4 ms·

Computational simulations have been involved in aircraft design for decades. However, at some point you still have to verify the simulations with real world tes

Computational simulations have been involved in aircraft design for decades. However, at some point you still have to verify the simulations with real world tests. I think (as a non-expert) the main reason no aerodynamically novel aircraft have been developed lately is because we have essentially optimised designs, already. To be clear, I am not saying that we can't do better. I am saying that the manufacturing (and other) cost of incremental improvements is large and the benefit is small. For commercial aircraft (as an example only), it is really hard to beat a tube with wings for the lowest cost of moving large numbers of people or volumes of cargo. Military aircraft with specialised roles are a bit more varied, and a lot more expensive to build and fly.

XorNot 1y ago
It happens every now and again on here: someone comes up with like a 2% improvement in aerodynamics, and people are unimpressed. Meanwhile airlines are basically scrambling to get it rolled into their next-gen purchases because it's the biggest improvement in costs in a decade.
- MichaelZuo 1y ago
  A 2% improvement that only costs 2% more to manufacture, sure. A 2% improvement that costs 200% more to manufacture would be nonsensical to seriously propose.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    You cannot possibly know that without knowing the operational lifetime of a plane and it's expected return. An airline doesn't buy a plane planning to break even on the purchase cost, for example. Which basically proves my original point.
    - MichaelZuo 1y ago
      Do you not understand what the word manufacture means? It literally doesn’t matter what the “operational lifetime” or “expected return” is if it costs 200% more to manufacture for only 2% improvements. It won’t ever get far enough in the design process for it to even be an issue.
      - XorNot 1y ago
        Setting aside that you pulled that number out of your ass to argue against it, if something produces 400X it's purchase cost over it's operational life time, a 2% improvement takes that to 408X it's purchase cost for only a 2X increase in initial outlay, meaning it pays for itself 4 fold. But very few innovations have that sort of effect on manufacturing cost to start with.
        MichaelZuo 1y ago
        This doesn’t make sense as a reply. How is your own opinion, on another user’s example number, even relevant enough to be “setting aside” in the first place?
rkomorn 1y ago
I think there's also a lot of "if we don't change too much, we have a pretty good chance to not face issues getting the aircraft certified", and "if we change the aircraft too much it'll cause issues where airports have to alter their infrastructure" (which is relevant for things like the blended wing research that's popped up recently). There's a ton of legacy in overall airline/aircraft operations that discourages big changes.

XorNot 1y ago

It happens every now and again on here: someone comes up with like a 2% improvement in aerodynamics, and people are unimpressed. Meanwhile airlines are basically scrambling to get it rolled into their next-gen purchases because it's the biggest improvement in costs in a decade.

MichaelZuo 1y ago
A 2% improvement that only costs 2% more to manufacture, sure. A 2% improvement that costs 200% more to manufacture would be nonsensical to seriously propose.
- XorNot 1y ago
  You cannot possibly know that without knowing the operational lifetime of a plane and it's expected return. An airline doesn't buy a plane planning to break even on the purchase cost, for example. Which basically proves my original point.
  - MichaelZuo 1y ago
    Do you not understand what the word manufacture means? It literally doesn’t matter what the “operational lifetime” or “expected return” is if it costs 200% more to manufacture for only 2% improvements. It won’t ever get far enough in the design process for it to even be an issue.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      Setting aside that you pulled that number out of your ass to argue against it, if something produces 400X it's purchase cost over it's operational life time, a 2% improvement takes that to 408X it's purchase cost for only a 2X increase in initial outlay, meaning it pays for itself 4 fold. But very few innovations have that sort of effect on manufacturing cost to start with.
      - MichaelZuo 1y ago
        This doesn’t make sense as a reply. How is your own opinion, on another user’s example number, even relevant enough to be “setting aside” in the first place?

rkomorn 1y ago

I think there's also a lot of "if we don't change too much, we have a pretty good chance to not face issues getting the aircraft certified", and "if we change the aircraft too much it'll cause issues where airports have to alter their infrastructure" (which is relevant for things like the blended wing research that's popped up recently). There's a ton of legacy in overall airline/aircraft operations that discourages big changes.