If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Aero engineer for designing homebuilt aircraft.
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Aero engineer for designing homebuilt aircraft.
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Aero engineer for designing homebuilt aircraft.
�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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Aero engineer for designing homebuilt aircraft.
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Aero engineer for designing homebuilt aircraft.
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Aero engineer for designing homebuilt aircraft.
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Aero engineer for designing homebuilt aircraft.
"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! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Aero engineer for designing homebuilt aircraft.
For even more cynicism about your proposal see about 50 threads here (sorry - you will have to find them yourself) www.eng-tips.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DARPA calls for help in designing submersible aircraft | Charles Vincent | Home Built | 20 | October 14th 08 05:45 PM |
How to License Your Homebuilt Aircraft | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 26th 05 04:11 PM |
aero-domains for homebuilt experts | secura | Home Built | 0 | June 26th 04 07:11 AM |
I'm STILL trying to ID a homebuilt aircraft | Phillip Rhodes | Restoration | 1 | November 27th 03 06:59 AM |
I'm still trying to ID a homebuilt aircraft | Phillip Rhodes | Home Built | 1 | November 26th 03 08:43 PM |