After 8 years of work, Mayocraft P-26D is flying [1/3] - 55790000-David Nicklas, P-26D 20080108.txt (1/1)

[Niccolo]

[[email protected]]

I've heard of Nate Mayo. A LONG time ago I was an attorney for
Curtiss-Wright, and he made a similar request to the Company in regard to
the Curtiss Seagull SOC-3 Seagull.

Aviation companies' concerns in such cases are that if there is a crash and
injury they will be sued for authorizing the manufacture of an airframe
using "defective designs" that are not within the state of the art. I don't
think there is ANY defense to that if a crash injures a third party, so I am
not surprised that the Boeing lawyer sent Mayo a nasty letter. Consider the
poster's comments about the handling characteristics of the P-26D that
mandated use of an extremely experienced pilot on this maiden flight.

OTOH, I actively sought to facilitate the building of a Seagull for the
Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, provided the aircraft replica had a
built in "crippling" element in the construction that made it impossible to
fly (think a main spar made of balsa wood as an example). Unhappily, that
was a showstopper for someone who wanted to make a FLYING replica.

I know Boeing employed the same approach when it authorized a company in
California to use its plans to build a replica of the P-26 for the Air Force
Museum in Dayton. If you visit Dayton today you'll see it there in all its
glory.

In a perfect world without people suing because of airplane crashes, use of
vintage plans to build flying replicas would be a great thing. In reality,
I would prefer a perfect-non flying replicas preserved for posterity in
museums.

Brian

[Niccolo]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:52:19 GMT, wrote:

>I've heard of Nate Mayo. A LONG time ago I was an attorney for
>Curtiss-Wright, and he made a similar request to the Company in regard to
>the Curtiss Seagull SOC-3 Seagull.
>
>Aviation companies' concerns in such cases are that if there is a crash and
>injury they will be sued for authorizing the manufacture of an airframe
>using "defective designs" that are not within the state of the art. I don't
>think there is ANY defense to that if a crash injures a third party, so I am
>not surprised that the Boeing lawyer sent Mayo a nasty letter. Consider the
>poster's comments about the handling characteristics of the P-26D that
>mandated use of an extremely experienced pilot on this maiden flight.
>
>OTOH, I actively sought to facilitate the building of a Seagull for the
>Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, provided the aircraft replica had a
>built in "crippling" element in the construction that made it impossible to
>fly (think a main spar made of balsa wood as an example). Unhappily, that
>was a showstopper for someone who wanted to make a FLYING replica.
>
>I know Boeing employed the same approach when it authorized a company in
>California to use its plans to build a replica of the P-26 for the Air Force
>Museum in Dayton. If you visit Dayton today you'll see it there in all its
>glory.
>
>In a perfect world without people suing because of airplane crashes, use of
>vintage plans to build flying replicas would be a great thing. In reality,
>I would prefer a perfect-non flying replicas preserved for posterity in
>museums.
>
>Brian


Brian,

You speak the truth, every word. I would have loved to help Nate
build a SOC-3, but it didn't happen.

As to the issue of building to fly vs. building replicas, for me, it
isn't really a P-26 unless it actually flys. To me a museum
reproduction isn't an aircraft, it's just a model airplane 1:1 scale.
I don't travel hundreds of miles to visit model airplane collections.
When I go to a museum, I want to see aircraft; things that flew.

Niccolo

[[email protected]]

As a huge naval aviation history buff I was in a tough position on the
Seagull matter. I personally wanted to see the aircraft built, and did a
fair amount of work getting the Naval Aviation Museum involved. As I recall
they were quite receptive to the idea of accepting a "crippled" airframe
that was authentic in all other respects.

On the other side was the Company's legal exposure and the position taken by
its aviation underwriters: the less risk, the better. That made a "flying
deal" impossible.

People who blame "the lawyers" for problems like this don't live in the real
world. Attorneys are RESPONDING to marketplace risks in an extremously
litigious society. It isn't simply "the lawyers" who want to get $$ if
people are killed in an air crash.

It is ironic that Mayo would have had a better chance to make a flying
Seagull if C-W had gone out of business long ago; then there would have been
no one to sue if he had used the Company's plans. Of course, it was the
Compant who donated the plans to the Smithsonian, with strings attached.

As for airframe manufacturers' efforts to extract license fees from scale
model aircraft manufacturers for use of the company name, I think that's
OUTRAGEOUS, especially when one realizes that in most cases Uncle Sam paid
for the designs! But I'll wager the drive for that comes from greedy
executives, not inhouse counsel.

I'm of two minds about relics, restored WWII aircraft and flying replicas.

We wouldn't have "Glacier Girl," the sole flying P-38E, if that
mega-millionaire hadn't made an incredible investment to pull her out of the
ice and rebuild virtually everything. But if she crashes, well, we won't
have any P-38Es, flying or not.

I give the owner a Glacier Girl a pass, but pray that she doesn't come to a
bad end.

Other than that, I think owners of SOLE surviving examples have a moral duty
not to put historic aircraft at risk "for fun." For example, I think it
would be an obscenity to restore the world's only Brewster Buffalo, Vought
Vindicator and Brewster Buccaneer to flying condition, and try to actually
fly them. They truly belong in the naval aviation museum.

As for the in-betweens in numbers, I enjoy seeing the old birds fly, but not
crash. I've seen both at airshows.

Re:

On 20-Jan-2008, Niccolo > wrote:

> it
> isn't really a P-26 unless it actually flys

I guess my response is that the P-26D isn't a "real" P-26. But then again,
the one in the air force museum isn't either, though only cognicenti would
know. ;-)

Brian

[Bob Harrington]

wrote in
ng.com:

> As for airframe manufacturers' efforts to extract license fees from
> scale model aircraft manufacturers for use of the company name, I
> think that's OUTRAGEOUS, especially when one realizes that in most
> cases Uncle Sam paid for the designs! But I'll wager the drive for
> that comes from greedy executives, not inhouse counsel.

I recall reading some years ago of a lawsuit that named Boeing as a
defendant when a child swallowed a small plastic part out a scale model of a
Boeing aircraft. Boeing's name was on the box, therefore they were guilty
(read: had deep pockets)

I haven't been to a hobby store in a long time to check, but I also recall
reading that the above suit was the reason Boeing won't allow it's name on
model boxes any more.

Bob ^,,^

[Lynn in StLou[_2_]]

Bob Harrington wrote:
> wrote in
> ng.com:
>
>> As for airframe manufacturers' efforts to extract license fees from
>> scale model aircraft manufacturers for use of the company name, I
>> think that's OUTRAGEOUS, especially when one realizes that in most
>> cases Uncle Sam paid for the designs! But I'll wager the drive for
>> that comes from greedy executives, not inhouse counsel.
>
> I recall reading some years ago of a lawsuit that named Boeing as a
> defendant when a child swallowed a small plastic part out a scale model of a
> Boeing aircraft. Boeing's name was on the box, therefore they were guilty
> (read: had deep pockets)
>
> I haven't been to a hobby store in a long time to check, but I also recall
> reading that the above suit was the reason Boeing won't allow it's name on
> model boxes any more.
>
> Bob ^,,^

Boeing's name does appear on model boxes.

--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

[Bob Harrington]

Lynn in StLou > wrote in
:

> Bob Harrington wrote:
>> wrote in
>> ng.com:
>>
>>> As for airframe manufacturers' efforts to extract license fees from
>>> scale model aircraft manufacturers for use of the company name, I
>>> think that's OUTRAGEOUS, especially when one realizes that in most
>>> cases Uncle Sam paid for the designs! But I'll wager the drive for
>>> that comes from greedy executives, not inhouse counsel.
>>
>> I recall reading some years ago of a lawsuit that named Boeing as a
>> defendant when a child swallowed a small plastic part out a scale
>> model of a Boeing aircraft. Boeing's name was on the box, therefore
>> they were guilty (read: had deep pockets)
>>
>> I haven't been to a hobby store in a long time to check, but I also
>> recall reading that the above suit was the reason Boeing won't allow
>> it's name on model boxes any more.
>>
>> Bob ^,,^
>
> Boeing's name does appear on model boxes.

Thanks for that. Quite likely what I read was merely an 'true internet
fact'...

Bob ^,,^