General Dynamics is bullying... and that's a fact Ryan.If you understood copyright and patent law enough, you'd understand why their claim is mostly a pipe-dream. However, like I've stated, repeatedly... no developer can afford to stand up to them.

Bullying accusations aside, do not forget that GD and Gulfstream have a legal right to prohibit duplication/simulation of their products if they so choose.The discussion is moot however if the thread starter wishes to achieve some remedy...I've stood next to them, climbed into them, and while very well done, found them to be no more impressive than say a Global Express or other large, long legged Corporate Jet. :(

I agree with you there Ron. If the company wants to be snooty and not let people have models of their product, which after all one should really consider as free promotion, not to mention flattery if people are interested enough to want such a thing, then so be it. I think it's far more their loss than it is ours.Half the reason people love Spitfires and Mustangs so much, and they are the legends they've become, is probably because we made plastic models of them when we were kids.Al

There is a concept in several areas of law where the inaction by a company or individual in exerting ownership rights can result in the loss of the ownership. Here is a couple of real world examples:1) My lawyer bought an old office building (former factory) that had no parking lot. The former owner of the building and visitors had been using a neighboring building's parking lot for decades. The owner of the neighboring building then told my lawyer to stop parking in the lot and put up a fence. My lawyer had the fence removed and sued the neighbor saying he had a right by adverse possession -- basically squatter's rights, and won the court case. The neighbor did not exert his rights, so he basically gave them up. 2) If you are a fan of YouTube, you may have seen those viral videos in which people have put clever (funny) subtitles to a (copyrighted) movie of a really bad dude. For a year or so, the owner of the copyright tolerated the various clips that were uploaded to YouTube. But a few months ago, the studio put YouTube on notice and they were all taken down.The concept is, regardless of the type of ownership (copyrights, patents, intellectual, land rights etc), if the owner fails to exert ownership, it is the same as consensually giving away the ownership. This is why you may see some large company aggressively going after a "little guy" (even a young kid in some cases!). If the owner of the property doesn't however, it may be construed as having given away the ownership. Some owners feel they have no choice.That being said, I just don't see someone arguing in court that an aircraft manufacturer is giving up patents etc. by allowing a developer to model the aircraft for Microsoft Flight Simulator. On the other hand, all it takes is a simple letter from the "owner" saying something like "I know you are using my property, but I give you permission" OR licensing the right (for as little as $1) to establish the claim that the owner has not, in fact, given away the ownership rights by inaction.There may be other reasons. An aircraft manufacturer may be worried about the liability should someone use the simulated airplane as a training tool to commit a criminal act that results in injury or death (a tort claim). Similarly, it is possible a real-world pilot may use the desktop simulation for training purposes that could theoretically result in ACCIDENTAL death or injury (and in turn a tort claim). As a real world pilot myself, occasionally my simulator training results in undesirable real-world issues (such as proper control forces on the yoke during a landing flair for example). And finally, it may be the case that an aircraft manufacturer may offer training services or aircraft simulators (Boeing owns Alteon for example). As any real-world flight instructor can attest, a desktop simulator CAN cut learning time down significantly, especially with regard to systems training. This could have a significant negative impact to the manufacturer's training services business.All of these are stretches. But you also have to ask the question: What is in it for a airplane manufacturer to allow someone to model their aircraft for Flight Simulator? Some lawyer must have done the "cost/benefit" analysis and advised the manufacturer they shouldn't allow the aircraft to be simulated. The same lawyer probably goes around telling kids there is no Santa Claus. I personally believe that allowing the aircraft to be modeled for Flight Sim is a benefit in terms of building brand recognition and brand loyalty -- basically sewing the aircraft into the fabric of the industry. I would guess the vast majority of younger real-world pilots have spent time on MSFS.Joseph W. Szarmach Jr.

I am not interpreting the law I am paraphrasing it.

OK ... now prove it. this involves getting a judge, and paying a lawyer, to allow you to create and market a FS simulation of the 'G'(s) you favor, with the necessary legal protections against gulfstream.IF you get a favorable initial judgement be ready to defend against the appeal.have a bank account FULL of money ... and will quickly be EMPTY of cash.--

Bullying accusations aside, do not forget that GD and Gulfstream have a legal right to prohibit duplication/simulation of their products if they so choose.

Under what law? It can certainly prevent its products being duplicated but simulated?

OK ... now prove it. this involves getting a judge, and paying a lawyer, to allow you to create and market a FS simulation of the 'G'(s) you favor, with the necessary legal protections against gulfstream.IF you get a favorable initial judgement be ready to defend against the appeal.have a bank account FULL of money ... and will quickly be EMPTY of cash.

That just reinforces my point that it is bullying.

This reminds me of the old joke about how to make a million dollars in aviation...start with two million... :(

Such a shame, would have liked to have finished this off:Edit - No photobucket allowed?

you could always ask them.

I emailed Jeff Miller - Vice President, Communications of Gulfstream writing "I intend to create an add-on model of the Gulfstream G150 for Microsoft Flight Simulator X. This will be for non-commercial purposes and based solely on generally available published information."When I got no reply I emailed again writing "In the absence of a reply I shall assume Grumman has not objections and shall proceed with development."In the absence of any reply at all, I feel free to go ahead.

Well, you don't even know for sure that he got your emails. In this case, I think a phone call would be better.Bob

Well, you don't even know for sure that he got your emails. In this case, I think a phone call would be better.Bob

Email is now an acceptable method of business communication and I used the link on the Grumman website. Email also provides a written record which a phone call doesn't.

I understand all that. But with a phone call, you know for sure your party got your message. Bob