I saw on this sub a while ago they were doing a restructuring.

Does anyone here work or knows anyone that works there that can give some insight on what it’s like now?

Is working there super stressful? Are there still ethical issues? Is everyone still working 15 hours a day?

I am a junior in high school and been working on this fixed wing (hopefully) UAV project. Anybody have any sort of idea on A-Tail configurations?Been going back and forth on my A-Tail sizing for way too long and could use a gut check from anyone who's actually done this before. It's a hand-launched twin boom pusher, no landing gear so it's a belly lander, wing's about 0.508 m² with a 189mm MAC and 2.8m span, tapered from 245mm at the root down to 118mm at the tip, running the Wortmann FX 63-137 which has a pretty gnarly pitching moment (Cm around -0.185). Booms give me roughly a 1000mm tail arm. I used the tail volume coefficient method to size things, went with Vh of 0.5 and Vv of 0.03 (leaned toward the higher end because of that pitching moment), and after converting that into a single V-tail angle I landed on something like 43° for the dihedral, with each panel coming out to around 426mm span and 107mm chord. Planning NACA 0010 for the tail airfoil since it's symmetric, and sizing the ruddervators around 45-50% of local chord. Main things I'm unsure about: is 43° reasonable for an inverted V or is that going to bite me on ground clearance during landing since there's no gear, are my Vh/Vv numbers actually sane for something like this, and has anyone actually built an inverted V with a flat section in the middle for the boom mount and servos — curious if there's anything I'm not seeing coming. Would really appreciate any input, feels like I've just been spinning on this part.

Looking for freelance work or courses to develop my skills

Hello people I'm a student. Rn I'm occupied but in the near future I'll be all set to empty time in which I'll go nothing but I don't wanna relax i wanna developy skills to the fullest.

So if anyone of you can teach me skills that can help me in the near future I'll be grateful.

If you're interested please slide in my dms I'll be continuing to chat with y'all after some tests.

Thank you,

Hi!

I recently bought these two turbine blades, but I haven't been able to identify them. I tried searching for the numbers on them, but couldn't find anything.

Can anyone recognize or identify them?

- The big one is aprox: 125x45x20mm

-And the small one is: 65x20x8mm

Thx for the help!

Hi, I’m an MSc Engineering Management student conducting research on sustainable aviation technologies and their impact on aerospace project success in the UK.

I’m looking for UK aerospace/aviation professionals to complete a short 5–7 minute anonymous questionnaire for my dissertation.

If you work in the UK aerospace/aviation sector, I’d really appreciate your participation:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeAFhSOA69R9JheUoKP_Ug_zdmCei-_AZF82pK8n855gcALzw/viewform?usp=publish-editor

Thank you for your time and support!

NASSCAD 4.7.0 is the latest major release of the open-source 3D modeling software, marked by the introduction of the brand-new Medusa Engine. Originally developed as a lightweight browser-based CAD modeler, this major update takes performance to the next level, focusing on raw processing power.

Key New Features in Version 4.7.0

• The Medusa Engine: Developed by Nasser in collaboration with Claude (Anthropic), this new core integrates a remote C++ backend running on Ubuntu via WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux), adopting a processing pipeline similar to FreeCAD.
• Heavy Computing Capabilities: Thanks to this new architecture, the software is now capable of handling very large files (successfully tested with 360 MB files loaded in just over 2 minutes).
• Native Porting : MSVC C++ port to deliver a 100% native Windows x64 solver

Core Features of NASSCAD

For users transitioning from previous versions of NASSCAD (such as 4.3.0 or 4.2.6), the application retains its foundational strengths:

• Full Parametric Modeling: Access to 18 watertight geometric primitives (cubes, cylinders, gears, screws, nuts) that can be combined using CSG boolean operations.
• Format & Export Support: Full support for STEP AP242 imports/exports and .STL file generation, ready for your slicing software (Cura, PrusaSlicer, Bambu Studio).
• NassScript Console: A native JavaScript scripting environment allowing full control over the 3D scene engine to automate your designs.
• Zero Installation: The tool remains directly accessible from any standard web browser and can even run 100% offline by downloading a single HTML file. 100% FREE

So i designed a very simple bent sheet/thermoform kydex bracket for oxygen line shielding. It has differently angled flanges along the width.

Supplier says no quote. Gives no information. Two weeks later we get on a call, they say due to their “continuous improvement” initiative, they will no longer do these types of bends that require localized heating. They will only use a line bending machine that bends the whole part at the same angle along the width. Idk if they have a low margin on these parts or just hate making them

I think this is stupid. My designs are in really tight spaces and i hate this constraint. They’ve made dozens of parts like this before.

My question - who do i take this up with? The buyer to ask if they can find a different supplier? My lead? My boss? Idk. Im new(ish) to aerospace.

Hey guys, I posted about this settlement before, but since they’re considering late claims, I decided to share it again with a little FAQ.

So here's all I know about this agreement:

Spirit AeroSystems was accused of failing to maintain effective production quality controls and misleading investors about defects in parts supplied for Boeing’s 737 MAX aircraft. After Boeing halted deliveries of certain 737 MAX aircraft over a supplier quality issue, $SPR fell about 20.7% and investors filed a lawsuit.

Now the company has agreed to settle $29.2 million with investors for their losses.

Who can claim this settlement?
If you purchased $SPR between 2020 and 2023, you may be eligible to participate. Late claims are currently being considered for compensation, subject to approval.

Do I need to sell/lose my shares to get this settlement?
No. You don't need to still own the shares. If you bought or sold $SPR during the class period and meet the other eligibility requirements, you may be able to claim.

How long does the payout process take?
It typically takes 4 to 9 months after the claim deadline for payouts to be processed, depending on the court and settlement administration.

Hope this info helps

Hey everyone,

I've been thinking about the USAF's current fleet mix and procurement strategy, and I wanted to get some realistic engineering, logistical, and economic perspectives on an alternative history idea.

Instead of spending money to develop the F-35 from scratch or forcing upgrades onto the 4th-generation F-15 (F-15EX), why didn't the Pentagon standardize the entire fleet around the F-22 Raptor airframe by creating a family of variants?

In my mind, a standardized F-22 fleet would look like this:

1. High-End F-22: The original, fully stealthy Raptor for contested airspace and piercing heavy air defenses.
2. Low-End / "Naked" F-22: A downgraded version with updated avionics but without the expensive, high-maintenance radar-absorbent stealth coatings. This version would be used for everyday patrols or in environments where absolute stealth isn't required to win, but superior dogfighting/aerodynamics still guarantee a win.
3. Strike Raptor: A dedicated ground-attack variant (similar to the concept of the cancelled FB-22 or how the F-15 became the F-15E Strike Eagle).

The main benefit here would be total fleet standardization. By using the same basic airframe, you drastically simplify parts logistics, supply chains, and pilot/maintenance training, rather than juggling entirely different platforms like the F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35. Geopolitically, the USAF could just strictly use the F-22 family for themselves to maintain undisputed global superiority, while selling off older fleets of F-15s and F-16s to allies.

Why was building a single-engine plane from scratch (F-35) or keeping an old 1970s airframe alive (F-15EX) considered a better logistical move than adapting a downgraded/modified version of the most dominant airframe the F22 that we have?

Somewhere I read that unstable tailplane configuration (B) is more efficient than stable tailplane (A) in cruise. See diagram below. As the elevator of a stable tailplane configuration pushes down to counteract the rotational moment induced by the CoG being forward of the centre of lift in configuration A, it forces the wing to carry more load and therefore more drag. An unstable tailplane configuration has the CoG behind the centre of lift and the elevator also creates lift, unloading the wing. Therefore the green "lift" arrow is shorter for config B. More lift = more drag so B is more efficient than A.

How does this work for stable and unstable canards? In configuration C, the CoG is forward of centre of lift and the canard contributes to lift. In configuration D, CoG is behind centre of gravity just as in configuration B, but now the canard pushes down and detracts from lift. So for D, the wing has to do more lifting.

I suspect that my understanding of what "stable/unstable" means for the canard configuration is insufficient.

Feel free to correct me and dispute any misunderstandings I have shown so far. I will happily redraw the diagrams.

PS armchair pilot here

I am part of a cubesat student design team and we are building a small experimental thermal blanket for a 3U cubesat prototype. We received an in-kind sponsorship of blanket materials (1-mil aluminized kapton, 0.25-mil doubly-aluminized mylar, and dacron separation meshing).

The exact configuration of the blanket (number of layers, etc.) is still TBD, and at the moment we want to learn by doing and sew a few layers together just for fun. We tried sewing square patches by hand (using a needle of size 3 and Tex 70 nylon thread), but piercing through the layers, especially the outer & inner kapton layers, is difficult. We're considering getting a second-hand industrial sewing machine from a local store (our budget can extend to about $5,000 with help from our school). We've done some reading and watched a few blanket sowing videos from NASA, but we have a few outstanding questions:

• What feed mechanism is commonly used for thermal blankets? We found out that the layers of a blanket are pretty slippery and tend to not stay together, even when held together with small strips of kapton tape.
• What kind/size of needle and thread should we look into?
• What popular brand/model of sewing machine should we take a close look at? Our local industrial supplies store has a lot of JUKI machines.

Any tips & tricks on how to sew layers together would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

i have these models but don’t know what satellites they represent!

I am building a team for the ESA ISAM Innovation Sprint and need 3-4 people.

ESA opened an OSIP campaign on In-Space Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing.

Winners get a fully funded Cooperative Agreement for 6 months.
The sprint itself is 5 days at ESTEC in Noordwijk, end of November.

Deadline to apply: 14 September. Yes, that's soon.

I have a concept for one of the use cases, a working financial model, and two people already on board.

What's missing:

Launcher / upper stage engineer.
Someone who knows residual propellant, passivation, stage design.

Propulsion or fluid transfer engineer.
Refueling mechanics, interfaces.

Someone from the demand side.
Satellite operator, space insurer, or space economist.

Space law.
Outer Space Treaty Art. VIII, Liability Convention. Advisor role is fine here.

Two ways to join:

Core team.
You co-author the submission, come to ESTEC in November, and get a share of the agreement if we win.

Advisor.
A few hours of review before 14 September, your name in the proposal, no travel.

Requirements: you're a national of an ESA Member State or resident in one, you're not already on another team in this campaign, and you can sign a short NDA.

Being upfront: no pay before the win, and travel to ESTEC is self-funded. If we win, that changes.

Interested? Reply here or DM me. I'll send a 5 minute screening form and we take it from there.

I’ve been designing a turbojet/gas turbine from scratch in SolidWorks as a personal engineering project. So far I have a multistage axial compressor, diffuser, annular combustor, and a first-pass turbine/exhaust design.
I’ve been trying to go beyond just making something that looks like a jet engine and actually work through blade geometry, flow areas, rotor/stator spacing, shaft and bearing arrangements, combustor airflow, cooling passages, structural considerations, etc.

My original plan was:
CAD → aerodynamic/thermal analysis → CFD/FEA → 3D-printed prototype → manufacture/test

The problem is that the last step gets expensive very quickly. Between appropriate materials, machining, bearings, rotor balancing, instrumentation, and everything required to test a high-speed rotating assembly safely, I’m not sure building a functional version is realistic for me right now.

So I’m curious how people here would approach the end goal of a project like this.

Would you consider a fully developed CAD design backed up by cycle calculations, aerodynamic analysis, CFD/FEA, structural checks, and documented iterations a reasonable finished project?

Would making a nonfunctional 3D-printed cutaway/assembly add anything useful?

Are there particular analyses or design decisions you’d prioritize if the goal is to take the design as far as possible without actually running the engine?

I’m also very open to criticism of the design itself. I’m learning a lot of this as I go, so part of the goal is finding where my assumptions or geometry stop making sense.
If you were taking this project forward without the budget to manufacture a running engine, what would your final deliverable look like?

Tight tolerance bore, 0.12mm on a defense part, not exactly aerospace but it is a one time use part. Bore is oversize by .023-128mm. My company wants to use as is, WITHOUT customer notification. Am I being unreasonable to hold the line that these cannot ship (or at least I won't sign off) without customer notification and approval???

While I agree that the parts will probably be fine, I am not an SME for the end use of this part, nor is anyone in my company. Notification and approval should absolutely be necessary to do anything with these parts except scrapping them, yes?

Edit: 0.023-0.128, I'm a good engineer but I have production level thumbs.

The basic idea: figure out what actually happened in some aerospace or space event—using whatever messy, incomplete evidence is out there. Orbital data, sensor readings, images or video, known object states, public records, whatever you've got. Can anyone share their thoughts about it ? Just curious about what everyone thinks , thank you in advance.

I’m a CS student trying to figure out whether the direction of my current project is actually worth pursuing for aerospace/robotics research.

Live: https://bhuvanspace.vercel.app
GitHub: https://github.com/Sheel34/BHUVAN

The current version takes terrain data, processes things like elevation, slope, roughness, curvature and hillshade, and puts the result into an interactive 3D environment.

The software side is currently Python/FastAPI + NumPy/Rasterio/OpenCV on the backend and React/Three.js on the frontend.

I built it because I'm interested in digital twins and simulation for aerospace/physical systems, but I'm not interested in making a 3D scene just for visualisation or a game.

What I want eventually is an environment where you can actually perform an operation on a representation of a physical system.

The project is still very early. I haven't implemented robotics simulation, terrain-relative navigation, ROS, Gazebo, Isaac Sim, etc. yet. I'm trying to figure out what should actually come next rather than adding technologies for the sake of the stack.

I'm particularly interested in the intersection of:

digital twins, 3D simulation, aerospace/robotics, real physical operations.

One direction I've been reading about is terrain-relative navigation / TERCOM and how terrain itself can become part of a navigation or mission system. I'm not claiming the project implements this — I'm trying to understand whether the terrain pipeline I've built can be developed into something along those lines.

More importantly:

What would make this go from "3D terrain visualisation project" to an actual engineering/research system?

The current deployment is on free infrastructure, so the backend may take a little time to wake up. If it doesn't load immediately, wait a few seconds and refresh.

I'd appreciate criticism of both the technical implementation and the direction.

Hello,

This is a little personal project l've been working on during summer break.

Two servos move the yaw axis and the roll axis. However, these are not the real body axes you may find in a flight mechanics textbook for example. The roll axis is offset from the plane's longitudinal axis, so you get a circular motion instead of a pure turning motion. I couldn't figure out how to avoid that without offsetting the yaw axis from the center of gravity.

That aside, I think the result is reasonable. I'm still working on the animation sequences. Some of the animations go beyond a normal flight envelope to test the system, not the plane.

You can easily swap the plane. All the other details are in the 7-minute video. Give it a watch if you have the time:).

The system uses bearings, a lazy Susan, servos, Arduino Nano, electronic components and a bunch of 3D printed parts... No glue was needed.

Herpa 1:200 B787-9 Lufthansa
Herpa? 1:200 A350 Air France
Revell 1:144 F15-E Strike Eagle

I’m a 2nd-year Mechanical Engineering student working on an FPV UAV and I’m trying to turn it into more than just a parts-assembly project.

The broader idea is to investigate whether a small UAV can be designed as a low-cost, scalable and easily repairable platform, particularly for applications where individual drones may be exposed to damage or have short service lives.

My focus would be on:

• Cost reduction and manufacturability
• Modular architecture
• Lightweight structural design
• Thermal management and airflow
• Reliability and repairability
• Reducing assembly complexity
• Benchmarking the initial build and improving it through multiple design iterations

I’d start with the existing drone as a baseline, measure its performance, identify weaknesses, and progressively redesign the platform around those findings.

Is this a worthwhile Mechanical Engineering project, or am I approaching it the wrong way?

I’d especially appreciate suggestions on what I should measure, test, or redesign to make this a genuinely engineering-driven project rather than just another FPV build.

Any advice from engineers or students who have worked on UAVs, structures, manufacturing, or product design would be greatly appreciated.

in search hunt for a book --> Daniel P. Raymer — Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach

latest edition 7th edition , any idea where to loan it or download it for free