7 ms·
I remember reading that one engineer spent 6 years designing „ventilation for seats 40-80” on one of the larger Airbuses. It seems like the amount of design and
by badpun 2y ago
I remember reading that one engineer spent 6 years designing „ventilation for seats 40-80” on one of the larger Airbuses. It seems like the amount of design and engineering work required for a prototype of a complete aircraft (assuming you buy the engines) is just immense.
- kevindamm 2y agoHow much of that time was actual engineering-tradeoff decision-making and how much of that was working in a large corporation with abundant communication overhead?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- badpun 2y agoI'm betting a lot of that is reviews, approval, documentation, testing, re-testing etc - but it may be required for building a safe aircraft, and for getting it licenced to fly.
- seabird 2y agoFor a safety critical system, the work documenting, explaining, testing, validating, etc. a decision outstrips the work it took to make the decision. It is that way for a very good reason. The problem with it requiring so much work and time isn't that there's BigCorp bureaucracy that needs disrupting, it's that there isn't a problem with the amount of work and time required.
- kevindamm 2y agoI'm aware of that, but the proportion of overhead varies per company. Six months seems like a long time for a ventilation system, and the point being made in this thread is that the runway available for some spun-off group of former Boeing engineers would need to accommodate the very long schedules of the design stage. I'm just curious how much inflation there is in those schedules because I'm sure it's not zero. But you make a good point that these long runways are because the overarching tradeoff is one that prefers taking as long as it takes.