Jump to content

Modern aircraft design


Pete Robin

Recommended Posts

Please excuse a complete Numpty as far as modern a/c are concerned and please don't shout at me, but have all the aircraft designers (maybe excepting the Russians and Chinese), gone and bought the same generic aircraft design program from Apple or Google or wherever?

The Brits are at the mo working with a multi-agency designed compromise a/c again in the form of the Typhoon. It's not bad looking and I have heard, quite capable. Its replacement is the F35 (a or b versions to be decided). It isn't, I believe, either a Fighter or a Bomber. First question is why? Can't we, as a country design our own and show some kind of lead again as far as Fighter design. We could also along the way, maybe come up with a Bomber a/c and have two worthy airframes instead of compromising with several countries who start things and then bail on the project (i.e. the French. Sorry France, but it's true, e.g. Tornado, Concorde etc.).

Second question is why is every country's new/proposed design for what I believe is called fifth gen a/c, all the same. They all look like F35s. Are the US selling airframes and everyone is fitting their own bits? It's crazy.

Oh, and one last comment from someone who admires Lightnings, Buccaneers etc. as being Excellent designs, Why is the F35 sooooo UGLY?🤪

Maybe everyones lost the will to build something beautiful as well as potent.

Sorry, will retire to my 1940s cave and leave you all alone again.

Regards

Pete

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete

not shouting but there are a few misconceptions in there. 
 

The reason so many modern aircraft designs - F-22, F-35 and BAe Tempest all look similar is that the stealth criteria dictate that shape so as to meet mission requirements. It’s not new, compare North American Sabre with the Mig 15 for example. Same with modern cars. The design is dictated by the job 

 

We don’t really have fighters an bombers any more. Aircraft are too expensive and have to be at least a little bit multi role. It’s back to money. Too many types in the inventory and costs shoot up. Again the USA buck that trend. 
 

Collaboration is required between countries in aircraft design and manufacture because the costs are astronomic and other than trainers etc no country beyond the USA can really afford to go it alone. Some try with varying degrees of success. 
 

France was never really involved in Tornado and actually held up their end of the Concorde deal when the UK wanted to pull out early on. That’s another story though. 
 

Last the F-35 gets a bad press in the ugly stakes IMHO. She is no beaut for sure but she is not that bad. I’ve seen worse - a lot worse :D  Everyone loves a Harrier but she was a wee porky pigeon with elephant ears. Still loved her too mind

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings Pete

 

More learned minds can probably give you a more detailed and accurate response but here's my stab at answering your question.

 

The current (4th, 5th and (wait for it) 6th) generations of combat aircraft are all designed by supercomputer and are intended to be "flown" by computer software and, as-far-as-possible, are designed to be low-observable/stealthy so they effectively follow a similar set of mathematical, aerodynamic and physical rules.  This almost inevitably leads to form following function so different manufacturers' aircraft which have been designed to a similar requirement will almost inevitably share many of the same design features although they do still adopt different approaches to the same design challenges: an obvious example might be the Typhoon's and Rafale's engine intakes, Typhoon's looks like it was inspired by the chief designer's children's rabbit hutch but Dassault have taken inspiration from the elegant curves of the 1950s when designing the Rafale's intakes.

 

Equally, because many current aircraft are fitted with vision enhancing bubble canopies the designers have chosen to adopt twin tails to take account of the disrupted airflow from the canopy - again General Dynamics decided to take a different approach and bolted a single tail to their original F-16 design.

 

To answer your question about the F-35 they are, with the exception of the Israeli Air Force's fleet which has a bespoke electronics/sensor fit, almost identical; the only other obvious difference across the operators is the humpback fitted to the Norwegian Air Force's aircraft which contains a braking chute.

 

The F-35's looks may be the ultimate example of form following function: aircraft such as the Lightning and Buccaneer date from the era of a chap/lady working in a Drawing Office producing their work with paper and H1 pencil using a ruler, French Curves and compass based on simpler calculations which were largely performed using slide rules and Log Tables.  It may be an urban myth but Ray Chadwick is said to have sketched out the original designs for the mighty Avro Vulcan on a napkin.    

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks for prompt answers gents. I kinda figured that computers were at the heart of it all. I'm just maybe old fashioned and think that maybe, just maybe, some bod in his woolly jumper with patches on the elbows, might just scribble something beautiful AND practical on his blotter pad. Then they can let the kiddies loose with their computers to refine things.

It might also be the case that we are in danger of forgetting that it is ultimately a human being controlling things and making those difficult decisions. Drone technology will only go so far. Sooner or later flesh and blood gets involved, somewhere.

I just wondered whether the undoubted talents of the guys at BAE who are busy designing drones, couldn,t in the lunch break maybe, come up with something interesting, like a 21/22nd century TSR2 or a Mach 2 Buccaneer. Or better still, a Vulcan with super dooper sneaky capabilities.😜

Thanks again for not shouting at an old fool.

Regards,

Pete, who's retired to scribble with his quill and parchment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In aircraft design (and not only...) form has always followed function ! Were WW1 fighters all that different from each other in shape ? Not really, with of course some exceptions. Please do not believe that aircraft like the Lightning or the Buccaneer were designed that way because someone put aestethics before everything, they were not! The designers of those types got to those shapes because they believed that they offered the best solution to a certain problem, no more and no less as it's done today.. and really, neither theh Lightning nor the Buccaneer (or the Phantom or the MiG-21..) were elegant types, in reality they were quite ugly in their days and if today we find them attractive it's mainly because of their historic/nostalgic value....

 

There are some aspects that can lead designers to propose different "shapes"

- Different specifications... of course if I want to achieve different goals I'll likely have different designs. The Phantom was designed for a job and a Buccaneer for a different one, no reason to be similar at all... This today is much less important because most aircraft are designed as  multirole fighters with a broadly similar set of requirements. The need to have some level of "low observability" introduces a new set of constraints that forces designers to move toward certain shapes more than others and prevents the use of certain shapes and features as they don't allow to achieve the objectives.

- Construction techniques: many aircraft of the past had some of all of their shapes dictated by the need to use certain construction techniques. This has long ceased to be an issue and it's even less so today with the use of composites.

- Most important: knowing what works and what doesn't..... If we made a list of the problems that so many of our beloved aircraft of the past suffered from, we'd probably think that designers of the past were totally incompetent ! Of course they weren't, simply the knowledge we have of aerodynamics, structures and the interaction between them is much better than it was decades ago. Not only that, we also have much better ways to test and simulate all aspects of a new aircraft design, so that we can tell very early in the development stage what will and what will not work. And I can assure you that a lot of features of many aircraft of the past would not pass this phase today. Yes, we may love the shapes of the many aircraft of the '50s but most of them were in a sense flawed designs to a point or the other. This is where computers today are important, with the computing power available and the better knowledge of many phenomena it is possible to optimize everything. Clearly for a given set of specifications the optimal solution is generally the same so that aircraft end up being very similar to this optimal solution.

 

The latter point tells why it is very hard for a single "ultra sharp mind" to come up with something different that works better than anything else: whatever idea he/she may have, this will have to undergo the same optimisation process and, the specifications being the same, the resul will end up being roughly the same. It's a matter of physics, if I need RCS reduction certain shapes simply can't be used. If I want aerodynamic efficiency then I will have to use certain features. The only way to see something radically differenty is to have radically different specifications or some technological innovation that would allow the use of features that today are not used.

We have seen the same process in the development of airliners, that have pretty much all looked the same for at least 40 years: all customers need pretty much the same thing, good load capabilities with the maximum efficiency while having easy maintenance to minimize off-service time. As a result all manufacturers have converged on pretty much the same main design features, simply because these are the ones that best fulfil the specifications from the vast majority of operators.

It is something not dissimilar in a sense from the evolutionary process of living beings: the ones that have features that make them best suited to the environment survive, the others don't and go extinct. With machines it's the same, with the market requirements in place of the environment.

 

A few more points:

-Fighters and bombers: the bomber today is something that only a few countries can afford, really only the US and maybe China, with Russia still fielding a force of Soviet era aircraft. Britain and other countries really would have no money to develop, build and operate a proper long range bomber. And they really have no reason to do it. Current fighters have good range and can be refuelled in flight, would something like a Vulcan really be needed today for the kind of airwar the RAF in involved in ? More so as the nuclear deterrent role is better served by missiles anyway.

- Why can't Britain do this and that...: Britain simply do not have the resources to do this, the development of a brand new fighter is just too expensive for Britain alone. And it's been the case for many years, as seen with the Tornado and Typhoon programs. Now multinational programs tend to be more expensive for a number of reasons, however at least the cost is then split among a number of partners.

- France: I can understand that historically many British people see France as some sort of enemy, but really the cooperation between the two countries in aviation has generally been pretty good, with types like the Jaguar and the Concorde as very good example, not to mention that cooperation in helicopters of the '70s. With the Eurofighter things changed but from several point of view the French position was more correct than that of the other partners.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Richard E said:

The current (4th, 5th and (wait for it) 6th) generations of combat aircraft are all designed by supercomputer and are intended to be "flown" by computer software and, as-far-as-possible, are designed to be low-observable/stealthy

 

It's more the latter (low observability - as well as all the onboard sensor-communication-weapons fusion and 'networking' blah) that defines a fifth generation fighter, rather than its design mechanisms - the design-by-computer aspect is not really a factor in defining generations.

The computing issue is more to do with how all onboard systems are fused and function (software-defined being the phrase to watch), although there is no doubt computers are the crucial factor in making fighter developments and manufacture all happen in a useful timeframe these days...

One way of looking at it is: 'A quantum improvement in the fighter’s lethality and survivability has been a qualifying requirement to achieve generational change and the fifth generation fighters personify these traits'.

 

To paraphrase somewhat, from the Australian Air Power Development Centre's article 'Five Generations of Jet Fighter Aircraft' (https://airpower.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/PFV05-Pathfinder-Collection-Volume-5.pdf - pages 45 to 49) :

The first generation of jet fighters (mid-1940s to mid-1950s) had basic avionic systems with no radars or self-protection countermeasures, and were armed with machine guns or cannons, as well as unguided bombs and rockets. A common characteristic of this generation of fighter was that the jet engines did not have afterburners and the aircraft operated in the subsonic regime.

Second generation jet fighters (mid-1950s to early 1960s) saw the introduction of air-to-air radar, infrared and semi-active guided missiles, as well as radar warning receivers. This generation’s fighters also incorporated advances in engine design and aerodynamics, which allowed them to reach and sustain supersonic speeds in level flight. During this period, although air-to-air combat was still within visual range, radar-guided missiles started to extend engagement ranges.

Third generation jet fighters (early 1960s to 1970) incorporated improvements in manoeuvrability, and significant enhancements to the avionic suites and weapon systems. They were also the first cadre of multi-role fighters. Doppler radar supported a ‘look-down/shoot-down’ capability, and with off-bore-sight targeting and semi-active guided radio frequency missiles, aerial engagements moved to beyond visual range. The major change brought about by this generation aircraft was that it was no longer necessary to visually acquire opponents to neutralise them and gain control of the air.

Fourth generation jet fighters (1970 to late 1980s) incorporated improvements in avionics such as head-up displays and optimised aerodynamic design continued with the development of ‘fly-by-wire’ fighters. Most of this generation of fighters had the ability to both switch and swing roles between air-to-air and air-to-ground, as opposed to the previous role-dedicated aircraft. This in turn blurred the distinction between control of the air and strike missions.

Four and half generation jet fighters (late 1980s and into the 90s). The concept of having a half generation increment stemmed from a forced reduction in military spending, which resulted in a restriction in aircraft development. It became more cost-effective to add ‘stealth’, radar absorbent materials, thrust vector controlled engines, greater weapons carriage capacity and to extend the range of fourth generation fighters than to design new aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is an example of a 4.5 generation fighter evolved from a fourth generation aircraft. The addition of an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar was a significant enough game-changing combat capability for these redesigned fighters to be deemed a generation of their own, hence the generation 4.5 rating. Some manufacturers designed new platforms, which incorporate many of the generation 4.5 advanced characteristics. Advances in computer technology and data links also allowed 4.5 generation fighters to be integrated into a network centric battlespace where fighter aircraft have much greater scope to conduct multi-role missions. As an example, the AESA radar allows fighter aircraft to perform a limited Airborne Early Warning and Control function.

Fifth generation jet fighters (2005 to date). Advances over earlier generational fighters include nose-to-tail low observable or stealth technologies as part of the aircraft’s design that make it almost impossible for even other generation five fighters to detect them; improved situational awareness through having multi-spectral sensors located across all aspects of the airframe which allows the pilot to ‘look’ through the airframe of the aircraft without having to manoeuvre the fighter to obtain a 360 degree picture which in turn, enhances the aircraft’s ability to use its suite of weapons to engage and neutralise an adversary without the adversary even being aware of the threat. These aircraft are also ‘born’ networked which allows them to receive, share and store information to enhance the battlespace picture. Fifth generation fighter capabilities are largely defined by their software and it will be the ongoing development of their software that will ensure they maintain their edge against evolving threats.

 

 

Another interesting take can be found here: https://navalinstitute.com.au/jet-fighter-aircraft-five-generations-later-and-still-counting/

 

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with the others. Form *always* follows function for working aircraft, and a machine drawn to be pretty first then made to work will invariably be inferior, usually debilitatingly so, compared to one designed the correct way round.

 

One can view the low bypass ratio turbofan tri-jet airliners of the 1960s and see that using the powerplants of the day with their fuel consumption and reliability characteristics, if one wanted to carry a certain payload a certain range you usually ended up with 3 engines, a similar designed cruising speed and height and the end result was a very similar looking aircraft with detail differences around window shapes and things like that.

 

1920px-British_Airways_Trident3B_(710774

 

1920px-B-727_Iberia_(cropped).jpg

 

Palair_Macedonian_Tupolev_Tu-154B-1_Wall

 

A modern combat aircraft drawn with a pencil then given to actual engineers to try to make work would either be the absolute height of folly in terms of combat effectiveness, or would be changed beyond all recognition by the time the engineers had corrected it.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Pete Robin said:

Many thanks for prompt answers gents. I kinda figured that computers were at the heart of it all. I'm just maybe old fashioned and think that maybe, just maybe, some bod in his woolly jumper with patches on the elbows, might just scribble something beautiful AND practical on his blotter pad. Then they can let the kiddies loose with their computers to refine things.

It might also be the case that we are in danger of forgetting that it is ultimately a human being controlling things and making those difficult decisions. Drone technology will only go so far. Sooner or later flesh and blood gets involved, somewhere.

I just wondered whether the undoubted talents of the guys at BAE who are busy designing drones, couldn,t in the lunch break maybe, come up with something interesting, like a 21/22nd century TSR2 or a Mach 2 Buccaneer. Or better still, a Vulcan with super dooper sneaky capabilities.😜

Thanks again for not shouting at an old fool.

Regards,

Pete, who's retired to scribble with his quill and parchment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Giorgio N and others have answered pretty fulsomely so I won't repeat what they say..... much........ but don't underestimate or misunderstand the size and quality of teams on aircraft and system design. I can reassure you they are not a few blokes with woolly jumpers and patches but some of the cleverest and highly qualified people you will meet and they are across all ages. Having done 5 years to achieve a degree in Aeronautical Engineering myself a good few years back and worked for (and still working in) several decades in the industry and with some of the finest Airbus and BAES and Boeing have to offer, and I have never owned or rarely seen a wooly jumper or elbow patches........

 

The overriding factor in design is the requirement which sets the specification i.e. it's range, load, performance, equipment needs, weight, etc etc etc There is so so much more than how it looks, which isn't a factor, think engines, avionics, systems, and so so much more. It really can't be designed by a few people in a  lunch hour!

 

As for your examples, they exist, F35, F22, Typhoon are the 21st century TSR2's and Buccaneers, I'm sure also the B21 Raider would more then be a 21st Century Vulcan!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get where the OP is coming from. While not disagreeing with any of the answers, it is true that aeronautical design has evolved from inspired hunches to computer (and budget!) driven optimisation. 

 

If we look at, say WWII single engine fighters, while the general layout is similar, the Me 109, Hurricane, Spitfire, etc. are quite different solutions to a similar problem. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you took the specification for the Hurricane and Spitfire and stuffed it into a supercomputer - with parameters for materials and production methods of the time - and see what emerged. Would it look like either aircraft, a bit of both, or something very different? And if you could then build and fly it. how would it compare?

 

Cheers

 

Colin

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ckw said:

I get where the OP is coming from. While not disagreeing with any of the answers, it is true that aeronautical design has evolved from inspired hunches to computer (and budget!) driven optimisation. 

 

If we look at, say WWII single engine fighters, while the general layout is similar, the Me 109, Hurricane, Spitfire, etc. are quite different solutions to a similar problem. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you took the specification for the Hurricane and Spitfire and stuffed it into a supercomputer - with parameters for materials and production methods of the time - and see what emerged. Would it look like either aircraft, a bit of both, or something very different? And if you could then build and fly it. how would it compare?

 

Cheers

 

Colin

 

Are the Spitfire and 109 really that different though? single-engined, monocoque (i.e. stress loaded), low wing design?

 

The The Hurricane, bear in mind was half a generation earlier and a lower risk design that took the space frame as opposed to monocoque fuselage from the previous Hawker biplanes and brought up to a more modern, relatively speaking, monoplane design.

 

I'm sure it's understood, but there isn't an "aeroplane design" app, where numbers are stuffed into and it spits out a design. What the technology gives you is the ability design, to process data, to carry out stress analysis, CFD analysis etc etc in a far quicker and far more powerful way that pure wind tunnel, or dynamic testing. whilst consulting a slide rule. Human beings still lead and manage the process, it's that powerful tools, exists to help them optimise things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ckw said:

I get where the OP is coming from. While not disagreeing with any of the answers, it is true that aeronautical design has evolved from inspired hunches to computer (and budget!) driven optimisation. 

 

If we look at, say WWII single engine fighters, while the general layout is similar, the Me 109, Hurricane, Spitfire, etc. are quite different solutions to a similar problem. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you took the specification for the Hurricane and Spitfire and stuffed it into a supercomputer - with parameters for materials and production methods of the time - and see what emerged. Would it look like either aircraft, a bit of both, or something very different? And if you could then build and fly it. how would it compare?

 

Cheers

 

Colin

 

 

I expect the answer would look a lot like a Mustang or MB5. The prescription of a V12 liquid cooled piston engine limits the speed, so the result would definitely have been a straight-wing monoplane. All metal stressed skin was the best they could do at the time structurally, and you minimise production effort and cost by using straight edges where possible. The Spitfire's pretty wing was an effort at optimising span-wise lift distribution to minimise induced drag but a tapered wing with straight leading and trailing edges and careful choice of aerofoil sections for root and tip can perform very well also. The engine would remain at the front, the cockpit would be displaced to a less-than-ideal position behind the engine over the wing and the distance from the C-of-G to the aerodynamic centres of the tail surfaces would be approximately one-half of the wing span to get the best balance of stability and structural weight. If designed by computer without the need for all round visibility demanded of the design then the cockpit would end up looking like a Reno Racer. The P-51B was faster than the D, afterall, with the degraded aerodynamics from the canopy being one of several changes which made it a worse aeroplane but a better fighter.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, didn't intend this to get stuck into the realms of which would turn out best or who's right or wrong etc .

Fully appreciate all of your considered and technically erudite answers.

By speaking of guys in wooly jumpers etc. I was trying to invoke the spirit of "originality" (if that's the right word), that used to be prevalent in design and engineering, not denigrate in any way the work you guys do.

As far as computers go, maybe, and it's a big maybe, we are relying on them far too much. As an example, some centuries ago, some blokes built a spaceship, if you like. They used sliding rulers, a bit of what we in Yorkshire call "nowse"  (brain power) and they built this thing and saw it was good. It had a computer on board that was about the capabilities of a Casio watch. But, they pressed the button and sent three very brave men all the way to the moon. If memory serves, one of these brave men switched off the auto pilot and manually controlled a landing on the moon. Then, to great joy amuch merriment, they came home again.

Now, fast forward to today. Same outfit builds new spaceship using many supercomputers and much tinkering with CAD and other operations. It looks splendid. But, IT CANT GET OFF THE DECK.

Much simplified and very flawed in my musing, but that's where my head was going with all of this I think. 

Maybe we have lost a little soul along the way. Why not build something cos it feels and looks right. And yes, have a pipe and a sarny and scribble on your doodle pad. Who knows, perhaps another Mustang or Spitfire or Hunter will emerge. And then, to much back slapping, some old supervisor will say "That'll do son".

Thanks again for your very knowledgeable input and for not shouting at an old geezer.

Regards,

Pete.

 

PS. I might have a sliding rule and some Loggyrhythm tables hiding in a drawer. Can't remember how it works, but who knows. Peterobin in the 21st century!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and to try and prevent all the howls of derision that Apollo/Saturn V had a long and sometimes disastrous gestation, I KNOW. Was just maybe having a little "fun" with the concept.

 

Humblest apologies if it upsets anyone. I aren't an aerospace engineer, not would I dare compare my meagre skills with these folks. So, whilst it was a genuine question, there was a little bit of 🤡🥳 in there too.

 Enjoy your day/evening/night depending on where you are in the world.

 

I'm off to dream of Dan Dare and Buck Rogers!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete Robin said:

Oh, and to try and prevent all the howls of derision that Apollo/Saturn V had a long and sometimes disastrous gestation, I KNOW. Was just maybe having a little "fun" with the concept.

 

Humblest apologies if it upsets anyone. I aren't an aerospace engineer, not would I dare compare my meagre skills with these folks. So, whilst it was a genuine question, there was a little bit of 🤡🥳 in there too.

 Enjoy your day/evening/night depending on where you are in the world.

 

I'm off to dream of Dan Dare and Buck Rogers!

 

 

You've answered your own question: that spaceship designed with slide and ruler was so good from the drawing board that on the first manned "mission" killed its crew of 3.

Today a similar spaceship is not being launched because there are systems that tell us that there is a certain chance of failure and the mission managers correctly postpone the take-off. If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the latter anytime.

 

So no, we are not relying computers too much, simply we are taking as much advantage as possible of their potential to try and get things as right as possible the first time. That is not always guaranteed but at least now we can come closer than we did in the past.

One good reason for this is that everything is much more expensive today. We try to get an aircraft in the air knowing that we don't need to go through half a dozen production batches before it flies right (still happens with on-board systems but this is another story...). In the '50s it was Ok to build a few hundred aircraft even if they were not fit for duty or were outright dangerous, these could easily be scrapped once a newer variant arrived. Human life, at least in parts of the world, is also seen as much more valuable than it was only a few decades ago, losses still occur but the capability of modelling via computer many more aspects of the aircraft behaviour than before has made today's aircraft much safer than they were in the '50s and '60s.

 

Have we lost a little soul ? Well, I first of all wonder did we ever have one ? Engineers of the past didn't really design things because they looked right, they designed them based on the existing knowlege, their experience and their perception of what could have improved the results, perception that was sometime proven right and sometime wrong. That doesn't mean that there was no soul, any new design is always in any case a personal challenge for the engineer, even if it is backed by years of experience and the support of a team of thousand men and women (like in today's aerospace world) spread across many companies with the help of a massive supply of computing power and test facilities. So no, in that sense we have not lost any soul, there's still a lot of "creativity" in the job. Maybe even more as often very efficient designs have to be improved by only a few percent, few percents that however are much more difficult and challenging to achieve that the whole 90something percent already in place.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply Georgio. Personally, and I really mean personally, past engineers knew machines and other engineering marvels had "souls". Walk into the BBMF hanger when it's quiet and closed up. Even without the Spitfires and Hurricane etc. There's a presence in the air. A whisper deep down inside you that says, I am here and I am alive. It's the Lancaster's soul and presence that make people subconsciously keep quiet and respectful on entering. She's alive and is letting you know. A friend in the RAF was once on an official visit to where the SR71Blackbirds live. He had the same feeling on walking into their den. He said she talked to him. He could hear her breathing and settling down for the night. That's SOUL. It didn't just arrive, I believe it was in-built, right from the design. AND she's pretty. Not all machines have it by any means. Function over form wins many times. 

But form should not be taken lightly. Things should be made "pretty" if you like, not because it has to be, but because we should, even if it's just for one person's benefit.

Some of the "great" airmen of the past are always quoted as saying "if it looks right, it flies right" or words to that effect.

As a point as to making things "pretty", the Victorian engineers, our forefathers, not only made things practical, but also good to look at in many cases. The Ironbridge Gorge bridge is one example. It's perfectly functional. So is a plank and rope bridge. But they chose a "pretty" design. Look at some of the old steam engines. From a distance they look soot stained and black and oily. Until you get closer and notice the fine pinstriping and the polished brass. Why? It doesn't need them to function, but it sure as beans is eggs, it looks NICE.

There is a place in London, can't remember exactly where, but it's a pumping station for sh***. That's all it did/does. But walk inside and it's a palace. Beautiful mouldings, paintwork gleaming with fine details, tiles like you wouldn't believe. Why? The engineers who built it just thought it should look nice as well as doing its job. It didn't cost them any more to build, it didn't take any more time to design. Hardly anyone sees it, just the bods working the engine, but the geezer with the pen and paper thought hmmmmm, it should be pretty!

So, whilst I've gone off piste a bit, and would never down play the skills of you engineers, whilst you're twiddling the programs, look for one deep in the OS, it'll be labelled SOUL in teeny tiny letters. Please press it. Your own soul will thank you.

I doubt if your next creation will be more efficient, stronger, or longer lasting, but it'll make the poor sod operating it smile every time he sees it.

It,ll make the world we live in just that bit, ummm, less boring and humdrum. 

When your designing the flight deck of the next Boeing Super Dooper Airliner or you've been given the back of a nondescript panel to work on, just think, what would Brunel or Bazalgette have done. Add some pinstriping or a bit of Gothic architecture. Go on. I know ya really want to.😜

 

Thanks fellas for indulging an old fart's musings and going along on the ride in my head/heart.

I firmly believe that the new should be followed along with, but let's not loose the skills, methods and ethos (if that's the correct word), of the old methods. They knew a thing or two, and who knows, one day we may have need of those skills again. Some of the things they built, flew, fought, drove etc. might still be around when our stuff isn't.

 

Tata, regards as always,

Pete, in his shed, trying to make a shelf pretty. Just because

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, nearly forgot. THANKS FOR EXPLAINING WHY EVERYTHING NOW LOOKS LIKE AN F35! Even my car😜

I think I understood everything you've kindly written. Might have to pin this open so I can keep referring back to it. I will forget and wonder again.

My marbles aren't where they were once and have a habit of trotting off for a jolly without me every now and then.

Anyhoo, I reckon a pinstriped F35/22/and might be sexy. Especially on a Steampunk themed Aircraft Carrier.🤯

 

They're coming to take me away, haha, hehe

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hallo 

Nice comunication. It is all said.

One point at the end I missed: Present day a/c systems make every country depending on the distributor. This dependency may kill you.

If  you do not get the key to operate them on time! As in Austria weapon defence systems on the EF, we need a key each time we would need it. As far as I am informed from our AF.

The same thing, also the back side of the coin, is the Iranien AF. 

If a country changes the sides, the 5th genetation fighter may be obsolete!

This term should also be mentioned. In case of emergency you are naked.

Happy modelling 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dov said:

Hallo 

Nice comunication. It is all said.

One point at the end I missed: Present day a/c systems make every country depending on the distributor. This dependency may kill you.

 

Nicely put. That may have been at the back of my mind with that closing point about needing the old style skills. 

Not necessarily in the dependency on others but just in the generalistic view of some catastrophic event befalling us. Those that live in simpler styles will be less affected than those who rely so heavily on new technology. I don't mean in a simply defence/attack scenario either. 

If we rely solely on these new methods, they may, and I pray they don't, stop working, or be beyond repair.

It is then we will turn to technologies that do work. Like the ability to work with iron rather than titanium etc. How do we engineer a bridge when all we have are simpler tools? Or, if it comes to a defence scenario, how are we going to get "ancient" technologies working when there is no one left on the planet who can make them work?

I admire you modern thrusting go getters. I really do, but remember the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants". 

Please don't push aside the "old" ideas just because they are old. Embrace them, keep em in your tool box, but don't bury em deep. Take em out every now and then, dust em off and renew your acquaintance. One day that 3/8ths Gripley" might just come in handy.

 

Oh, and remember to give someone a smile, on a wet, cold, wintry night in god-knows-where, when he opens up the panel you designed and sees "soul".

 

Regards as ever,

Keep on doing your thing,

Pete.

 

P.S. apologies to the estate of Terry Pratchett for the frivolous use of 3/8ths Gripley. See "Reaper Man".

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add:

The IAF was met with sich incidences of a broken suport chain: With the French. At matters of Mirage III which lead to the  Nesher with all consequences.

Todsy they design their own computer system for the F-35. In all other a/c mostly is Israeli frsign anyway.

Only if you are independent you are free!

 

Happy modelling 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

the reason for failure on the first Apollo dry run had nothing to do with slide rules or computers, it was due to a human error. Instead of air the capsule was filled with pure oxygen. I understand "Gus" Grissom, one of three astronauts that eventually died in that incident, was firmly against it during planing and construction of the capsule. Cheers

Jure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Hello,

the reason for failure on the first Apollo dry run had nothing to do with slide rules or computers, it was due to a human error. Instead of air the capsule was filled with pure oxygen. I understand "Gus" Grissom, one of three astronauts that eventually died in that incident, was firmly against it during planing and construction of the capsule. Cheers

Jure

Hey Jure, thanks for adding to our rambling thoughts. 

It usually is a case of a  human nugget stuffing things up along the way. I believe the RAF used the term "Finger Trouble".

I think sometimes we should listen more to the guys at the sharp end. Their opinions are very often right, but also often ignored as someone "knows better" or the "computer says no".

Whatever the causes those early astronauts deffo had "the right stuff".

As a young lad watching those early moonshots with pants wetting excitement I can't believe we aren't further along. But, as has been said, money troubles, world troubles etc. got in the way.

For me tho, that feeling of excitement now only appears when I see "ancient" technology. Nowadays the sound of propellor driven airplanes makes me look up. Even if it's just a Cessna on a jolly. The sight of the BBMF makes me squeal with delight and point and shout. Whilst the noise of a jet, either civil or military (we get a good deal of both here) just leaves me a bit cold. 

The only one that didn't was watching a Harrier at Washington years ago. It went sideways down the flightline bowing to the crowd. That made me smile.

 

So, from my caveman attitude, thanks to all the engineers, builders, fettlers or twiddlers who make our lives interesting, thank you.

I might not like the product, but appreciate what they can do.

 

May your days be filled with wonder and your nights full of love and beer.

 

Regards,

Pete,

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why

https://static.thisdayinaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/tdia//2012/10/Boeing-299-Flying-Fortress-NX13372-burning-after-crash-at-Wright-Field-30-Oct-1935.jpg

 

https://static.thisdayinaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/tdia//2015/09/attachment.jpg

 

https://static.thisdayinaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/tdia//2014/09/Screen-Shot-2014-09-04-at-17.29.47.png

 

Full disclosure - model paints is a side hussle that pays my wife a few hundred quid a month. My day job sees me responsible for Technical Delivery about $200m/year worth of Engineering, Procurement and Construction business but with input to a bit more than that. I work with a Head of Project Management, a Head of Engineering, a Head of Supply Chain, a Head of Project Controls and a Head of Construction and Commissioning who hold functional responsibility but those individuals are shared across our business region which is 6300 people in 10 countries and worth $1billion/year - so I'm the conduit for all of those Technical Functions in our $200m/year worth of business.

 

We design stuff with low and high voltage electricity, pressurised hazardous and inflammable substances sometimes with lethal contaminants in, contained, processed and moved about in structures and pipes with lots of pressure vessels and rotating equipment. We have the luxury of nobody caring what it looks like so long as it performs to specification, that we design things to be safe to use and safe to maintain, that we design them to be safe for the environment, that they can be destructed and removed practicably at end of life and above all that we can demonstrate that what we design and build is, As Low As Reasonably Practicable(y) intrinsically safe. If it fails to perform, we have to spend our own money redesigning it and rebuilding it such that it does. Do that too many times and you find yourself having redundancy consultations with your employees. Fail at the latter and something goes wrong and at best you're looking at huge fines but potentially someone responsible for ensuring it's done properly (maybe even me) goes to prison.

 

I cannot stress enough how low down the priority list is aesthetics. Frankly whilst doubtless well intentioned it's a bit of an insult to suggest modern Engineers lack "nouse" - nothing could be further from the truth - it's just that modern design requirements have progressed so far beyond the comprehension of the layman that it's like suggesting that the particle physicists at CERN lack the insight of Isaac Newton considering an apple bouncing off his head. The accidents in the photographs at the top of this post simply wouldn't be tolerated in today's world and yes - I am aware of why the Model 299 crashed but a design which allowed that to happen would be blamed for it in today's world. Indeed lots of big/complex aircraft now have systems to prevent high power with the control locks engaged. Even without, the fact nobody had foreseen that it was a viable scenario taking off with control locks engaged would still be blamed on design and they'd be right - it's a Process Safety failing.

 

Within the realms of defence projects, the object of the engineering is to absolutely maximise the performance of the product. When Lockheed designed the F-117 without computers the hand-calc maths was so laborious that the product was an array of flat facets because that was the absolute limit of computer free mathematics. The number-crunching ability of modern computers allows products like the F-35 to virtually match the F-117's radar cross section but in a package that not only flies properly but could literally run rings around the F117 and go twice as fast. The hard fact is that sketching out something pretty and then trying to make it function will leave you with something that is simply non-competitive.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamie. I have not set out to either insinuate or denigrate intentionally any engineer or designer.

In the beginning I asked what I thought was a question that might provoke a conversation.

It did that. It then made my oft scattered brainwaves think that things might be more, interesting, if modern designers, engineers and others, every now and again, added a little bit of themselves, for want of a better word, to their pet project.

As with all conversations, I expressed my opinions and heart felt thoughts. Others did the same.

I have been at pains, in every post to point out that I aren't putting the skills or the worth, if you like, of modern engineers, down. 

I fully appreciate what you all do. My own brother designed electrical switchgear and was a very talented engineer.

So, here and now, I will say, I am sorry you feel I have been disrespectful and that my attempts at light hearted requests for possible change has upset you.

The quote about using "nowse" was, maybe, a bit clumsy. But the thrust of what I was saying was there and again, if that upset you, I am deeply sorry.

It seems that money is king in this world. It directs everything. Well, I'm sorry that it doesn't fit in with my viewpoint.

Apologies once again.

This will be the last I will say on the subject. It appears to cause too much disharmony.

Thanks for chugging along folks.

Regards,

Pete

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pete,

 

Honestly I'm happy to discuss and hope you continue to. I like my profession and take it very seriously. I suppose I went into it at the beginning with a false impression of what it was but I've come to regard it anyway even though it's not what I originally thought. I thought it was inspired people inventing stuff which was an overly romantic and somewhat naive idea but the reality is much more systematic and demanding.

 

It's not money which governs although the money needs to work. It's the product and how it functions that is king. That doesn't mean unlimited funds chasing the last 0.00001% of performance but it definitely has to work.

 

Consider F-35B. Sure lots grumble about it, but it works. If it cost more than planned that's a complaint, and order sizes may be adjusted etc. If it wasn't engineered correctly and ended too heavy but pretty then it couldn't operate VSTOL with any payload which would render it functionally useless - and you'd *definitely* hear the complaints and accusations of incompetence roll in then.

 

There are probably two key sectors where design aesthetic is still considered a leading factor although one of those is undeniably transforming away from that: building architecture and automotive.

 

Architects still sketch out something attractive then ask an Engineer to make the difficult parts work and compromise is usually made. Kit houses used for the latest luxury dwelling house estate thrown up are all basically the same. Those who hire an architect want something unique, and they get it.

 

In automotive design it literally used to be the case that someone drew or sculpted something pretty then engineers were tasked with making it work. Until quite recently it was a joint effort of designing a pretty concept car, show the motoring press and by the time it was on sale it barely resembled the concept. Nowadays though automotive design is incredibly difficult because it's almost impossible to make something inherently awful like a jacked-up SUV weighing 2 tonnes + look like anything other than an icecream van with a corporate stylised grille and headlights with large alloy wheels. The days of even a decade ago when someone like Ian Callum could just pen something of proportions he knew the engineers could work with appear to be over and the reason for that is arguably because people no longer buy what they like, they rent by numbers. Not necessarily what's cheapest - but whatever makes them appear most successful for the lowest monthly outgoings seems to dominate the new car market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...