Quote:
Originally posted by KenWittlief
think of a jet aircraft - would you tell an aerospace engineer to lay out the engine, cockpit, and weapons systems, add wing and tail, and then just enclose everything with sheet metal?
|
No, but I would tell him to make sure the body can handle the systems. In an aircraft, form and form of systems defines functionality. A box with engines, weapons, etc. won't fly.
I wouldn't tell the A.E. to design a body for an aircraft, then consider what parts can go where. If they do, 99% likely they will have to redesign the body.
Re-read my thread and my points about 247. Their goals were established, then their body shape. In the case of an military aircraft, some goals are 1) Fly 2) Fly fast 3) As much vision as possible for pilot(s) 4) Provide weapon power.
With those simplistic goals:
1) Body shape must be Balanced and Aero-Dynamicly shaped.
2) Engines must have high power and applicable efficiancy.
3) Cockpit must be in front of plane with windowed casing.
4) Weapon systems must be large enough for tasks to come and be balanced so #1 is not effected.
I didn't say design a body around components. I said to design a body around stategic goals.
Quote:
|
To me, the best shape is one that productivly holds all of the pieces that your strategy wants to do.
|
Perhaps "pieces" was the wrong word, as that probably dictates direct component use. I meant "ideas", but pieces borderline fits.