# House Bill 4806



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Looks like it got referred to subcommittee.
Hope it makes it through and gets signed for the sake of the kit producers!

HR 4806 status


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ayyyy-men!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Those same contractors may not be willing to help with making sure things are accurate if they aren't getting any money...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

spe130 said:


> Those same contractors may not be willing to help with making sure things are accurate if they aren't getting any money...


 Have they been so far? Like, did Hasegawa consult Messerschmitt on their 109 models? Did Tamiya get together with Republic for their p-47s?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Good point...I was thinking more about current or recently-killed aircraft and vehicles where the manufacturer still has information that could be consulted to improve the accuracy and speed up the development of the kits. If I was creating a master for an F/A-18 model, I think I'd want to see if Boeing would send some detailed exterior drawings.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

spe130 said:


> Those same contractors may not be willing to help with making sure things are accurate if they aren't getting any money...


*It's not like we are talking about any significant amount of money here! The cold war days are over and any reason for attempting to withhold these facts is mote.*


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Mote?
In God's Eye?
:freak:


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I'm reading that right now!


----------



## HAT1701D (Mar 18, 2000)

As a person who served in the U.S. Air Force....if you think the "Cold War" mentality is truely over with and the "other guys" still aren't trying to get the advantage...think again.
Who do you think has the remains of the F-117 Nighthawk that was shot down/suffered mechanical failure over Kosovo??????...Try our "friends" the Russians...who also have began reactivating their Tu-160 Blackjack program and adding to it's fleet. As well as many serious upgrades to the Su-27 program such as the Su-30 and 32.
Then there are the Chinese who are getting closer and closer to getting a good aircraft operational that could challenge the aging F-15 Eagle platform.
It's no wonder that it was decided to make the JSF/F-35 program so much larger than the F-22 Raptor......realizing that with the severe cutbacks to the original F-22 production projection have severely hampered our ability to meet head on our upcoming competition.
Yes kids, it's true, if we get comfortable in the mindset of "our technology is so much better than the other guy's"...then Congress starts cutting back on the technology expenses to keep our military superior...and soon, we end up playing let's break even OR let's catch up!
If the Russian T-60S gets built and is successful....well things could seriously start to change. They may be wobbly right now......but never underestimate the Russian's ability to produce equipment in vast numbers and adequately capable...in fact impressivley capable in the right trained hands.
When NASA even teamed up with Russia to use their Tu-144 SST fleet for supersonic research...that ought to say something.......................

HAT1701D


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

The Russians have some great aviation engineers. Fortunately for everyone else, electronics flew right over their heads.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Still tied up in subcommittee...

Maybe we should have a demonstration or rally?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I work for Boeing and have spent quite a bit of time volunteering in the local History Office and take my word for it, these contractors could care less about helping model companies make more accurate kits. Don't worry, their lack of help will not affect the quality of future models. Most kit manufacturers go out to do their own on-site research with the actual subjects.

The Boeing History Offices around the country contain all the information a model builder could possibly want, in terms of drawings and photographs, but no one in the company is willing to take responsibility for "releasing" any of it to the public.

You can thank lawyers for that.

Phil


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, I needed a photo of the Boeing Business Jet for our company newsletter last issue. What a rigamaroll getting a licensed publicity picture from Boeing!! OMG!!


----------



## James Henderson (Aug 22, 1999)

When I was a kid I used to call General Dynamics all the time aout info for the F-16. They sent me all kinds of stuff - totally free! They even offered to loan me their last copy of their promotional Thunderbirds video so I could make a copy for myself.

My how times have changed...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

James,

What you say is so true. When we were kids, my local History Office was the one run by Harry Gann for Douglas and later, McDonnell Douglas. He would answer requests for info promptly (no matter if it came from some kid or ABC News) and for free! He was a bit of a curmudgeon but was always willing to help. In those days, most of the history offices that existed at the various aerospace companies were started and run by retirees who ran them because they loved it. And loved helping others who shared their interests.

Those days are long gone. I don't know how many times I have listened to the frustrated gal who runs our office now explain that she had gotten another request for info but could not release it because she no longer has the authority to do so. And those who do have the authority, are either too scared to make a decision or think that they can make big money by charging huge fees for the requested material.

A recent example was that of British author Tony Butler (writer of the excellent series of books about "paper aircraft projects"). He is working on a new series covering the American manufacturers. He got in touch with Pat in our History Office and one of her assistants jumped on the chance to go through the microfilm, looking for drawings of Douglas "paper planes". He found many but in the end, she could not release them because the good folks in the Security Department (only one of many dept.s which must review such requests) wouldn't allow it. You see, the drawings were labelled "secret"... from 1945!!

Good to know that our military secrets are being kept safe...


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

HAT1701D said:


> As a person who served in the U.S. Air Force....


Relax there, pardner. You're right, but let's not get off topic.

Actually, I have had opportunities to be on the manufacturing end of this process. Estes has an open license with Boeing, something like 2% of sales to use likeness and logos. The plus is that they sent over lots of great drawings and even some paint samples from Air Force One for our R/C version. Would never have had that open door sort of friendliness otherwise.

But all that having been said, I'm on the side of the sponsored bill. Tax funded projects are public domain.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The company I work for makes military avionics. So I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we have detailed plans from Boeing, Lockheed, et al, for at least the avionics bays of current military aircraft.

But just try to get a publicity photo out of them! :lol:


----------

