aircraft into service as a passenger carrying airliner. I don't think that anyone here envisions this proposed group build morphing into a military transport build, nor should we let it.

One of the key moments in this discussion is when Joe the Connie Builder, as I now call him, expressed an interest in participating with his Connie kit. Now if Joe had only asked if he could build a Connie, I think that everyone would agree that he could, since, well, a Connie is pretty widely recognized as an airliner. But, JCB asked if he could build his Connie in MATS colors, and the issue was raised. Discussion ensued. What's an airliner? What's a military transport? What is the average airspeed of an unladen swallow? All good questions, and all part of a good discussion. Again, discussion that should be encouraged (isn't that what a forum is for?). My main point for joining the discussion on the side of allowing military airliners is so that the group build is inclusive rather than exclusive. I think we're still working on that discussion and trying to come to a consensus.

The key here is, for the purposes of the proposed group build, defining what an airliner is, and that is what the discussion has been about. I think the poll has been great to not only help us figure out what we're going to define as an airliner, but it is also helping us gauge the level of interest in this build.

So to sum it up, I think you have great ideas and valid points, and I hope that you see that what is going on is not compromise in the sense of degrading the airliner concept, but rather healthy discussion that is needed to get the group build defined. The best part of the whole deal is that we seem to have generated a lot of interest in building airliners!

I totally agree with your statements. When the idea of an airliner GB came up I was like OH YEA. I have many airliners in my stash I could build for this. Then it was narrowed down to GBNF. Oh bummer. That excluded me. Oh wait I have a MATS Connie. So I asked if this could be included. First it was no. Ok no problem. Its military I understand. This is for civilian airliners. Then yes, then no. If its not allowed I completely understand. I really wish it was open to current airliners flying. I have 3 of 4 airliners I could build for that. The main reason I asked if my Connie could be included was because it was in my stash. With my economic situation right now I really can’t justify buying a kit just for the GBNG GB. Or buying any more kits for that matter.

[GCA333]

So, would more people want a regular airliner GB?

Things can change, this is still in the development stage.

I do thing it would be more interesting if there was a theme.

[David Walker]

So, would more people want a regular airliner GB?

I've always prefered that. I think it would make a lot of this easier.

[Ed Nirel]

The 707 was originally designed as a military transport, then Boeing put hedges on it that they could sell it as a passenger

airliner, so that raises the question should the 707 be allowed even tho it was sold as an airliner?

Just my 2 cents worth

Brendon

The 707 shouldn't be allowed? Are you the devil, or just his advocate?

From what I understand of 707 history, it was indeed a spin-off of the Dash 80, which was intended to be for both military and civilian use. But, the 707 was created in response to the civilian market that wanted something a little wider than the Dash 80. Therefore, IMHO, the 707 was created to be a pure airliner.

If someone even wanted to build a Dash 80 for the airliner group build, I don't see why it would be excluded. It's like saying the P-51 shouldn't be in a fighter group build because it originally went into service as a CAS and recon aircraft.

And back to the 707. VC-137: 707 airliner with military paint- yes. E-3 AWACS: based on the 707 airliner, but doesn't haul passengers and is a combat aircraft- no.

JMHO.

[Ed Nirel]

So, would more people want a regular airliner GB?

Things can change, this is still in the development stage.

I do thing it would be more interesting if there was a theme.

I'd personally prefer if the build were not limited to the gone but not forgotten. I've got stuff that would fit in both, but think we could get more participation if it were simply airliners.

I also noticed that in the trash haulers build they were considering civilian cargo aircraft like the 747-400F. We might need to coordinate with them and the site mods so there is no overlap. I know if they're covering something, we're not going to be able to cover it as well. I personally would like to see all the FedEx and UPS type freighters be included in the airliner build.

For what it's worth, here's what I have in the queue:

727-100 Alaska Gold Nugget

727-200 Alaska Eskimo

737-600 WestJet

737-900 Alaska

757-200 Ed Force One

757-200F FedEx

MD80 Alaska

Edited October 27, 2008 by Ed Nirel

[oldHooker]

I've always prefered that. I think it would make a lot of this easier.

My point exactly.

Ed Nirel: I'm not implying I don't welcome suggestions or discussion, it's just that I don't see any "gray area" myself? Yes, Military transports do carry passengers, but they are not paying, civilian passengers on regularly scheduled routes; that's what Civil Air Commerce is all about. ie: Airliners/Airlines. It's already a well defined, stand alone theme unto itself, and would garner participation on it's own merits.

Frank

Edited October 26, 2008 by oldHooker

[GCA333]

So should the GB be paying passengers?

Just asking.

[indydog]

So, would more people want a regular airliner GB?

I think if we decide to do that, we should exclude ALL military applications and make it just civil passenger aircraft.

[flyfort17]

For what it's worth, here's what I have in the cue:

727-100 Alaska Gold Nugget

727-200 Alaska Eskimo

737-600 WestJet

737-900 Alaska

757-200 Ed Force One

757-200F FedEx

MD80 Alaska

Great stufff B)

Here is whats in my cue.

747 Cathay Pacific Spirit of Hong Kong

747 Thai Air Amazing Thailand

737 Air China Fuwa

737 South West Sea World

So should the GB be paying passengers?

Just asking.

Sounds good to me.

Joe the Connie guy

[Ed Nirel]

My point exactly.

Ed Nirel: I'm not implying I don't welcome suggestions or discussion, it's just that I don't see any "gray area" myself? Yes, Military transports do carry passengers, but they are/were not paying, civilian passengers on regularly scheduled routes; that's what Civil Air Commerce is all about. ie: Airliners/Airlines. It's already a well defined, stand alone theme unto itself, and would garner participation on it's own merits.

Frank

Interesting, and I see your point. Let me make sure I understand: Airlines as opposed to airliners. In an airline group build, obviously this would include only for hire airlines and exclude military entities. An airline group build focuses on the owner/operator of the aircraft. An airliner group build, as we've been hashing through already, focuses on the aircraft.

I guess we need to figure out then: Do we want to have an airline group build or an airliner group build?

[Ed Nirel]

So should the GB be paying passengers?

Just asking.

If we do in fact make this an airline (as opposed to an airliner) build, I would definitely want to have it include all eras, not just the "gone but not forgotten" theme. I gotta say that while I'm still leaning toward the airliner theme, I agree that the airline theme would be much more clear cut.

Also, what about the freight dogs (and this question depends on the direction the trash hauler build goes regarding this)?

Edited October 26, 2008 by Ed Nirel

[Samurai_Chris]

I say Airlines and Executive transports like Air Force One, or Australia's 737-800.

Not troop transports or refuellers..

Just my 2 cents..

Chris

Edited October 26, 2008 by Samurai_Chris

[flyfort17]

If we do in fact make this an airline (as opposed to an airliner) build, I would definitely want to have it include all eras, not just the "gone but not forgotten" theme. I gotta say that while I'm still leaning toward the airliner theme, I agree that the airline theme would be much more clear cut.

Also, what about the freight dogs (and this question depends on the direction the trash hauler build goes regarding this)?

Wow. who thought model building could be so complicated. I would like to have Airline. Paying passengers all eras. Bam. done.

JMO. Another poll anyone :lol:

Joe the I just want to join a GB guy

[Ed Nirel]

I say Airlines and Executive transports like Air Force One, or Australia's 737-800.

Not troop transports or refuellers..

Just my 2 cents..

Chris

And, as an observation, the poll seems to be in favor of this 2:1.

[Ed Nirel]

Wow. who thought model building could be so complicated. I would like to have Airline. Paying passengers all eras. Bam. done.

JMO. Another poll anyone :lol:

Joe the I just want to join a GB guy

Dude, you crack me up.

[Aussie_superbug]

The 707 shouldn't be allowed? Are you the devil, or just his advocate? :)

From what I understand of 707 history, it was indeed a spin-off of the Dash 80, which was intended to be for both military and civilian use. But, the 707 was created in response to the civilian market that wanted something a little wider than the Dash 80. Therefore, IMHO, the 707 was created to be a pure airliner.

If someone even wanted to build a Dash 80 for the airliner group build, I don't see why it would be excluded. It's like saying the P-51 shouldn't be in a fighter group build because it originally went into service as a CAS and recon aircraft.

And back to the 707. VC-137: 707 airliner with military paint- yes. E-3 AWACS: based on the 707 airliner, but doesn't haul passengers and is a combat aircraft- no.

JMHO.

hi Ed

B) :rofl:

i wondered what response that would have gotten.

No in all fairness i peronally love the 707, and it was a really sad day when the last 707 was retired from RAAF Service.

Soto answer you Question............ no im not the devil or is advocate.

:lol:

Brendon

[Ed Nirel]

hi Ed

:rofl: :)

i wondered what response that would have gotten.

No in all fairness i peronally love the 707, and it was a really sad day when the last 707 was retired from RAAF Service.

Soto answer you Question............ no im not the devil or is advocate.

B)

Brendon

There's always one kid in the class... :lol:

[Aussie_superbug]

Personally I have a !/72 Scale 707 i would love to biuld for the GB, as a RAAF VIP transport

[Samurai_Chris]

Personally I have a !/72 Scale 707 i would love to biuld for the GB, as a RAAF VIP transport

Oooooh.. Me wanna see that bad boy!

[Aussie_superbug]

hey chris,

Its a Heller, so its not 100% there is alot of work to be done to it..... then the only thing is i really dont have anywhere to display the big boy, i brought it quite awhile back, looked at it thinking i could turn it into a desk model, but the wife had other ideas. :lol:

so when i do build it, it will occupy the shelf by itself.

B)

Brendon

Edited October 26, 2008 by Aussie_superbug

[GCA333]

Nice Brendon!

If you think the 1/72 is big, Sanger has a 1/48 707 planned!

I think it will be a very good kit for the GB.

[vc-10]

Sorry that I've not been around (I've been in the US looking at universities, and arrived back to London this morning).

I like the idea of the classification being anything that people paid to fly on (to get from A to B, not a pleasure flight). I know that the RAF sell (or at least sold) flights to the Falkland Islands on VC-10s and Tristars, so those would count, but Air Force One would not, as I don't think people pay to fly on it! But really, it's not up to me. It's a group thing (I sound like I'm a counsellor...)

[GCA333]

Hah!

Good point Felix.

(They do still sell tickets, actually)