This paper was published by Donald M Thompson - Office Chief of Transport (1959).
Below are some key take aways that still apply today, if not more than ever as the VTOL industry begins to construct new designs of air vehicles again there is a lot that can be learned from the past. Not to pick on the US Army which this was written for specifically regarding the new helicopter and VTOL programs and how best to design for practicality such as maintenance.
- Vehicle must be safe when operated within a prescribed flight envelope, using yes or no propositions across the board Air Force, Navy, or the FAA.
- Vehicle must operate efficiently in the environment in which the Army operates. (Before the Army had flight standards 1959).
- Army should develop an "Army Aircraft Designer's Guide" reflecting engineering lessons learned and state the requirements for satisfactory design. (Do not duplicate)
- Technical responsibility for engineering decisions during design, production, maintenance, and product improvement must be centralized in a single office. (Program Management)
- The development, procurement and maintenance systems for Army Aviation should be reorganized to emphasize excellence of product by placing one engineering office in charge from beginning to end. (Project Oversight)
- The new organization should emphasize products, like airplanes, engines, etc., and not functions like development, value engineering, maintenance engineering ect. (products get delivered not services as a product)
- The Army as the customer must develop specific guidance for the designer which will show in engineering terms of weight and/or complexity the things which will be overhauled and those things which will be discarded when worn out. (Army aviation has come a long ways, this is before airworthiness directives 1959)
- Detailed requirements should emphasize "maintenance free" design. The objective of an air vehicle which can operate with absolutely no maintenance for a minimum period of at least 100 hours is technically obtainable today (1959) and should be the goal of every new development. (Designs must meet 100 hours maintenance free to be considered)
- Reduce the number of warning indicators provided the pilot in the cockpit. (Reduce cognitive work loads for pilots before CRM was established)
- Limit all inspections to 100 hour inspections (No protocol for inspections had been established)
Senior Scientist, Senior Software Safety Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, Chemist
2 年The recommendation of using Line Replaceable Units instead (throw away components) of Line Repairable Units touches heavily upon logistics issues. Is it, for instance, easier to supply complete fuel pump components rather than a complete list of fuel pump subcomponents? Repair time becomes a combination of time to fix/replace combined with availability of the replacement units or subcomponent parts. If each fuel pump has 30 subcomponents it is easier to inventory and track one fuel pump than 30 subcomponents. Replaceable units need not always be cheaply made. They should be made to satisfy their performance requirements. If a requirement states that a unit must have a particular normal service life then the unit should be designed to satisfy that service life requirement. Logistics then must supply units in quantities to meet the service life requirements plus anticipated loss of units due to combat damage.
The Tom Joad of Drones - If it is Blue, it is probably not new!
2 年LOL