Speed of design of airplanes.

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
As opposed to when?

It was comparatively easy to design an aircraft in say 1937. All you
had to do was bend some metal, rivet on some aluminium, and send a
brave man up to fly it. If he didn't come back, you went on to another
design. If he did, you could improve it according to his notes. This
is not a valid approach with supersonic aircraft.

But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
one year.

Hell...Army CENTCOM is arguing about how to increase protection on
trucks and Humvees in use in Iraq while troops in theater are trying
to buy any kind of steel plate they can get to hang on the vehicle
doors. Policy is getting in the way of protection, and the middle
managers aren't getting their ducks in rows with any measure of
expediency. I'd rather be a civvie contractor with employer-purchased
body armor and personal weapon & wheels than an Army joe right about
now.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
one year.
all the best -- Dan Ford


The thing to have done for the World Trade Center reconstruction would have
been to build it exactly as it was before. Just the sort of 'in your face'
gesture that would have made a point to terrorists that the USA may bend but
not break.

My opinion,

Tex

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
one year.
all the best -- Dan Ford


The thing to have done for the World Trade Center reconstruction would
have
been to build it exactly as it was before. Just the sort of 'in your
face'
gesture that would have made a point to terrorists that the USA may bend
but
not break.

The port authority wanted to tear down the WTC, "as it was before".

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:30:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

On 29 Dec 2003 02:13:31 GMT, (SteveM8597) wrote:

So, to the engineers in teh group, are we seeing a problem that is
basedin the designing of the planes, or the process used to create
that design, in the administrative and bueraucratic ways things are
done?



In a few words, software, systems integration, changing user requirements,
parts obsolesence and Congressionally mandated funding profiles/milestones.
Drives a contractor into a risk averse position and long development cycle.

So lets say we moved to a wartime footing, where the order was "Get
it done, and in our hands ASAP" with most other considerations
secondary-- would we see a dramatic improvemetn, or just a fwe months
shaved off here and there.
Note, I know that this won' t happen--this is more in the sense of
what *could* be done.

Probably not. There are a lot of long-lead-time items, like the
titanium hot sections and stuff. We might see prototypes quicker, but
not production aircraft.
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On 29 Dec 2003 13:40:14 GMT, (Smartace11) wrote:

To a large degree, the engineers WERE the project managers in the 70s and if
you take the F100 engine as an example things really fell apart as the
durabilty and reliability specs were non-existant. Too much new technology and
mainoy just a performance (thrust) spec. A large part of the F-15/F-6 fleets
were grounded due to the stall stagnation issue.

Before that there was grievous trouble with compressor discs flying
apart into a bunch of pieces and trashing the rest of the engine. I
was in the control room for the first MEA of the F-15.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
news
On 29 Dec 2003 13:40:14 GMT, (Smartace11) wrote:

To a large degree, the engineers WERE the project managers in the 70s
and if
you take the F100 engine as an example things really fell apart as the
durabilty and reliability specs were non-existant. Too much new
technology and
mainoy just a performance (thrust) spec. A large part of the F-15/F-6
fleets
were grounded due to the stall stagnation issue.

Before that there was grievous trouble with compressor discs flying
apart into a bunch of pieces and trashing the rest of the engine. I
was in the control room for the first MEA of the F-15.

The F100 engine was also the death of much field maintenance for USAF
engines. The turbine blade inspection failure rate was so high that the
wheels (nearly?) always had to go to Depo for rebalance. Then there was the
pilot's fear of FBW and the remechanisation of the entire F-15 controls
system. All in all, the F-15 was a pretty dynamic target for the designers
to try and hit.

"Tex Houston" wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
one year.
all the best -- Dan Ford


The thing to have done for the World Trade Center reconstruction would have
been to build it exactly as it was before. Just the sort of 'in your face'
gesture that would have made a point to terrorists that the USA may bend but
not break.

My opinion,

Tex

I like it too...
--

-Gord.

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

Now an aircraft is obviously more complex than a bomb, but under
similar
pressure, I would imagine that a timeline of under a year or so
would be
possible.

How many wars last a year these days? Aren't we beyond trench
warfare, and into a "come as you are" military environment?

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:34:27 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
one year.
all the best -- Dan Ford


The thing to have done for the World Trade Center reconstruction would
have
been to build it exactly as it was before. Just the sort of 'in your
face'
gesture that would have made a point to terrorists that the USA may bend
but
not break.

The port authority wanted to tear down the WTC, "as it was before".


Never mind that the WTC towers were, well...ugly.

Most people forget that; They were not well-liked by many in NYC
during their lives, and had all the architectural merit of Stalinist
apartment blocks.

If you want a new airplane fast you find another Kelly Johnson and
give him the keys and the money and leave him alone.
(P80/F104/U2/A11/SR71) Nowadays there's too many cooks and too many
beancounters and too many can'tc--ts, as Hack would say. Where's
Kelly's DNA?
Walt BJ