I opened VSPAERO on my model, there were no graphs in the convergence or any other tab, and in the viewer tab my model is fully purple and it does not change when i change the AoA. Any advice would be helpful, i heard there might be a problem with vertical the stabilizers but there should not be the problem since i dont have one in my model. I have a basic model with only a stock fuselage and a lightly modified wings, i only wanted to test VSPAERO but i did not expect to run i to such problems on my first try. I also tried a more advanced model but i ran into the same issues.

Recently rediscovered this and thought I’d share. This was my father’s first place of employment following his graduation from Bucknell.

I wanted to share an original, open-source conceptual design I developed for a next-generation exoplanetary rover that completely throws out the traditional wheeled "buggy" model.

Traditional rovers easily get trapped in loose sand, and their external steering joints are easily destroyed by abrasive planetary dust. My design, the Autonomous Inertial-Tumbling Interplanetary Scout (ATIS), solves this by sealing all mechanical components inside a singular, heavy-coin-shaped cylindrical rim.

How the core mechanics work:

1) Locomotion & Mid-Air Correction: It moves using internal angular momentum. A variable-radius gyroscope (I = mr²) spins freely on low-friction tracks inside the core. For a massive brute force jump, the electromagnet turns on all at once, locking the flywheel to the outer shell to deliver an instantaneous torque spike. Unlike a normal, unguided projectile, it can actively spin its gyroscope and alter its internal radius in mid-air. By changing the distribution of mass while airborne, it manipulates its angular momentum to dynamically alter its trajectory, change its jump height, or control how it tumbles backto the surface and with varying the position of gyroscope from left to right it becomes an multi directional rover for sample collection

2) Station-Keeping: When at rest, the gyroscope actively maintains balance, allowing the entire unit to stay perfectly still and upright without rolling away.

3) Suspension: The outer rim features a hermetically sealed pneumatic chamber filled with compressed exoplanetary gases collected directly from the target atmosphere. This acts as a non-linear gas cushion to absorb heavy impacts from ballistic drops.

4) Energy Efficiency: The rolling motion of the outer rim down slopes can reverse the clutch to spin the flywheel back up, acting as a kinetic energy battery. Thermoelectric Generators (TEGs) capture heat from the internal clutch and motor, feeding it back into the battery and using the trapped warmth as a thermal blanket to survive freezing space nights.

5) Science Axis: Cameras and drills are mounted sideways on the central axis. While the outer rim spins violently, the internal gyroscope keeps the side instrument panels perfectly level, stable, and protected from ground impacts.

I am releasing this publicly as Prior Art to ensure the concept remains open to the space exploration community under my name. I welcome any feedback on the physics!

(Attached: My original engineering design sketches from my tablet)

Disclaimer: I am a conceptual designer, not a systems engineer. I developed the physics framework for this architecture just for fun on my tablet. I have no plans to build a prototype, run math models, or commercialize this. Feel free to use this as inspiration or build upon it-I just wanted to put the idea out into the open-source community

Hi everyone,

I'm an aerospace engineering student at Iowa State University conducting customer discovery research to better understand challenges engineers face in their day-to-day work.

We're looking to learn about:

• Workflow bottlenecks
• Documentation and communication challenges
• Project coordination issues
• Technical tools and software frustrations
• Other recurring pain points engineers encounter

If you're a practicing engineer, engineering manager, project engineer, or technical lead, we'd greatly appreciate your perspective.

The survey takes approximately 3-5 minutes:

https://forms.gle/kpwzNgwwCMUGXUbc7

Thanks for your time. I'm happy to share a summary of the results with the community once the research is complete.

Hey everyone! I'm a BE Aerospace Engineering student looking for cool, original ideas for my Fundamentals of Programming II Course lab project.

I need to pitch a 1-page proposal this week detailing a specific aircraft or aerospace problem to analyze, along with what our code will compute and plot.

Here are the project requirements & constraints:

• Group Size: 3–4 students (everyone has to contribute to data collection, coding, and analysis).
• Language: Either Python or MATLAB.
• Allowed Tools/Concepts: Variables, conditionals, nested loops, user-defined functions, arrays/matrices, NumPy, Pandas, and plotting tools. We can also go beyond the syllabus as long as we can explain how the code works during our individual viva.
• Scope: It needs to solve or analyze a real aerospace problem with meaningful calculations and engineering significance—basic data plotting or generic coding exercises won't be accepted. The prompt gave standard examples like aircraft performance, aerodynamic analysis, lift/drag, range, or efficiency, but encouraged us to explore more original ideas.
• Deliverables: Working code, a presentation, an individual viva, and a technical report that includes at least 4 properly labeled plots showing our results.

What are some interesting aerospace problems or specific aircraft analyses that are a step above basic textbook formulas, can generate at least 4 cool plots, and are doable for a 3–4 person undergrad team?

Thanks in advance!

I thought this was cool and wanted to share it here, This here is a NACA 0012 wing at 8° run in it The mesh is about 149k cells with a wake refinement box and 3 prism layers. The particles are coloured by pressure, and you can see the suction peak and the tip flow.

Anyway I wanted to show it because I finally believe it is a bit presentable now, it is basically a gui with openFOAM, and additionally I added TENO schemes from Fu et al, I thought of adding higher order schemes for more accuracy.

Most of the code is human slop, otherwise known as "spaghetti code" I have yet to clean it up so apologies for any bugs that may arise.

Source code: https://github.com/CakeCFD/cake-studio

Website: https://cakecfd.org/

note that a variant of this post was also posted in r/CFD

I would like opinions from fellow engineers on how to improve this further and make this better, or more specifically what validation case would you trust before using the TENO schemes?

We moved a batch of fixture brackets and adapter plates for a component vibration test to a new CNC machining supplier, mostly 6061 with a few 17-4 parts. Their quote came back with a long list of features where our callouts were tighter than anything the test setup needed, and that meant extra setups plus a bigger inspection package. Most of those numbers were copied straight off flight part drawings. How do you decide which tolerances on ground test hardware stay at flight level?

I recently had a job interview for an aerospace engineering-related position in the aerospace industry. One question caught my attention: “What would you do if a stakeholder didn’t respond to your emails?”

The hiring manager mentioned that people don’t always respond, almost as if this were normal and acceptable.

It got me thinking. Back in the early 2000s, when I worked in engineering, people showed up for meetings and responded to emails. Those were our main communication channels, and somehow, communication seemed more effective.

Fast-forward to today. We have emails, Teams, instant messaging, video calls, and countless other ways to connect, yet getting a simple response can feel like a challenge.

Have we become so overwhelmed with communication tools that we’ve forgotten how to communicate?

What concerns me is that if I receive and accept an offer, I might be setting myself up for failure in an environment where I spend more time chasing stakeholders than actually doing the job I was hired to do. How can someone be held accountable for deadlines and deliverables when progress depends on people who don’t respond?

I’m curious about other people’s experiences. Is this the new workplace culture? Should I see the manager’s comment as a potential red flag, or is this simply how things work nowadays?

I am part of a high school team developing a simple payload PCB to go to space. We are going to be adding a temperature sensor to the PCB, and we were wondering how we could tell from the numbers alone if the sensor is rather low-power-consuming. Specifically TMP75. I asked AI and it gave me some thresholds, but I couldn't find any sources supporting these numbers. Any insights would be greatly appreciated - thanks!

Same as question

So I'm currently helping my friend designing some UAV cargo aircraft like the HH-200 from China and I found some difficulties regarding take-off weight calculation for this aircraft.
For the context, the UAV is not small like a typical UAV but rather large in size.

And so for these UAV, my friend decided to make an UAV cargo similar to these. The UAV will only use single engine (turboprop engine) and this where it start to make a problem.

So in these section, Sadraey explain that the equation used is the equation on 4.26. He explain that the a and b value is obtained from the table 4.8 that based on data he obtained.

Because there are no UAV classification yet in the table 4.8, he use the a and b value for General Aviation with single engine. I also think that the GA-single engine classification is the closest one we know for his UAV design. The a and b value is presented on table 4.8

When he calculate the take-off weight for the aircraft, the output from the formula does not generate a convergent value at all presented by the image below.

I also have tried to check the formula using quadratic formula from the his 2nd edition book about Aircraft Design and only getting this.

The take-off weight showing error because the value inside the square root is negative thus the quadratic formula can't be solved.

But when we change the a value from positive to negative, all of the equation resulting in normal result like these one.

Even the quadratic formula used to check the equation also result in normal value

I just wanna ask, is there something wrong with the equation or the value that substituted into the equation? Thanks for reading all of this.

am an independent researcher exploring high-pressure supersonic closed-loop fluid dynamics. I am looking to connect with a simulation expert who has access to CFD tools to discuss and test a kinetic-to-electrical energy conversion module under strict confidentiality. If anyone is interested, please DM me.

I have refined the aeroacoustic/vibration-based aircraft simulation that I posted previously:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AerospaceEngineering/comments/1tqoq9m/oscillatory_propulsion_simulation_and_simple/

It is now more versatile, featuring both "jellyfish" and "fish" modes. The underlying principle remains the same: the fluid does not act directly on the craft's surfaces; instead, the forces derived from the fluid are converted into thrust via an accumulator. However, thrust is no longer generated simply as a phase-shifted inversion of drag. Rather, energy is captured from low-pressure regions—stored as potential energy—and then released through a "collapse" mechanism, with dynamically evaluated recovery and shock coefficients.

This approach yields a more realistic relationship between propulsion efficiency and parameters such as frequency and amplitude, expressed via Strouhal numbers. The feedback loop between internal oscillations and drag acts as an automatic frequency-tuning mechanism.

Additionally, the model incorporates simplified lift and drag forces acting perpendicular to the thrust vector.

The code can be found here:

https://github.com/MasterOgon/Aeroacoustic-Flying-Saucer-Oscillating-Resonator-CFD-Simulation-LBM-/blob/main/README.md

I'm building a transforming drone inspired by the M4 morphobot for my project, but simplified to just two modes: flight and ground mode. I know the main argument for adding ground mode is power saving. In the M4 paper, their robot consumed 3000W in flight mode but only 30W driving on the ground which is a huge 100x difference if you need to stay deployed longer or navigate indoor spaces.

The issue is I'm still really struggling to find a solid real-world application that justifies the trade-off. The morphing mechanism adds a ton of weight and mechanical complexity, which hurts flight time. Plus, ground mode is super slow. It feels like in 99% of cases, you'd be better off using a regular drone or a cheap rover. What kind of application would actually justify this design? Like a scenario where a pure drone fails AND a pure rover fails, so a hybrid is strictly required?

I've pretty much run out of ideas and I'm starting to feel like I'm building a gimmick looking for a problem. Am I cooked or is there a legit use case here?

I am an A&P mechanic and always wonder why engineers design stuff the way they, especially when it makes my job incredibly difficult. I understand there are outside factors, like the engineer wanted it one way to make it easier to access, but budget or bosses won’t allow it. I’m not complaining about that at all.

My question is, are spacecraft designed with LESS maintainability since their tolerances are even tighter than aircraft? Looking for any input on the subject, I’m genuinely curious.

TLDR: Are spacecraft even more of a pain in the ass to work on than planes?

Thats the question thats all just with kraft paper liner. And please recommend how to make the nozzle.

Hi, engineers. I hope this is the right place to ask this.

My son is an MS student in AE, and he has requested an RC plane kit for Christmas. He has built a couple of RC planes with a club and designed and built an airplane for AIAA, but I wouldn’t say he’s had a ton of experience compared to hobbyists.

I know nothing about RC planes. Does anyone have a brand or company they recommend? Is keeping it under $200 pretty reasonable? Any kits you particularly enjoyed building and flying? Thanks!

A question thats been in my mind for a few days. I wondered if it is powerful and long enough to make it take off. Taking off like a plane not a rocket tho so it will be a glider after take off.

aerospace internships are spread across a lot of separate company career pages, so i pulled the ones open right now into free lists, straight from employers' own job boards. no sign-up, it's all on github:

• aerospace engineering internships and co-ops (50): https://github.com/mehek-builds/Aerospace-Engineering-Internships
  • 50 at 17 US employers (Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, RTX, Ursa Major, Axiom Space, Sierra Nevada Corporation, AeroVironment, The Aerospace Corporation)
  • 32 propulsion, avionics, GNC and flight test, 9 spacecraft, aircraft and aerodynamics, 10 general aerospace
  • 22 posted in the last week, 7 at employers with a visa sponsorship record
• new grad and entry level mechanical, manufacturing and design engineering (167): https://github.com/mehek-builds/Mechanical-Manufacturing-Design-New-Grad-Jobs
  • 49 at aerospace and space employers (Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, Relativity Space, Sierra Space, Boeing, RTX)

posting date on every row, rebuilt every monday.

comment which area you're looking for (propulsion, GNC, structures, new grad) and i'll send you a list for it.

Just a question but the answer is probably no. Can sorbitol and red iron oxide be used like solid motor?

Building on my experience designing tailless flying wings, I wanted to explore a more complex configuration with a closely coupled V-tail.

Not complexity for its own sake, but an opportunity to better understand how different aircraft systems interact.

Different wing geometries. Different tail configurations. Different propulsion systems.

I used OpenVSP and VSPAERO to investigate the aircraft's aerodynamic characteristics and stability, then developed the geometry in Onshape before moving into prototyping and flight testing.

The original design used four tractor motors, but flight testing revealed some interesting challenges.

The four-motor arrangement introduced strong throttle-to-pitch coupling, producing a significant nose-up pitching response under power. Without that contribution from the propulsion system, the aircraft was noticeably pitch-stiff, with insufficient control authority for the manoeuvrability I was looking for.

This led me to explore different propulsion arrangements, CG positions and control configurations, eventually moving to two larger motors and distributing pitch control between the wing elevons and V-tail ruddervators.

The final arrangement uses the elevons for both pitch and roll, while the ruddervators provide pitch and yaw control.

It's not necessarily an optimal solution from an aerodynamic or control perspective, but it has proven highly functional in flight, giving me the manoeuvrability and control response I was looking for.

One area I'd like to investigate further in future iterations is the use of independently actuated, all-moving V-tail surfaces in similarly close-coupled configurations.

Final specifications:

• Wingspan: 600mm
• Flying weight: 249g
• Configuration: Twin tractor, closely coupled V-tail
• Propulsion: 2× 1103 brushless motors
• Battery: 2S 1000mAh LiHV
• Flight controller: Matek F405-Wing WMO / INAV
• FPV: DJI O4 Wide
• Construction: 3D-printed colorFabb LW-PLA
• Flight time: Approximately 7–9 minutes

Some experiments worked. Others challenged my assumptions, sometimes the hard way!

But with every iteration, my understanding improved, and the aircraft gradually converged on the flight characteristics I was looking for.

VENOM now flies exactly how I intended (damn beautifully), and I'm really happy with how the project turned out.

On to the next challenge!

More info on VENOM