<Begin Segment 24>

TI: So I, we're finishing with two hours now, and I'm just looking at my list of questions. So I've asked my questions. Is there anything else that you wanted to talk about? Something that, about your life or an experience, an event that you haven't covered that you'd like to talk about?

KT: Well, no. The only thing, I'll just scuttlebutt of the office in here... there was a 707 airplane, do you remember that one taking a skydive from 35,000 feet down to 5,000 feet? They almost lost the airplane, but they were able to recover the airplane? Well, the aerodynamic groups, I think, was keeping track of that airplane because it's just a deal. And they found that it's equivalent to, miles per gallon on that airplane was really good. So the aero department brought that airplane back to Seattle to inspect it. And when we really gave it an inspection, there was a particular twist in the wing that turned it. It got deformed in this sudden pull out. And they looked at that and the scuttlebutt was, "God, that must be what's making that airfoil work so good." And I remember them having a lot of structural engineers look at that airplane and see whether we could duplicate that in the factory, put that twist in there. And says, "God, no way could we come up with that machinery to put that kind of a twist into that thing." But the sheer forces involved as the airplane pulled out of the, twisted that wing in just enough to give it the perfect aerodynamic shape for cruise flight. Because that airplane had the best GPM. [Laughs]

TI: Oh, interesting. So the stress of going down and doing that...

KT: Going in there and pulling out.

TI: ...twisted the wing.

KT: Twisted the wing, put a champer in there. I'm not an aerodynamic side, but they said, hey, that's the only thing they could theorize, is put a twist into that wing which we can't duplicate at that time. I don't know whether now they could or not.

TI: And that increased the fuel efficiency, that it flew much better than the other planes.

KT: Yeah. So, I mean, in the position I was in, I would cross fields with all the different disciplines of there, then I used to hear all these different stories on the different planes.

TI: And just kind of like always trying to make them better and better, each plane.

KT: Right.

TI: And any thoughts about Boeing these days? I mean, you worked on the 767, and then after that was the triple 7, then the 787, the Dreamliner. Any thoughts about design of airplanes today versus when you were there?

KT: In my generation, we always say, "Hey, Boeing was supposed to have absorbed the Douglas, and in reality Douglass has taken over Boeing." Because most of the top people now are Douglas trained people rather than Boeing trained people. And I don't know. The Boeing engineering department, I don't know. They don't seem to be, stuff about these things... hey, they should have caught that early in the design. But now, they don't seem to really do their engineering job that they should be doing. And when I talk to some of these engineers in the different disciplines, they don't have the same drive that we had. I used to know about things other than my field. I would know about it. But now, these guys, I talk to them, they could tell me quite a bit in their own field, but when I stray from that subject, they're total blank. They don't care. [Laughs]

TI: So there's almost like a change of philosophy in how things are.

KT: Yeah, the whole philosophy is different.

TI: And you think, and that may have contributed to the delays on the 787.

KT: They're not watching their p's and q's.

TI: Interesting. Good. Anything else you want to...

KT: No.

TI: Well, so Kaz, thank you so much. This was...

KT: Okay, it's been a pleasure.

TI: ...a fun interview, and I've learned a lot. So thank you so much.

<End Segment 24> - Copyright © 2009 Densho. All Rights Reserved.