6 ms·
The biggest difference between now and then…what makes this impossible today is not that our engineers are less capable, is not that we are more bureaucratic an
by fnazeeri 16y ago
The biggest difference between now and then…what makes this impossible today is not that our engineers are less capable, is not that we are more bureaucratic and is not that we’re less motivated.
The difference is that back then, we were indifferent to failure that cost lives.
And not just in development/testing. Once planes were deployed, if a plane didn’t come back from a mission it was “lost in action” independent if the wing just broke off in flight over some stretch of water. Read this excerpt from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star#Design_and_development>Wikipedia</a> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star#Des...:
<blockquote>The P-80 testing program proved very dangerous. Burcham was killed on 20 October 1944 while flying the third YP-80A produced, 44-83025. The “Gray Ghost” was lost on a test flight on 20 March 1945, although pilot Tony LeVier escaped. Newly promoted to chief engineering test pilot to replace Burcham, LeVier bailed out when one of the engine’s turbine blades broke, causing structural failure in the airplane’s tail. LeVier landed hard and broke his back, but returned to the test program after six months of recovery. Noted ace Major Richard Bong was also killed on an acceptance flight of a production P-80 in the United States on 6 August 1945. Both Burcham and Bong crashed as a result of main fuel pump failure. Burcham’s death was the result of a failure to brief him on a newly installed emergency fuel pump backup system, but the investigation of Bong’s crash found he had apparently forgotten to switch on the emergency fuel pump that could have prevented the accident. He bailed out when the aircraft rolled inverted but was too close to the ground for his parachute to deploy.</blockquote>
So this “no bureaucracy” craze makes no sense for modern aviation design but makes a lot of sense where lives are not at risk (as is the case with a lot of software development, but not all).
That’s my $0.02.
- Rawsock 16y agoDon't forget the F-104 Starfighter, also designed by Johnson. Pilots nicknamed it "Lawn Dart" and "Widowmaker" for a reason.
- zeemonkee 16y agoThe introductory chapter to the Right Stuff (Tom Wolfe) describes this well. The sheer cost of lives among test pilots in the 40s and 50s is shocking by today's standards, but this was a generation that went through Normandy and Bataan. That said, that doesn't explain why the aircraft of WW2 and the early Cold War took just a few years to go from drawing board to combat, in the days before advanced computer modelling, yet it took 20 years to build the Eurofighter. I suspect the lack of accountability of military contractors coupled with government collusion (jobs programs over national security) has more than a bit to do with it.
- nuriaion 16y agoI develop software for a drive-by-wire system for impaired people. Drive-by-wire is not a complex thing (specially compared to a jet) and for impaired people the safety regulations are a little bit lower. The first non-secure prototype with no safety features was done in some months. After that it needed several years of talking with the regulatory body and making prototypes until we were able to sell the first device. So I think that a lot of this 20 years are needed for a this regulatory stuff.
- hernan7 16y agoWell, in the WW2 there was actually a war going on, so producing deadlier and deadlier types of weapons was a more urgent matter for all parties involved. Probably true of the early Cold War times too.
- run4yourlives 16y agoOne word: Priority. I am a fighter jet fanatic, but let's be honest: What the hell is a Eurofighter, Raptor, or Lightening going to do that can't also be done by an Eagle, Falcon or Hornet to more or less the same degree? Let's be clear: The US and NATO established air dominance over the skies in Gulf War I in days, the Balkans in hours, and Afghanistan and Iraq in minutes with aircraft designed in the 70's. There is really no credible threat to western air forces that makes a new generation of fighter jet a priority. Or at least, there wasn't. Now that Russia and possibly China are building realistic opponents that will challenge the dominance of F-15s/F-16s and F-18s, there is pressure to upgrade.
- borism 16y agowow, Russia and China have started building realistic opponents for F-15s/F-16s and F-18s just now? I'm not sure whether I should laugh, cry, or tear my eyes out...
- run4yourlives 16y agoTo be fair, the Russians did have that massive collapse of society to deal with a few years back. It slowed them down a little. The Chinese still aren't big players in this space, and they mostly take their lead from the Russians. The Russian's haven't exactly been twiddling their thumbs, but while they make great aircraft, their radar and weapon systems are just now starting to eclipse western fourth generation standards, and the Raptor is still posting 20-1 kill ratios in simulated combat. That will probably change as the PAK-FA and J-XX come online (the Sukkoi being the greater threat, realistically, since nobody really knows what the J-XX actually is).