Aicraft design I made last 2008 showed up with Lockheed Martin!

a reply to: johndeere2020

Really cool that you were onto something that LM will be testing (well, at least something similar). There are obviously some super-similar aspects to the designs, but enough differences to be open to the idea that these are separately evolved ideas.

That said, though, it sure would be nice to know if they "borrowed" from your concept and ran with it, both to know that you were onto something AND to contemplate theft of your intellectual property, if that's even something that you're considering.

I would guarantee, though, that they had someone scouting the competition, so it's highly possible that this is a refined version of your own idea. That would be highly satisfying to know, at least.

ETA: Your design is much more appealing with the thinned-out fuselage near the rear tail, although for practical purposes, it's probably seen as lost cargo space.

Contact them and tell them one of there staff use'd Your design.
I dont think they will be happy that they pay
some one to do design and they just steel it!

try to get this out to as many sites as you can.
then they will contact you!

I have come up with Many things that I keep secret.
only to see Many years later!
stupid thing is, If I tell people they stink I am stupid.

just like round earth! when we know its flat!
that sounds stupid yes?
then WHY do they think the universe has a limit in its size?
that is Just moving the wall around earth in to deep space.

just wait for the people to post that this goes totally over their heads.
or will just Bitch about my spilling!

a reply to: olaru12

It appears he had his study. ..front to back start to finish.. .but not the same as getting a design patent for objects within that study.

I'm sure Lockheed prob has a design patent on theirs. In court a judge will say to each "show me yours". He has a Copyrighted document.. whereas they have a design patent filed.

Sad. .But the way it goes.. .

MS
Copyright Holder
Patented Trademark owner

wow!!!! looks like you got lucky!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I would guarantee, though, that they had someone scouting the competition, so it's highly possible that this is a refined version of your own idea. That would be highly satisfying to know, at least.

ETA: Your design is much more appealing with the thinned-out fuselage near the rear tail, although for practical purposes, it's probably seen as lost cargo space.

I agree! No doubt, I only worked on my model from scratch in just a little over one month. I worked on it for one week last 2007, and for one month in 2008 to adapt it to a strategic bomber role. Lockheed had 7 years to work on the design!

The earlier version had much more internal volume when it was originally intended as an airliner. The final model which you've seen was adapted as long range strategic bomber and since bombs have much higher density than regular cargo, it didn't needed much internal volume to meet the max payload. Thus, internal volume was reduced to reduce drag.

You'll see the same pattern in military aircraft, strategic airlifters like the C-17 have proportionally much wider fuselage than the B-52 bomber.

originally posted by: elkabong57
a reply to: johndeere2020

My first post at Ats. Woo-woo!

Sorry, had to do that. Anyway, it will be very interesting if you get a response from Lockheed. You gotta believe those guys keep an eye on these forums to see what pops up.

It's hard to believe they keep an eye on these sites, maybe the US gov ,but not Lockheed!

originally posted by: PlasticWizard

originally posted by: johndeere2020

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
a reply to: johndeere2020

Send all the information to them, cc several different people from different departments in Lockheed. Make sure their legal dept gets a copy too. It'll start up office chatter about the coincidence/theft of idea. Mention that you have other designs and your looking for work. Making the legal department aware of the situation along with heads of other department might get them to hire you on or contract work from you. Cheaper to pay you a salary than battle you in court.

That's a great idea!

But I wouldn't know how to get their personal emails, if it's even legal to have info of their personal emails.

The department responsible is solely with Skunkworks and that department is highly secretive.

Sorry for the mobile link. Below is the Lockheed contact page. It's has a few different departments and a message submit form. Some sections of interest might be:employment, the ethics dept., media, social media. Its the place to to start. The careers page on the site doesn't work right now.


m.lockheedmartin.com...

Found a working jobs link. Plenty of aeronautical engineer jobs available. 3 pages, some entry level.

www.lockheedmartinjobs.com...

I'll give this a shot......

If not, I have several more advanced designs that I could use to "bait" someone if I'm not just being paranoid!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Both Boeing and Lockheed were working on similar designs since at least 2008. They unveiled the final design in 2015, but it has been around for years.

NASA flew the BWB-17 in 1997, and more recently the X-48 with Boeing. A hybrid lifting body has been toyed with since the 30s or so, if not earlier.

Form follows function. If you want a really efficient aircraft with a good L/D, you design a semi lifting body design, which means it's going to look similar to everyone else's design. There are multiple examples of that out there with designs from the B-1/Tu-160 to the Concorde.

I already tried the Boeing BWB concepts, they weren't as good, not even close!

Definitely not good enough for the competition for me so I had to do my own from scratch.

a reply to: johndeere2020

Ask them for a job, not credit. Tell them all about it.

a reply to: johndeere2020

Couple things here

1. Whether they stole your idea or it's a matter of convergent evolution they most definitely will not retroactively compensate you, you don't have a court case, emailing random Lockmart division heads isn't going to accomplish anything, and they aren't going to give you a job off the back of this.

2. If your idea was appropriated by them it was most likely a scenario covered in the fine print of the contest rules or website TOS.

3. There are hundreds if not thousands of businesses in the United States alone that are 100% based on exploitation of gifted amateurs and their work, and there has been for well over a century. Ever hear of Menlo Park? Essentially it was a high end sweatshop based on stealing other people's work.

4. It's happened to me a time or 12 too so i get your frustration! Wanna see a pretty good example? Click my username and go to the list of threads I've authored, now go to the one about vehicle design and note both the date and the posts where i laid out the complete concept... Now go to the DARPA GVX-T page... SURPRISE!!!

I don't agree with the assertions that he doesn't have a copyright on his design. You don't need to register anything to own a copyright, by simply creating something you have a copyright by law. It is very obvious some design engineer stole his work from the internet and then tweaked it a little bit.... maybe some tool who took a job that he was in over his head on, that's what my gut tells me.

I think you have a case and should talk to an attorney ASAP. Lockheed may have $$, but the law is the law and if they stole his work, then they will have to pay you. Anyone with common sense can see this design is an exact copy that has been tweaked slightly. This is copyright infringement, definitely get in touch with a lawyer!! You are owned some money and you shouldn't let Lockheed make millions or even billions off your hard work and labor.

a reply to: av8r007

So are these all stolen designs?







There are only so many ways to design aircraft. Lockheed was working on a hybrid design from at least 2008, if not sooner. Yes, they might have borrowed aspects, but proving that they didn't come up with them on their own is going to be almost impossible.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Completely different models and aircraft capability. You're comparing apples to oranges. His design looks almost identical to LM's. There are some quite stark differences between a MiG-25 and F-15, Boeing's SST to LM's model, and the B-1B vs a TU-22 so your argument doesn't hold weight.

a reply to: av8r007

You are extremely mis-informed.

As registered copyright is required to prove authorship with the Library of Congress. Design patents prove you created them on the date registered. Trademarks define a logo or sign that is yours alone...all of which require permission to use.

And no...mailing yourself a copy (poor man copyright) doesnt not supercede a legally registered copyright, patent or trademark.

MS
Registered Copyright Owner-Music, Books
Trademark-Group/Corporate Name-Logo
International Copyrights and Trademarks and Patents

PS We pay our attorney's (NY and LA/London UK) $1,000's and thousands each year...so I do know...otherwise we wouldnt need them...and I could save the $$$$$$

From the US Copyright office itself:

In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Recommend you have a look at their page here:

www.copyright.gov...

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

I think I am well informed, [snipped]

PS We pay our attorney's (NY and LA/London UK) $1,000's and thousands each year...so I do know...otherwise we wouldnt need them...and I could save the $$$$$$

Is that supposed to be impressive? As someone who works in a field where services costs $1000's, the cost of a service != quality or some superiority. The law is the law he owns the copyright, he should be compensated.

originally posted by: av8r007
From the US Copyright office itself:

In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Recommend you have a look at their page here:

www.copyright.gov...

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

I think I am well informed, [edit by staff]

Why so mad??

Anyway, is there a difference between a copyright and a patent?

a reply to: av8r007

No they aren't. The B-1 and Tu-160 (not a Tu-22 although that's another one) are both high speed heavy bombers. All the different SST designs were designed to carry passengers above Mach 1. The F-15 and MiG-25 were both designed to be high speed interceptors. All of those aircraft have similar missions to the aircraft they are being compared to.

The Lockheed design and the Boeing design both are similar to each other. When you're building a subsonic airlifter you're not going to design a thin fuselage. When you're building a blended wing design it's going to have the exact same characteristics as another blended wing design. You can't build a C-5 shaped blended wing design.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well you're comparing a foriegn built supersonic bomber with an American built supersonic bomber to start. Tupolev can copy US designs all it wants, it is not under US jurisdiction.

Same thing for the MiG-25 and Mikoyan they can copy all they want.

However with that said, arguing these designs are copies is invalid. Nobody brought that into this thread except you. Nobdoy contends that the MiG-25 is a copy of the F-15 or the TU-160 (which I apologize for misidentifying) a copy of the B-1. They were built in two completely different countries by two different aerospace contractors and they are not even close to being the same aircraft in any shape or form. Not in performance, not in the avionics, weapons systems, or even tactical doctrine and procedure. Not in planform nor the side. The only thing these 4 aircraft have in common is their relative size to one another.

As far as the LM and Boeing SST's. There is some copying going on, but constrained to that you can only make a supersonic aircraft by building thin fuselage and with wing sweep. There is no doubt in that age there was a lot of corporate espionage and major competition between two MAJOR AEROSPACE CONTRACTORS.

This is a major aerospace contractor stealing the work of an INDIVIDUAL. If they want to use his IP, then they need to pay him for it as they stand to make a fortune while he holds the bag. That's not ethical, moral, or legal. Blending wing or not, there should be enough of a difference to tell the two apart, even if this is so called "convergent evolution." The problem is the nose, fuselage, and empennage are more or less the same, except for some minor changes on the wing and placement of the powerplant.