Aeronautical Engineer required part time

The task will suit a retired Aeronautical or Structural Engineer and involves checking, optimising and testing the structural integrity of a light sport aircraft design. The task includes the application for LSA status under the RAAus and CASA. Work at your own pace. Sydney based.

Please contact Ray on 0414 559742

I hope you get someone Ray. I would be interested in the calculated numbers. The Morgan designs have proven to be strong but the numbers would be good to know.

My basic calcs show the aircraft is waaayy over strong! It would be nice to optimise the structure

for say 750 Kg's MTOW @ +4,-2 G's taking the strongest parts from 544Kg/600Kg @ +6,-4G loadings.

Will have to test things like engine mounts, battery box and tailplane mounts, etc.

Practical changes:

25 x 2mm longerons from the pax rearwards.

All 25 x 3mm vertical, lateral and angle braces to the thinner gauge used.

All 0.025" sheets to 0.020".

Aluminium ribs rather than the fiberglass ones.

Titanium HS spar.

10kg landing gear too heavy (and get it out of the airstream).

I'll send you my bill.

What you really need to do is get your build manuals and service together, not much wrong with the product.

You're welcome.

My basic calcs show the aircraft is waaayy over strong! It would be nice to optimise the structure

for say 750 Kg's MTOW @ +4,-2 G's taking the strongest parts from 544Kg/600Kg @ +6,-4G loadings.

Will have to test things like engine mounts, battery box and tailplane mounts, etc.

Practical changes:25 x 2mm longerons from the pax rearwards.

 

All 25 x 3mm vertical, lateral and angle braces to the thinner gauge used.

 

All 0.025" sheets to 0.020".

 

Aluminium ribs rather than the fiberglass ones.

 

Titanium HS spar.

 

10kg landing gear too heavy (and get it out of the airstream).

 

I'll send you my bill.

 

What you really need to do is get your build manuals and service together, not much wrong with the product.

 

You're welcome.

Thanks Bex,

Yes, once the calculations are done for the structural optimisation I'm sure there will be some changes.

It seems to me that the rear vertical diagonals are in compression instead of tension which is ok if you have thick walls.

Titanium landing gear perhaps?!

Build manual is coming along. Service... well it is not up to me to judge.

I like your idea for the ribs.

Always open to ( not rude) suggestions!

Regards,

Ray

It seems to me that the rear vertical diagonals are in compression instead of tension which is ok if you have thick walls.

They do not need to be anything but lightweight tube for the purpose they serve. Think about it, 6 little rivets in each end, 3 per side, and you've never heard of a problem (?), so you can understand how little force they see.

Get an Engineer to crunch the numbers though, or do a load test.

The fiberglass ribs are certainly convenient for a taper wing, but heavy. You might want to put some typical lightening holes and strengthening ribs in them (have a look at a typical Vans rib for example).

It seems to me that the rear vertical diagonals are in compression instead of tension which is ok if you have thick walls.

They do not need to be anything but lightweight tube for the purpose they serve. Think about it, 6 little rivets in each end, 3 per side, and you've never heard of a problem (?), so you can understand how little force they see.

Get an Engineer to crunch the numbers though, or do a load test.

The fiberglass ribs are certainly convenient for a taper wing, but heavy. You might want to put some typical lightening holes and strengthening ribs in them (have a look at a typical Vans rib for example).

What is going on? Are you re-invigorating the Morgan designs?

Yes. website is www.wedgetailaircraft.com.au

I see the problem with getting a retired professional engineer to do the design work is professional indemnity insurance. The insurance only covers claims made from the year in which the engineering error was discovered. Claims can be made up until 7 years after the design was made, i.e.design now fault found 7 years then you are only covered if you have cover in that 7th year. At around $7k to 10k per year it means that it would cost me at least $50k to do such a job. Not worth it, and the liability cannot be off loaded by an agreement not to litigate, someone's family could litigate if you are dead. I suggest that you go to a consultant company, they will have PI and someone to check calculations.

Thanks Geoff,

Yes the "white man's burden" (Liability) has struck again!

Luckily it doesn't exist in other countries.

Ray

A divorce lawyer charges $700/hr, no promises, an engineering consultant charges around half this and must promise success or get sued by the guys that charge $700/ hr. Lawyers are the ones that have screwed it up for all of us. I love designing aircraft, doing my own aircraft at present, but it is too risky to do it for others. I cannot even sell the design of my aircraft.

I've never heard of an aircraft engineer being sued for a design failure, what is the precedent here?

What about the fuel pump parts that caused the Jandakot crash? Fairly recent too. But also who wants to be the first. PI is a real problem for all engineers that consult.

So no precedent?

The engineers PI company settled out of court to the deceased relatives is what I was tolf

I see the problem with getting a retired professional engineer to do the design work is professional indemnity insurance. The insurance only covers claims made from the year in which the engineering error was discovered. Claims can be made up until 7 years after the design was made, i.e.design now fault found 7 years then you are only covered if you have cover in that 7th year. At around $7k to 10k per year it means that it would cost me at least $50k to do such a job. Not worth it, and the liability cannot be off loaded by an agreement not to litigate, someone's family could litigate if you are dead. I suggest that you go to a consultant company, they will have PI and someone to check calculations.

And if so would that then become viable?

Yes it certainly would. I have involved with PI over the years and no broker has ever offered PI for a job. I usually get the company wanting my skills to get coverage from their PI insurer to cover me. It worked well.

but Ray is building experimental aircraft, the builder declares the airworthiness of the plane. I would cost millions to prove an aircraft designer was at fault.

No documentation is the only way. All data told verbally. The Jandakot issue was a small part failure, nothing to do with anything else.

My total net worth is over $4m. Lawyers would come after it all. Well worth it for them. I am retired, I don't want to live in poverty, I also want to continue to fly, an expensive hobby.

Before people were mentioning that the design of various aircraft was too heavy. The problem is that often the design of the wings looks only at the main spar. In reality often the wing skin adds to the strength and the main spar can be reduced in size and weight. To design a spar takes minutes using my program, but to add in the added strength of the skin requires a finite element analysis. This is slow and expensive. Most people opt for the simple design, and add some weight. I am doing this with my design.

but you have to pretty certain that the designer was at fault to embark on a legal case, you'd also need to find a group of suitably qualified engineers that would be prepared to prove the designing engineer is at fault.

Its a big ask

In the past CASA (NTSB?) Have done the engineering to determine the cause of failure, especially when a death is involved. The lawyers just have to prosecute, engineering investigation is free! Yes it is worst case, but it can happy. I would love to assist, its my professional career and my hobby, but the risk is s problem for me.