Reading and Writing...Volts and Bits

I was impressed with the mechanically-oriented Airframe and Powerplant classes, as discussed last week. While browsing the school's bookstore, I was also impressed with the texts for the avionics program. (I had originally thought they were included in the A&P program, but it is a separate track. (Many student's continue with it after the A&P I'm told).

I hadn't encountered anyone with the certification, but the The National Center for Aerospace & Transportation Technologies, NCATT (http://www.ncatt.org/about.php) (formerly called the National Center for Aircraft Technician Training), offers professional accreditation. (I don't think it's part of the FAA processes, yet anyway). The local school issues a graduation certificate, and then one can continue with the optional NCATT certificate.

Interestingly, it would seem both the A&P and avionics certification are increasingly helpful in a number of industries, as employers seek qualified candidates. The wind energy business was in particular pointed out, both for the A&P mechanical applications, and the electronic control and power distribution aspects.

The following syllabus is the one followed by my local institution, in the past it has been a four-term program, and the fifth term is an option for those pursuing the national certification.

Session 1 (15 weeks)	13 credit hrs
Technical Mathematics	3
Basic Electricity and Electronics	3
Basic Electricity and Electronics Lab	4
Introduction to Avionics	3
Session 2 (15 weeks)	7 credit hrs
Avionics Systems & Troubleshooting	2
Avionics Systems & Troubleshooting Lab	2
Basic Communication Electronics	3
Session 3 (15 weeks)	8 credit hrs
Wiring and Cannon Plug Lab	2
Aircraft Electrical, Comm & Nav 1	3
Aircraft Electrical, Comm & Nav 1 Lab	3
Session 4 (15 weeks)	10 credit hrs
Aircraft Electrical, Comm & Nav 2	3
Aircraft Electrical, Comm & Nav 2 Lab	3
Basic Communications Electronics Lab	4
Session 5 (15 weeks)	11 credit hrs
Principles of Avionics	3
Certification Preparation for NCATT 1	3
Certification Preparation for NCATT 2	3
Global Professional Standards	2

The reading list for do-it-yourselfers (and study-it-yourselfers):

Basic Mathematics for Electricity and Electronics ($219)

Grob's Basic Electronics: Fundamentals of DC and AC Circuits ($151)

Grob's Basic Electronics: Experiments Manual ($80)

Grob's Basic Electronics: Problems Manual ($77)

Avionics Training- Systems, Installation and Troubleshooting ($69)

Avionics Databuses ($127)

Introduction to Airborne Radar ($159)

Basic Communication Electronics ($69)

Aircraft Wiring and Electrical Installations ($27)

Automatic Flight Control ($117)

Avionics Troubleshooting and Repair ($46.50)

Avionics Systems: Operation and Maintenance ($25.50)

Aircraft Instruments and Integrated Systems ($120)

Avionics Test Equipment Handbook ($86.50)

Aircraft Electricity and Electronics ($106)

Some of these are a bit dated- going back to the mid 1990's (ahem). I suppose a large percentage of general aviation aircraft are even older, so maybe not such a big deal. Good reference material anyway. (The "Grob's Basic Electronics: Fundamentals of DC and AC Circuits" in particular looked like a handy starting point aspiring students and DIY-ers to become familiar with).

Things change- the textbooks, as well as the test equipment. Seems like all the Oscopes I see anymore are the digital LCD ones. (And just after I figured out how to set the clock on my VCR, along comes DVDs... "Just when you figure out the answers, they change the questions".

I've *almost* overcome that digital trepidation because of the multi-color traces available with Tektronix "Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope" (DPO) - and probably a lot of other manufacturers. Interestingly, Hewlett Packard is no longer among those competitors, having ditched the test measurment business with a controversial spin off (Agilent). No shortage of controversy at HP, for sure. Here's a link to some of the "real" stuff though.

As typical, Wikipedia has a nice article on Oscilloscopes. Scroll down a bit, and you'll come across the "Digital Storage" section, and note:
"The first Digital Storage Oscilloscope (DSO) was invented by Walter LeCroy (who founded the LeCroy Corporation, based in New York, USA) after producing high-speed digitizers for the research center CERN in Switzerland. LeCroy remains one of the three largest manufacturers of oscilloscopes in the world."
Intereseting- I though of CERN (allowing my crude translation of things backwards- Center of European Research into Nuclear Stuff- I guess they left the "S" off) as a recently developed organization, but it dates back to 1954. Lot's of publicity about the Large Hadron Collider.

I would suspect a certificate in Avionics might be a good resume item for these other high tech industries- wind farms today, fusion reactors tomorrow! (Unfortunately, fusion energy seems about as far off as the flying car...).

Of course, there have been a variety of approaches to the flying car thing. But let's hope that regardless of the industry they enter, our friends with avionics certificates can get their career's off the ground!

(Or at least into high gear- not reverse! :)

Read'n, Writin', and... Riveting ??

A funny thing happened on the way to the airport near where I lived, about, oh, 20 years ago or so. I stopped by a hangar the local junior college had, which was offering Airframe and Powerplant classes. The time requirement was substantial- can't remember the specifics, but it was 18 months, something like 4 hours per night, 5 nights per week, AND all day Saturday. Yikes! Sounded like great fun, but too much time.

Fast forward 20 years or so. And over the holidays, a funny thing happened on the way to a different airport...

This time, I looked a bit deeper into the programs. I'm sure there are a lot of great programs around the country (and world- although I confess to being ill informed about programs in other countries (and am just becoming somewhat literate about those in the USA).

I thought other folks might enjoy what I've discerned as the requirements- or at least what seems to be the typical requirements at a community-college level program. (There are "professional" programs at for-profit schools, Spartan being one of the leaders, I believe. And a number of 4-year programs, Parks College being the one I am most familiar with. But there seems to be more 2-year programs, some offering the training/certificate for only the A&P license, although most offer an associates degree with only a few more classes required).

As I understand it, there are three parts of an "Airframe and Powerplant" license (certificate, actually, although all the other unknowing non-A&Ps like me seem to universally refer to it as a license); the "General" (math, physics, blueprints, FAA regs, etc), the "Airframe", and the "Powerplant". One can obtain and Airframe, or a Powerplant, or an Airframe and Powerplant certificate.

The requirements for the certificate can be met with either work experience or academic training. The work experience is 18 months for either the Airframe or Powerplant, or 30 months for both. The academic training option is the General plus Airframe, or General plus Powerplant, or all three for the full "A&P". These are the requirements to be eligible to take the FAA written tests, after which one takes an oral exam, and a "practical" (hands-on) exam which is administered by a DME (Designated Mechanic Examiner).

I would think military experience would be one way to meet the experience requirements, and probably a number of jobs at an airframe manufacturer or "mod shop". (One challenge might be over-specialization though- perhaps some readers can shed light on this avenue).

The academic route consists of 1900 hours of supervision and instruction. Not including breaks. That's a pretty fair amount of time. (The "General" portion is 400 hours, "Airframe" is 750 hours, and "Powerplant' is 750 hours). For a four-year program, with two 16-week semesters, that's 3 hours per day x 5 days per week x 16 weeks x 2 semesters per year x 4 years. Make that 3.5 hours per day or so, to include breaks. Or, for a two-year community college, that's 7 hours per day or so, including breaks. Or shorter days, but more of them, if one includes Saturdays and the summer terms.

Where I live, the program is offered during the day, and during the night, as a five term program, with three 15-week terms per year- one "General", two "Airframe", and two "Powerplant" terms. The day class meets 7AM - 3 PM, Monday through Thursday; the night class meets 4 PM - 10 PM, Monday through Friday, with appropriate breaks to make it 25 hours of classroom and "lab" time per week. Any absences must be made up, down to the minute, so it's a pretty demanding schedule.

Here's the list of classes, in the normal order they are taken, at the community college (A&P(with associates degree)/vo-tech (old terminology, I suppose; the A&P certificate only).

Session 1 (15 weeks)	23 credit hrs
Technical Mathematics	2
Physics & Aerodynamics	2
Basic Electricity	4
Aircraft Drawings	1
Maintenance Publications, Forms & Records	2
Mechanic Privledges & Limitations	1
Ground Operation & Service	2
Weight & Balance	2
Materials & Processes	4
Fluid Lines & Fittings	1
Cleaning & Corrosion	1
General Review & Test	1
Session 2 (15 weeks)	23 credit hrs
Wood Structures	1
Aircraft Coverings (Fabrics)	2
Aircraft Finishes	2
Sheet Metal & Non-metallic Structures	8
Aircraft Welding	2
Assembly & Rigging	4
Aircraft Fuel Systems	2
Hydraulic & Pneumatic Systems	2
Session 3 (15 weeks)	25 credit hrs
Aircraft Landing Gear Systems	4
Position & Warning Systems	1
Aircraft Electrical Systems	6
Fire Protection Systems	1
Aircraft Instrument Systems	1
Ice & Rain Control Systems	1
Cabin Atmosphere & Control	2
Communication & Navigation	2
Airframe Inspection	3
Airframe Review & Test	4
Session 4 (15 weeks)	26 credit hrs
Reciprocating Engines	11
Turbine Engines	9
Engine Fuel Systems	1
Auxillary Power Units	1
Propellers	4
Session 5 (15 weeks)	24 credit hrs
Engine Instrument Systems	1
Engine Fire Protection Systems	1
Engine Electrical Systems	2
Ignition & Starting Systems	3
Engine Lubrication Systems	3
Engine Cooling Systems	1
Fuel Metering Systems	4
Induction & Airflow Systems	1
Engine Exhaust & Reversers	2
Engine Inspection	2
Powerplant Review & Test	4
Optional Courses to complete A.S. Degree	18 credit hrs
English (Communications)	3
Humanitities Elective	3
Social Science Elective	3
General Elective 1	3
General Elective 2	3
Computer Science	3

So what if you don't have time for the classes- but If you're like me, the topics sound really interesting? Home study won't do much to geting a A&P certificate, but flipping pages at the community college bookstore was interesting. Here's a reading list, which seems to compose (I think:) the entire booklist of one typical A&P curriculum. I've listed the prices at the JuCo (yeah, that's another oldie term) bookstore. Sometimes on-line is cheaper, sometimes, a little higher. In general, I like to support the brick and mortar stores.

FAR/AMT 2010: Federal Aviation Regulations for Aviation Maintenance Technicians ($25)

Ac 43.13 - 1b/2b Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices of Aircraft Inspection and Repair ($25)

The Aviation Dictionary for Pilots and Aviation Maintenance Technicians ($21)

Aviation Mechanic Handbook ($15)


Aircraft Electricity and Electronics ($110)

Aircraft: Basic Science with Student Study Guide ($62)

Aircraft: Powerplants with Student Study Guide ($110)

ASA General Test Guide 2010 ($14)

ASA Powerplant Test Guide 2010 ($14)

ASA Airframe Test Guide 2010 ($14)

Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Technology ($107)

Airframe & Powerplant Mechanics Powerplant Handbook ($20)

Airframe & Powerplant Mechanics Airframe Handbook ($20)

Aviation Maintenance Handbook - General ($40)

Aircraft Maintenance and Repair with Study Guide ($110)

The whole books tab comes up to about $700 or so. Tuition at most CC's is around $100 per credit hour, which comes out to about $3000 per "term" for my local A&P school. Multiply by five terms, throw in tools for $2K and FAA exams, the total for an A&P license is probably $18K or so. I'd guess it's around double that for a private for-profit school.

The investment in time is equally expensive, especially if one is working full time: figure 70-80 hour weeks between work and school- sometimes in five days. Lot's of folks have two full time jobs (boy, do I have a lot of respect anyone doing that, or this!). Generally, loans are available to help with the financial burden. The time constraints are less easily ameliorated. Does the A&P certificate "pay off"? I would think so, over time. And it opens doors to opportunites that might otherwise be unavailable. Even at one's present job, it might be the differentiator when layoffs come, or a promotion comes along.

Plus, it looks like a heck of a lot of fun!

Best wishes to all who might be interested in an A&P program- perhaps some are currently enrolled in one. (I know several of our fellow bloggers are already A7P certificate holders).

Wikipedia article on Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) Certification.

Find an A&P school near you. (Something like 170 or so to chose from in the USA).

Composite Aircraft Part 2 (Biz Jets and such)

Well, after our expose' last week on the ratio of empty weight to maximum takeoff weight, I am sure to have established my credentials as a half-wit amongst our learned stress engineer friends.

But why leave things only half done? Ignoring the advice of one of my favorite Presidents ("Don't get caught"... -oops, that was Tricky Dicky...but I imagine that's pretty much what they all say),

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. "

(Well, I think Abe Lincoln would not be accused of trying to not-get-caught. Although he was accused of just about everything else- politics was probably even uglier then than now, although it seemed some common sense and civility was briefly evident during the 1950's through 1980. Oh well, accidents happen).

Anyway, here we go with a review of business jets (or let's say, business aircraft- as I've included a few turboprops. All twins though, (well, or triples, or quadruples, in a few cases. And, a few Single Engine Jet's...Make that ALL the SEJs :). I deliberately did not include pistons, just to try to try to keep the scope narrowed. I'm sure I also missed a number of great foreign (and probably domestic) aircraft which would well qualify for inclusion- go ahead and mention your favorites, and I'll put them in the tables.

I believe it was Julius who mentioned the Beech Premier as being a notable exception to the laundry list of "failed" composite programs. And inconvenient truth, as it were, to my thesis that composite aircraft (commercial anyway) are:

1) Heavier than their aluminum counterparts
2) Cause cancer and baldness and explode all the time

(Okay, just kidding about that last one:)

My discomfort with a "disruptive" outliar- oops, not talking about former Eclipse stuff- some would insist that the correct terminology in that case would be out-right liar; however in this case: Outlier (interesting read, btw) variance of the Premier program, into the realm of commercially successful composite airplanes, did prompt me to compile a short list of what I had considered "failed" composite airframe programs, versus their nearest successful aluminum competitors. The results were modestly surprising, and challenged a few perceptions I have held about some of these programs. (These are the numbers I found on the web, ymmv, etc.; please post a correction if you see anything too far off, but I believe these numbers use the same methodology, allowing reasonably accurate comparisons).

Manufacturer	Model	Empty Wt	MTOW	Ratio
Adam	A-700	5550	9350	0.594
Cessna	Mustang	5550	8645	0.642
Beech	Premier I	8430	12500	0.674
Cessna	CJ2+	8000	12500	0.640
Grob	SPn	7889	13889	0.568
Cessna	CJ3	8720	13870	0.629
Beech	Starship	10120	14900	0.679
Cessna	Bravo	8750	14800	0.591
Hawker	4000	23100	39500	0.585
Bombardier	CL300	23300	38850	0.600

Adam A-700 versus the Cessna Mustang. I had always thought the Adam looked like a porky little critter, and would surely be a heavy pig compared to the Mustang. But weight ratio wise, no- the Adam was quite respectable (the Mustang isn't too bad either). I suspect the aerodynamics of the A-700 weren't quite as good though. But, the composite Adam failed, the aluminum Mustang succeeded. Not saying it was the airplane's fault- just a data point. This round- Commercial success: Composites 0, Aluminum 1; Technical success: Composites 1, Aluminum 0.

The ,Beech Premier I (a Premier II is in development) versus the CJ2+ was also a bit of a surprise- I figured that since the Premier was successful, it would have a great advantage over the Cessna- but no, the Premier has a "heavier" ratio than the Cessna (which was also a commercial success). This round- Commercial success: Composites 0.5, Aluminum 0.5 (tie); Technical success: Composites 1, Aluminum 0.

The Grob SPn was one of my favorite development programs. Although it was still early in it's development program, with the likelihood of weight gain as certification changes dictated. But it failed commercially. Or rather, the company did. But again, it's a data point. This round- Commercial success: Composites 0, Aluminum 1; Technical success: Composites 1, Aluminum 0.

I think everyone (including me!) wants to root for the Beech Starship. But it was a financial disaster- only 50-ish were built, and all were bought back to be destroyed. (Well, most of them brought back anyway- a few still in circulation: I saw one fly by a few months ago). And it was heavy. This round- Commercial success: Composites 0, Aluminum 1; Technical success: Composites 0, Aluminum 1.

The last comparison is the Hawker Horizon/4000 versus the Bombardier Bd-100/Challenger 300. (The names of both airplanes changed over the past few years, as indicated). These two airplanes are about as close as it gets to direct competitors- they even had their first flights just 3 days apart. The Horizon is another airplane that has been a financial disaster, with a long development program, and low deliveries to date; the aluminum CL-300 has been a great commercial success. But, the Horizon is slightly better weight ratio than the CL-300, so I'll give it the technical nod. This round- Commercial success: Composites 0, Aluminum 1; Technical success: Composites 1, Aluminum 0.

So, "what's the score" for this five-pair comparison?
Commercial success: Composites 0.5, Aluminum 4.5
Technical success: Composites 4, Aluminum 1.

(I biased the technical success in favor of composites- as long as it was not deficient compared to the aluminum competitor).

To me, the surprise was not that the composite airplanes are so well represented in the financial failure category- which is mostly what I have observed. Rather, the surprise was that they indeed really ARE a bit lighter than their aluminum competitors. I guess I had attributed their financial failure to having a poor weight ratio, but it seems that is not the case.

So if the weight ratios are superior, why the financial failures? I would say, one big contributor, is the cost associated with development of a composite airframe. (Of course, it has been a difficult time economically, for all manufacturers, aluminum OR composite- but still, there seems to be some correlation apparent).

Further observations of the commercial ramifications of composite airframe development:
The A380 was 2 years late...
The 787 is over 2 years late...
Grob who was designing the composites for the Lear 85 (as well as their own SPn) went bankrupt.

I'm not saying there is a direct link between commercial fiasco and composites, but it seems the Premier is the only exception to that hypothesis so far. (Yes, there are lots of orders for the 787, so it may eventually break even. And over the course of years, be profitable. But I think it would have been more profitable, more sooner (er, something like that), if it would have been built of aluminum. (And yes, most of these airplanes are largely aluminum. But I still say there is a correlation between using composites and financial success- or lack thereof).

SO- if that was fun, how about comparing ALL the biz jets (and some select turbo props) ??

I strove to use comparable weights (empty without crew). In general, it seems differences in the empty weight:MTOW of 0.02 are where it gets "out of the noise", and 0.05 seemed to be especially relevant.

Another surprise- while the "sturdy" Kingair line dominates the bottom of the empty:mtow ratio table- but it's interesting to note what's at the second-to-last position. (Hint: Hondajet. And rather dramatically so. (We'll be discussing the Hondajet in a future "headline" thread). Almost as surprising, the Bombardier/Canadair Challenger-series came in at the top- in spite of having the appearance of being rather short and, well, dumpy. (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though- no offense intended. And it has a great weight ratio!)

So, how did "our favorite VLJ" do? The Eclipse EA-500 scored a very respectable 0.597. Given the rumored weight gain, and deviation from the optimal configuration (rumored to be 40% or so)- that competitive number is all the more impressive. (Congratulations to the structural design team!)

Manufacturer	Model	Empty Wt	MTOW	Ratio
Bombardier	CL-604	21620	48200	0.449
Bombardier	CL-301-3R	20485	45100	0.454
Bombardier	CL-600.late	18450	40125	0.460
Bombardier	CL-601-3A	19950	43100	0.463
Lockheed	JetStar I	18450	38940	0.474
Gulfstream	G-IV	35500	73600	0.482
Dassault	Falcon 7X	34072	70000	0.487
Lear	23	6151	12499	0.492
Dassault	Falcon 900EX	23875	48300	0.494
Dassault	Falcon 900B	22611	45500	0.497
Bombardier	Global Express	48800	96000	0.508
Lear	25D	7640	15000	0.509
Gulfstream	G-V	46200	90500	0.510
Dassault	Falcon 50	20170	38800	0.520
Lear	24	7064	13500	0.523
Cessna	Citation III	11670	22000	0.530
Dassault	Falcon 50EX	21700	40780	0.532
Cessna	Citation SII	8060	15100	0.534
Gulfstream	G-200 (Galaxy)	19200	35450	0.542
Lockheed	JetStar II	24178	44500	0.543
Gulfstream	G-III	38000	69700	0.545
Lear	35A	10120	18300	0.553
Hawker	1000	17200	31000	0.555
Saberliner	40	11250	20172	0.558
Gulfstream	G-II	36544	65500	0.558
Cessna	Citation I	6631	11850	0.560
Diamond	D-Jet	2870	5110	0.562
IAI	Westwind II	13250	23500	0.564
Hawker	850XP	15800	28000	0.564
Bombardier	CL-600.early	22825	40400	0.565
Piper	PiperJet	4100	7250	0.566
IAI	Westwind II	11750	20700	0.568
Grob	SPn	7889	13889	0.568
Hawker	900XP	16020	28120	0.570
Dassault	Falcon 200	18290	32000	0.572
Saberliner	75A	13200	23000	0.574
Dassault	Falcon 10	10760	18740	0.574
Cessna	Citation Ultra	9395	16300	0.576
Dassault	Falcon 100	11145	19300	0.577
Gulfstream	G-150	15100	26100	0.579
Dassault	Falcon 2000	20735	35800	0.579
Dassault	Falcon 20	16600	28660	0.579
Swearingen	SJ30-2	7700	13200	0.583
Gulfstream	G-100 (Astra)	14400	24650	0.584
Hawker	4000	23100	39500	0.585
Hawker	750	15800	26950	0.586
Lear	60	13850	23500	0.589
Cessna	Bravo	8750	14800	0.591
Cessna	Citationjet	6160	10400	0.592
Adam	A-700	5550	9350	0.594
Cessna	Citation X	21700	36400	0.596
Eclipse	EA-500	3550	5950	0.597
Aero Commander	690A	6126	10250	0.598
Lear	55C	12858	21500	0.598
Cessna	Sovereign	18150	30300	0.599
Bombardier	CL300	23300	38850	0.600
Gulfstream	G-250	23750	39600	0.600
Beech	B-100	7092	11800	0.601
Lear	31A	10253	17000	0.603
Embraer	Legacy 600	30000	49604	0.605
Cessna	CJ4	10260	16950	0.605
Cessna	Citation X	22100	36100	0.612
Lear	60	14502	23500	0.617
Beech	B-200	7755	12500	0.620
Beech	KingAir 350	9326	15000	0.622
Gulfstream	G-I	21900	35100	0.624
Cessna	Encore+	10540	16830	0.626
Cessna	CJ3	8720	13870	0.629
Lear	85	21100	33500	0.630
Cessna	XLS+	12760	20200	0.632
Cessna	CJ1+ (source1)	6765	10700	0.632
Cirrus	SF50	3800	6000	0.633
Cessna	Citation XLS+	12800	20200	0.634
Embraer	Phenom 300	11450	18020	0.635
Lear	45	13744	21500	0.639
Cessna	CJ2+	8000	12500	0.640
Lear	40XR	13461	21000	0.641
Cessna	Mustang	5550	8645	0.642
Swearingen	Merlin IIB	6452	10000	0.645
Hawker	400	10550	16300	0.647
Piaggio	Avanti II	7500	11550	0.649
Aero Commander	1000	7289	11200	0.651
Swearingen	Merlin IIC	8150	12500	0.652
Mitsubishi	Mu-2	7570	11575	0.654
Cessna	CJ1+	7025	10700	0.657
Embraer	Phenom 100	6932	10472	0.662
Beech	Premier II	9120	13700	0.666
Beech	Premier I	8430	12500	0.674
Beech	B-200GT	8520	12590	0.677
Beech	Starship	10120	14900	0.679
Honda	Hondajet	6256	9200	0.680
Beech	C-90GTi	7000	10100	0.693