Aircraft Designers - how did you get there? 2

[Reegs54]

Hello everyone,

This is my first post after reading these forums for a couple months and I've learnt a lot in doing so.

The question I want to put out is: who has worked their way up to a position where they have actually designed aircraft. Not components, or subsystems, but ENTIRE AIRCRAFT from the conceptual stage. And, how did you get to that position?

Designing aircraft is the reason I studied aero eng, but I do realise that you can't walk out of uni with your degree and the next day step into Boeing/LM/Airbus etc and start drawing the next super fighter/transport. What I suspect is that to be an aircraft desiger you would probably have to have had a lot of experience first as an analyst, then as a subsystem/component designer, before being selected to head up a new project team.

A quick background on me. I'm 3 years out of Uni, serving as a maintenance manager in the military. My obligation to the air force is finished now so I'm looking to get out and pursue a technical career, as unfortunately a military engineer doesn't do much engineering anymore - it's all governance and admin. But that's a topic for a separate thread!

Looking forward to your replies.

 

[kontiki99]

I don't have anything first hand, but I will relate a story.

I worked with a flight test instrumentation engineer at Pax River. He had been in aviation since the Army Air Corps (I think since just after WW II, but I don't really know).

One day I showed him a photograph in a coffe table book about Burt Ratan. It was a photo of Burt's Pinto instrumented to do aerodynamic testing of model aircraft. I think it had a pitot tube on it.

This fella lit up when I showed him the photo. He told me he worked with Bert (some place) and that he had helped him set the car up like that.

He went on to tell me that Burt was someone that worked as a flight test engineer for one of the services with a single minded goal to someday become an aircraft designer.

Burt Ratan is famous enough that his story is probably in print. It's an obvious place to start looking if you haven't already done so.

Probably a lot of kit plane designers have their story out there too.

Good luck.

 

[crackman]

Reegs54

Of course this is just all in my own opinion and from my own experience but if you are talking about a position where one single engineer actually does the conceptual design, this really doesnt exist anymore at big aircraft companies. The days of Kelly Johnson have been long over with. Usually a core of experienced engineers are selected for a PD group (prelim. design). The majority of these folks are very experienced in their own disciplines (not normally cross disciplines however) usually 15 years or more. Each one handles different parts of the design. There is usually one focal chief engineer (old gray hair with 30 years plus) overseeing the group. If the concept takes, then the group is expanded.

As far as a position where one engineer gets to do the entire design (ie aerodynamics, structures, powerplant, etc.), AFAIK, this only happens with kit planes. Most of the time the guys designing an entire airplane (not including Rutan as he is an exception to the rule) actually use other consultant engineers to help them with different components of the design. Even companies designing small aircraft such as the recent Eclipse and Sino Sweringen have teams of engineers designing different portions.

As for advice, it depends on what part of design you actually enjoy more. First off, a design engineer as defined by most large aircraft companies actually does not establish the overall aerodynamic shape or concept of the aircraft. In reality, designers are provided criteria by all of the other engineering disciplines depending on the aircraft component to which he/she is assigned in order to develop the concept. As one would expect, in the case of the overall aircraft shape, the aero group does this first thru CFD and wind tunnel testing. Then, the preliminary design concept is given to the PD group to develop. This is a co-ordinated effort which obviously includes designers and engineers of all types. If you are more interested in establishing the criteria to which the design is molded, then you may want to consider being an analyst in either aerodynamics, performance, structures, propulsion. Once you have spent a few years working at a large aircraft company, this will become much clearer and you will be much more capable of deciding where you fit it.

I can tell from my own experience as an aero grad, I detested aircraft structures in college and thought it low tech and uninteresting. My primary interest was performance and stability and controls. For the past 20 years, I have worked in aircraft structures specializing in fatigue and fracture and have enjoyed it thoroughly, go figure.

 

[wes616]

My obligation to the air force is finished now so I'm looking to get out and pursue a technical career, as unfortunately a military engineer doesn't do much engineering anymore - it's all governance and admin. But that's a topic for a separate thread!

You need to go to the bookstore an pick up the book 747 by joe sutter. He was the chief engineer on the 747, and will give you some good insight into your above comment, as well as the reality of the 'TEAM' effort in designing an aircraft.

As crackman said, the days of Kelly Johnson are long since over... and even more interestingly, even then he only designed a very few things. His gift was bringing together great teams of people and knowing how to cut through the "red tape." Which I suppose would make him the ultimate bureaucrat (sp).

Wes C.
------------------------------
Light travels faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

 

[rb1957]

i think the size of the team is proportional to the size of the program (and the bank roll behind it).

smaller companies (I used to work for a Canadian OEM) have advanced design groups which can be quite small. their job is to translate some marketing numbers, or the VP's dream, into a rough airplane shape.

I'd pick up Raymer "Aircraft Design" (an AIAA book) or Torenbeek "Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design".

good luck

 

[Reegs54]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Crackman, how you described the design process is how I imagined it actually. In fact I remember a diagram I was shown in aircraft design class (I believe it was lifted from Raymer... already got a copy rb1957! ) that illustrated what an aircraft would look like if it was solely designed by a particular group. ie if the aerodynamics group was in charge you get a sleek, smooth shape with nothing to mess up the airflow; if the engines group is in charge you get a massive engine with a few control surfaces stuck to it. You get the picture!

I can tell from my own experience as an aero grad, I detested aircraft structures in college and thought it low tech and uninteresting. My primary interest was performance and stability and controls. For the past 20 years, I have worked in aircraft structures specializing in fatigue and fracture and have enjoyed it thoroughly, go figure.

This describes my feelings exactly (except for the 20 years). At Uni structures was not very popular with me - I took electives and did a thesis on control theory. But now, I would jump at the chance to be a structural engineer and make a career out of it. Yes, go figure indeed!

Thanks for the book suggestion wes616 - off to amazon dot com for me

 

[thayek]

I used to work for Cessna Aircraft designing the structure for their business jets. There was an "Advanced Design" group that did the loft design and the wind-tunnel testing of the aircraft. They basically made the envelope and set the parameters of the aircraft, then it went to the design group that did the "filling in" of the evelope with the structure. You had to be asked to join this group as it was a very small group, but they did all of the cool concept engineering and they weren't allowed to talk about the stuff they were working on. In fact, the door to their area was blacked out so that the passerby couldn't see what they were working on.

 

[plasgears]

Reegs54,
Don't limit yourself to airframes. The specialty of jet engine powerplants has enough facets to satisfy anyone. As a mech engr, I interfaced with aero engrs in many phases of engine design: structures, combustion, fans, vectoring nozzles, etc.

Many years ago I worked on early thrust vectoring using the same concepts brought to fruition today. Also, I worked on early composite fan blades designed for bird impact. These are now common across the board. Jet engine design draws from many of the aero and mech eng specialties.

 

[shawki321]

nice info thankx very much