Or make it a CV-22, the Air Force variant. These things have already been used in search and rescue missions.

The issue is apparently the BOEING name.. Because it would be funding the military indirectly.

It's ok though because anyone that has flow commercially has indirectly funded a military. It's nonsense.

Boeing doesn't give Uncle Sam a discount because a LEGO project pays them money. If they do work for the military, they will bill it directly to Uncle Sam.

I doubt the amount of money even matters to them. It's most likely linked to retaining their trademark or something similar.

Finally, the V-22 isn't an attack craft. All experiments into the idea have been outright rejected and the only weapon it carries is a single browning machine gun which is optional (and could easily be mounted to basically anything). This is like protesting the creation of a truck model because technicals exist.

Thank you, glad to see i'm not alone in this.

I think the complaint was limited to its arms manufacturing section, not Boeing as a whole.

> The arms section of Boeing® also produces fighter jets, fighter helicopters, bombs and rockets (even intercontinental nuclear rockets). There are numerous examples of the use of Boeing® arms violating human rights, humanitarian and international law.

Otherwise they would also complain about LEGO Boeing 787 Dreamliner:

https://www.lego.com/en-my/service/buildinginstructions/1017...

Right, but by that standard this craft doesn't display arms. It's no more a reference to violating human rights than a Police set, or a Piracy set. If this wasn't branded Boeing is it now ok? Can Lego release it as "VTOL CRAFT" instead? My guess is no.