Speed of design of airplanes.

From: (WaltBJ)
Date: 12/29/2003 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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


I bet there are a few real Kelly Johnsons out there who can't get a fair start
the way he did. He got his start when there just wasn't as much red tape to
fight. I wonder how another one could get started when people actually think
Moller can make his project work and send money his way instead of backing the
real talent.

I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

Take the restraints off of the Rutan shop, and see what happens...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: (WaltBJ)
Date: 12/29/2003 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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


I bet there are a few real Kelly Johnsons out there who can't get a fair
start
the way he did. He got his start when there just wasn't as much red tape
to
fight. I wonder how another one could get started when people actually
think
Moller can make his project work and send money his way instead of backing
the
real talent.

I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

It doesn't take a "Kelly Johnson". Look at the list of great (and not so
great) combat aircraft that went from contract award to service in five
years or less in the fifties: _All_the Century series, F8U, B-52, A-3, A-4,
A-5... For that matter, I believe that the Polaris system went from
scratching heads to George Washington at sea in under five years.

What it takes is risk assumption rather than risk aversion. The keystone for
the endless development schedules are those GAO reports that claim that the
sky will fall if production is approved before the system is *perfect*.
During the fifties, it was assumed that the "A" model would enter production
quickly, get into the hands of users who would identify shortcoming that
would be fixed in the "B" model and the "C" model would be the volume
production item. Some aircraft suffered major design failures (F-100, B-52)
that required serious redesign and fleet rework but no one was given the
Chinese Refrigerator Factory Quality Incentive Program. In the long run, it
saves money.

On 30 Dec 2003 06:37:53 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: (WaltBJ)
Date: 12/29/2003 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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


I bet there are a few real Kelly Johnsons out there who can't get a fair start
the way he did. He got his start when there just wasn't as much red tape to
fight. I wonder how another one could get started when people actually think
Moller can make his project work and send money his way instead of backing the
real talent.

I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

I found Kelly Johnson's rules for running a skunk works at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...993/rules.html They are a
good reality check on the following thoughts.

As designs get higher and higher tech, the problem with finding Kelly
Johnson's are the holes in the candidate's technological know-how. A
frequent hole is technology for developing large scale software
systems.

Scheduling is a more advanced for software than other disciplines,
even though when done badly software is the most uncontrolled
component of a project. According to Barry Boehm(
http://sunset.usc.edu/Research_Group/barry.html)
schedule is proportional to effort raised to an exponent the value of
which is a function of:
* Precedentedness--how new is it?
* Development Flexibility--can we adapt to new methods?
* Architecture / Risk Resolution--if it don't work, can we fix it?
* Team Cohesion--aka teamwork and the will to win.
* Process Maturity--have we done this enough to know what to do?

The overall equation works out roughly to T = k*p^1.4 where T is the
time in years, k is constant with dimensions: years/(persons^1.4), and
p is the total population of workers needed to complete the project.

Net net, designs take a long time because they use many people.
They need a lot of people because:
1) requirements are complex, requiring a large number of disciplines
2) there are too few skilled people to go around.
3) you can't trust incompetent people.
4) it takes even more incompetent people to check on incompetent
people.

John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

WaltBJ wrote:

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

For further on this, read Ben Rich's (memory failing here) "Skunk
Works". It talks about all the levels of red tape added during the
F-117 project compared to the SR-71.

MAH

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message ...

It doesn't take a "Kelly Johnson". Look at the list of great (and not so
great) combat aircraft that went from contract award to service in five
years or less in the fifties: _All_the Century series, F8U, B-52, A-3, A-4,
A-5... For that matter, I believe that the Polaris system went from
scratching heads to George Washington at sea in under five years.

Well, part of that was the prevailing Cold War arms race "holy crap we
gotta stay ahead of the Russians" mentality, too. Not wanting to be
caught with your technological pants down when the balloon went up
served as a hell of a motivator for driving development as fast as it
could go, and also assuming a lot more risk and letting lives be more
at stake as long as the aircraft were being fielded and were ready to
fly when the call came.

We just flat-out don't have a fear factor like that now. If anything,
the scariest thing that we're facing is airframes fatiguing to pieces
in flight.

On 30 Dec 2003 06:27:10 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message ...

It doesn't take a "Kelly Johnson". Look at the list of great (and not so
great) combat aircraft that went from contract award to service in five
years or less in the fifties: _All_the Century series, F8U, B-52, A-3, A-4,
A-5... For that matter, I believe that the Polaris system went from
scratching heads to George Washington at sea in under five years.

Well, part of that was the prevailing Cold War arms race "holy crap we
gotta stay ahead of the Russians" mentality, too. Not wanting to be
caught with your technological pants down when the balloon went up
served as a hell of a motivator for driving development as fast as it
could go, and also assuming a lot more risk and letting lives be more
at stake as long as the aircraft were being fielded and were ready to
fly when the call came.

We just flat-out don't have a fear factor like that now. If anything,
the scariest thing that we're facing is airframes fatiguing to pieces
in flight.

I always like to watch a thread develop for a day or two before
dumping my two centavos into the mix.

It's hard to compare development cycles from WW II to Century Series
to Teen Fighters to today. While the old projects involved aerodynamic
development, then engines and T/W concerns, then shockwave management,
then agility, now the real issue isn't airplane but "weapon system."

This is one of the key reasons why the Luddites of the Legislature
occasionally suggest that tweaking 25 year old F-15s will be just as
good as buying new Raptors. "Why there's no difference in top
speed....why do you need an F-22?"

Today the airplane is only a small component. You need sensor suites
(lots more than beep-beep radar) and data fusion and stealth and
instrumentation and automation and who knows what else before the
weapon works.

Quite often the blank sheet of paper that a design starts with will
get redrawn thousands of times as technology advances, software
develops, concepts emerge, etc. Raptor is going to water a lot of eyes
when it finally goes operational and the fact that it's taken fifteen
years will soon be overlooked.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Quite often the blank sheet of paper that a design starts with will
get redrawn thousands of times as technology advances, software
develops, concepts emerge, etc. Raptor is going to water a lot of eyes
when it finally goes operational and the fact that it's taken fifteen
years will soon be overlooked.

I worked on the ATF (soon to become F-22/F-23) engines in 1983!

Therein lies the catch. A lot of parts on the F-22 were obsolete 8 yrars ago,
like processors. The DoD used to be the largest source for electronics and the
biggest employer of software developers. Now it is just a drop in the bucket
and all the latest technology in both hardware and software goes to the
entertainment industry. We couldn't even get software peiople for the B-2
because Hollywpod was hiring them all at ten times teh salary DoD was paying.


More reasons why the development cycle is as long as it is..

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: (WaltBJ)
Date: 12/29/2003 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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


I bet there are a few real Kelly Johnsons out there who can't get a fair start
the way he did. He got his start when there just wasn't as much red tape to
fight. I wonder how another one could get started when people actually think
Moller can make his project work and send money his way instead of backing the
real talent.

I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

Burt Rutan?

Smartace11 wrote:


Quite often the blank sheet of paper that a design starts with will
get redrawn thousands of times as technology advances, software
develops, concepts emerge, etc. Raptor is going to water a lot of eyes
when it finally goes operational and the fact that it's taken fifteen
years will soon be overlooked.

I worked on the ATF (soon to become F-22/F-23) engines in 1983!

Therein lies the catch. A lot of parts on the F-22 were obsolete 8 yrars ago,
like processors. The DoD used to be the largest source for electronics and the
biggest employer of software developers. Now it is just a drop in the bucket
and all the latest technology in both hardware and software goes to the
entertainment industry. We couldn't even get software peiople for the B-2
because Hollywpod was hiring them all at ten times teh salary DoD was paying.


More reasons why the development cycle is as long as it is..

With all the programming jobs going to India and Russia, the
defense jobs may be the only ones left for US programmers.
Or have they figured out how to offshore them also?

Joe


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----