Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: LEDPIG on March 12, 2008, 11:01:21 PM
-
I just spoke with Widewing in the TA and found out he's been working with an aeronautical engineering firm for 28 plus years. He's always very informative and professional. I think he ought to be on HTC's payroll, or at least an advisor. If he isn't already. He needs to be in charge of all aerodynamics and flight model physics.
I'd never wonder about another flight model again...... :D
:aok
Widewing
-
I never talked to him myself, but my CO speaks very highly of him.
<S> Widewing
-
I'm not an Aeronautical Engineer. I'm a Senior Project Engineer with Circor Aerospace. I design hardware that goes into aircraft, aircraft sub-systems and weapons systems. If the US military flies it, drops it, shoots it or launches it, the odds are high that I have hardware on it. Fuzes, such as the FMU-139 and FMU-143 have impact and/or deceleration sensors that I designed. JDAM, GMLARS, Excalibur, Hellfire, Tow, Tomahawk, Sea Sparrow, MK48 ADCAP and many other weapons systems rely on our hardware to function correctly. I have designed sensors for the M4 carbine, the M60 as well as SOCOM's Mk46 and Mk48 machine guns and their new SCAR 5.56mm and 7.62mm battle rifles (Mk16 and Mk17). This technology is used to acquire and store data relating to the weapons being fired. Most commercial aircraft have devices that cut power to the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) in the event of a crash. I designed those, and several similar systems. I just recently designed and delivered prototypes of a sensor system that senses free fall of an aircraft carrier's elevators (all elevators). The new carriers will be all electric, using linear motors to operate the elevators. Should power be lost, nothing prevents the elevators from falling to the lowest deck. My device senses free fall and signals a computer within 23 milliseconds of exceeding 0.5g absolute to apply mechanical brakes. We supply the crash sensors for a significant portion of ELTs (emergency locater transmitters) in commercial and civilian aircraft, both in North America and the EU.
That's not all we do. Our company designed the new pneumatic weapon ejection racks for the Predator UAV. We design and build the pneumatic control system for sonabouy deployment of Boeing's new ASW aircraft, which is now being developed.
There are people who designed or play the game that have far more valid qualifications relating to aeronautical engineering than I will ever have, and I defer to those folks when it comes to flight models and the science of aeronautical technology.
So, while I appreciate LEDPIG's motive, I'm not an expert on Aeronautical technology and would not be of any benefit to HTC, unless they have something that absolutely, positively must be blown to little pieces.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Rgr Wide i thought you worked with aeronautical flow devices such as airfoils, wings anything that dealt with aerodynamic pressure and the related aircrafts bodily surfaces. I see you work with mostly systems, weapons systems, aircraft internal systems. You ever design anything like weapons targeting avionics, or internal cockpit pilot sensors and subsystems?
I was wondering what does the average work day go like in something like that?
Either way excellent Widewing, very interesting, your quite the intelligent man. Nice guy too. :)
:aok
-
Sounds like a really cool job, Widewing. I wouldn't be in any hurry to retire :)
-
I would, I rather connect people than take them apart. :D
-C+
-
I just spoke with Widewing in the TA and found out he's been working with an aeronautical engineering firm for 28 plus years. He's always very informative and professional. I think he ought to be on HTC's payroll, or at least an advisor. If he isn't already. He needs to be in charge of all aerodynamics and flight model physics.
I'd never wonder about another flight model again...... :D
:aok
Widewing
That's Pyro's job you're talking about ... don't let him see this thread! :eek:
-
That's Pyro's job you're talking about ... don't let him see this thread! :eek:
Oh i'm not complaining, AH is wonderful, the flight models are awesome. Pyro does a great job (wasn't sure it was him) :)
All i was saying was that Wide usually notices alot of interesting discrepencies in flight characteristics, presents useful data and a lot of times seems to be right. They should listen to Widewing. No one should be arrogant not to listen, and your own community can sometimes be a useful source of data. And Wide clearly knows what he's talking about.
Besides if Pyro was that easily offended why would i worry about that?
-
Don't kid yourself, WW. You are without a doubt one of the most informed and well researched people on the board. If it flew in WW2, you have at least *something* on it, and thus do a great service.
If I ever win the lotto, I'm gonna offer you a million bucks just to look at all of the material you have. The absolute wealth of information that you've accrued over the years isn't only valuable to those of us who wanna know every nut and bolt of our fave a/c, but is absolutely essential when/if something in the FM goes haywire (CLmax on a laminar flow, anyone? ;) )
I for one actually look for your posts whenever a thread about the fm of a plane is discussed to get your take on it.
Keep up the good work, bro- I'll see ya in the TA one of these days so I can work on co-e engagements and to wring out the Jug :salute
-
I would, I rather connect people than take them apart. :D
-C+
I've met a lot of people who were much nicer after having been disassembled.
-
I'm not an Aeronautical Engineer. I'm a Senior Project Engineer with Circor Aerospace.
You, sir, are a steely eyed missile man. Some day we need to schedule some TA time.
-
Rgr Wide i thought you worked with aeronautical flow devices such as airfoils, wings anything that dealt with aerodynamic pressure and the related aircrafts bodily surfaces. I see you work with mostly systems, weapons systems, aircraft internal systems. You ever design anything like weapons targeting avionics, or internal cockpit pilot sensors and subsystems?
I was wondering what does the average work day go like in something like that?
A typical day is less than exciting. R&D work can be a challenge, but like any type of engineering, there's the associated documentation. This includes design studies, detailed drawings, ECNs, release sheets, test procedures and many other uninspiring tasks. For every fun task, there are 10 boring ones to mitigate that brief interlude with job satisfaction. It can be a grind.
Satisfaction comes when your hardware performs in the field exactly as intended. For example, we designed and manufacture a cryogenic system and a separate impact sensor for the Standard Missile-3. You probably recall that this was the missile that recently took down that broken spy satellite. It's a hoot when the hardware does something on the cutting edge.
You may recall the two space probes sent out about 8 years ago by NASA. One was named Genesis and the other Stardust. You may recall that Genesis crashed in Utah when its recovery parachute failed to open. The reason it failed to open was that the reentry sensor was installed backwards. The same Lockheed Martin facility that built Genesis also built Stardust. So, NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were very concerned that the same mistake was made in Stardust (you can read about Stardust at http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html (http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html)).
So, we had NASA, JPL and Lockheed Martin Space Systems people up the wazoo. They came to our facility and we programed our centrifuge (an extremely sophisticated machine) to duplicate the reentry forces expected to be seen. After a solid week of test runs including testing (including testing with the sensor in a capsule of liquid nitrogen), it was concluded that if the sensor was properly installed, they would get a good chute. The fact that they were relying on a single sensor (a commercial grade component I designed in 1991) astounded me... It was exposed to 7 years in deep space, traveled 4.5 billion miles and a $340,000,000 satellite's survival depended upon our device. On January 15, 2006 Stardust entered earth's atmosphere. After a few minutes of coms blackout, a burst of telemetry showed a rate of descent indicating that the main parachute canopies were deployed. Our sensor did its job and NASA's program manager looked like the weight of the world was lifted. I should mention that we also provided the sensors that operated the comet dust collection system (sensing deceleration associated with entering the dust trail).
Even wiki addresses the Genesis blunder:
"A 16-member NASA Genesis Mishap Investigation Board (MIB) was quickly formed, including experts on pyrotechnics, avionics, and other relevant specialties. The MIB started its work on September 10, 2004 when it arrived at Dugway Proving Ground. It determined that all scientific hardware meant to be curated by the Johnson Space Center could be released and were not needed for the work of the board. Both JPL and Lockheed Martin began to prepare flight data and other records for the MIB.
It was announced on September 23, 2004 that the capsule, having had the science material extracted, would be moved to the Lockheed Martin Space Systems facility near Denver, Colorado, for MIB use.
A first possible root cause of the failed deployment of the parachutes was announced in an October 14 press release. Lockheed Martin had built the system with an acceleration sensor's internal mechanisms wrongly oriented, and design reviews had not caught the mistake. The intended design was to make an electrical contact inside the sensor at 3 g (29 m/sē), maintaining it through the maximum expected 30 g (290 m/sē), and breaking the contact again at 3 g to start the parachute release sequence. Instead, no contact was ever made.[6]
The same general parachute concept was also used on the Stardust comet sample return spacecraft, which landed successfully in 2006; that system was said not to have Genesis' flaw.
Shortly after the spacecraft crashed, it was pointed out that Colin Pillinger, part of the science team analysing the collected samples, was also the Principal Investigator for the ill-fated Beagle 2 mission to Mars. It had been suggested that the cause of Beagle 2's loss (which is as yet undetermined) might also have been due to a parachute failure. The determination of the cause of Genesis's parachute failure rules out any link between the two failures.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/66940main_avionics_gswitch.jpg)
The chair of the NASA investigation board, Michael Ryschkewitsch, noted that none of the stringent review procedures at NASA had picked up a mistake, saying, "It would be very easy to mix this up".
Some would consider it amusing to note that this mishap is an instance of Murphy's Law that is classic in a most literal sense: After all, the incident causing Edward A. Murphy, Jr. to phrase his now so famous law, was exactly thisan accelerometer installed backwards.[7] On January 6, 2006, Ryschkewitsch revealed that a pre-test procedure on the craft was skipped by Lockheed Martin, and added that the test could have easily detected the problem."
Yeah, we get to do neat stuff.
I work for the Aerodyne Controls division of Circor Aerospace... http://www.circoraerospace.com/ (http://www.circoraerospace.com/)
My regards,
Widewing
-
So the MIB's are real :O
-
That's Pyro's job you're talking about ... don't let him see this thread! :eek:
Good going LED, now the next patch will never come out. :mad:
-
It was exposed to 7 years in deep space, traveled 4.5 billion miles and a $340,000,000 satellite's survival depended upon our device.
Widewing, that's awesome :)
Since you appreciate the QC part of design implementation.. What's your opinion on the chances of new private companies like Bigelow and others to catch up to government space agencies?
-
Satisfaction comes when your hardware performs in the field exactly as intended. For example, we designed and manufacture a cryogenic system and a separate impact sensor for the Standard Missile-3. You probably recall that this was the missile that recently took down that broken spy satellite. It's a hoot when the hardware does something on the cutting edge.
Awesome WW. I was stationed on the Lake Erie '00-'04 and was part of the crew who did all of the flight test missions for the SM-3. Fun stuff.
-
Widewing, that's awesome :)
Since you appreciate the QC part of design implementation.. What's your opinion on the chances of new private companies like Bigelow and others to catch up to government space agencies?
Unlike government agencies, corporations have to answer to stockholders. Thus, waste is minimized. I think that these companies have an excellent chance at competing with NASA within the realm of earth orbiting spacecraft, as long as they place adequate emphasis on flight safety.
My regards,
Widewing