Talk:Aircraft design process

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Topic checklist[edit]

Just a few things that this really does need to cover:

  • Biomimetic design in the early days, and the Victorian copy-ornithopters
  • Early flight and the ability (around 1910) to design aircraft that will be known to fly, rather than hopeful experiments
Aerodynamics
Testing
  • Early test flying
  • Airframe instrumentation and quantitative approaches
  • Materials testing before construction or design
  • Test pilots
  • Auto-observers (cine camera and instruments)
  • Data loggers in flight
  • Wind tunnels
  • Supersonic wind tunnels
  • Schlieren photography, better tunnel instrumentation etc.
Materials
  • Aircraft demand driving materials supply, particularly for aluminium alloys, Duralumin
  • Growth of standardised certification schemes for materials, with known properties and quality
  • Development of new materials specifically to meet new needs: Y alloy, Hiduminium
Structure
  • Wooden ribs and frames
  • Stressed skins, all-metal aircraft
  • Design for manufacture, WW2 mass production techniques, the Mosquito wooden monocoque, German ersatz production
  • Barnes Wallis and geodesy
  • Fatigue: the Rutland Reindeer and the Comet
  • Exotic airframe materials, stainless steel, titanium
  • Composites
  • Contemporary military design for survivability after damage, not just for flight
Supersonic design
  • Compressibility, DH-108
  • Impact of shock waves
Systems design
  • Centralised instrumentation and engine monitoring. Bel Geddes' (and Soviet) "ocean liners in flight" with in-wing walkways
  • Crew ergonomics
  • Crew fatigue
  • Systems engineering and the growth of the flight engineer's role from a centralised point, Hughes H-4
  • Modern airliners, automation and the reduction of the flight engineer's role
Computing

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy -- I think your list goes back to the discussion we had in the AfD debate -- what is the proper scope of this article? I would think that the "aircraft design process" article should basically be about how aircraft have been designed in the past and how they are designed now. So for example, start with talking about early design methods (1-2 guys in a shed doing whatever they wanted), then how that moved to designing aircraft to meet certain customer requirements (cary this many people, this type of performance or whatever), and then discuss the modern systems engineering process and how it is applied to aircraft design (conceptual design to detailed design to test and evaluation to manufacturing to operations and support). I would expect that many of those details you mention above might fit better in the "new" (.... :/) Aircraft design article. And even then, only a brief description would be needed in that overview article, as most of those topics have (or should have) their own wiki articles. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point that we have to focus on process here, but all of the items above were listed because they not only affected design and manufacture, but also caused a change in how the process of design took place.
Obviously most of these (especially when listed as bullets) appear as disruptive technologies that represented a new innovation, which in turn required a new approach for its design. Once it was just a miracle for aircraft to even fly, then (late 1920s) they became reliable products and it was possible to compete between different manufacturers. Big name manufacturers all offered a "small mail-carrying airliner" and it became an issue as to who's not only flew, but was fastest or cheapest in service. Now builidng aircraft is no longer a matter for Tommy Sopwith's garden shed, but it takes teams of computers to do the stress, weight and drag calculations (and accordingly the many small firms become a few large firms). A technical change that makes things simpler changes the whole process and indeed business model, making it far harder to remain competitive.
Most of what I write is "history of engineering", so I do tend to take a chronological view for article structure and that's certainly what the list here represents. Do we want an article on ADP overall, including how it came to be this way, or do we just re-edit some college notes on "How to become a designer"? Maybe I should fork this off to another article under History of aircraft design processes? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article needs to address how aircraft are designed today and also the history of that. If that results in a long enough article that it needs splitting, then carving off the history makes sense. Please keep in mind that even today there are aircraft designers and manufacturers in the kit plane industry who are drawing designs on paper and doing stress analysis on a calculator, just like it was done sixty years ago. CAD-CAM is limited to the larger concerns and probably most small civil aircraft designs these days are still done the old fashioned way. I know of several cases in the last twenty years where the prototype has been built and flown and then the first drawings are made from the prototype, so it is not a homogeneous process even here in the 21st century. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oh, I agree with you, your list clearly has things in it that changed the process and would need to be discussed in the article, such as the proliferation of CAD that did away with wooden model makers. But I think there are a lot of things on your list that may have changed aircraft design, but not the core process. For example, supersonic flight didn't change the process of designing aircraft, it changed the physical design of the aircraft. Supercritical airfoil theory didn't change the process of designing aircraft, but it changed the actual design. I'll make a sandbox outline and we can work in there and see if we can fill in what makes sense. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On supersonic design, I noted the DH-108 deliberately. When your latest design kills your son, you start to think seriously about how much can still be done "seat of the pants" and how much needs to be understood from theory before pulling the chocks. Engine reliability in the 1920s developed by people like Saint-Ex digging himself out of snowdrifts and sand dunes when it went wrong. In the 1950s, there was no longer time to react in these circumstances, so it had to be done differently, and done right beforehand.
As to airfoils, then perhaps supercritical airfoils didn't change the process, but thin-airfoil theories and the NACA "off the shelf" profiles certainly did. BTW - Have you read What engineers know and how they know it. ISBN 0801845882.? Excellent book, very relevant to this discipline / process split, and a couple of really good chapters on inter-war airfoil design and (of all things) riveting. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've sketched up a rough outline of what might be in the article. I'm much more comfortable with the modern design process, so that's what I did in a bit more detail. Please add/edit/removed/reorganize as you see fit, I think we can use that as a basis to knock out a reasonable outline. User:SidewinderX/Sandbox/Aircraft_Design_Process -SidewinderX (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding why this article is the way it is[edit]

To understand why this article looks as it does you need to read all of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design first. - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More subheadings to be added[edit]

I've started the article for now, and got it to a decent length that won't be called a stub anymore I hope! I gotta add more topics such as modelling and simulation (wind tunnel testing), prototypes,test aircraft, weird designs etc etc, its endless.(history too,yea Ahunt?) :D The Mangol (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ain't Mount Vesuvius folks![edit]

I'm fazed by the lack of activity in this article! The article is missing some really essential headings, such as the actual design process. The article at present just revolves about the factors, constraints, design considerations and the sort, whereas the design process remains vague in its details. I understand after the AfD, there has been a lot of hesitation in its expansion and a dispute over the actual content and what not. But that's no reason to almost abandon an article that is most significant to Wikiproject aircraft Does anyone have any suitable RSs on the topic? I've got it till C class from a stub of two lines, with only 2 against B class. But leave classes, nothing gained there.
Topics like Aircraft structure, I feel, has a potential to be an entirely new article on WP, so its best to mention a bit and leave a link to the main article. Materials, Non-conventional designs - see http://www.unrealaircraft.com (yeah, not so 'reliable', but you get my point), modern CAD methods, famous prototypes, history and advancement of the design process through the ages *catches breath*, etc. Its simply ain't right for just 3-4 people actually watching and doing minor edits to an article of this significance. Forget the Afd, I don't want a kid stumped when he looks up ADP on Wikipedia for his homework and finding two lines, trust me I've been there once. Let's do this. Écrivain (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me it all comes down to lack of good refs. If I had some I could add some content, with without them I am rather stuck! - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the British design processes of the 30s and 40s for military aircraft are of use to the article. Roughly speaking it went identification of an operational requirement giving rise to an issued specification describing what performance the aircraft had to be capable of and any specific needs (eg engine, alternate engine, armament). This was circulated to (some of) the aircraft manufacturers who would then produce outline designs ("brochures"). These would be considered by the Ministry who would have their own experts go over the figures and possibly select a couple of designs for follow-up and/or recommend changes. Various meetings, including a "Mock-up conference" where a full scale wooden model would be examined, might lead to changes in the design. If a design was selected for production of a prototype detail design work would follow leading to a handbuilt aircraft. While some elements are illustrative too much detail might be Undue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely! Never think it is too much for the article, it might seem so at the present condition of the article, but this has a potential to be very comprehensive indeed. I was thinking of making a history section too, but whatever I did seemed to overlap with Aviation history. If you can add to the more relevant design history, and the changes it underwent through the ages, absolutely go ahead!. But try dropping the 'meetings' and 'conferences' part and focus on the design aspects alone ;) . Work in my sandbox if you need to - User:Écrivain/aircraft draft, its the same as the article. Écrivain (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

There's some problem with the structuring isn't there? Suggestions? Corrections anyone?--Écrivain (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aircraft design process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the second one is still broken - leads to 404. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aircraft design process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still broken. - Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aircraft design process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

India Education Program course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aircraft_design_process&oldid=1198208215"