Boeing gives a lifetime of support for CAF A-26 restoration

[bdk]

CAS gives more than a lifetime of support for A-26

Boeing is known for providing a broad range of services to support its airplanes – from the time the airplane is delivered until the airplane goes out of service. However, Boeing’s commitment to superior customer support sometimes extends well beyond the norm – in one case, more than 60 years after the airplane’s entry into service.

In September, Joe Thomson, a Long Beach-based Commercial Aviation Services Structures/Payloads engineer, received a question about the Douglas A-26 light bomber from retired Air Force Col. Rick Hudlow, the Oklahoma City, Okla., unit leader of the Commemorative Air Force. The non-profit group is restoring an A-26 to flying condition “to show how airpower contributed to protecting freedom in the world” during World War II. The Invader bomber, which flew its first combat mission in 1944, was built in both Long Beach and Tulsa, Okla., serving the military until 1972.

“They wanted to know if a modern bolt was equivalent to obsolete fasteners” identified in the airplane’s original specifications, Thomson explained. Using the same Boeing Communication System that Thomson uses to send messages to current Commercial Airplanes customers, he responded to Hudlow that it was acceptable to substitute the new bolts “to join the main landing gear fitting to the rear spar on your A-26.”

“Your message and information were received and we are very grateful for your help, advice and attention,” Hudlow replied to Thomson. “Your response to our request for help was typical of the active response that Boeing has displayed toward our dedicated restoration of this fine old Douglas airplane.”

Ed Carter, Commercial Aviation Services’ DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 Fleet Support chief, explained that Thomson is known in Long Beach as the “vintage-airplane guy” who can always find technical information on out-of-production airplanes.

“Ninety-nine percent of our work involves DC-9s, MD-80s and MD-90s” Carter explained. “One percent involves DC-3 through -7 airplanes, and we may get a question or two a year on old military aircraft.”

Carter, who acknowledged he didn’t know that he was responsible for A-26 support until a few years ago, said the rare inquiries on old airplanes demonstrate Boeing’s commitment to customer service, a tradition that began 70 years ago when CAS predecessor organizations were founded.

Thomson, Carter and Michael Nau of CAS Fleet Support Engineering also were involved in a more significant request from the Commemorative Air Force A-26 restoration project. “About seven years ago, they came in and had a damaged rear spar,” Nau said. “We determined that there was no way to repair the part so we actually got Boeing to make a brand new rear spar for them.”

“This airplane would be in a scrap pile if it weren’t for Boeing,” Hudlow confirmed. “It wouldn’t have been possible to ever fly it again. And we think of these airplanes as flying museum pieces.” The group, which lists Boeing as a corporate sponsor, hopes to raise enough funds to complete the A-26 restoration and fly the airplane, now dubbed “Lil Twister,” by 2009, Hudlow added.

Regardless of who makes the inquiry or what the airplane type, Structures Engineer Thomson applies the same rigorous technical standards, whether it’s for a vintage A-26 or one of the 12,000 Boeing commercial airplanes currently in operation. Thomson’s dedication exemplifies how CAS fulfills its role as “partners in flight” to the world’s airlines and, in this unique case, the Commemorative Air Force.

“That response is typical of my experience with Boeing and Boeing people through my years of experience with the company, and the great Boeing airplanes that I flew, operated and managed,” Hudlow wrote to Thomson. “It is fine to realize that the same willingness to help and do the right thing still exists in Boeing.”

Photo captions:
ABOVE: Retired Air Force Col. Rick Hudlow, the Oklahoma City, Okla., unit leader of the Commemorative Air Force, stands beside the Douglas A-26 light bomber that is being restored, thanks in part to support from Boeing.

BELOW: Joe Thomson, Commercial Aviation Services Structures/Payloads engineer.

[B-29 Super Fort]

Glad to hear that Boeing still offers some support for warbirds after all these years.

[Chicoartist]

Kudos to Boeing for stepping up to the plate - good on them.

And let's not forget the plastic modelers, who are in large part making it po$$ible.

Wade

[EDowning]

Please enlighten me...How do plastic modelers provide $$ support for warbirds?

[Robbie Stuart]

Please enlighten me...How do plastic modelers provideWar contractors making military models a royalty pain $$ support for warbirds?

Chicago Sun-Times, Feb 14, 2005 by Maureen O'Donnell
Model hobbyists have long been vexed about having to pay royalties to automotive companies for the privilege of building snazzy car replicas from kits.

But paying the defense industry for models of military aircraft or tanks? That's the equivalent of double-dipping, hobbyists say. They're heating up message boards and lobbying politicians with complaints about the licensing fees.

"If I want to build an F-16 or an F-15, or a Navy Tomcat, or an Abrams tank -- or anything like that -- then I think the royalties have [already] been paid for by the taxpayer," said Tom Surlak, a retired Air Force major from Aurora who has built thousands of models in his 56 years. "This is the manufacturers trying to capitalize on something twice."

Licensing demands have increased in the last few years, said John Long, chairman and CEO of Northbrook's Revell-Monogram, one of the world's biggest makers of model and hobbycraft kits.


"What really upset people is when companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin wanted royalties" for military replicas, Long said, adding that the development and design costs "have been paid for by government money, taxpayer money.

"All it does is it raises the price," Long said. Generally, the royalty makes up 3 percent to 15 percent of the asking price, he said.

More important than money, though, is the principle, critics say.

"Were it not for taxpayer funding, the item would not exist," said hobbyist Scott Van Aken, who lives near St. Louis and publishes a modeling Web site.

It's a trademark thing

Chicago-based Boeing, with 2004 earnings of $52.5 billion, says the company isn't trying to milk the consumer. "It's used to protect intellectual property," spokesman Ken Mercer said. "This is not a revenue stream. . . .The royalties end of this are minuscule and barely cover the cost of managing such an effort."

Lockheed Martin says it needs to protect its trademark consistently, or risk eroding its rights.

"The U.S. government uses the products and services Lockheed Martin provides, royalty-free," said Jeffery Adams, a spokesman for the world's largest defense contractor. "Lockheed Martin retains all patents for inventions it develops, as well as trademark rights for all products it produces for the U.S. government."

The company wants to ensure that the models are accurate, high- quality and safe, Adams said.

Mike Bass said Boeing has been giving him headaches for a couple of years. He's head of New Jersey's Stevens International, an importer and distributor of hobby kits.

"I have a 50-page document here from Boeing that they want me to sign," Bass said. "It's ridiculous."

Boeing has "pockets of endless depth," he said. "Who's going to put up the dollars to fight them?"

Boeing wants a licensing agreement from a Stevens supplier -- a Chinese maker of model Boeing aircraft, he said.

Tell Lockheed Martin 'I paid'

Bass said he understands that Boeing wants to protect intellectual property like the 747. But for military aircraft, "U.S. tax dollars have already paid for this," he said. He worries that the red tape required by the military manufacturers will ultimately result in fewer model kits for U.S. aircraft. "In 10 years, am I not going to see any American airplanes because nobody wants to deal with this?"

Bass is lobbying his congressman, Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), for help.

General Dynamics of Falls Church, Va., maker of the Abrams tank and the Stryker armored vehicle, has a unique way of handling the issue. In exchange for licensing rights, toy makers have to donate to the Marines' Toys for Tots campaign, General Dynamics spokesman Kendall Pease said.

"When you hear from Lockheed Martin, tell them I flew one of their aircraft, the C-141," in the Persian Gulf War, Surlak said. "I paid royalties. . . . I willingly went in harm's way."

Copyright The Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------