Bill Roper F1 model for NGAD development side discussion

[Sundog]

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/08...uZw&utm_content=270842880&utm_source=hs_email

If Roper thinks F1 has more complex aero than aircraft development, then that man is an idiot.

 

[jsport]

If Roper thinks F1 has more complex aero than aircraft development, then that man is an idiot.

all one can say is the tall t--d in the tent IMHO is still more and more money being spent on geared turbofans w/ diminishing returns in performance. ere needs to be an entirely new look at options w/ no shaft and no gears such as the nested core turbine. City hall doesnt like that is the product of one guy so NCT goes nowhere, but so these turbo fans cost more with less and less return.

 

[apparition13]

If Roper thinks F1 has more complex aero than aircraft development, then that man is an idiot.

The context:

F1 cars, Roper explained, extensively use digital engineering to rapidly iterate designs, leading to constant improvements to give drivers an edge — including in real time on race day.

“Formula One is amazingly complex from an aerodynamic perspective. And for my opinion, it’s more complex than what we do in aviation,” Roper said. “They are dealing with micro forces that they need to predict to within a millisecond of lap time, and they’re able to do that.”

Roper also pointed to a key tradeoff F1 drivers make to inform their digital models by rigging their cars with hundreds of sensors, a lesson he said is applicable to aircraft. Though each of these gizmos carries a weight penalty, the sacrifice is worth it, he said, “because the data coming off of it is more valuable.”

The same should be true for aircraft, where designers are often extremely sensitive to considerations like weight to maximize performance. “If I were building aircraft today, I would instrument them as much as my tolerances would allow,” Roper said.

I think what he's saying is that F1 does aerodynamics in a more complex way than aviation, not necessarily that F1 aerodynamics itself is more complex.

There may be lessons to be learned there, adding sensors might make sense for instance, but F1 cars are also bespoke and taken care of in a way commercial and military aircraft are not and cannot be built or maintained. How they iterate from year to year rather than during a season may be more useful than tweaking performance during a race.

I think that's what he's going on about. Speeding up and improving block transitions, and the development of new airframes. And he's right about that. Whether F1 is a good model or not is more of an open question.

 

[red admiral]

Whether F1 is a good model or not is more of an open question.

It is definitely not a cheap or limited people model to follow. Maybe "AI" will do it?

Do you want to spend 100% more to get 1% better aerodynamics, or does it make sense to put those resources into other areas? Sensors? Software? Simply build more airfraft?

 

[Scott Kenny]

It is definitely not a cheap or limited people model to follow. Maybe "AI" will do it?

Do you want to spend 100% more to get 1% better aerodynamics, or does it make sense to put those resources into other areas? Sensors? Software? Simply build more airfraft?

Very much this.

Friend of mine used to build race cars, had a scary-hot VW Bug back in the day. He always said, "The first 90% of a project takes 10% of the time and money. The last 10% takes 90% of the time and money."

A similar comparison is the basic AR-platform rifle. The one the Army buys was $900 or so last time I heard. The top line competitive guns are $5000. (both without optics etc) Most shooters are not even good enough to see the difference between the $900 M4A1 and the $5k JP custom. A starting competitor is much better off buying a $900 milspec, $600 worth of reloading equipment, and then spending the difference between that and the JP custom in ammunition and practice. Then they might get good enough to need a JP custom after a couple of years.

Chasing those last few percentage points of advantage gets extremely expensive very quickly.

 

[apparition13]

It is definitely not a cheap or limited people model to follow. Maybe "AI" will do it?

Do you want to spend 100% more to get 1% better aerodynamics, or does it make sense to put those resources into other areas? Sensors? Software? Simply build more airfraft?

I think he's talking about using an F1 type approach to everything, sensors, software, weapons, all of it. Not trying to eke out every fraction of a percent of performance; rather using the model of F1 as a guideline to speed up development of new aircraft and the modernization of existing ones.

What I think would be really instructive would be to look at the T-7 program and see why it was able to get a plane in the air so quickly, and then figure out why that early speed of development has slowed.

 

[red admiral]

What I think would be really instructive would be to look at the T-7 program and see why it was able to get a plane in the air so quickly, and then figure out why that early speed of development has slowed.

T-7 wasn't quick though if you compare to other aircraft? Computers have slowed down development if anything, but allow for some risks to be reduced earlier so there is more confidence that the final thing will work.

The F1 development model uses a lot of people and money

 

[Mike Pryce]

"The F1 development model uses a lot of people and money"

To do very little. Downforce is anti-lift. Literally the opposite of aviation. One aerodynamicist I know was appalled by the simplistic approach in F1, despite the resources available.

Roper is talking nonsense. Again.

 

[TomcatViP]

Yes I am not really sure that F_1 CFD is as advanced. The Aerospace comparison will certainly raise hanger or incomprehension among a lot of his former colleagues.

 

[Scott Kenny]

"The F1 development model uses a lot of people and money"

To do very little. Downforce is anti-lift. Literally the opposite of aviation. One aerodynamicist I know was appalled by the simplistic approach in F1, despite the resources available.

I dunno, some of the tricks they've pulled are pretty fascinating. Like designing in enough flex to get the front wings closer to the ground where they are more effective (since banned) when at track speeds.

And yes, they're chasing that last few percentage points of optimization, so it takes a lot of time, people, and money to do.

 

[Hanz2k]

"The F1 development model uses a lot of people and money"

To do very little. Downforce is anti-lift. Literally the opposite of aviation. One aerodynamicist I know was appalled by the simplistic approach in F1, despite the resources available.

Roper is talking nonsense. Again.

Your statement is simply not true. First of all F1 is constraint by technical regulations book. A flavor of what is possible deliver RedBull X1 concept.

 

[Forest Green]

Yep, F1 is heavily nerfed by engine capacity limits, prohibition of forced induction, downforce fans, ground-effect aerodynamics, active suspension, brake steering, active aerodynamics (electronic or material), exhaust enhanced diffusers, dual clutches, all wheel drive, active steering, active differentials, electromechanical or pneumatic valve actuation, limited number of engines per season, fuel type regulations, tyre regulations, open cockpit, minimum weight restriction, air intake restrictors.....

 

[Sundog]

I dunno, some of the tricks they've pulled are pretty fascinating. Like designing in enough flex to get the front wings closer to the ground where they are more effective (since banned) when at track speeds.

And yes, they're chasing that last few percentage points of optimization, so it takes a lot of time, people, and money to do.

That's aeroelasticity and was first demonstrated in the aerospace industry decades ago.

 

[Forest Green]

That's aeroelasticity and was first demonstrated in the aerospace industry decades ago.

Back then F1 was still using active aero and ground-effect, which are more effective, because they hadn't been banned yet.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's aeroelasticity and was first demonstrated in the aerospace industry decades ago.

This was also decades ago, 2002 IIRC. This was after active aero was banned. "We can't help it if the wing flexes down closer to the ground at speed and therefore becomes more effective!"

Back then F1 was still using active aero and ground-effect, which are more effective, because they hadn't been banned yet.

F1 was not allowed to use Ground Effect until the 2021 or 22 season. Only Indy ran open wheel cars with ground effect ducts.

 

[GeorgeA]

This was also decades ago, 2002 IIRC. This was after active aero was banned. "We can't help it if the wing flexes down closer to the ground at speed and therefore becomes more effective!"


F1 was not allowed to use Ground Effect until the 2021 or 22 season. Only Indy ran open wheel cars with ground effect ducts.

Exploiting ground effect to increase downforce was first attempted in F1. F1 engineer Tony Rudd pioneered the concept at BRM in the early 1970s and moved to Lotus to begin working with Colin Chapman on advanced designs. Mario Andretti won the 1978 World Championship driving the Lotus 79 skirted venturi car.

Enzo Ferrari famously said, "Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines," and began a years-long campaign to put the ground-effect genie back in the Montepulciano bottle, first getting the skirts banned, then promoting a fixed ride-heigh rule, and finally, in 1982, getting a mandate for flat-bottom chassis implemented. Of course, you can't actually "ban" ground effect, even if you're Italian, so the period between 1982 and 2022 saw incredible advancements in the utilization and management of the airflow under and around a road vehicle without having the shaped underbodies that the first venturi cars had.

And now we are REALLY off topic.

 

[robunos]

Exploiting ground effect to increase downforce was first attempted in F1. F1 engineer Tony Rudd pioneered the concept at BRM in the early 1970s and moved to Lotus to begin working with Colin Chapman on advanced designs. Mario Andretti won the 1978 World Championship driving the Lotus 79 skirted venturi car.

Enzo Ferrari famously said, "Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines," and began a years-long campaign to put the ground-effect genie back in the Montepulciano bottle, first getting the skirts banned, then promoting a fixed ride-heigh rule, and finally, in 1982, getting a mandate for flat-bottom chassis implemented. Of course, you can't actually "ban" ground effect, even if you're Italian, so the period between 1982 and 2022 saw incredible advancements in the utilization and management of the airflow under and around a road vehicle without having the shaped underbodies that the first venturi cars had.

And now we are REALLY off topic.

AIUI, the reason Ferrari was against the venturi car was that it didn't work with the Ferrari 'boxer' engine, you needed a Vee type engine to give the room for the radiator ducts . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[GeorgeA]

AIUI, the reason Ferrari was against the venturi car was that it didn't work with the Ferrari 'boxer' engine, you needed a Vee type engine to give the room for the radiator ducts . . .

cheers,
Robin.

That was one factor, yes, but even when they built a turbo V-6 for the (non-skirted) 126 series, it was kind of a pig. Took them a couple of iterations for it to come good, and by then the McLaren-TAG/Porsche steamroller was underway.

 

[Forest Green]

F1 was not allowed to use Ground Effect until the 2021 or 22 season. Only Indy ran open wheel cars with ground effect ducts.

F1 was using ground effect back in the 1980s and 1990s, it was banned after Senna died due to grounding out on a high speed corner. Even Group C was using it back then.

 

[Anderman]

I am not sure if the F1 model would work for aerospace manufactures if they have to build hundreds of airframes.
F1 teams are building only about a douzent cars of one typ for each season.

 

[Scott Kenny]

F1 was using ground effect back in the 1980s and 1990s, it was banned after Senna died due to grounding out on a high speed corner. Even Group C was using it back then.

F1 was using wings, not the venturi diffuser ducts under the body. Those were banned in the early 1980s for F1.

Which ironically made F1 less interesting racing, because the underbody diffuser ducting smooths out the wake of the car. Compare how close Indy cars could follow behind each other with F1. Closer following allows drafting and much easier passing, which makes much more interesting racing.

But now we're wandering well away from the type of aerodynamic wrangling that aircraft need to mess with.

 

[riggerrob]

This was also decades ago, 2002 IIRC. This was after active aero was banned. "We can't help it if the wing flexes down closer to the ground at speed and therefore becomes more effective!"


F1 was not allowed to use Ground Effect until the 2021 or 22 season. Only Indy ran open wheel cars with ground effect ducts.

Circa 1970, a couple of CanAm race cars were built with variable down-force. One used a variable incidence wing to increase down-force during turns while the other used hovercraft style fans to suck the car downwards during turns. CanAm’s bleeding edge technology eventually grew too expensive especially after the first Arab Oil Crisi of the early 1980s.

Speaking of oil prices, we will never drill for the last barrel of oil because it will be too deep and too far offshore and too crude.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Circa 1970, a couple of CanAm race cars were built with variable down-force. One used a variable incidence wing to increase down-force during turns while the other used hovercraft style fans to suck the car downwards during turns.

Both of those had enclosed wheels.

 

[sienar]

Sure, but Chaparrel was still doing that stuff years before F1. They even did a vacuum car some 8 years before it was tried in f1.

 

[Arjen]

More on

used hovercraft style fans to suck the car downwards during turns.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/some-automotive-fun.28731/page-5#post-502121CanAm: Chaparral in 1970, F1: Brabham in 1978.

 

[Forest Green]

F1 was using wings, not the venturi diffuser ducts under the body. Those were banned in the early 1980s for F1.

Which ironically made F1 less interesting racing, because the underbody diffuser ducting smooths out the wake of the car. Compare how close Indy cars could follow behind each other with F1. Closer following allows drafting and much easier passing, which makes much more interesting racing.

But now we're wandering well away from the type of aerodynamic wrangling that aircraft need to mess with.

That's actually correct, '82 it seems.

 

[Hanz2k]

I am not sure if the F1 model would work for aerospace manufactures if they have to build hundreds of airframes.
F1 teams are building only about a douzent cars of one typ for each season.

Actually it works. You just need to compare apples with apples - in this case F1 model is equal to Skunk Works, Scaled Composites and other special projects divisions.

 

[Hydroman]

Actually it works. You just need to compare apples with apples - in this case F1 model is equal to Skunk Works, Scaled Composites and other special projects divisions.

Don't forget NG Advanced Programs (does include Scaled) I agree, we need to streamline aircraft development, too much red tape, scope creep, etc. The new JDAM variant will deliver reams of program paper, the enemy becomes incapacitated by severe paper cuts.

 

[aim9xray]

The new JDAM variant will deliver reams of program paper, the enemy becomes incapacitated by severe paper cuts.

Please note that the JDAM JSDS (Joint Specification Delivery System) has not been cleared for release at the "Burn Before Reading" classification or below. Further discussion will be considered to be a violation and will result in your being voluntold/designated as Security Monitor (with duties thereunto including shredder oiling, combo lock maintenance and security container inspection and signoff) until further notice.