View Single Post
  #37  
Old August 2nd 06, 08:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default Rec.Aviation OSH report

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:44:10 GMT, "Ken Finney"


wrote:

I am guessing that for tax purposes, calling it a "proof of concept" is
better than calling it a "prototype".


Don't know why it would make a difference, tax-wise.

My guess is that it's a combination of factors. "Prototype" implies it is

the
first aircraft of a series of aircraft, and Cessna may not yet have Board

of
Directors' approval to start production.

Also, if major changes have to be made (such as a switch to another

engine), the
"spin control" is easier with a "Proof of Concept." Big changes between

the
"Prototype" and the production aircraft implies some faulty decisions

during the
design process, but if you call it a "Proof of Concept" you can just

claim,
"Well, we were just trying different ideas, pushing the envelope, that

sort of
thing." Then you build a "prototype" that closely matches the production

model.

Ron Wanttaja


I believe that you have smacked the nail squarely on the head!

Peter