Should Professionals Design Boats

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by Submarine Tom, Sep 10, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GTO
    Joined: Jul 2007
    Posts: 143
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 101
    Location: Alabama

    GTO Senior Member

    The rocket plane comparison is not a very good one. At that time, engineering was more of a "build it and see if it works" process - one reason for the high rate of failure.

    One of my college professors was an ex USN test pilot during the same time frame of the rocket planes. He mentioned doing the first arrested landing of a prototype. After the ground crew did a quick walkaround, he headed toward the runway for another landing test, only to be called back to the ramp after few minutes. Turns out that nearly every rivet of the back half of the aircraft was lying on the ground. Had he tried to take off, it would have probably been his last flight.

    A cautious development program that utilises a spiral design methodology of measurement, analysis, and computer modeling V&V can come up with a much better initial design than the engineering groups of the 50s - without the expense of numerous hardware failures.
     
  2. FranklinRatliff

    FranklinRatliff Previous Member

    Clueless

    The first supersonic rocket planes were built to take hugely more stress than they ever saw in flight.

    You don't have the slightest clue about the depth and breadth of the vast engineering effort behind the X-15.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hovf9bKrFfI

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pU3jdTwP4Q

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwKyeRjPt2s

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4tdq-k22Bk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66XaDJMQcc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndIOB2usjEU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSDub5xGtP8
     
  3. GTO
    Joined: Jul 2007
    Posts: 143
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 101
    Location: Alabama

    GTO Senior Member

    Calm down, chill a bit Frankie

    I did not mean to imply that there was no engineering behind the X-15.
    My point was that the tools - and materials - available today were not present during the development of the X-15.

    I have no doubt that the Engineers of that period would have loved to have access to CFD and structural analysis tools that are available today. These tools capture the data and knowledge acquired by the early experiments and allow designers and engineers to produce products that can be much more advanced than prototypes of the 50s. I worked in radar signal modeling and analysis that built upon data that was captured on magnetic tape for crying out loud. And using today's tools, more information is extracted from the same data than in the past, by just a small group.

    In short, IMO, the author of the article you quoted from Space Daily frames his argument in the context of an engineering environment that is vastly different than today's.

    But time will tell. Maybe Burt and his endeavor will crash and burn, literally. But maybe not. I hope not.
     
  4. FranklinRatliff

    FranklinRatliff Previous Member

    Many of the same tools used to develop X-15, such as hypersonic wind tunnels, are still in use today.

    Wind tunnels can often provide results much quicker than CFD.
     
  5. Petros
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,934
    Likes: 148, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1593
    Location: Arlington, WA-USA

    Petros Senior Member

    Burt is not an "amateur", he was a collage educated NASA engineer before being hired as a consultant by jim Bede to fix the dangerous and virtually unflyable BD-5 kit plane. he than went off and designed his own aircraft as a "hobby", the wood Vari-viggen, the composite Variezy and than the longEzy, which by than became a full time carreer for him. Because of his notoriety he was hired by many large aerospace companies as a consultant to help win government contracts (the company I worked for at the time hired him, he spent several weeks telling us what we already knew, took his consulting fee and than went home). He later was given contracts to developed low cost tech demo aircraft that large aerospace companies could not do economically, so he started Scaled composites to separate it from his other business interests. The private space program was a natural outgrowth of those experiences, and he hired away some of the sharpest engineers who had become unhappy with the bloated bureaucracy that NASA had become.

    Nothing about his career was "amateur". Also after having met him several times, and hearing him and his brother, talk, I would say he was not necessarily smarter than many of the staff engineers we had at the time. the difference was he quit his normal "safe" job and went out on his own and eventually has had a profound impact on world aviation. He was unfettered by the innate conservative nature of big business and the small minded bean counters that managed them. And that is what made the difference.
     
  6. FranklinRatliff

    FranklinRatliff Previous Member

    Racing Airplanes

    Two twin-engine racing airplanes designed for the same speeds, the Bugatti Model 100 and Rutan's Pond Racer. I'll let other people decide which one was designed by a genius.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. daiquiri
    Joined: May 2004
    Posts: 5,371
    Likes: 258, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 3380
    Location: Italy (Garda Lake) and Croatia (Istria)

    daiquiri Engineering and Design

    Considering the fact it was designed and built more than 70 years ago, that it carried a whole bag of fine mechanical and aerodynamic solutions, that it attained 35% higher speed with 30% less power, Mr. Bugatti wins hands down here. It is also visually a true artwork.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,773
    Likes: 1,678, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Hmmm…so let me get this straight.

    Pick up any English language dictionary anywhere in the world and the accepted definition of “Professional” is:
    “Performing for monetary reward/belonging to, connected with a profession…”*
    OED*

    So either someone is paid money to a “job”, whatever that job may be, and/or same said person belongs to a group of people whom all do “the same thing”.

    So, you’re citing projects that were “non-starters” as your definition of, well not entirely sure as your rant is very mixed emotive and full of irregularities light on facts and any definitive clarity.

    However, on this same theme, the only conclusion one can draw from your rants is that an accountant or banker (since they have the money to control/fund such projects) agreed to give money to some people to try and have a go at something technical. So you don’t like bankers/accountants…is that it??

    I assume from this then that you didn’t borrow any money from the bank to buy your house/land, or your car, and you don’t have credit cards? Since why would you ask professionals (bankers/accountants, see them again) to give you money when they make such poor judgements in providing money to non-starter projects which you vehemently produce as some kind of evidence against something you despise?
     
  9. MikeJohns
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 3,192
    Likes: 208, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2054
    Location: Australia

    MikeJohns Senior Member


    That's a very important issue too; The reason a lot of innovation doesn't see the light of day from larger organsiations is not that the engineers didn't propose it, but rather they are subject to the blight of management with its attendant bureaucracy biases and often ignorance.
     
  10. MikeJohns
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 3,192
    Likes: 208, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2054
    Location: Australia

    MikeJohns Senior Member

    I specifically asked for innovation within the last 20 years. There's been an endless and almost frightening amount of technological development. So it's a good era to look at since it's also well documented and within our own life spans. These advances needed insight and knowledge, they were not just there for the picking as so many concepts were in the past.

    I was interested in countering the myth that technology needs amateur input to move forward. The Wright Brothers is just the sort of example that feeds that myth.

    I'll keep reiterating that it takes a high level of education in the field to move the ball down the field.

    And to put the offending boot on the other foot; Its an urban myth from clogged minds in little boxes that imagine otherwise.
     
  11. Petros
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,934
    Likes: 148, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1593
    Location: Arlington, WA-USA

    Petros Senior Member

    A lot of people do not know that it was actually the RnD department at Xerox who invented the mac/pc windows style interface using the mouse and drop down menus. When the Xerox team had their project rejected by management and were shutting down the program because they saw no future in it, the project manager flew Steve jobs, and Bill Gates up to take a look at it. Jobs returned and canceled all of their other new product programs and started working on the Mac, Gates returned to Redmond and starting working on Windows. Both became some of the wealthiest men in the world, Xerox nearly went bankrupt.

    And we are all better off I suspect for it.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. DCockey
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 5,229
    Likes: 634, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 1485
    Location: Midcoast Maine

    DCockey Senior Member

    That's been my experience in automotive design and engineering. And I'll add that people with expertise in relevant fields are better at figuring out how to make an innovative idea work - and - better at coming up with good arguments why it won't work or should not be considered.

    Also, there is much less than perfect correlation between how much people are paid and their knowledge and expertise in relevant fields.
     
  13. DCockey
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 5,229
    Likes: 634, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 1485
    Location: Midcoast Maine

    DCockey Senior Member

    And I've seen "technical expert" engineers below management level who are major obstacles to innovation, and I've seen managers who are too optomistic that innovation can solve all problems.
     
  14. upchurchmr
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 3,287
    Likes: 259, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 579
    Location: Ft. Worth, Tx, USA

    upchurchmr Senior Member

    Franklin,

    Thanks for the great link.

    The problem with projects that waste billions is that non technical people decide on the goals and have the money. If you don't play their game you will not get the money or the work to keep you active. If you don't play you might as well become a stock broker, or a lawyer, or especially bad - a politician. (sorry if I insulted anyone besides a politician).


     

  15. upchurchmr
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 3,287
    Likes: 259, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 579
    Location: Ft. Worth, Tx, USA

    upchurchmr Senior Member

    Burt Rutan took significantly more risk than most engineering groups were willing or able to. That risk allowed proof of concept with the consequence that the aircraft might not last a long time. Proved his point also. There is a second Virgin Atlantic space craft to carry forward. I don't see that from most of the other programs.

     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.