Aero engineer for designing homebuilt aircraft.

Hello,
I am an aeronautical engineer in Western Australia, currently working creating repairs for the PC9 aircraft (RAAF trainer). Previous to this I had about five years designing repairs and modifications for general aviation aircraft (CAR 35 if you're an Australian; no I didn't get my delegation). What motivated me to be an aero engineer was a desire to design aircraft.

So I am looking to design homebuilt aircraft sometime in the future, perhaps as a business, and I would like your opinions for marketing purposes. If you are interested in having a homebuilt aircraft designed for you, or you have already built an aircraft, you can help me by filling out the survey below (9 questions).

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MPB6DNG

Cheers,
Tim

On May 27, 7:54*am, chd wrote:

...What motivated me to be an aero engineer was a desire to
design aircraft...

In my own direct experience, I've found a relatively weak correlation
between engineering credentials and actual design ability. It's there,
but it's not as strong as you'd expect or want.

If you want a career as any sort of aircraft designer outside of the
established industry, you end up having to bootstrap yourself somehow.
You will have trouble getting gigs, especially paying gigs, until you
can demonstrate your ability in a very tangible way such as with a
prototype that shows how you approach and conquer the various
challenges. But how do you finance that first project with no paying
customer? It's a chicken-and-egg thing that calls for an act of faith
and some out-of-pocket investment.

Thanks, and good luck!

Bob K.

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 7:54 am, chd wrote:

...What motivated me to be an aero engineer was a desire to
design aircraft...

In my own direct experience, I've found a relatively weak correlation
between engineering credentials and actual design ability. It's there,
but it's not as strong as you'd expect or want.

If you want a career as any sort of aircraft designer outside of the
established industry, you end up having to bootstrap yourself somehow.
You will have trouble getting gigs, especially paying gigs, until you
can demonstrate your ability in a very tangible way such as with a
prototype that shows how you approach and conquer the various
challenges. But how do you finance that first project with no paying
customer? It's a chicken-and-egg thing that calls for an act of faith
and some out-of-pocket investment.

Thanks, and good luck!

Bob K.
--------------new message begins--------------------

I strongly suspect that you, Bob, have hit the single greatest reason that
airplanes, and a lot of other things, are designed the way they are.

A mass produced product, especially one that requires government
certification to be sold, requires a tremendous investment to reach the
market; and then may be a failure if the market research was not accurate.
And accurate market research is extremely difficult for any new product--and
much worse for a product to be introduced at a future time.

Even so, there have been a number of examples of innovation such as the
Mooney Cadet (which was to be an improved trainer based on the Ercoupe) and
the BD2 (which was an effort to produce a $2000 airplane--about $20,000 in
today's money) which became the American Yankee. IIRC, both quickly gained
a reputation for treachery--although the Yankee was subsequently redeveloped
into the Cheetah and Tiger which had a measure of success under the Gruman
banner. And then there were the Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, both of
which were designed to meet a set of design and performance criteria
suggested by the FAA after interviews with a large number of respected
flight instructors. The more successfull of the two was the Tomahawk, which
IMHO seemed to meet the stated criteria more accurately. However, the
Tomahawk did not tolerate fools gladly (which IIRC was part of the original
criteria) and quickly gained a reputation similar to that of the Yankee.

So that brings me to the Amateur-Built (Plans and Kit) market, which really
makes the most sense in a very traditional way. Typically one man, the
entrepreneur if the design is eventually marketed, designs and builds an
airplane that meets (or appears to meet) his particular criteria of
erformance and efficiency--and then he offers the plans and/or kit to other
builders of like mind. Remember that the design is still in the
"esperimental" stage of development and that, in most cases, will never
reach the stage of having a Type Design and Type Certificate. Presuming
that the design really did meet the objectives and that no major problems
appear later, and also presuming that the subsequent builders are truly of
like mind and that they have or attain sufficient skill to build dilligently
in accordance with the plans; then the design is a success and with a bit of
luck the business of selling plans and/or kits might be a success as well.

Peter

�Remember that the design is still in the
"esperimental" stage of development and that, in most cases, will never
reach the stage of having a Type Design and Type Certificate. �Presuming
that the design really did meet the objectives and that no major problems
appear later, and also presuming that the subsequent builders are truly of
like mind and that they have or attain sufficient skill to build dilligently
in accordance with the plans; then the design is a success and with a bit of
luck the business of selling plans and/or kits might be a success as well..

Peter

I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
John G.

Peter Dohm wrote:
/snip/

A mass produced product, especially one that requires government
certification to be sold, requires a tremendous investment to reach the
market; and then may be a failure if the market research was not accurate.
And accurate market research is extremely difficult for any new product--and
much worse for a product to be introduced at a future time. /snip/
Peter



This reminds me of chatting to an old boy about this year's Luscombe
fold up, couple days back when we were sitting in the shade at a recent
flyin.

I mentioned that the most financially successful part of this local
attempt (ultimately successful) to certificate a Luscombe revival, was
the wind-up auction sale, at which (for example) a bunch of aero engines
sold for more than the Lycoming wholesale price...and like that...

His insight: "Why would anybody want to spend millions to certify
an Ugly Cessna 172 fly-alike, when the pretty Cessna 172 is available?"
He continued, "The 1949 Luscombe was ugly, and the new design was just
as ugly."

I guess that's your marketing point...

Brian W

"brian whatcott" wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm wrote:
/snip/

A mass produced product, especially one that requires government
certification to be sold, requires a tremendous investment to reach the
market; and then may be a failure if the market research was not
accurate. And accurate market research is extremely difficult for any new
product--and much worse for a product to be introduced at a future time.
/snip/
Peter



This reminds me of chatting to an old boy about this year's Luscombe fold
up, couple days back when we were sitting in the shade at a recent flyin.

I mentioned that the most financially successful part of this local
attempt (ultimately successful) to certificate a Luscombe revival, was
the wind-up auction sale, at which (for example) a bunch of aero engines
sold for more than the Lycoming wholesale price...and like that...

His insight: "Why would anybody want to spend millions to certify
an Ugly Cessna 172 fly-alike, when the pretty Cessna 172 is available?"
He continued, "The 1949 Luscombe was ugly, and the new design was just as
ugly."

I guess that's your marketing point...

Brian W

I wasn't thinking specifically of the Luscomb, but it's an outstanding
example!

For even more cynicism about your proposal see about 50 threads here
(sorry - you will have to find them yourself)

www.eng-tips.com

cmyr wrote:


I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
John G.

Good move! I have flown various Jodel flavors and can confirm that
they fly well. They are well liked and without vice.
Though how that trademark cranked wing does it, I'm not sure...

Brian W

brian whatcott wrote:
cmyr wrote:


I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
John G.

Good move! I have flown various Jodel flavors and can confirm that
they fly well. They are well liked and without vice.
Though how that trademark cranked wing does it, I'm not sure...

Brian W


Low wing load, moderate power loading, and a lot of leading edge.
No secrets there.

Actually, I envy you that one, Brian.
I've never had the pleasure.
I've heard they are really sweet.


--

Richard Lamb

"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
brian whatcott wrote:
cmyr wrote:


I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
John G.

Good move! I have flown various Jodel flavors and can confirm that they
fly well. They are well liked and without vice.
Though how that trademark cranked wing does it, I'm not sure...

Brian W


Low wing load, moderate power loading, and a lot of leading edge.
No secrets there.

Actually, I envy you that one, Brian.
I've never had the pleasure.
I've heard they are really sweet.


--

Richard Lamb


I, too, have always heard that they were well known for extremely docile
handling; and my very limited experience with models as a kid suggests that
the docile handling is a common trait of that geometry.

You could certainly do much worse, and I did once think of building a D9. I
might even consider one of their designs again--but the obvious problem is
that scratch building in wood is a lot of work and not a lot cheaper that a
prepunched metal kit from Vans!

Peter