Posts of fictional projects: should they be allowed?

Should posts of fictional projects be allowed on the forum?

  • Yes, anywhere

    Votes: 3 4.2%

  • No

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Yes, with clear labelling

    Votes: 12 16.9%

  • Yes, but in "Fiction" section

    Votes: 41 57.7%

  • Yes, but in "The Bar" section

    Votes: 14 19.7%
  • Total voters
    71
overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
15,913
Reaction score
17,011
There's been a lot of posts of fictional designs recently. I'm not really happy with it from a personal point of view, but the forum is a collective responsibility so its over to you guys (and gals) to comment.
 
I don't mind it in the bar but if it's allowed elsewhere this site'll look like ATS in no time.
 
i m for fictional projects in Bar
the rest of the Forum is for real project or proposal
 
In the Bar - fictional stuff in my youth is what developed my taste ie Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, Joe 90, UFO...

Regards,
Barry
 
Again a question, that probably isn't as easy to answer, as it seems to be.
We already have quite a lot of fictional projects in the Scale Modelling section.
A project isn't fictional (at least not in our eyes), but if it is shown in the colours
of a certain airforce, or squadron, it certainly is ! A TSR.2 with in-flight refuelling
probe and laser ranging equipment under the nose á la Tornado, is fictional, too,
I've never seen such a picture/drawing from BAC. Nevertheless, for me it's interesting
to see. Sometimes "fictional" aircraft may be based "real" projects.
So, I'm not against it, but please, in the Bar or Modellers section only, and even there
clearly labelled as "fictional", too, maybe with a special message icon !
 
Jemiba said:
Again a question, that probably isn't as easy to answer, as it seems to be.
We already have quite a lot of fictional projects in the Scale Modelling section.
A project isn't fictional (at least not in our eyes), but if it is shown in the colours
of a certain airforce, or squadron, it certainly is ! A TSR.2 with in-flight refuelling
probe and laser ranging equipment under the nose á la Tornado, is fictional, too,
I've never seen such a picture/drawing from BAC. Nevertheless, for me it's interesting
to see. Sometimes "fictional" aircraft may be based "real" projects.
So, I'm not against it, but please, in the Bar or Modellers section only, and even there
clearly labelled as "fictional", too, maybe with a special message icon !
Click to expand...

The problem I see going down that slippery slope is that there are some who do a REALLY good job- and then portray them as REAL concepts. If you have those mixed into a forum section where there ARE real things in there it's only going to confuse the issue. I was thinking give all fictional/fantasy stuff it's own section "Flights of Fancy" or something and move all the fantasy stuff from the modelling section to that, move it all to the bar, or get rid of it altogether. How many times have you seen someone on a forum go "wow, look at this new plane" and it's some piece of fanart? Why contribute to the mess? Why would we want this forum like that? Anyway, that's just my two-cents. I voted for sticking it all in the bar. Actually now there is a "Fiction" section. Can I change my vote to that?
 
Strictly speaking, my intention for the modelling/artwork/cgi forum was to house non-official depictions, created by users, of real projects.

I've moved much fictional stuff into The Bar and would ask that clearly off-topic posts go there.
 
i think that if it's something that already 'exists', in film, literature, etc., like the MGP-1, XRV-1, or F/A-37 'talon', recently posted, then it's okay to have it in a dedicated Fiction-only section. but if it's someone's own home-made invention, then it doesn't belong here. Tophe's work is a special case, as although it's his own ideas, it _is_ based on existing hardware and/or genuine real world projects.

cheers,
Robin.
 
Fiction is for the bar I thought...like that dogfights of the future episode of The Dogfights series. What a pile. Seriously though I'd be bummed reading through some compelling material only to find out at the end that it's some fictional stuff. I'm gullible like that.
 
"Yes, but in 'Fiction' section" got my vote.

I understand that "fictional" aircraft would be one's own dream machines or Project X when depicted in Chad AF markings. But am I correct in assuming that rendering Project X under Orionblamblam's Source Grade 1 (ie: a provisional reconstruction based on description only) would not be considered "fictional"?
 
I like the idea of having a specific fiction section. One could produce technical commentaries or we could even have our own design competitions (perhaps having a separate section for the latter would be better). It would be interesting to see what people here would dream up as initial paper projects...
 
I find this debate most interesting.
My classification system considers "fiction" anything that has not been built, but I do admit the usefulness of splitting this wide definition in several areas.

In my opinion, they might be
- Individual creations
- Replicas of machines that have been made famous for having appeared on TV, films or comics.
- Projects that have been officially presented with the final objective of actually being built.

Experience tells us that any classification try will always have some exceptions, but we will keep trying....
 
Apophenia said:
But am I correct in assuming that rendering Project X under Orionblamblam's Source Grade 1 (ie: a provisional reconstruction based on description only) would not be considered "fictional"?
Click to expand...

If Project X was a concept studied by people in a realistic position to make the concept happen (such as aircrat manufacturing corporations, government design bureaus or military organizations), then the concept is not fictional. However, somethign witha source grade of 1 could well actually be fictional... if the description of Project X is somethind like "a massive modification to the F-106 to allow for Mach 6 cruise and VTOL capability," and nothing more, then any reconstruction you're likely to make off of that will be extremely speculative to the point of fiction.
 
Thanks Orionblamblam. It's the "extremely speculative" bit that I was wondering about.

Real projects from aircraft manufacturers with little detailed information available might result in Source Grade 1 artwork that qualifies more as speculative rather than fictional. Perhaps a "fiction" section could include such speculative artwork (appropriately marked as such)?

I've posted highly speculative sideviews in the past and benefited greatly from the resulting discussion and concept critique. It'd be nice to have a 'sandbox' in which to chuck out these speculative notions on the more obscure of unbuilt projects.
 
Apophenia said:
Real projects from aircraft manufacturers with little detailed information available might result in Source Grade 1 artwork that qualifies more as speculative rather than fictional. Perhaps a "fiction" section could include such speculative artwork (appropriately marked as such)?
Click to expand...

Indeed. There is a spectrum running from "project" through "scribble from an actual designer" to "fiction" all the way to "bullshit." For instance, a few years back I worked at United Tech , the manufacturer of the Titan III solid rocket boosters. While there, I did conceptual and preliminary design on a number of things, such as an abort motor for capsules and Orbital Space plane (US patent #6629673) and a reusable launch vehicle (US patent #6726154... which I was left off of and not even notified about... yes, that thrilled me to no end). While at the time I could provide you with detaield diagrams of both, only the abort motor was what you might can a "real" project, in that it was designed to a high level of fideleity and was seriously intended to be built. The RLV was much more hand-wavy. And while working there, i drew up a number of other motors and vehicles, some of which were very impressive looking... adn which were not really describable as "projects," more like "quick sketches."

The "quick sketches" are the sort of thing I'd say are relevant to the forum. While they stood precisely no chance of being built, they are historically relevant in the design development of Project X. However, simialr sketches I may have scribbled up on my own time and not for company purposes, even if done in all seriousness, are *not* relevant, IMO. For instance, on my own time a few years back I sketched up a concept for converting Shuttle RSRMs into *liquid* rocket boosters. I presented these concepts to a few people at work (I worked at ATK-Thiokol, manufacturer of the Shuttle RSRM) who rightly took no interest whatsoever. Such concepts are *not* historically relevant.
 
Generaly they should be in the bar. There are some exceptions, BUT THEY MUST HAVE A GOOD REASON TO BE ANYWHERE ELSE. For example when some real project/proposal was inspired from a fictional plane, it is usefull to post also that fictional plane. General Dynamics MiG 2000 was in fact also a fictional proposal, but there are very good reasons to have it in "postwar secret projects". So it needs a bit of flair from everybody of us during the posting. Thats all.
 
What do we do with notational art or drawings? What do we do with design evolutions (F-104, F-108, B-70 etc) where the early concepts never flew. How about competitors' designs that didn't fly(JSF, ATF ATB etc.)some of which didn't make it to the mockup stage? Perhaps renderings that can be tied to real or intended production designs should be allowed in other areas.
 
Since Barrington mentioned "THUNDERBIRDS" as their childhhod inspiration I thought I'd throw an inspiration of my own out there.

Dale Brown's planes (the EB-52 Megafortresses,EB-1 Vampire, XF-34 Dreamstar,etc.) could be a good example of fictional aircraft, VERY loosely based on real-world counterparts. They definitely fit into the "Fictional" category.

I know haters out there will want to nix the idea of a dedicated "Fictional Aircraft" section. However I think the idea has some merit. However, it should be solely dedicated to established fictional planes already seen on TV, in movies, or in print.

As section for self-produced, unsolicited designs, that's a horse of a different color and subject for another thread altogether.
 
elider said:
What do we do with notational art or drawings? What do we do with design evolutions (F-104, F-108, B-70 etc) where the early concepts never flew. How about competitors' designs that didn't fly(JSF, ATF ATB etc.)some of which didn't make it to the mockup stage? Perhaps renderings that can be tied to real or intended production designs should be allowed in other areas.
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to see the difference between say, the McD/Northrop JSF entry and the UCAV on the movie "Stealth". It's not rocket science. This site is all about the former, not the latter.
 
In The Bar for me. I'm as partial to fictional designs as the next person, but the fact that 90-95% of what gets posted here has some basis in the real world is what drew me to this site in the first place.

(Says he remembering the 'Thunderbirds' design he posted in another thread... ::))
 
I voted for fictional section for a different reason. During World War 2 and the Cold War there was a lot of fictitious aircraft facts running about, like the Aichi AI-104 Inone. Some of which resulted in the creation of real projects to counter them.

I favor those types of projects because of the interest that they created at the time.
 
Orionblamblam said:
...who rightly took no interest whatsoever. Such concepts are *not* historically relevant.
Click to expand...

So, we can say that concepts seriously considered at some stage of the design process (however briefly) are regarded as having historical relevance. But, regardless, artwork based on scanty descriptions still have an element of speculation in them bordering on fiction.
 
Hi
I quite like fictional projects but as long as they are just that and not a mask for genuine projects; paper, mock up or prototype.
Therefore they should be clearly labelled as such.

But I also don't mind if there is a separate section for fictional subjects.

Cheers
Peter
 
Got to have some fictional aircraft... overwise how can we keep up foreign relations?

"You were in a four G inverted dive with a MiG-28?"
 

Attachments

  • birdie.jpg
    birdie.jpg
    48.1 KB · Views: 49
At the risk of being judged contentious...
IMHO (my opinion is that NO Opinions are EVER "Humble"),
the whole raison d'Etre of "Secret Projects" is that every log is about some Project which fell short of "reality"; which is to say that each of the Projects Logged was either economically unviable or practically unattainable (at least at the time of design)
 
How should proposals from articles in academic or organization journals like Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute be handled? Should these be considered fictional projects and not allowed? What about proposals from thesis papers from military academic institutions and civilian universities?

Probably a distinction should also be made when the design of a vehicle or device is the result of consultation with engineers designing the real thing. The F/A-37 Talon from the motion picture Stealth comes to mind.
 
I love imagining aircraft that never were or aircraft that are rumored to exist, and I can't see why such personal creations are seen as intolerable on such a forum by some (fortunately a minority). The "Bar" section of the site is the perfect place for this kind of musings, yet I voted for the "Fiction" section so as to lift all ambiguity. Indeed, some "Bar" topics are informal discussions about real programs (I'm thinking of the current discussion on a presidential V-22 transport) and therefore fictional projects need to really be isolated from any section where real aircraft or real unbuilt projects are discussed.

On a side note, I wish to add that as a fairly newcomer I am kind of puzzled that the very name of this forum can be so misleading: the unbuilt projects of the world's aircraft manufacturers discussed all over this forum are certainly not secret anymore... The "real" secret aircraft projects (Senior Citizen, Fastmover, Aurora and the likes) are not only rarely discussed here but it is the forum's policy to discourage their being discussed... My conclusion is that the monicker "Secret projects" is deceiving and should be changed, clear and simple.
 
Triton said:
How should proposals from articles in academic or organization journals like Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute be handled? Should these be considered fictional projects and not allowed? What about proposals from thesis papers from military academic institutions and civilian universities?
Click to expand...

You could stick it in the bar and let the mods decide.


Triton said:
Probably a distinction should also be made when the design of a vehicle or device is the result of consultation with engineers designing the real thing. The F/A-37 Talon from the motion picture Stealth comes to mind.
Click to expand...

There is a CGI section.
 
I just read about the Tillman "Maximum Battleships" and I believe that a "Fictional Projects" section would be the perfect forum to introduce and discuss these designs. I believe that these late 1916 and early 1917 design studies have historical significance because they were presented to Congress and enthusiasts confuse the Tillman designs for a real United States Navy project.

I believe that the "Fictional Projects" section can be used for fictional designs that demonstrate real or proposed engineering concepts that have had the input of real engineers and designers, fictional designs that later inspire real projects, and designs commissioned by third parties that have historical significance or cause debate and discussion among project decision makers. It could also be used for historical speculative designs for real secret projects published in books and journals.

The "Fictional Projects" section should not be used to post models and or artwork for any design featured in books, video games or computer games, or movies.
 
Triton,

I think it's a good idea. In fact we have already included Western interpretations about Soviet aircraft or Vought's MiGs.


(Computer game aircraft and some chinese artwork posted recently will be deleted soon)
 
Not to seem unduly hair-splitting, but I think there is a diffeence between "fiction" (like the Mig in the "Firefox" movie) and speculative (like the Tillmann's monsters). "Speculative" is actually itself a borderline category. Example,the various Constantin Van Lent proposal for spaceships where had to be put in? Probably the new board should be called "Speculative and Fiction".
 
Skybolt said:
Not to seem unduly hair-splitting, but I think there is a diffeence between "fiction" (like the Mig in the "Firefox" movie) and speculative (like the Tillmann's monsters). "Speculative" is actually itself a borderline category. Example,the various Constantin Van Lent proposal for spaceships where had to be put in? Probably the new board should be called "Speculative and Fiction".
Click to expand...

Perhaps getting rid of the word "Fiction" altogether and call it "Unsolicited and Speculative."?
 
In response to Triton's Post regarding the Tillman design studies, these were not fictional but part of the capability assessment process. I was using these as an example of how few people understand the capability development process, which Triton appears to be one.

The "Tillman's" were genuine design studies which were to explore the maximum size a battleship could be built that would still be capable of transiting the Panama Canal, Though they were never considered for development into a design that could be built.

Design studies are part of the capability assessment process were the options available are considered before a commitment is made to develop a particular capability, be it a ship, an aircraft, a new structure for infantry regiment or intelligence gathering equipment. Issue such as cost, technical and engineering, manpower, support structures can be assesses including any negative aspects.

Design studies are not fictional if they are created by an organisation (either military or civilian*, that has input into the capability development process such as aircraft company's, ship builders, weapons constructors and military organisations.

(*this process also takes place for televisions, lawnmowers, cars etc).

Fictional designs are those created for other purposes such as entertainment, self gratification or to deceive someone. Eg all the "Super-Yamato" battleship "designs" with 12/15/18 x 20" guns, Spitfires with Napier Sabre or Bristol Hercules engines and the many "own design" WW2 that are probably being created as I write this.Loading...
 
Taking the last post as an implicit suggestion, let's make a "Fiction" board for the designs made for entertainment and leave everything else in its proper category (Aircrafts, Missiles, etc.). BTW, a lot of planes were made out of unsolicited proposals.....
 
I completely agree with the last posting.
"Fiction" should relate to the imaginings of writers, film directors, aviation enthusiasts...
I would also add under "Fiction" the artist's views that are elaborated for aviation magazines... and also the undocumented (however plausible) musings of a Bill Sweetman on the Aurora, for instance.
Any project that emanated from a board of engineers within an aircraft company, be they a response to a DoD specification or totally unsollicited, have their place in the regular sections as being both feasible and connected to the design history of these companies.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom