Suggestions for the Class

Coursework starts with a mock market survey to get a sense of how an aircraft design is conceived (its importance is highlighted in Section 2.3). Inexperienced stu­dents depend on instruction; therefore, a teacher’s role is important at the begin­ning. Here, I offer some of my experiences in the hope that they may be helpful.

The teacher divides the class into groups of four, which then work as teams. After introducing the course content and expectations, the teacher assigns (with student participation) the type of aircraft to be undertaken in the coursework (the example of the Learjet 45 class of aircraft is used in this book). The teacher gives the students the payload and range for the aircraft and asks them to list what they think are the requirements from the operator’s (customer’s) perspective and directs them to produce a scaled three-view sketch. I recommend that students consult Aerospace America [23] to study similar designs and tabulate the statistical data to arrive at their proposition. (Relevant Web sites also provide substantial informa­tion.) Understandably, in most cases, the specifications and concept configuration designs may not be realistic; however, some students could arrive at surprisingly advanced concepts.

It is unrealistic to assume full understanding by students at the start of the design exercise, but I have found that comprehension of task obligations improves rapidly. The teacher explains the merits and demerits of each team’s proposition, retaining only the best cases. Finally, the teacher selects one configuration (after pooling ideas from the groups) but allows the students to retain configuration differences (e. g., high or low wing, or tail position) that have been tailored to a realistic shape and will be systematically fine tuned as the class progresses to the final design. When specifi­cations have been standardized and the configurations decided, the class assumes a smooth routine. I recommend that the teacher encourage differences among config­urations to compare the designs at the end of the semester. The comparison of the final design with their initial propositions, as the evidence of the learning process, will provide students with satisfaction.

This type of project work does not have closed-book final examination – grades are based on project documents submitted by students. Grading is at the discre­tion of the teacher, as it should be, but peer review contributes. Working in teams requires honest feedback among students because the teacher cannot track individ­uals working on their own. Leadership qualities of individual students should be recognized but should not overshadow a quieter student’s performance. The stu­dents will soon be competing in the reality of the industry, and a spirit of teamwork must be experienced in the classroom. This spirit is not only about cooperation with others; it also is about being an effective contributing member working in harmony within a team. By this time, the teacher would have adequate feedback on individual work quality and capability.

A note of caution: What is accomplished in 36 hours of classroom lectures takes approximately 36 weeks in industry, not including the work put in by the experi­enced engineers engaged in the work. The undergraduate coursework must stay on schedule to conclude on time. Therefore, to maintain the schedule, the teacher must remain in close contact with students.