There was an additional factor of delay in the development of the RB211 turbofan engine which was rather unfortunate (Letters, PE January).
I worked at Rolls-Royce in an advanced project section in 1956 when the fashionable bypass ratio was 0.6. Accidentally while checking some figures for an advanced fighter, I blundered across the fact that a “high” bypass ratio of about 4 would apparently give more economical subsonic cruising than our then current engines. This fitted in with available blading.
As I did not trust my figures, I passed them over to graduate friends in the main project section to see what I was doing wrong.
They came back to me and said that the figures were roughly correct and agreed that further investigation was needed. They then suggested this to their management and were given a mighty rocket. They were not there to think, they were not allowed to investigate high bypass ratio engines (or they would be dismissed), and any figures that they found that did not show 0.6 as the best ratio were to go straight into the bin.
The delay from this refusal to check meant that there was no push on high ratios until Rolls-Royce learnt that not only was there interest in their rivals across the Atlantic but they already had a test engine on flying trials. The delay of years meant that there was high pressure for a quick solution, tending to take decisions without detailed checking first, leading eventually to bankruptcy.
Positive bias is the norm
Philippa Oldham’s wish-list and demands for female engineers returning to work after a career break fail to make the case for employers (“Mum’s the word,”
PE January).
Employers will only pull out all the stops to help women start a family and/or return to work if the costs that these incur are fully covered, including appropriate contributions to overheads. This is almost never the case with small firms, and their boards will make decisions usually with a high degree of subjectivity on the softer aspects the prospective employee offers.
In my many years of experience as an IMechE interviewer, chairman and interviews consultant, I encountered very little negative bias against women in engineering, and positive bias is probably the norm. But small engineering businesses are so performance-related that they must simply choose the best people/performance/cost packages for the job regardless, to support and enhance their competitiveness.
Sadly, Oldham’s wish-list on its own amounts to a claim for discrimination by any other name. For men, who would be discriminated against, it can only be demoralising and unjust. Women make different choices as do employers but that’s not bias.
Ian Brown, Walton-on-Thames
Influencing career choices
The Five Tribes report released by the institution made for an interesting read (Institution News, PE January). I have a deep interest in seeing young people choosing engineering as a career, this being one of the reasons to become a teacher, having taught physics for a number of years after a long period as an engineer. So this is a view from the classroom.
A number of years ago I conducted research on behalf of the Institute of Physics, looking at girls’ attitudes to physics. The “Kevin Webster syndrome” was very much at the forefront of the girls’ minds, the largest proportion of the “Social Artists” tribe.
The conclusion from the research was that exposure to the multifaceted career options, structuring the learning to the contextual areas that girls could connect with, and engaging them in this process earlier in their secondary school time, as early as year eight, were able to dispel some of the preconceptions about engineering as a career.
As a side effect, students who could be classed in the “Enthused Unfocused and Less Engaged” tribes, of both genders, demonstrated some movement towards potential Stem careers.
The climate that has evolved over the past five years has been unhelpful in permitting the promotion of technical career choices. The devaluation of the vocational pathway in schools by policy makers changed many mindsets in families where “science capital” could be assessed as low.
There is a crisis of having sufficiently qualified teachers in the subjects that are core to the engineering profession. A disingenuous view would be that the current science curriculum is a response to the surplus of non-specialists entering the teaching profession in some of those core subjects.
Iain Clyde, Darlington
Let’s all raise awareness
Professional engineers are unified in our frustration at the lack of recognition for our beloved profession in the UK. This is also evidenced in the scarcity of home-grown engineering talent coming through universities and apprenticeship schemes, which, during a difficult recruitment drive, caused me to ask myself what I was doing to inspire the next generation of engineers.
The answer was that, whilst I’m involved with undergraduates and apprentices, I did nothing to encourage 14- to 16-year-olds to consider a career in engineering.
I seized an opportunity to become involved in the activities of Sheffield’s Work-Wise Foundation, who work with schools to show 14- to 16-year-olds what a career in engineering and manufacturing is about, and provide a range of experiences such as interview coaching, teamworking and work experience.
My involvement in the initial stages of candidate interviews and coaching (as well as meeting some inspiring young people) has brought home to me that the next generation aren’t deciding not to follow engineering and manufacturing careers, they are simply not aware of what these industries are and what careers are available.
A short description from me of “a day in the life...” was sufficient to fire their imaginations and get them looking forward to work experience placements. On completing work experience placements I see these young people truly inspired about our industry, seeing the relevance of their school studies as well as seeing a rewarding career ahead of them.
For there to be recognition, there must first be awareness. Raising awareness is not the sole responsibility of government or institutions, it’s your responsibility as a professional engineer. I’ve changed from complaining about the problem to becoming part of the solution.
I call on every engineer to do more to inspire the next generation into engineering and manufacturing careers.
David Black, Unstone, Derbyshire
Rocket recollections
Sir Frank Ewart Smith’s role as chairman of the Ministry of Supply’s Scientific Advisory Council is well described in The Mare’s Nest by David Irving (Archive, PE January).
The fly in the ointment was Churchill’s chief scientific adviser, Lord Cherwell, who refused to believe that a pump could be made for a rocket to deliver the quantities of fuel and liquid oxygen necessary to launch a one-ton warhead. It had been. You can see the sectioned V-2 in the vertical launch position on display in the Imperial War Museum in London.
I lived with my parents near the receiving end of the few V-2s that landed in Croydon in late 1944. Their spectacular arrival (if they missed you) was announced by a loud explosion, followed 3 or 4 seconds later by a mighty roar of their descent at 3,600mph.
The engineering of both the V-1 (168 attacks) and V-2 fascinated me post-war. I worked in the Ariane launcher project from 1988 to 1992. The museum of the main contractor, Société Européenne de Propulsion, at Vernon, Normandy, sets out very well Ariane’s development from the V-2, and is well worth a visit.
The designer of the V-1 cruise missile, Dr Robert Lusser, is credited with initiating the study of reliability engineering, in his development of the auto-pilot. My friend and I collected several pieces of scrap V-1 fuselage, as our assumed contribution to the war effort.
The V-2 was an intermediate-range ballistic missile, not intercontinental. That was to be the A-9, under development in Peenemünde for attacking New York. The development of the A-4 (as V-2 was typed) is well described on the German side by Peenemünde’s director, Major General Walter Dornberger, in his 1954 book V-2.
Bob Barnes, Winchester
Narrow escape
My bedroom window was blown in by a V-2 rocket in Ashford, Middlesex in 1944 (Archive, PE January). I saw a complete one at Cranfield many years later.
I also saw two V1s at Duxford and when I realised how small they were I thought I should have been more frightened of them at the time. My first thought at the time was “I hope the engine keeps running long enough to miss me!”
Our scientists in the defence area are more important than we think. The same still applies, and deterrence via nuclear submarines needs to be top priority.
Keith Armstrong, Sunbury on Thames
Pressure points
You reported that the inspection “robot will withstand extreme pressure of up to 100bar(g) – five times the maximum pressure that would be experienced underwater by a submarine” (News, PE January). Not so!
The arithmetic is as follows: 100bar(g) = 1,470psi; 1,470/5 = 294psi, so subs only see 294psi which is equal to a depth of 660ft. Typical test depth of a modern sub is 1,600ft – 2.5 times what is being claimed. Typical maximum operating depth is 1,000 to 1,100ft, not 660ft. Design crush depths of the pressure hulls are typically 2,400ft and more.
I hope when they come to design the robot that they conduct a reality check on the data they use before they finalise materials selection and commit to cutting metal.
John Bell, Livingston, West Lothian
No signal underground
I read the News article on the National Grid’s inspection robot (PE January). You state that “Premtech will produce 3D maps of the trial sites and a GPS system for the robot”.
The one thing that should be obvious is that the Navstar GPS signals do not traverse through steel pipes or soil. At best the GPS system can be used to initialise the robot’s entry or exit position. After this the robot would be traversing using dead reckoning or deduced reckoning.
I would be very interested to know how Premtech intends using GPS in relation to the live data transmitted from the under-pressure robotic probe.
Telemetry can be transmitted using magnetic signals which entail tuned coils, basically a transmitter and a receiver coil. This is very much like vehicle door-locking systems using a key fob.
Magnetic waves are quite different to radio propagation and are not affected by rock and soil. Steel pipes however will reduce the magnetic field, limiting the distance that the telemetry can be received.
David Caunter, Brisbane, Australia
Voyage of discovery
I found the article on engineers working in Antarctica thoroughly enjoyable (“Coming in from the cold,” PE January). I simply wanted to request that you follow the development of the new ship with regular articles.
It would be really interesting to hear of the unique design constraints put up in the forthcoming project, and especially the compromises that need to be struck to achieve the project goals.
Alastair Doubell, Leigh-on-Sea
Email your views to pe@caspianmedia.com or write to The Editor, PE, Unit G4, Harbour Yard, Chelsea Harbour, London SW10 0XD. Please include your full name and address.