|
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:44:10 GMT, "Ken Finney" <kenneth.c.finney@boeing.com>
wrote:
>
> I'm 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
|
|
Re: Rec.Aviation OSH report
