# P-51 - who currently owns rights?



## wolfpack (Sep 28, 2010)

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone has any idea who currently owns the rights (presumably the copyright in the original drawings/blueprints etc.) to the P-51 Mustang?

I've read on a few websites (e.g. North American P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), that they were purchased from North American Aircraft by the Cavalier Aircraft Corporation.

Apparently Cavalier was trying to sell a turboprop-powered version of the Mustang to the USAF, but it seems that they lacked the production facilities, political clout, etc. to secure an order for the aircraft, so they sold the project to Piper who apparently ended up selling a few of the new planes to various buyers.

From what I've read, it's not clear whether Cavalier just sold the rights to the turboprop Mustang to Piper, or whether they also sold the overall rights to the Mustang.

Cavalier apparently shut-up shop after selling the project to Piper.

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers.


----------



## davebender (Sep 28, 2010)

The original patents are a moot point as a P-51 copy built in 2010 would use modern construction techniques. 

A few years ago somebody built a modern copy of the Me-262. Externally it looks like the real thing but internally it's a modern aircraft. The engines are also modern rather then just copying the antique Jumo004.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

davebender said:


> The original patents are a moot point as a P-51 copy built in 2010 would use modern construction techniques.
> 
> A few years ago somebody built a modern copy of the Me-262. Externally it looks like the real thing but internally it's a modern aircraft. The engines are also modern rather then just copying the antique Jumo004.



I thought patents only had a certain time of validity? A P 51 has a rolls royce engine which is, I would think, property of RollsRoyce (same for the allison) and I am sure dozens of other parts like propellors made by other manufacturers. I dont know if a patent can apply to a shape. Whereas the P51 is a unique looking airplane, there is no part of it which is paricularly different to many others. Bubble hoods were common, air intake similar to hurricane, wings similar to Bf 109, front similar to any merlin engined plane.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 28, 2010)

Northrop-Grumman gets in a big stink if a game has one of their a/c in it and is not properly credited.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2010)

There are no "real" rights to a particular airframe per se. When manufacturing replicas (I assume that's where this is leading to) one change in the design and it establishes the basis of the aircraft being an entirely different airframe. You can rebuild an airframe up from a data plate and although you essentially have a brand new aircraft, it can be considered a rebuild.

Keep in mind that depending on the country, one must also look into what type of civilian aviation laws apply for the operation of the aircraft. For example, in the US, more than likely if one was to remanufacture a P-51 from the ground up, it would probably be register "Experimental" exhibition which would place limits on its operation. That in itself would show that the aircraft was built from a different design specification from the original design. One can try to apply for a manufacturing certificate that would have the FAA issues a Type Certificate for the aircraft but that process is lengthy and expensive.

There have been several people who have basically remanufactured WW2 airframe from the ground up. For some on to claim "rights" to such an endeavor would be silly and far-fetched.


----------



## norab (Sep 28, 2010)

It may be currently owned by Boeing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2010)

norab said:


> It may be currently owned by Boeing



And you're guessing?

Actually Cal pacific Airmotive owns the TCDS for the P-51C, D and K. Cut and paste the link in your browser.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/4f7a595fdcb10b5b862576ab006a4ffd/$FILE/LTC-11.pdf

This means they own the specific manufacturing rights for the original design. This does not mean that someone cannot manufacture a complete airframe from the ground up or rebuild an airframe from a dataplate.


----------



## norab (Sep 28, 2010)

Actually FlyboyJ, not guessing, just putting forth a simple fact. North American Aviation, the manufacturer of the P-51, was absorbed by Boeing, and Boeing does not provide plans for their products.

If you check these links you will find that all the North American aircraft and in particular the P-51 are owned by Boeing

http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/p51.htm

http://www.boeing.com/history/master_index.html

Boeing guards their trademarks quite zealously, even requiring their permission to create a model for computer flight sims. If you tried to build one and use the name P-51 or mustang you can look foward to long court battle which you will probably be on the losing end of, assuming it did not bankrupt you first.

not a guess, a simple fact
.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2010)

norab said:


> Actually FlyboyJ, not guessing, jus tputting forth a simple fact. North American Aviation, the manufacturer of the P-51, was absorbed by Boeing, and Boeing does not provide plans for their products.
> 
> If you check these links you will find that all the North American aircraft and in particular the P-51 are owned by boeing
> .



I am well aware of the NA/ Boeing merge/ buyout (I used to work for Boeing) and Boeing DOES NOT own the manufacturing rights for the P-51. The document I posted shows who can produce the aircraft under the current TCDS requirements.

Those links are nothing more than marketing tools used by Boeing because of their mergers. Lockheed does the same thing with Martin and Convair/ General Dynamic products. In actuality they are meaningless.

There have already been several P-51s built from the ground up and several have been flown and one even crash at Oshkosh a few years ago. Boeing had no leagal base should Cal Pacific Airmotive start rolling brand new P-51s down an assembly line, as long as they have their manufacturing certificate good with the local FAA MIDO office (Providing they are not going to be produced with an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate) and they build it to the data on the TCDS.

Not a guess, a known fact.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I am well aware of the NA/ Boeing merge/ buyout (I used to work for Boeing) and Boeing DOES NOT own the manufacturing rights for the P-51. The document I posted shows who can produce the aircraft under the current TCDS requirements.
> 
> Those links are nothing more than marketing tools used by Boeing because of their mergers. Lockheed does the same thing with Martin and Convair/ General Dynamic products. In actuality they are meaningless.
> 
> ...



That sounds a bit like a Rolls Royce car, Rolls Royce make jet engines, a Rolls Royce car is only called that with the permission of the engine company.
Over years brand names and rights get changed and sold so many times they disappear up their own behind.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> That sounds a bit like a Rolls Royce car, Rolls Royce make jet engines, a Rolls Royce car is only called that with the permission of the engine company.
> Over years brand names and rights get changed and sold so many times they disappear up their own behind.



To a point correct.

In this case however, when the Feds (and we're talking in the US) identify who holds the current manufacturing rights, its pretty hard to say otherwise.

In reality, I would guess Boeing would not want to touch this as if they tried to claim patent or trademark rights, they would also be liable should someone crash a newly minted P-51 into a crowd of people.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> To a point correct.
> 
> In this case however, when the Feds (and we're talking in the US) identify who holds the current manufacturing rights, its pretty hard to say otherwise.
> In reality, I would guess Boeing would not want to touch this as if they tried to claim patent or trademark rights, they would also be liable should someone crash a newly minted P-51 into a crowd of people.



That is the point I am making as well. There is the public perception of what is what and the business fact which is set in law. For a long time Rolls cars were actually part of Vickers and more bizarrely Daimler Benz group cannot use the name "Daimler" on their cars even though it was founded by Gotleib Daimler/Karl Benz because the name Daimler was sold as a franchise now held by Tata under the Jaguar name.

Anyway my mate down the pub has a merlin we just need a P51 airframe and we are in business


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Anyway my mate down the pub has a merlin we just need a P51 airframe and we are in business



And a data plate!


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And a data plate!



 Flyboy, I dont harbour fantasies about flying a war bird, I got my rocks off racing motorcycles in my teens and twenties and I wouldnt even do that anymore (I dont bounce as well as I used to).

The second world war had a huge, really huge number of deaths by accidents from memory the US airforce had over 4000 fatal accidents by 1944, and the RAF was the same (probably worse because of our weather) That was with new planes and a dedicated ground crew who knew their planes and young men trained to do it. I admire and respect the men and women who did it and indeed those who do it today but a WW2 war bird is like a GP racing machine not for the faint hearted, inexperienced or stupid.


----------



## norab (Sep 28, 2010)

If you look on page 3 of the PDF you link to, it specifically says on the right hand side of the line headed Production basis " *production of new aircraft is not allowed*"


----------



## evangilder (Sep 28, 2010)

norab said:


> If you look on page 3 of the PDF you link to, it specifically says on the right hand side of the line headed Production basis " *production of new aircraft is not allowed*"



That is an FAA document, not a Boeing document.


----------



## Maxrobot1 (Sep 28, 2010)

This is an interesting discussion because the producers of plastic scale model kits have been approached about licensing the design of aircraft. Just a few days ago I saw a P-39 Aircobra kit that had a sticker applied to the package affirming that it was a licensed kit. 
This of course is a sensitive issue with modelers.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

Maxrobot1 said:


> This is an interesting discussion because the producers of plastic scale model kits have been approached about licensing the design of aircraft. Just a few days ago I saw a P-39 Aircobra kit that had a sticker applied to the package affirming that it was a licensed kit.
> This of course is a sensitive issue with modelers.


I dont know how you can hold a patent for a shape after almost 70 years when the most critical "shape" was the wing profile which was reseaarched/designed/developed by NACA.


----------



## norab (Sep 28, 2010)

evangilder said:


> That is an FAA document, not a Boeing document.


 that is exactly my point. the firm the document has been issued to, in this case , Cal Pacific Airmotive, is specifically prohibited by the FAA from producing new aircraft of the P-51 type. they have the right to repair and rebuild them but the right to produce is retained by Boeing until it chooses to build them or licence someone else to, and because of liability issues that is unlikely to happen


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

norab said:


> that is exactly my point. the firm the document has been issued to, in this case , Cal Pacific Airmotive, is specifically prohibited by the FAA from producing new aircraft of the P-51 type. they have the right to repair and rebuild them but the right to produce is retained by Boeing until it chooses to build them or licence someone else to, and because of liability issues that is unlikely to happen



Are you saying that boeing realise the P51 was rubbish?


----------



## norab (Sep 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Are you saying that boeing realise the P51 was rubbish?



no, that is not at all what I am saying, let us say that Boeing sells a "New" P-51 that is identical to a WWII fighter for, say, $1,800,000. Let us then speculate that because of a minor failure of some small part supplied by a subcontractor, that the "new" P-51 crashes into a crowded shopping mall at the height of the Christmas shopping season. Let us suppose that a hundred shoppers are killed, scores more are wounded and several stores burn down. Because Boeing did not install a ballistic parachute recovery system they are held liable for the deaths, injuries and property damages which could amount to a billion or more dollars in jury awards. That is what I mean by liability issues. it is not a reflection on the P-51 but it is the nature of the lawsuit happy society we live in that causes it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2010)

norab said:


> that is exactly my point. the firm the document has been issued to, in this case , Cal Pacific Airmotive, is specifically prohibited by the FAA from producing new aircraft of the P-51 type. they have the right to repair and rebuild them but the right to produce is retained by Boeing until it chooses to build them or licence someone else to, and because of liability issues that is unlikely to happen


Your proof of that???? The only thing they are lacking is a production certificate. They would have to apply for a production certificate and they are good to go.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2010)

norab said:


> no, that is not at all what I am saying, let us say that Boeing sells a "New" P-51 that is identical to a WWII fighter for, say, $1,800,000. Let us then speculate that because of a minor failure of some small part supplied by a subcontractor, that the "new" P-51 crashes into a crowded shopping mall at the height of the Christmas shopping season. Let us suppose that a hundred shoppers are killed, scores more are wounded and several stores burn down. Because Boeing did not install a ballistic parachute recovery system they are held liable for the deaths, injuries and property damages which could amount to a billion or more dollars in jury awards. That is what I mean by liability issues. it is not a reflection on the P-51 but it is the nature of the lawsuit happy society we live in that causes it.



And that's why there have been several P-51s built up from scratch and labeled "North American P-51s" and Boeing haven't done squat against the builders.

Do you know what a TCDS is and what it means?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## norab (Sep 29, 2010)

and I qoute the FAA "The TCDS is a formal description of the aircraft, engine or propeller. It lists limitations and information required for type certification including airspeed limits, weight limits, thrust limitations, etc."
in the TCDS you cite as proof that Cal Pacific Airmotive has the right to build the P-51,one of the limitations set forth on page 3 specifically prohibits them from building new production aircraft . The originator, Cavalier never produced new P-51's, it rebuilt and modifed them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2010)

norab said:


> and I qoute the FAA "The TCDS is a formal description of the aircraft, engine or propeller. It lists limitations and information required for type certification including airspeed limits, weight limits, thrust limitations, etc."
> in the TCDS you cite as proof that Cal Pacific Airmotive has the right to build the P-51,one of the limitations set forth on page 3 specifically prohibits them from building new production aircraft . The originator, Cavalier never produced new P-51's, it rebuilt and modifed them



And that's because Cavalier or Cal Pacific Airmotive never applied for a manufacturing certificate. Their purpose was to rebuild or refurbish airframes, not build them, however the changeover is simple as there have been MANY companies who started out refurbishing aircraft and have gained ownership of the TCDS and went on to eventually get a production certificate and produce someone else's design. The most recent one I can think of is Cub Crafters building Super Cubs and Viking aircraft on the DHC-6. Owning the TCDS has advantages in producing parts for sale and gaining airworthiness certificates in other than experimental category.

Bottom line, Boeing cannot stop a TCDS holder who gains a production certificate or even a private individual from building a NA design based on trademark laws. There are people who have and continue to build Mustangs from the ground up and even if Boeing attempted to get them to stop, they (Boeing) are opening themselves up for liability lawsuits on all Mustangs currently flying.


----------



## norab (Sep 29, 2010)

"And that's because Cavalier or Cal Pacific Airmotive never applied for a manufacturing certificate" so you are saying that as of this moment, they are not allowed to produce new aircraft. that was my piont, what might happen in the future is speculative. the fact is that at this moment they are not allowed to because Boeing still retains that right until some future action changes the situation, So the correct answer at this partiular instant is that Boeing holds the rights which was the original question


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2010)

norab said:


> "And that's because Cavalier or Cal Pacific Airmotive never applied for a manufacturing certificate" so you are saying that as of this moment, they are not allowed to produce new aircraft. that was my piont, what might happen in the future is speculative. the fact is that at this moment they are not allowed to because Boeing still retains that right until some future action changes the situation, So the correct answer at this partiular instant is that Boeing holds the rights which was the original question



The fact that Cal Pacific Airmotive chooses not to produce airframes is a decision* by personal choice*, not by any rights held by Boeing. They make parts and components and owning the TC makes the certification of those items easier when they are sold on the open makrket. I have showed where one manufactuer has produced another manufactuer's design, you show me where Boeing will prevent a TC holder or an individial from building a P-51 from the ground up and I'll give more creedence to your argument. In the mean time here's the link to a "P-51" that was built from the ground up that crashed during a landing accident at Oshkosh a few years ago. I see no one from Boeing trying to sue these folks.

FAA Registry - Aircraft - N-Number Results

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 29, 2010)

norab said:


> If you look on page 3 of the PDF you link to, it specifically says on the right hand side of the line headed Production basis " *production of new aircraft is not allowed*"



Norab - Joe is right. 

The only exercise of authority that Boeing may exercise is the grant of inherited Tooling, lines drawings, test data, etc that Boeing acquired from NAA in the merger.

Neither Boeing, nor anybody else except the FAA has any authority over someone building a brand new look alike' Mustang AND flying it.

IIRC Cavalier got the remaining tooling from NAA back in the 60's when they built the COIN vesrion, so Boeing doesn't even have that asset in hand.

Look, you can trademark certain aspects of a novel idea and application, you can copyright the Name but you can't stop someone from building a 'new' airframe that is 99.99% identical to the Mustang (or the Me 262, or 75% scale Fw 190/51D, etc, etc.). If Boeing had ANY exercise over the Mustangs built in the 1940's they would disavow ALL rights to the Mustangs due to the liability of any crash and loss of property and lives.

When they bought NAA, I suspect it was largely an asset purchase as contrasted with a true merger in which all assets AND liabilities were assumed by the parent company. An asset purchase allows the acquiring company to include ONLY that which is useful in the on-going venture. As NAA had already sold much of what was the 'Original' P-51 series, Boeing was not in psotion to build Mustangs without completely re-designing and building tooling from a blank piece of paper -


----------



## norab (Sep 29, 2010)

I do not dispute the right to build a copycat or similar or for that matter identical aircraft, my point is that to build such an aircraft and legaly register the trademarked name "P-51 Mustang" as opposed to a P5151 or L51 or any of the other near designations requires Boeing's permission because they own the name. The qriginal question was who own's the rights to "P-51" and that is Boeing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2010)

norab said:


> I do not dispute the right to build a copycat or similar or for that matter identical aircraft, my point is that to build such an aircraft and legaly register the trademarked name "P-51 Mustang" as opposed to a P5151 or L51 or any of the other near designations requires Boeing's permission because they own the name. *The qriginal question was who own's the rights to "P-51" and that is Bo**eing*




"On Thursday, September 09, 2010, *a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for P-51*. *This trademark is owned by Honsa Ergonomic Technologies, Inc., 1300 -11th St. W., Milan, IL 61264. *

The correspondent listed for P-51 is JAY R. HAMILTON of HAMILTON IP LAW, PC, 331 W. 3RD ST., NVC SUITE 120 DAVENPORT, IA 52801 . The P-51 trademark is filed in the category of Machinery Products . *The description provided to the USPTO for P-51 is Air powered tools, namely, hammers, weld destruct tools, chipping hammers and riveters; Pneumatic hammers; Pneumatic hammers.* 

The USPTO has given the P-51 trademark serial number of 85126133. The current federal status of this trademark filing is NEW APPLICATION - RECORD INITIALIZED NOT ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER."

http://www.trademarkia.com/p51-85126133.html

These people also bought the rights to "B-17" "B-25" and "P-38."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## norab (Sep 30, 2010)

FlyboyJ you are again trying to confuse the issue with partial information. Trademarks are issued ib different areas of endeavor. That trademark is in the area of cutting tools, there can be multiple different trademakes of the same phrase. if you had looked farther in the TESS database instead of just stopping at the first listing of "P-51" you would have found seven "P-51"'s , addintionally you would have found seven "P-51 Mustang"'s and one hundred and sixty two "Mustang"'s
I will now share an email I sent to Boeing yesterday and their reply received today.



> Hello Norab,
> 
> Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, the P-51 Mustang is a trademark of The Boeing Company. You did not state your purpose, but I'm assuming it is related to a consumer product use. For all consumer product licensing questions, contact Gail Roth ([email protected]). Gail licenses Boeing logos and current and historical product trademarks for models, toys, software games, posters, cards, calendars, etc.
> 
> ...



If you or any of the other members wish to, I suggest that you please contact Boeing directly, just as I did, for the information


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 30, 2010)

norab said:


> that is exactly my point. the firm the document has been issued to, in this case , Cal Pacific Airmotive, is specifically prohibited by the FAA from producing new aircraft of the P-51 type. they have the right to repair and rebuild them but the right to produce is retained by Boeing until it chooses to build them or licence someone else to, and because of liability issues that is unlikely to happen



As far as I know Flugwerk (the same company doing the Bf 109s) is building brand new P-51s. I remember reading something about it on their website.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 30, 2010)

norab, I think you're really beating this to death. Bottom line, there have been and continue to be people building "P-51s" "P-51 Mustangs" and "Mustangs" from scratch and attaching either or both names to the aircraft. Regardless of what you have received from Boeing, these folks are using the name and building near identical aircraft to the original Boeing product. No one is stopping them from either building the aircraft or using the name despite what Boeing may have said to you and I think there is a reason for that. So great, a contact from Boeing told you they own the trademark of "P-51 Mustang." Was this guy on the ramp last week at Reno where there were at least a dozen "Thunder Mustangs" using the designation "P-51" on their airworthiness certificate?


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 30, 2010)

Similar issues have risen with Shelby Cobras, and companies producing Cobra replicas. Companies are still building Cobra replicas, but they no longer can call them Shelby Cobras as Carroll Shelby finally pressed legal matters. The companies making Cobra replicas must now call them "Cobra Kit Cars" IIRC. Shelby cannot stop them from making replicas of his original Cobra, but he can limit the usage of his name. I would think this may fall into the same situation.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 30, 2010)

Simply Boeing, Lockheed, etc have attempted to cash in on model airplane, replica, etc products for many years but thus far few to zero have succombed to the implied threat of Trademark ownership.

Perhaps because it never occurred to Boeing (or NAA back in the day) to make an issue out of Cleveland, Revell, mongram, etc back in the 40's and 50's and thus lost out on a window for a legal challenge.

As a point of curiosity, Boeng's only possible trademark for model purpses might have been Model 299 versus B-17 - which was the US Government designation for the 299. Bell has a reasonable claim to model 205 but the Army designated it UH-1E and the nickname Huey certainly did not originate at Bell - their only opportunity to Copyright or Trademark 'Huey" would have been after it was a common slang name like Jug for P-47 or Thud for F-105.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 30, 2010)

Putting this back into perspective the original question...

*"I was wondering if anyone has any idea who currently owns the rights (presumably the copyright in the original drawings/blueprints etc.) to the P-51 Mustang?"*

I think one must define the purpose here - to either build models or to build real P-51s from the ground up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 30, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Simply Boeing, Lockheed, etc have attempted to cash in on model airplane, replica, etc products for many years but thus far few to zero have succombed to the implied threat of Trademark ownership.
> 
> Perhaps because it never occurred to Boeing (or NAA back in the day) to make an issue out of Cleveland, Revell, mongram, etc back in the 40's and 50's and thus lost out on a window for a legal challenge.
> 
> *As a point of curiosity, Boeng's only possible trademark for model purpses might have been Model 299 versus B-17 - which was the US Government designation for the 299. Bell has a reasonable claim to model 205 but the Army designated it UH-1E and the nickname Huey certainly did not originate at Bell - their only opportunity to Copyright or Trademark 'Huey" would have been after it was a common slang name like Jug for P-47 or Thud for F-105*.



Spot on!


----------



## zoomar (Oct 19, 2010)

norab said:


> FlyboyJ I will now share an email I sent to Boeing yesterday and their reply received today.
> 
> If you or any of the other members wish to, I suggest that you please contact Boeing directly, just as I did, for the information



No substitute for actualy talking to people. The fact that many firms apparently choose not to take legal action against firms and people who use trademarked names and designs in homebuilds, scale modelling, and computer flight sims, doesn't mean the trademark doesn't exist and that one could be prosecuted. As was hinted at by an earlier poster, Northrop-Grumman almost took the computer game makers Ubisoft and IC Maddox to the cleaners over the fact they included Grumman planes (Wildcats, Hellcats, and Avengers) in the combat flight sim "Pacific Fighters" without asking permission and paying for the rights to the names and images. The fact that the modern holders of other historic designs and trademarks chose not to claim rights doesn't mean they can't. Probably, many of them feel the inclusion of their trademarked names and aircraft in a computer game generated enough positive PR to make up for the small amout of money it would have taken Ubisoft to buy the rights. Anyway, this was a big stink in the IL-2 Sturmovik flight sim community.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 19, 2010)

Do you think Heinkel Flugzeugwerke (Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm) could lay claim to this He100 replica?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2010)

zoomar said:


> No substitute for actualy talking to people. The fact that many firms apparently choose not to take legal action against firms and people who use trademarked names and designs in homebuilds, scale modelling, and computer flight sims, doesn't mean the trademark doesn't exist and that one could be prosecuted. As was hinted at by an earlier poster, Northrop-Grumman almost took the computer game makers Ubisoft and IC Maddox to the cleaners over the fact they included Grumman planes (Wildcats, Hellcats, and Avengers) in the combat flight sim "Pacific Fighters" without asking permission and paying for the rights to the names and images. The fact that the modern holders of other historic designs and trademarks chose not to claim rights doesn't mean they can't. Probably, many of them feel the inclusion of their trademarked names and aircraft in a computer game generated enough positive PR to make up for the small amout of money it would have taken Ubisoft to buy the rights. Anyway, this was a big stink in the IL-2 Sturmovik flight sim community.



I think trademark infringement lawsuits would be more realistic towards those companies who sell Sims and software as real money is being exchanged with little or no product liability risks by claiming copyright in the sale of these devices. In the case of REAL aircraft, you're looking at opening a liability can of worms that could go back as far as when the first "N" number was put on a P-51 to the next 3/4 scale replica getting ready to roll out of a hanger. Additionally, as already stated, the FAA has made it quite easy for people to reproduce such aircraft with 99% accuracy in many cases they used some of the "trademarks" in question when they initiated the TCDS, which in my mind would implicate them as well. To the typical corporate attorney, is this worth it?

Another thing to look at is building a P-51 or several of them from ground up considered "consumer product use?"


----------



## zoomar (Oct 19, 2010)

Flyboy, I think you make some valid points about whether or not an "unathorized" use of a trademark is used in a commercial application to make money. I'd be shocked if Boeing went after private citizens or non-profits who restored or built replicas of planes an called them "P-51 Mustangs". But what if they add a seat and charge $1500 a pop for rides in their "Mustang"? Or rent their plane out to a movie company making a WW2 movie? I'm also not sure it matters that the USAAF or RAF, not North American, actually gave the plane its names "P-51" or "Mustang". That didn't stop Northrop-Grumman from making Ubisoft/IC Maddox penny up for calling a bunch of pixels the USN designation "F4F"" in their sim.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2010)

zoomar said:


> Flyboy, I think you make some valid points about whether or not an "unathorized" use of a trademark is used in a commercial application to make money. I'd be shocked if Boeing went after private citizens or non-profits who restored or built replicas of planes an called them "P-51 Mustangs". *But what if they add a seat and charge $1500 a pop for rides in their "Mustang"? Or rent their plane out to a movie company making a WW2 movie? * I'm also not sure it matters that the USAAF or RAF, not North American, actually gave the plane its names "P-51" or "Mustang". That didn't stop Northrop-Grumman from making Ubisoft/IC Maddox penny up for calling a bunch of pixels the USN designation "F4F"" in their sim.



Actually that activity is governed by the FAA and is based on how the aircraft is built, equipment installed and where and when it is flown. Again to have some corporate lawyer trying to sick his fangs into "aircraft operations" based on a trademark is opening up another can of worms and may infringe in an area where the Feds have exclusive control.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 20, 2010)

There was a company in Chino building P-51 "kits" that were brand new P-51s built from the original plans. I can't recall the name off the top of my head at the moment, but they had the capability of having 2 seats. If you do a google search of "P-51 replica" you will find there are quite a few companies building replicas, calling them P-51 Mustangs.


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 20, 2010)

like these guys. i have been watching them for a long time now...

Arizona Freedom Fighters, LLC - Home - Mesa, AZ


----------



## jimh (Oct 21, 2010)

I believe Flugwerk calls thier version of the the Mustang the "Palomino". It would be interesting to contact them and ask "why not Mustang?". They can only be registered as experimental in the US and parts cannot be interchanged with Limited category P-51s. The C model is a good example of recent restorations based on a data plate and a few parts. 

jim


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2010)

jimh said:


> I believe Flugwerk calls thier version of the the Mustang the "Palomino". It would be interesting to contact them and ask "why not Mustang?". They can only be registered as experimental in the US and *parts cannot be interchanged with Limited category P-51s*. The C model is a good example of recent restorations based on a data plate and a few parts.
> 
> jim



But can with experimental category aircraft.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually that activity is governed by the FAA and is based on how the aircraft is built, equipment installed and where and when it is flown. Again to have some corporate lawyer trying to sick his fangs into "aircraft operations" based on a trademark is opening up another can of worms and may infringe in an area where the Feds have exclusive control.



Actually I think you missed (or wanted to miss) the point I was making. Of course only the FAA regulates the construction and use of historic replica aircraft. But the FAA probably doesn't care what I call my P-51 replica as long as it is appropriately certified as airworthyt for whatever uses I plan for it. On the other hand, Boeing, who apparently owns the name "P-51 Mustang" does have a legitimate concern that I get their approval before calling my replica a P-51 Mustang, and this does not constitute corporate laywers "sticking their fangs" into aircraft operations. The blood suckers are protecting the intellectual property rights of their clients. If I make money selling joyrides in a replica I call a "P-51 Mustang", they have every right to their cut, because just possibly Ms Maggie Maloney paid me 1000 bucks expressly because she wanted to experience a barrel roll in a "P-51 Mustang" on her 35th birthday. Either I call the thing a Palomino or Stallion or Moosetang or I pay for the rights. This is the American way. Allways has been. I don't like it but that's the way things are. It is not infringing on the FAA's role in overseeing private aviation.

To be honest, I don't understand why names assigned by the USAAF and/or RAF to a plane North American called the NA-73 can be considered corporate trademarks at all, but apparently that appears to be settled law and we are stuck with it.


----------



## Southron (Mar 15, 2012)

Back in 1966 I was in flight school over at Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Academy at Opa Locka Airport in Opa Locka, Florida. I remember flying a Cessna 150 over to Sarasota (?) Florida where Cavalier had their Headquarters.

One thing for sure, I was not disappointed because parked out on the Cavalier ramp was something like 30 or 40 Mustangs! None of them still had any vestige of their old military paint jobs-all were painted in various civilian color schemes.

Well, just like it was a "Used Car Lot" I walked out among the parked Mustangs and sure enough, just like a Used Car Salesman, someone from Cavalier walked out of their building and offered to show me around.

The Mustang that caught my eye was one painted in several shades of BRIGHT PINK! The salesman (or whoever he was) invited me to go over with him and take a look at it because it had just come out of the shop from a full rebuild. He even invited me to climb up on the wing and take a look into the cockpit.

The interior of the cockpit was also painted in several shades of pink and even had some lace on the lip of the instrument panel! I was stunned. The salesman explained to me that the airplane had been purchased by a lady from Texas and they had rebuilt and repainted the airplane to her specifications. He told me that she would be flying in the next day or so to pick up that Mustang and fly it back home!

Needless to say, that "Passion Pink Mustang" pretty well destroyed the image I had in my mind that the Mustang was a MACHO, BRUTE WAR MACHINE. Heck, even a little old lady from Texas were flying that one in the 1960's!


----------



## Southron (Mar 15, 2012)

Regarding the discussion on the use of the name "P-51 Mustang," I have a feeling that name has been copyrighted (by someone) in the U.S. Patent Office.

Generally, the Patent Office will allow any one or any corporation to copyright their "Brand names," "Company logos," etc. as long as no one has copyrighted the same brand name or logo previously. For example, I could not start building cars and claim that I was "Ford Motor Company" because Ford has copyrighted their name and logos long ago.

Now, certain things cannot be copyrighted, for example-anything considered to be in the "Public Domain." For example, no one can copyright the American Flag, the Great Seal of the United States, and many others because those names and logos are in the Public Domain.

I think that a good argument could be made that the terms "P-51 Mustang" is now in the Public Domain, so IF I were to build an airplane and call it a "P-51 Mustang," whoever holds the copyright on the "P-51 Mustang" name would have to sue me and WIN to prevent me from using that name.

IF I did use the name "P-51 Mustang" for an airplane I built, and I was sued, then my lawyer's argument would be that the term "P-51 Mustang" has passed into the Public Domain and that anyone can use it. That is the ONLY way I could win the law suit. If I lost the law suit, then not only could I no longer use the term "P-51 Mustang" but I would be liable for damages and also court costs.

I AM NOT a lawyer but years ago I was involved in a copyright lawsuit which my attorneys won, so a practicing attorney would know much more than I do about the copyright laws.

As for the actual technology used to build the Mustang. Most patents are good for a period of 14 years unless extended. I doubt that there is anything in the technology employed in the Mustangs built in the 1940's that is still under patent protection.

As for FAA Rules and Regulations-that is entirely another matter. Of course, anyone that builds a P-51 in the United States must follow the rules and regulations laid down by the FAA.


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 15, 2012)

Aren't P-51 and 'Mustang" the USAAF allocations, not North American's?
If so, the names, at least would fall into the public domain.

As for the design, I think Boeing would have a hard time trying to procesute _*if*_ they did own any form of patent. Given that there have been so many replicas and work done without anyone's consent, and subsequent legal proceedings, I would argue that it is fair to claim that any rights have been abandoned.

This is why Apple are so hot on protecting their patents. Once you ignore one copy, it is hard to protect your design against future copies.

To make things harder, copyright and patent law varies from country to country, and aviation being a very international industry, there are always ways around it.


----------



## GregP (Mar 16, 2012)

It was stated above that the Me-262 replicas finished up in Washington at Paine Field are modern airplanes underneath.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Stormbird Me-262 replicas are faithful replicas, build to susch exact Messerschmitt standards that the Messerschmitt issued the Stormbirds replicas consecutive serial numbers from the end of teh me-262 actual production runs. EVERYTHING was stock Messerschmitt except for the turbojets, which were J-85's, limited to the stock thrust settings and placarded at stock airspeeds. ONLY the jet engines and some modern avionics were other than WWII standard.

I toured the Sptormbird operation just before the first one was delivered and was told by the people these facts at that time, and I SAW the interior of the me-262 through inspection hatches. It was the same as the reference drawings, down to rivet placement, wooden gear doors, and many wood parts (including the cannons!).


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2012)

Didn't they have a couple of old examples on loan to build tooling for the Stormbird 262s as well, Greg?


----------



## jimh (Mar 16, 2012)

GregP said:


> It was stated above that the Me-262 replicas finished up in Washington at Paine Field are modern airplanes underneath.
> 
> Nothing could be further from the truth. The Stormbird Me-262 replicas are faithful replicas, build to susch exact Messerschmitt standards that the Messerschmitt issued the Stormbirds replicas consecutive serial numbers from the end of teh me-262 actual production runs. EVERYTHING was stock Messerschmitt except for the turbojets, which were J-85's, limited to the stock thrust settings and placarded at stock airspeeds. ONLY the jet engines and some modern avionics were other than WWII standard.
> 
> I toured the Sptormbird operation just before the first one was delivered and was told by the people these facts at that time, and I SAW the interior of the me-262 through inspection hatches. It was the same as the reference drawings, down to rivet placement, wooden gear doors, and many wood parts (including the cannons!).



While it is true that they reversed engineered an original they are far from exact and the airworthy machine that Collings owns has been reworked to bring it to today's airworthy standards. All the systems were "americanized" by Stormbirds. It has been at Sanders almost 4 years. It was a monumental effort by Sanders that is only now coming to fruition. They have done an awesome job overhauling the original product. 
Sanders Aeronautics - Restoration - Collings Foundation's Messerschmitt Me 262 B-1C "White 1"

these are photos I shot a couple years ago






some of the parts had to be remanufactured




slats made to fit the pockets




cockpit modernized for safety





As to the original topic I remember reading somewhere that Art Teeters owns the P-51 Type Certificate.

Jim


----------



## Southron (Mar 16, 2012)

Well maybe one of those replica ME-262's will provide an answer to the question: WAS THE ME-262 WAS THE FIRST SUPERSONIC FIGHTER?

There are some reports from World War II that on several occasions, a ME-262 went into a dive at full power and the pilots of nearby aircraft heard a loud "BOOM" as the ME-262 flew away at a high rate of speed!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2012)

Southron said:


> As for FAA Rules and Regulations-that is entirely another matter. Of course, anyone that builds a P-51 in the United States must follow the rules and regulations laid down by the FAA.


If I was to restore a P-51 from a "data plate" or have to re-create a data plate I think I would be protected under CFR Title 14 should "someone" not like the idea that my aircraft carried a P-51 designation, that's the point here. The Feds are basically telling you what the aircraft is. After an airworthiness certificate is issued all bets are off IMO



jim said:


> While it is true that they reversed engineered an original they are far from exact and the airworthy machine that Collings owns has been reworked to bring it to today's airworthy standards.


Now now Jim, this plane can never be "airworthy," it doesn't carry a TCDS, I see "EXPERIMENTAL" as clear as day on the cockpit sill  


Southron said:


> Well maybe one of those replica ME-262's will provide an answer to the question: WAS THE ME-262 WAS THE FIRST SUPERSONIC FIGHTER?
> 
> There are some reports from World War II that on several occasions, a ME-262 went into a dive at full power and the pilots of nearby aircraft heard a loud "BOOM" as the ME-262 flew away at a high rate of speed!



The 262 WAS NOT the first supersonic fighter and did not go supersonic IMO although there were reports of this happening. Hans Guido Mutke was the man who claimed he went supersonic and although he described almost the exact conditions one would experience during supersonic flight, one needed to know air density and temperature to really determine if this happened. The 262 did not have an "area rule" fuselage and with the location of the engines would have created additional drag that probably made trans or supersonic flight impossible. Additionally i think the aircraft would have shook itself apart first.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 18, 2012)

if you want to know who owns the rights and under what is it designated...ask the developers of any video game that uses that ac. before they can add it to their list of ac in a game they have to get permission and/or pay to use them. just learned this on another site ( game ) where the use of the P 47 was in question. someone owns the rights and is entitled to make $$$ off of the design or use....whether they do or not...or why is at their discretion.


----------



## GregP (Mar 18, 2012)

Norab, you are msitaken in this case. Whatever they call it, you CAN build a P-51 and get it flying.


----------



## PilotWannaBe (Aug 20, 2014)

davebender said:


> The original patents are a moot point as a P-51 copy built in 2010 would use modern construction techniques.
> 
> A few years ago somebody built a modern copy of the Me-262. Externally it looks like the real thing but internally it's a modern aircraft. The engines are also modern rather then just copying the antique Jumo004.



I got to tour the Legend Flyers facility and sit in the planes while they were being built. The Me-262s were built under licence from Messerschmitt, have serial numbers provided in sequence by Messerschmitt, and are thus "remanufacures". The airframes are made from the original designs and specifications, plus the dis-assembly of an original, with some safety improvements. The J-58 engines are encased in a shell cast from the Jumos, and that shell is mounted in the nacelles. 

See Me 262 PROJECT HISTORY


----------



## N4521U (Aug 20, 2014)

I own the rights!
So anyone who has Ever built a kit should send me a 5 dollar fee per build.
Adress to follow!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2014)

Don't forget T-shirt sales, coffee mugs, mouse pads and souvenir plates and spoons


----------



## N4521U (Aug 20, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Don't forget T-shirt sales, coffee mugs, mouse pads and souvenir plates and spoons



Looks like I need a second in command!


----------



## GregP (Aug 21, 2014)

Can I purchase the rights to transparent plastic? That way anyone wanting to look outside a modern cockpit would have to pay a royalty.

Oh, and those girls who dress up in clear plastic clothes? I'd OWN the rights to the first look!

Maybe it would be better to own the right s to toilet paper ... you'd have a captive client list, for sure.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 21, 2014)

Gladly, I'm not an IP lawyer. I think that trying to figure out the vagaries of IP law would make Satan weep. 

As for license fees: I suspect that somebody with deep enough pockets could show that Northrop-Grumman can't control the use, even the commercial use, of the images of WW2-era Grumman aircraft. On the other hand, I'd rather not have to go to the court that NG choses, where it's likely that the judges were all vetted by NG lobbyists.


----------



## GregP (Aug 21, 2014)

Often the legal battle is won by the side with deeper pockets. I know 3 - 4 people who lost just because of inability to keep up with the expense of fighting the battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 21, 2014)

GregP said:


> Often the legal battle is won by the side with deeper pockets. I know 3 - 4 people who lost just because of inability to keep up with the expense of fighting the battle.



It's been a real serious problem for science journalists, especially in the UK. When it was published that one form of "medical" treatment paid for by the NHS was quackery, the quack's professional organization sued for libel. And won -- at the time, under English law, truth was not an adequate defense against libel. Apparently, there's also a clade of solicitors who will take on libel cases, on spec, because defending against libel is so expensive, most people will settle.

As for the deeper pockets winning? Happens all the time in US courts, especially with patent cases.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2014)

I recall many years ago, a guy who specialized in grabbing up expiring patents (he even grabbed Dr. Axelrod's Fish Atlas from underneath the author) discovered there was no actual patent on the Styrofoam ice chests that used to be so popular.

He swooped in, patented the design/concept, then went around and collected a fortune from infringement lawsuits. He pretty much killed off the styrofoam ice chest industry with that stunt.


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 22, 2014)

I predict these issues will become enormous in the next few years.

Rapid prototyping machines mean that for less than $1000 you can buy a machine that can print 3D objects. My company uses a $2000 3D printer to make models of the industrial machinery we sell. You can print a whistle with the ball inside. More expensive ones can print aircraft structural parts out of high grade certifiable aviation titanium. The RAF now prints spare parts of the Panavia Tornado. Recently Civilian German technology of the German company EOS was acquired by China and will advanced their aviation industry by a decade.

Direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) is the process EOS uses. Currently available alloys used in the process include 17-4 and 15-5 stainless steel, maraging steel, cobalt chromium, inconel 625 and 718, and titanium Ti6Al4V. Theoretically, almost any alloy metal can be used in this process once fully developed and validated.

I predict this technology will greatly simplifying restoring an aircraft and will allow rebuilds of famous war birds.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2014)

Folks, the way I see an angle around (at least in the US) this is when the FAA issues an airworthy certificate and calls the aircraft a "P-51," or "Mustang," or whatever, I'd tell anyone who has an issue to take it up with the FAA and then go pound sand until THEY could get the Feds to re-issue a new airworthiness certificate. Hire all the lawyers you want to deal with the FAA, utill such time the aircraft "is what it is" untill the FAA says differently. An airworthy certificate is a legal document under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14. Have a nice day!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2014)

That is known as falling from the esoteric 'theoretical' to the sewer of the 'practical' - and learn to love it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 24, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> I recall many years ago, a guy who specialized in grabbing up expiring patents (he even grabbed Dr. Axelrod's Fish Atlas from underneath the author) discovered there was no actual patent on the Styrofoam ice chests that used to be so popular.
> 
> He swooped in, patented the design/concept, then went around and collected a fortune from infringement lawsuits. He pretty much killed off the styrofoam ice chest industry with that stunt.



You can't patent an already-existing design. Anyone who was manufacturing would have been able to claim (rightly) that they had come up with the design.
Those bins are pretty readily available around here.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 24, 2014)

You can patent anything that does not have an existing patent. Those common ice chests were made on a basic design (shape and capacity) and yet no one had a patent to them. This was his loophole.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 24, 2014)

Well, that makes your guys' law stupid.

NZ courts won't uphold any patent where it is proved that the manufacturer was producing prior to the patent being granted. 

In fact a patent is defined as : "an exclusive right granted by the Government for a new invention." The key word here is _new_.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 24, 2014)

Aparently, this guy hovered around the patent office, researching and looking for loopholes. This is how this guy made his fortune.

From what I recall (this happened in the 1980's), the styrofoam ice chest industry never had a set rule of dimensions, capacity and had simply evolved from the onset to become a common object in everyday life. There were several other things this guy latched onto, like the shape of a hosebib (out door water faucet) which again, is a design that evolved over the years and everyone took it for granted. If an onject is in general use, and does not or didn't have, a patent, that does not protect it from being patented. In the business world, there is not "gentleman's agreement". If you don't cover your a$$, someone will eventually hand it to you...


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 25, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> I recall many years ago, a guy who specialized in grabbing up expiring patents (he even grabbed Dr. Axelrod's Fish Atlas from underneath the author) discovered there was no actual patent on the Styrofoam ice chests that used to be so popular.
> 
> He swooped in, patented the design/concept, then went around and collected a fortune from infringement lawsuits. He pretty much killed off the styrofoam ice chest industry with that stunt.



kind of like the way michael jackson snaged the copyrights to all the beatles songs away from sir paul....and the bad part about it it was paul who taught him how to do it. think he also got the CR for for the notre dame fight song and a crap load of others too..


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 26, 2014)

gumbyk said:


> You can't patent an already-existing design. Anyone who was manufacturing would have been able to claim (rightly) that they had come up with the design.
> Those bins are pretty readily available around here.



You can't patent things which are common knowledge, which means that, for example, patenting the wheelbarrow would not be possible, nor would patenting the lever. The trouble is common knowledge requires patent examiners who are well-acquainted with the relevant technologies (this is why the Swiss patent office was hiring PhDs, like Einstein, as patent clerks ) This failed miserably, for many years, with software patents. I believe that bot h the Shell sort and Quick sort were patented, by random people, roughly thirty years after they were first published by somebody else (Shell and Quick are, iirc, the surnames of the computer scientists who developed them). Later, a particularly sleazy individual grabbed several hundred lines from GPL code and got a copyright issued and sued the developers. After way too much money was spent, the sleazebag was defeated. He should have been jailed, but, alas, his frauds weren't found criminal.

IP of "P-51" is probably not Boeing's, as it was probably not North Americans: it's a designation assigned by the federal government. "Mustang," as applied to an aircraft may be, as the common names were, iirc, not assigned by the US government, but by either the manufacturer or, in some cases of WW2-era aircraft, by the British or Commonwealth. It's probable that "P-51 Mustang" can be trademarked, but it, like Kleenex and Xerox, may have been so diluted by common use that the value of the trademark is approaching nil. I don't even want to think about the rights for things like the aircraft's actual image. 

Like I said earlier, I'm not an IP lawyer, nor would I want to be.


----------



## m37b1 (Aug 27, 2014)

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4677229/ns/business-autos/t/ford-cant-use-futura-new-sedan/#.U_5qhDKwJ0U

Interesting case along these lines.

Edited with correct, link.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 27, 2014)

Not sure how Pepboys pulled that off...Ford motor company has used Futura in the past on several lines: Lincoln in the 50's, Falcon series in the 60's and even had a Futura model in Australia that ran between the early 60's and 2008...

Typically, automobile companies are pretty smart with the registration of their trademarks. Even Ford couldn't get around a European car maker's registration of the name "Mustang", so when Ford sold them overseas in Europe during the 60's, they had to use the model/prototype code: T-5


----------



## m37b1 (Aug 27, 2014)

I added the correct link. Provides some detail.


----------



## m37b1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Mustang mayhem - MONEY - recordnet.com - Stockton, CA

I guess this is the fall-out from losing to PepBoys.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 27, 2014)

It looks like whoever still owns Cavalier Aircraft's propietary notes, still owns the rights to the P-51 Mustang. NAA sold the rights to Cavalier Aircraft after the P-51 was being surplussed out of USAAF inventories.

Now as a twist of irony, since it is a matter of historical record that Ford named the T-5 after the aircraft, that whoever still holds the legal rights to the P-51, went after Ford for using the P-51's name without consent or royalties?


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 27, 2014)

> Now as a twist of irony, since it is a matter of historical record that Ford named the T-5 after the aircraft, that whoever still holds the legal rights to the P-51, went after Ford for using the P-51's name without consent or royalties?



I'm not a hunderd percent certain that this still stands, but David Lindsay of Cavalier sold his Enforcer COIN idea to Piper because his firm didn't have the scale of manufacture that Piper did. When Cavalier closed down in 1971, Lindsay worked for Piper on the Enforcer, or the PA-48 as it became under the Piper designation, so is it Piper that currently holds the rights to the P-51?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 27, 2014)

The Enforcer was a heavily modified version of the Cavalier F-51D and it was that, which was sold to Piper, not the F-51D.

So I would imagine that Lindsay still holds the rights to the P-51/F-51, or rather his estate does.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 27, 2014)

> The Enforcer was a heavily modified version of the Cavalier F-51D and it was that, which was sold to Piper, not the F-51D.



Strictly speaking it was the Turbo Mustang III, which was a converted Cavalier Mustang II, that became the Enforcer and it was this that was sold to Piper. Lindsay then went to work with Piper - did he become an employee and when he sold the Enforcer concept to Piper, did he hand over the rights to the Mustang, or like you state, Dave, does his estate still hold them?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 27, 2014)

Well, considering that the PA-48 Enforcer was so highly modified from the Mustang design (North American's and Cavalier's), and the fact that Piper's purchase didn't involve anything from the P-51/F-51 designation, he would have had no need to sell his rights.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 27, 2014)

True, so he must still hold them. Can anyone confirm this for certain?


----------

