Test Pilot School Admission

[BigRed389]

I think an MS in engineering or other hard science is a great idea if that is the field you are working in. The intellectual rigor does indeed look good on a resume. A PhD is a waste of time in any hard science unless you want to work in academia...and you won’t.

A STEM MS is good for improving professional knowledge...in Engineering, it's somewhat like advanced training, which is also why a lot of big employers will chip in for a relevant MS. Several buddies out of undergrad engineering had their MS funded by the companies within a few years of employment.

I've always been told a hard science PhD is generally important for research oriented positions as well, including in private industry. It makes sense, as the main difference between say a MS and PhD in physics is the dissertation. Courseload difference itself isn't all that substantial.

 

[Pags]

A STEM MS is good for improving professional knowledge...in Engineering, it's somewhat like advanced training, which is also why a lot of big employers will chip in for a relevant MS. Several buddies out of undergrad engineering had their MS funded by the companies within a few years of employment.

I've always been told a hard science PhD is generally important for research oriented positions as well, including in private industry. It makes sense, as the main difference between say a MS and PhD in physics is the dissertation. Courseload difference itself isn't all that substantial.

I know several folks who have hard science PhDs and their orgs use them in research oriented positions.

I have an Engineering MS and it still draws attention in a positive way during interviews, etc.

Mrs Pags is actually Dr Pags. She got her PhD via distance ed while the Navy was moving us all over. While she doesn't work in research her PhD topic is still germane to her work and has helped her get her foot in the door on several occasions.

 

[Flash]

I've always been told a hard science PhD is generally important for research oriented positions as well, including in private industry. It makes sense, as the main difference between say a MS and PhD in physics is the dissertation. Courseload difference itself isn't all that substantial.

I know several folks who have hard science PhDs and their orgs use them in research oriented positions.

A cousin of mine wanted to do dental research, the only way he could get to do that for a living was getting a PhD in addition to his DDS. While doing his PhD he got involved in several research projects and studies, after getting his PhD that has translated into related research projects. He doesn't want to teach but is willing if necessary.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Also great is Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. Free online copy...

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80t-80.pdf

I wonder if all the imperial units make it hard to work with NATO partners. Or if the formulas would be easier/harder to learn or calculate on the fly if using metric.

 

[Pags]

View attachment 26017

I wonder if all the imperial units make it hard to work with NATO partners. Or if the formulas would be easier/harder to learn or calculate on the fly if using metric.

Absolutely, there's no way anyone within NATO can figure out how to translate units ?. These are academic/technical equations; not something you use in the aircraft.

 

[taxi1]

Personally I am metric units-challenged and heart imperial units, but the mixing of feet, pounds, and knots in the equation with the magic number correction factor in there makes my head hurt. ?

 

[Hair Warrior]

Personally I am metric units-challenged and heart imperial units, but the mixing of feet, pounds, and knots in the equation with the magic number correction factor in there makes my head hurt. ?

I was thinking about that - calculating in your head - in an analog airframe with the sq ft of wing areas plural on a variable-sweep wing (e.g. F-14) as you’re burning fuel and/or dropping ordnance (weight lbs) and trying to stay above stall speed in knots.

I guess it doesn’t come up a lot, except when you’re on the groun at a desk clicking the calculate button.

 

[taxi1]

Thats why the good lord invented the AOA gauge.

 

[Pags]

I was thinking about that - calculating in your head - in an analog airframe with the sq ft of wing areas plural on a variable-sweep wing (e.g. F-14) as you’re burning fuel and/or dropping ordnance (weight lbs) and trying to stay above stall speed in knots.

I guess it doesn’t come up a lot, except when you’re on the groun at a desk clicking the calculate button.

You don't use these equations to fly airplanes. In analog a/c (which the F-14 wasn't) pilots use performance charts, gouge #s, flight planning software, etc. Smarter aircraft can provide updated numbers as the variables change.

Again, these are academic equations that are used to introduce concepts. The general theory underpins a/c performance but the true answer has a lot more nuance to it than an equation with a few variables.

 

[RedFive]

I wonder if all the imperial units make it hard to work with NATO partners. Or if the formulas would be easier/harder to learn or calculate on the fly if using metric.

A large majority of airplane engineering data has been historically done in imperial units and a surprising amount of graphs are hand-drawn. It's just not worth it to reinvent the wheel and convert everything. Even something as simple as comparing against similar designs is done in imperial units. I don't know an American engineer who doesn't have significant experience working with both systems. It's just part of the gig.

 

[nittany03]

I wonder if all the imperial units make it hard to work with NATO partners. Or if the formulas would be easier/harder to learn or calculate on the fly if using metric.

There are two kinds of countries. Those that use the metric system, and those that have put a man on the moon*.
*And yes, for all you pedantic fucks out there, I know the Apollo guidance computer was programmed in metric and back-converted to Imperial; it's a joke, dammit.

 

[Flash]

There are two kinds of countries. Those that use the metric system, and those that have put a man on the moon*.
*And yes, for all you pedantic fucks out there, I know the Apollo guidance computer was programmed in metric and back-converted to Imperial; it's a joke, dammit.

And here I thought it was an American flag on the moon...

 

[BigRed389]

There are two kinds of countries. Those that use the metric system, and those that have put a man on the moon*.
*And yes, for all you pedantic fucks out there, I know the Apollo guidance computer was programmed in metric and back-converted to Imperial; it's a joke, dammit.

There's also Myanmar and Libya, but I assume they follow along because they recognize greatness when they see it.

 

[HeyJoe]

I was thinking about that - calculating in your head - in an analog airframe with the sq ft of wing areas plural on a variable-sweep wing (e.g. F-14) as you’re burning fuel and/or dropping ordnance (weight lbs) and trying to stay above stall speed in knots.

It is not complicated....with 2000+ hours in the Tomcat, we never ever worried about wing loading in terms of calculating it...we knew from experience how the aircraft performed
at various wing sweep positions and were more concerned with cornering speed than stall speed.

As far as fuel calculations, we built our fuel ladder in the brief with 14 min hash marks and constantly checked and rechecked actual fuel remaining against the ladder. Not Calculus, not even much more than basic math problem. Speed was always in Knots (or Mach number (sometimes) and only math needed was calculating time on target or wherever you needed to be. That math worked fine with fuel burn being measured in pounds per hour. Easy day.

Only time you’d be digging into numbers would be if the wings were stuck aft of 22 degrees or flaps stuck so your approach/stall speeds would be higher. Our PCL was a handy dandy regency to help in that situation. But no calculator needed in cockpit for that.