Modern aircraft design

[Giorgio N]

Aesthetics still plays a very important part in engineering, simply not in the design of military aircraft (and military equipment in general).

In civil structures for example: a bridge or a building of any kind is not only a feat of engineering, it is often also a feat of architecture. These structure have to fit in the landscape, be it urban or rural, they have to look good because the taxpayers will see them and will always prefer something that looks good. Often these structures are statements of the ideas and philosophy of the designers and/or the customer. Even the choice of materials can be such a statement! In a sense they are pieces of what can be easily called propaganda, they have to show how great the Country or the government or the owners are. A bridge at a highway exit will likely be designed only based on function, a bridge in the centre of a large city will always have to carry aestethic values together with performing its function.

Different reasons bring to similar results in other machines, locomotives for example: each train represents the company that owns it and since the company's goal is to make a profit, the train must look as good as possible to attract customer. You can see this in how well decorated and elegant the trains on the more expensive routes tend to be, their "beauty" is the first thing that a potential customer sees and is one of the reason why a customer may choose one line over the other.

Similar aspects are included in the design of other things, for example cruise ships. Here the more magnificent the ship the higher the profile of the owners is raised, by showing off the prettiest ship a company tells to the their potential customers that they are the best.

And of course an area where aestethics come into play is when the machine itself is sold to customers. It could be a car, a boat, a toaster... here the design will always be something important to make a customer choose one product over the other. Shape and function will then have to be matched as effectively as possible to offer the customer an object capable of satisfying the full range of "emotions" that the use of such object can arouse. All of course with the goal of selling as many copies of the object as possible..

This in itself is a very fascinating subject as industrial design really is an art that draws on many different aspects. Reading about things like "values" in the description of an object may sound useless corporate lingo but really a properly executed design will be based on the goal of expressing a set of values and transmitting these to the user.

 

Military aircraft however do not benefit from this, nobody (apart from us enthusiasts) care if they look good. They must do the job, if they look menacing it's fine but even if they look funny it's ok (think something like the A-6...), elegance is not really part of the requirements. Same for all other miltary weapons, be they tanks, warships, guns and everything else, they have to work as required, all the rest is unimportant.

Same for a whole range of industrial equipment, they have to meet certain specification, work well, be user-friendly. Good looks will be very far down the list.

What however can sometime seem to give a certain "elegance" is the fact that ergonomics can lead to designs that "look good". Not that this is always true though... the M16 rifle is one of the most ergonomic design ever in personal weapons but elegant it is not....

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Another thing comes to mind actually...

 

Are we overly dependant upon modern design techniques and computers in particular? To that I'd say a most emphatic "No". The reason is that computers cannot and will not do our job for us. What they can do is allow us to analyse stuff much more thoroughly. In the event that there is some major accident (because when engineering goes wrong, it can do so catastrophically), there will be a civil or potentially even criminal defence - or in the case of actual defence equipment like combat aircraft potentially a conflict or war lost - and at the first suggestion that modern techniques were not used because someone didn't want to be overly reliant upon computers there would be hell to pay, probably with "criminal negligence" written on the invoice.

 

If we accept that we're going to have to use modern analysis techniques to ensure something doesn't explode or that the wings don't fall off, then it stands to reason that we're going to use them to guide the design also. Again though this isn't a new approach, it's just maximising value from an existing philosophy towards design. As per one of my earlier posts - the 1960s medium haul medium capacity narrow-body airliners ended up looking remarkably similar because even analogue design methods still drive a design team towards the same evolved answer.

 

There's a lot of mythology about people like Roy Chadwick, Sydney Camm, Reginald Mitchell, Geoffrey de Havilland and Kelly Johnson etc but I don't believe it's intentional or even maliciously trying to remove credit from others, and is more a reflection of the public lack of understanding about what engineering really is. The reality is that they supervised other people who each had conflicting requirements. They had vast teams working for them comprising large numbers of specialists in various aspects of engineering and scores of draftsmen preparing drawings. Driving those teams towards a coherent and successful design made up of 100,000 engineering and design compromises is a major feat and they deserve all the revere they get - but it's not true that these individuals created the product overall. Indeed though the companies which made aircraft in those days tended to keep aesthetic features e.g. the shape of the fin and rudder in Hawker and de Havilland's cases. Lockheed liked a certain shape of nose cone and kept it more or less from the pre-war executive twins until the P-80 Shooting Star. When the maths dictated that things had to evolve to meet the design objective though, they did in every case. The Spitfire's famously beautiful wing lasted precisely one aircraft then was consigned to history because in the cold light of day its disadvantages were glaring whilst no technical justification for keeping it could be made.

[ckw]

13 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Are we overly dependant upon modern design techniques and computers in particular? To that I'd say a most emphatic "No". The reason is that computers cannot and will not do our job for us. What they can do is allow us to analyse stuff much more thoroughly. In the event that there is some major accident (because when engineering goes wrong, it can do so catastrophically), there will be a civil or potentially even criminal defence - or in the case of actual defence equipment like combat aircraft potentially a conflict or war lost - and at the first suggestion that modern techniques were not used because someone didn't want to be overly reliant upon computers there would be hell to pay, probably with "criminal negligence" written on the invoice.

But isn't this pretty well the case of the 737 Max? As I understand it software flaws (possibly in combination with inadequate training) effectively allowed the computers to crash the aircraft, despite the pilot's best efforts. 

I think your argument regarding liability is exactly why we will be required to become dependent on AI to 'do our jobs for us' - aircraft crash from time to time, whether from human error or a technological failure. From an actuarial point of view, the human element is harder to predict and quantify ... and can never be eliminated. Computer based systems may fail (and probably because of human errors in design/coding), but bugs can be fixed. I think we will continue moving towards complete computer based design/production/operation from conceptualisation through to production and operation. It will not result in incident free operations, but those incidents will be much more quantifiable - costs of foolproofing everything will be balanced against an acceptable cost of failure. 

 

BTW - I don't think this is a 'good thing', but an unavoidable evolution unless we abandon our current socio-economic models. Every civilization to date seems to have contained the seeds of its own downfall. We appear to be committed by the fundamentals of our current civilization to eliminate the human factor where possible, and I don't see how that can be changed - the genie never goes back in the bottle.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

50 minutes ago, ckw said:

But isn't this pretty well the case of the 737 Max? As I understand it software flaws (possibly in combination with inadequate training) effectively allowed the computers to crash the aircraft, despite the pilot's best efforts. 

 

Hi Colin,

 

My thoughts on the Max is that the Boeing sleep-walked into a deadly management culture and that the American FAA is ineffective as a regulator.

My understanding is that:

1. Boeing had defacto run the 737 beyond its useful design life
2. Airbus' A320 platform happened to be more adaptable to newer engines and Airbus was able to re-engine the NEO without the need to retrain pilots because it behaved the same way as the earlier A320 family
3. Boeing was unable to do likewise with the 737 designed originally for skinny low bypass ratio turbofans and could only re-engine with a nasty relocation of the engines, but management desperately wished to copy-cat Airbus' feature of no additional training for pilots
4. The Engineering and testing process made the severe handling flaws of the 737 Max too obvious to ignore, but because of point 3 Boeing's solution was to try to use MCAS to mitigate this flaw.
5. Due to the ineffective FAA allowing Boeing to self-certify, no independent body picked up that the design assurance process failed. In my industry someone would need to change a functional aspect of the design after the systematic HAZard in OPeration process was completed and have nobody willing to blow the whistle on it. Even then, we have an appointed Independent Verification Body who does 3rd party review of safety critical documents (which they select from the projects Master Document Register as they see fit - usually it's everything functional and a sample of manufacturing drawings) and quiz us on why things are designed the way they are just in case we miss something. There are parallels here with NASA and Morton Thiokol management creating a culture where engineers didn't hold their ground leading to the Challenger disaster. Not only was this a safety critical system with a single point failure, it doesn't fail safe - it goes bananas. 
6. MCAS was implemented with a single point failure in having only one angle of attack sensor as standard with a redundant one as an option.
7. Since the whole objective of forcing the square pegged 737 through an A320 Neo-shaped round hole was avoiding the need to retrain pilots, it really wasn't obvious to the customers what MCAS even was, none of the pilots really knew what it was and because nobody knew what it was or what it did, nobody ticked "Second AoA MCAS sensor" on the options sheet at order time. Even MCAS shouldn't have been a problem really - but it should have had 2 out of 3 voting sensor inputs as standard. Why anyone could order it at all with only one sensor is beyond justification.
8. When the only sensor on a safety critical system failed, MCAS failed, it failed in an unsafe manner*, and the pilots didn't have a clue what was happening.

From a purely engineering perspective, the 737 platform was unsuitable for the task because it was incapable of being re-engined in such a way that there was nothing different that the pilots needed to know about. Whilst the whole debacle is disgraceful and the engineering team really should have stood up for what I'm certain at least some knew was right, the root of this problem really was management culture and not modern engineering techniques.

 

To point 5 - it's a shameful yet insightful look at what happens in complex engineering projects when the normally highly disciplined design process is not strictly enforced and adhered to. That's precisely why it's done. Boeing's failure is just that - their own. It doesn't mean the process doesn't work, only that their own culture subverted that process - and now innocent people are dead because of it.

 

 

*think of a car's ABS brakes. If one of the 4 wheel sensors fails or a reluctor ring rusts through and falls off the ABS fails, but a yellow light comes on on the dashboard and you get a message saying "ABS Unavailable" or similar and you go back to having 1980s brakes again. Imagine if when one of the sensors failed the system locked up the front wheels. That's basically how MCAS failed. We engineer things specifically that when they stop working they don't actively try to kill you.

[dov]

@ckw

Hallo, you all

In design I can talk after 40 years in my job of mechanical engineering. 

The example 737 max: This aircraft was designed against basic laws of creating a stable a/c at all. So you needed computer to counter the big momentum created by the engine. 

Actualy in the past we often designed self stabilizing systems. At this time there were no computers on hand.

Even in static, if you know much abput loads, load and stress distribution,  you can choose a better way, as you depend only on computers.

If you calculate with FE elements on stress analysis, you must understand the random. The boundary. This must be done by hand and understanding. If you do not understand it  the calc will be wrong.

If you can navigate without automatic,  you will have a good life as a pilot. If you depend only on GPS you are a poor soul.

Today: The railway system was a stable system. Why not today? We are going faster than 160km/h. This is like the sound barrier in mechanical for each railway. The harmonic sinus like path changes to a zickzack line. Much wear as consequences. Today: rails must be welded, because of high speed. Consequences are thermal expansions do not have to occure anymore. Therefore the base of each track must be more solid, better steel, deformation may occure. If they are not dedected on time, havy accidents may occure. And today we are not pulling trains only, we are pushing them. Consequences are heavy wear and they are prone to accidents. Passengers sit in the drformation zone! 

Not everything from today is good. Much things are far overstretched. The side ruler is and was a good tool. Today I hate to depend on costly updates of programms. Freedom should never be forgotten.

Happy modelling 

[Giorgio N]

33 minutes ago, dov said:

@ckw

Hallo, you all

In design I can talk after 40 years in my job of mechanical engineering. 

The example 737 max: This aircraft was designed against basic laws of creating a stable a/c at all. So you needed computer to counter the big momentum created by the engine. 

Actualy in the past we often designed self stabilizing systems. At this time there were no computers on hand.

Even in static, if you know much abput loads, load and stress distribution,  you can choose a better way, as you depend only on computers.

If you calculate with FE elements on stress analysis, you must understand the random. The boundary. This must be done by hand and understanding. If you do not understand it  the calc will be wrong.

If you can navigate without automatic,  you will have a good life as a pilot. If you depend only on GPS you are a poor soul.

Today: The railway system was a stable system. Why not today? We are going faster than 160km/h. This is like the sound barrier in mechanical for each railway. The harmonic sinus like path changes to a zickzack line. Much wear as consequences. Today: rails must be welded, because of high speed. Consequences are thermal expansions do not have to occure anymore. Therefore the base of each track must be more solid, better steel, deformation may occure. If they are not dedected on time, havy accidents may occure. And today we are not pulling trains only, we are pushing them. Consequences are heavy wear and they are prone to accidents. Passengers sit in the drformation zone! 

Not everything from today is good. Much things are far overstretched. The side ruler is and was a good tool. Today I hate to depend on costly updates of programms. Freedom should never be forgotten.

Happy modelling 

 

Is this a real problem though ? Yes, tracks are welded, so what ? They are different tracks from those used in the past but most important together with different materials and designs there are monitoring programs and procedures that allow the asset managers to implement preventive maintenance to avoid damage and possible failure.

The same is true with almost everything else manufactured and sold today in the infrastructure world: the customer does not simply buy an item, together with the item they buy all the systems and procedures required to make this item perform as required over time.

In infrastructures it's been like this for decades, concrete bridges for example have been manufactured since the '60s according to programs that already included an inspection regimen to verify that the structure performs as planned. The same regimen allows the asset manager to decide if the life of the structure can be increased beyond the originally predicted term and by how much.

We're seeing the same in a diverse range of machinery today, by monitoring certain parameters it is possible to make them work over the original design limit, so increasing efficiency. Are we overstretching and overstressing ? Not necessarily, what we are doing is reducing certain safety margins thanks to the use of sensors and procedures that allow us to have a better insight in the actual operation of the machine or the health of the structure. Afterall most safety margins in engineering have been grossly oversized because of the need to eliminate uncertainties, the use of real-time monitoring removes a good number of these uncertainties. The implementation of efficient preventive maintenance further reduces the risk

It is of course clear that all of this can be sustainable if the various procedures are properly followed and really we can see how the vast majority of accidents are caused by the improper application of the procedures or the complete disregard for the same.

Back to the railway, we may have overstretched things but railway accidents in the EU have been constantly decreasing over the years even with an increasing traffic, meaning that the more modern approach does not result in a loss of reliability, on the contrary this has increased.

[GiampieroSilvestri]

1 hour ago, dov said:

@ckw

Hallo, you all

In design I can talk after 40 years in my job of mechanical engineering. 

The example 737 max: This aircraft was designed against basic laws of creating a stable a/c at all. So you needed computer to counter the big momentum created by the engine. 

Actualy in the past we often designed self stabilizing systems. At this time there were no computers on hand.

Even in static, if you know much abput loads, load and stress distribution,  you can choose a better way, as you depend only on computers.

If you calculate with FE elements on stress analysis, you must understand the random. The boundary. This must be done by hand and understanding. If you do not understand it  the calc will be wrong.

If you can navigate without automatic,  you will have a good life as a pilot. If you depend only on GPS you are a poor soul.

Today: The railway system was a stable system. Why not today? We are going faster than 160km/h. This is like the sound barrier in mechanical for each railway. The harmonic sinus like path changes to a zickzack line. Much wear as consequences. Today: rails must be welded, because of high speed. Consequences are thermal expansions do not have to occure anymore. Therefore the base of each track must be more solid, better steel, deformation may occure. If they are not dedected on time, havy accidents may occure. And today we are not pulling trains only, we are pushing them. Consequences are heavy wear and they are prone to accidents. Passengers sit in the drformation zone! 

Not everything from today is good. Much things are far overstretched. The side ruler is and was a good tool. Today I hate to depend on costly updates of programms. Freedom should never be forgotten.

Happy modelling 

You absolutely correctly say not everything from today is good.Reading it a conversation from a German humouristic Television series came to mind.After having been away for a while a man asks a friend how the new office is he moved in.He answers it is new so it is not very good.(you can imagine the word he used).🙂

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

Edited September 8, 2022 by GiampieroSilvestri

[Pete Robin]

I wasn't going to dig a bigger hole for myself, but reading these last few posts, I'm kinda mindblown if you like.  It's a PhD thesis in the making. It's like when I read "A beautiful mind". I didn't understand the maths, but, if you accept that they are correct, then it's a wonderful read.

I'm didn't fall down with the last shower, but I'm not, and never will be, an engineer.

You've lost me with much of what has been said but I get the basics. 

I understand in the "real world" things have to be immediately efficient AND make money. If it fails, the world has now developed "blame culture" and it is a genuine excuse that "the computer did it", rather than a human. But then again, some poor sod who didn't have that much input will also be punished, to make the CEO or whoever, look a bit better.

I fully get where military kit doesn't look good. It has a function. It's not pretty and in most cases it certainly wasn't designed for "comfort". I've been in the back of a 432 (if that's correct destination), and the top of my head will attest at its lack of space and springs. The Warrior is another one that was designed by madmen. No space for fully armed troops, no suspension to write home about and it had a habit of making men suffer from motion sickness (until some bright spark painted the clear fuel tank, so I'm told).

Automotive. Hmmmm. Methinks this is where dollars count more than style. I certainly appreciate that my little blob is pretty efficient. It's got better brakes than old cars had and it benefits from "modern" engineering. However, it's got no soul. It can't be repaired unless you have the correct codes. Hell, there are cars on the road where you can't check the oil level unless the engine has been run for so many minutes and that such and such a temp has been reached. And then you have to push button B whilst holding button C down with your left foot and your right foot is pressing the accelerator for 5 seconds. (Yes Mr mercedes, I've done it in your vans). What in the name of all that's holy was wrong with starting the car, leave it running while you open the bonnet. Then turn off and remove dipstick. Voila, oil level checked and not a computer in sight.

So computers for computers sake aren't such a good thing I think.

They make us, less, somehow. That's my feeling anyroad.

Most cars today are not aesthetically pleasing. Nope, not even the supercars. They all look the same. The computer designs them all the same cos the blokes put in the same parameters. No soul. Just raw engineering. Porsche got stuck in the 60s and their product is technically great, but awful to drive. You change gears like a fiddler's elbow and it still doesn't work like it should. It should be driven at max speed all the time to get it to work. There are only a couple of places to that, so what is its point. And it's ugly.

The Bugatti Veyron. Amazing technology, but c'mon, Mr Bugatti would be spinning so fast we could generate electricity. No soul. No style.

Then today I saw a newsflash. A geezer in Britain is selling at auction a 1931 Bentley (sans blower). Oh wow. Now that is beautiful. It has style, class and it positively oozes soul. Granted it's expected to fetch 800,000 pounds but ohhhhhh, I'd give my nuts for her.

I'm wandering again, sorry!

So, I get that function is a giant factor. I get that cost or efficiency drives the end product.

But, for the sake of a quids worth of paint or a little flourish on a bracket, something that makes the humdrum, different. Isn't that worth something.

Today I had cause to visit the library. Part of it is an old building and a new section was grafted on in the 50s. Being disabled I was walking up the ramp and held the rail. I noticed that the brackets holding said rail, each have the City coat of arms cut out of them.

It didn't do anything for the building except it looks "pretty" and it makes me, at least, smile when I see it.

Someone above made the point that trains use the pretty stuff to attract better paying customers.

Granted that the "well off" do get the luxury these days. But, and I can remember travelling on Steam trains, even the third class carriages has a certain "style". There was brass, polished wood, etched glass etc. And the engines were just everyday working machines. But the brass and copper was cleaned, the paintwork was stylish, and most of all, the crew were proud of it. It had soul along with the style.

Nowadays the luxury is put on. It's just a job, but providing for people with money to spend.

Going back to cars. Even the most prestigious marques have lost a bit of their appeal. I know you can have whatever you want in them. They are still hand sewing leather and matching wood veneers, but it's just mehhhh!.

The paintwork is mostly done by machine. The styling is sort of genetic and they just feel a bit, off.

I know it's more efficient to use robots, and that VW or whoever now own RR, make very efficient engines etc. but the hearts gone. The magic that they were imbued with as they were hand built and finished, has somehow got lost.

 

Now I'm getting lost in my head again. Sorry, it happens!

So please you engineers, you keep us safe, you make things work efficiently and I'll go and stare at a traction engine and love it to bits cos it's got style, it's got a stunning paint job and it has a soul. And it was made without a computer and without a committee, but a brave man decided that was how it would look. Good on him.

 

May your CADs, CAMs, 3d whotsits etc. never let you down.

When you have a minute, have a squint at something pretty and think, I wonder what if?

 

Regards to all.

I'm off for a lay down cos my brain hurts now.

Pete the Luddite.

 

 

[Giorgio N]

Pete, you know where the soul of machines come from 99% of the times ? From the sentimental and historical values that we attach to them!

You mentioned the Lancaster earlier, do you think it's an elegant machine ? Personally I'd rate the Lancaster as one of the worst looking WW2 bombers, fighting for the last few positions with the B-24 and the He-177. The Halifax is IMHO a much more elegant aircraft, particularly in Mk.III and following variants.
The same could be said for many other aircraft (the Spitfire is an obvious exception): today they are symbols, not simply machines. This gives them a special "soul" more than any design feature could ever do.

The same applies to cars, we always look at those of the past and see them as better... even if most of us have only really driven a tiny fraction of the cars that have hit the market over the last 60 years and really know nothing of how it could have been driving a Miura or a DB5. And yet any comment page on youtube or similar is full of people who claims how things from the past were this and that way.

I'm sure it's not your case but really most of the times the real difference between the things of the past and the ones of today is that in the past we were younger ! Same for me, I sometime see stuff from the '80s as very cool and for some reason superior to that of today but what was better what that in the '80s I was young and had a whole life ahead of me. Now I'm in my '50s and I've likely got less years to live than the ones I've lived... It wasn't the cars or the aircraft that were better, it was my view on life that was brighter 😃

[dov]

Hallo

Yes, @Giorgio N, the thing in railways is a bit more complex. I follow of interest all news and accidents in Germany & Austria only. The systems are not equal, but the basic iscequal.Each path of track has a critical temperature. Beyond the track will moove sideward. This is the problem. The onboard scaning is not deployed yet. The time range between examining the path is not a constant one. Depending on many factors. The last accidents in Austria & Germany are not solved yet. The safety margin in pushed trains is far below pulled trains. This is a risky thing. I am on the way to get more insight.

But to understand it is the switch from a well prooved system - pulled trains-- to an unsave but ecconomicaly more profitable - pushed train- from today. The passenger in the first 3 cars bears high risk. To understand the heavy locomotive is on the rear end! Just profit.

If an accident today may occure on such a fast train  we have a stock on causalties. No safety margin left.

On the other way, we can not build all tracks new. Since axle load increased enormous and lateral forces too. Old bridges can not be built new within few years.

Like you fly with a present day airliner and land on a gras airfield.

On the other hand consider mixed trafic. Cargo trains v max. 80 or 100 km/h and next track fast train with v max. 230 km/h. The aerodynsmical effects are extreme and mostly not obeyed.

As pasenger waiting on a platform and a train with 150 km/h passes by!

So far, just little inside the railway. 

 

I like new things if they are better than old. Sometimes it is not thought over all aspects neccessary. 

 

Happy modelling 

 

 

[Pete Robin]

2 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

Pete, you know where the soul of machines come from 99% of the times ? From the sentimental and historical values that we attach to them!

You mentioned the Lancaster earlier, do you think it's an elegant machine ? Personally I'd rate the Lancaster as one of the worst looking WW2 bombers, fighting for the last few positions with the B-24 and the He-177. The Halifax is IMHO a much more elegant aircraft, particularly in Mk.III and following variants.
The same could be said for many other aircraft (the Spitfire is an obvious exception): today they are symbols, not simply machines. This gives them a special "soul" more than any design feature could ever do.

The same applies to cars, we always look at those of the past and see them as better... even if most of us have only really driven a tiny fraction of the cars that have hit the market over the last 60 years and really know nothing of how it could have been driving a Miura or a DB5. And yet any comment page on youtube or similar is full of people who claims how things from the past were this and that way.

I'm sure it's not your case but really most of the times the real difference between the things of the past and the ones of today is that in the past we were younger ! Same for me, I sometime see stuff from the '80s as very cool and for some reason superior to that of today but what was better what that in the '80s I was young and had a whole life ahead of me. Now I'm in my '50s and I've likely got less years to live than the ones I've lived... It wasn't the cars or the aircraft that were better, it was my view on life that was brighter 😃

Well put my friend. Can't argue with a lot of that, apart from the fact that, unfortunately, I think the Lanc was better looking. It wouldn't win a beauty prize, but there you have it.

I can't claim to have driven a DB5 but I have driven a DB9. It made a noise, but I must admit it left me a bit cold. (Shhhhhh, keep it secret, but some of it's parts are Ford by origin). Because of the job I did (driver/dogsbody in a garage) I got to drive loads of stuff. From the exotic at times to the mundane and I got to admit, the older stuff, despite its faults and lack of modernity, are more fun.

I think you're probably right about looking back. It's a fault I have. My past was in the 50s and 60s. I would, if I could, time travel back then. Yes, we had bugger all, but life was simpler and slower paced. I understood it. I knew where I was, where I was going etc.

Nowadays, I try to use the computer. I know how to email and can find my way around t'internet and this site, but the poor thing sits in the corner all alone for days sometimes. It could, if required, build Tower Blocks, send a man to the moon, or perform complex surgery (with the right attachments). But it doesn't. I can't. If I write a letter, I use a pen and paper. (I do email at times tho). When I want to learn about something, I look in a book. (Well, sometimes I cheat and look on internet).

When I use tools (on the few occasions that my health allows me to), I use, on the whole, tools that were passed to me from my Dad and in a couple of cases, tools that came from my Grandfather. I like them. they feel familiar and natural. New power tools have their place, but in some cases (especially the planer) they scare the doodoos outa me. I also have some new tools, and they're fine. They haven't bitten me yet.

I really aren't trying to convince anyone that the OLD ways were better. I think what I am trying to say, is that we should have one eye over our shoulders and not discard those methods just because they are old. 

Some of us Old Farts have been trying to extol the virtues of old fashioned apprenticeships. Getting your hands dirty, getting a smack round the back of the head cos you were in the way, being given a small fraction of a larger piece of work to complete and then being praised for doing it right. Personally, I spent the first 6 months of my 6 year apprenticeship, sweeping up. I'm an Expert! But I learnt from the bottom on upwards. Sadly, my trade was one of the first that computer technology killed. But, there are tiny little pockets of it hanging on. One day they'll need us again. AND, amazing as it is, learning at a University needs to be tempered with hands on experiences.

My friend was a plater/welder in a shipyard. His trade has all but gone. So have many others. But, as I said, all you engineers, don't throw away your tools or your drawing boards. Use em in your spare time. Keep the skills alive, if for no other reason than it'll make you feel "attached" to past glories and it might make you, or better still, some old codger, smile a bit.

 

That's it. Sorry it's a waffle again. My mind butterflies all over the job, and I think of something cogent, and then it flies away. I hope I made some sense.

 

Am away now to let my head realign into this reality.

Never let that sense of Wonder or Amazement at something special die. Nourish it and Nurture it. It'll love you back.

 

Regards, thanks for coming on the ramble.

Pete, who's ink stained fingers still remember a trade not used for a very long time.

 

 

 

[Zephyr91]

I've throughly enjoyed catching up on this ramble, not havibg been involved with BM for a couple of years.  Wonderful stuff.  I was by turns smiling and then outraged then smiling again.   My contribution, if I may,  is perspective (or the eye of the beholder).   I recently retired after almost 40 yrs at BAES (as it is now).   When I started some of my colleagues were still using slide-rules and desktop adding/calculation machines.   We had a "mainframe" computer that had less memory and processing power than todays average budget-end smart phone - but at the time it was the bees knees and we designed EAP and the early draftings of Eurofighter/Typhoon before it was superseded by bigger and better things (in a smaller room!!).  By the time i retired, we had access to phenomenal computing capability with processor arrays in the 10's of thousands (average laptop has 4 maybe?).   But it was still basically an abacus. 😉.   It doesn't think.  So in the days of yore, if the guy with his slide rule used the wrong data or did the wrong type of calculation, then the output was rubbish.     So it is with a computer.   It's only as good as the people operating it.  Thankfully, the new generation of aeronautical engineers are some of the brightest people around.  As long as the management culture will allow exploration, testing of ideas, and mistakes before anyone gets hurt or something gets bent, then I see no reason why future designs and products shouldn't have soul.    Thinks: when I started we developed EAP to demonstrate new technologies.  When it flew it was "cutting edge" stuff.  No one then thought it was good looking or had soul.  It was to show off new things.  I visited it last year in the museum at Cosford.  I'd swear it whispered to me........ (and I know the fancy cockpit voice warning system was switched off).

 

cheers

Rob

[wellsprop]

Agreed with some of the other comments here, there are a few assumptions that are, in fact, incorrect.

 

The Typhoon and F35 do different jobs, the Typhoon is a superb air defence fighter interceptor AND a multirole fighter. The F35 is a stealth strike fighter. 

 

The UK does have the ability to develop it's own indigenous fighter aircraft (look at Tempest). The reason the UK is the ONLY tier 1 partner on F35 is that the UK is the only country that had the knowledge and capability to do so. The UK has specialist design knowledge relavant to the F35. 

 

More importantly, the UK made a really smart move and managed to get itself the largest workshare (outside of the US) as a tier 1 partner on the most advanced combat jet in the world, whilst having the US taxpayer fund the development. The UK has done really well out of the F35 and has a 5th gen fighter that isn't significantly more expensive than a Typhoon, without having the burden of funding development. 

 

 

The second question, why do most modern fighters all look the same... Basically it's down to "convergent design". The specifications for all fighters are roughly similar, as is the technology (software and manufacturing processes) used in the development of said aircraft. Because we all have to obey the laws of physics, the only real variable is budget constraints and social structure (yes, weirdly, that does affect how aircraft are designed). Industrial espionage plays a role too. 

 

Oh, and by the way, don't apologise for asking these sorts of questions, to an outsider, engineering decisions (and engineers themselves) seem wierd, illogical and confusing - but there will be a document somewhere that explains the reasons 😜