k5083 wrote:
I'll assume that's directed at Tomahawk, since I sign every post, but it's yet another straw man. People have perfectly good reasons to use pseudonyms onine.
August
Not a straw man. I'm a journalist, part of the deal is to stand behind your words...otherwise it becomes nothing more than libel/slander and innuendo.
I've given my opinions, and you seem insulted by anyone offering their take on the subject.
k5083 wrote:
Jack squat? Silly politics?
Corrupt builder -> bad aircraft -> troubled service history -> dead pilots -> wasted bravery and unnecessary sacrifice.
August
If you agree with what I'm saying, that the plane should be judged on its own merits, and not on politics, say so.
I somewhat agree with your statement that great builders make great aircraft, but the cynic in me knows there is
more to it than that.
Nothing is that black and white.
Engineering excellence isn't always tied to the boardroom or politics.
Howard Hughes seriously underbid the contract for the OH-6, but the resulting aircraft was a good one. There are other examples as well, I'm sure.
And I'm sure if a conspiracy buff were to look hard enough, there are skeletons in every aircraft builder's closet. Even the great ones.
Of course that leads us down the road to..."one's man's doing business is another man's scandal". Some of a political bent might find even the great firms at fault for
something...possibly nothing more than the crime of being capitalistic enterprises.
IIRC, most contracts were based on a cost plus a fixed fee for profit, about 4%. Again, not a great way to get rich quick.
And then, they faced huge postwar tax bills of those profits. that's what
helped to do-in Packard.
And yes, I know what revisionist history is.