How many Modellers Are Engineers?

[Bravedan]

Off aircraft, but the Dennis brothers (they of the Buses, Lorries, and Fire Engines, a company still around from the 20s) were also self taught Farm Boys.............

[Reno Racer]

I'm all for it! Self thought Engineers should understand everything in their field from the start as a apprentice to their rise through to design Engineer or similar.. My old man did the same, as did many generations of my family.

I thought i'd just clarify this qualifications and bit of paper thing. 

The award of Chartered Engineer (CEng), Incorporated Engineer (IEng) or Engineering Technician (Eng Tech) is not granted by taking an exam or been at University. Sure, for each level you must have the basic academic qualifications, but they are just to open the door. Your interview and assessment is based on your proven competence, not a bit of paper. To give you an idea, any time served mechanic or technician who has worked his/her way up to some supervisory level probably meets the criteria for IEng. A snotty nosed Masters Degree graduate, needs to spend time learning his trade and prove his competence before he/she has any chance of becoming a CEng. usually, about 8-10 years. The hurdles and grilling you get is pretty intensive.

Why bother then?, well in my line of work we have been mandated. It all started with 2 incidents. firstly, an Engineering Officer (Major) in the Army, who had served 25+ years and worked his way up from basic apprentice mechanic was in court, following an accident involving an Army vehicle on the A303. He had functional responsibility for ensuring that all repairs and inspections were carried out to the correct standard (MoT equiv). He was ripped apart by the prosecution because he was not an accredited (lawful) Engineer. Although he probably had the competence to be a CEng, he had not bothered to register and be assessed and accredited. Think of it as OFTEC or CORGI, bt bigger.

A similar incident involved the sign off (declaration of an aircraft been fit to fly) by an Aircraft Engineering Officer, again, he probably had the competence, but had not been assessed and awarded an professional qualification. You can imagine the difference in legislation between land and air vehicles.

In short, these are based on your competence, not your quals. I suspect these 'bad' engineers people have discussed would not have been granted professional status, if they could not prove their competence. 

Hope that adds clarity to the discussion

I don't use much of my background in modeling. My technical interest, i'm sure helps. But much is woodwork and craftsmanship and I'm a ham fisted Mechanical chap and tend to find BIG hammers aren't that useful.

[Peter Miller]

I am reminded of a friend of mine who used to be English hardwoods manager at a big local timber firm. He had spent his working life there .

 

The family company was sold to a big company who brought in their managers all of whom had fancy qualificatoins in management.

 

These "experts" could not understand why you bought oak logs and then left them for seven years. Nor  could they grasp why it was that when he bought in 100 cubic meters of logs they only had about 60 or 70 cubic meters of timber to sell after they were processed.

 

Ironically, the most uselss of these experts got the push. Sometime later the staff weres ent on a "training" course. and guess who one of the intructors was? Yes. the useless twit who had been given the push.

 

Going back to my own experience, I knew an engine fitter who passed his course with honours. He was a menace when let loose on aircraft.

[leccyflyer]

You can always tell an engineer,.............. but you can't tell him much.......

[Gemma Jane]

That's a bit like how do you spot a pilot at a party?

 

You don't need to they already told you they are a pilot.

 

Guilty as charged. 

[sparks59]

Hi Chris,

Seems to be a few of like minded folks on here!

 

I'm also a Chartered Electrical Engineer. There does seem to be a few of us involved in this hobby!

 

But I did it the really 'old fashioned' way as I started out with an Electrical apprenticeship with British Rail Engineering, studied for HNC, then HND and eventually got to do a part time honours degree at Leeds Poly (as it was). It would have been so much easier and faster to do the university route straight from school.

 

 The practical training and 'hands on' experience gained from being 'on the tools' for 11 years has stood me in very good stead with some 'Engineers' and I use the term loosely, that I have encountered over the years.

 

sparks

 

[Gemma Jane]

The 'hands on' issue becomes most apparent when engineering students leave uni.

 

Suddenly they find that their latest amazing design can't actually be easily manufactured as it's impossible to produce the tooling to do the job. It must bring a few down to earth when they are sent away by a shop floor 'engineer' to have another think about it all when it is they that have the piece of paper that states they are an 'engineer'.

 

During my uni course there was a one week workshop of using machine tools. Watching a bunch of kids who had never even seen lathes before was pretty entertaining. Had to duck a lot though due to the flying chuck keys.. 

 

Much the same as I've seen from uni ecologists who can talk all day about 'bio mass' etc and don't see the animal sat by their foot whilst they are talking.. the very species they are there to record! Plenty of knowledge, zero practical field experience.

 

Fortunately long before I did the 'academic' stuff I was already very hands on having completed a City & Guilds in motorcycle mechanics (they taught me welding.. I love welding!) and being taught many model engineering skills by Dad, including using lathes, soldering and stuff. It's a good balance though I struggle to get my son to see that making things is actually the best way to learn about things, he is now getting the idea.

Edited By Gemma Jane on 05/08/2010 13:41:31

[batcho99]

I'm an engineer too, I thought I better post a comment incase someone is counting!

I'm in Aero Engineering fixing big'ns at the local aeroporto, just mechanical tho, I dont do that fidly electricary stuff!  I've just got up from a 12 hour night shift so i'm having a bit of finger trouble on this bloomin keyboard too.

 

Iain.

 

 

[sparks59]

Posted by Gemma Jane on 05/08/2010 13:31:17:

The 'hands on' issue becomes most apparent when engineering students leave uni.

 

Suddenly they find that their latest amazing design can't actually be easily manufactured as it's impossible to produce the tooling to do the job. It must bring a few down to earth when they are sent away by a shop floor 'engineer' to have another think about it all when it is they that have the piece of paper that states they are an 'engineer'.

 

During my uni course there was a one week workshop of using machine tools. Watching a bunch of kids who had never even seen lathes before was pretty entertaining. Had to duck a lot though due to the flying chuck keys.. 

 

 Whilst at BREL, we found that the university graduates who would occasionally come for 'shop floor experience, soon calmed their clever talk after they had been sent to the stores for the 'long stand, bucket of sparks for the grinder, tin of striped paint, oh and while you are there, bring a unit for a Deltic' (oh ..wait..you had better take a barrow for the last one kid!)

Happy days.

sparks

[Erfolg]

I am a Chartered Engineer Mechanical Engineer, (CEng, Bsc (hons)).

 

As with many modellers I have always enjoyed making things.

 

I have returned or continued modelling, as a consequence of the necessary discipline of full size engineering. Modelling allowed me, at the scale of models that I build, to try out ideas/thoughts of what would happen, if I do this.

 

When a practising engineer, the training helped in understanding what was likely to happen and what are probably the critical issues.

 

Tutors similar to Biggles always emphasised that simplify the problem to get a feel, then look at the detailed solution, to make sure that your answer is in the ball park. The other emphasis was that in the real world,many systems are non linear under all circumstances (the concept of limits). In short you can only calculate so much, with predictability, sometimes, small changes can change the outcome dramatically and may be beyond consistent calculation. Please understand the limitations of the relationships you are using.

 

Above all one tutor would challenge does it matter, if so why, can I control the outcome and if I can is it worth the effort.

 

For most of us non competitive modellers, who really cares.

 

Erfolg

[i12fly]

You can usually recognise an engineer -he/she can't spell or they talk alot of bull.... Having mastered one or two basic principles they always think they're right as well. Incidentally, why do so many people think the Spitfire was so good? it had carbs when even the trainers in the opposition camp had injection, it placed the fuel tank right in front of the pilots face, it took several times longer to make than the opposition fighters, was expensive, difficult to repair, was lightly armed compared with the opposition, performance only kept up didn't lead. The pilots were brave indeed! Shall I go on? But they do look and sound beautiful. Yes I'm an engineer too BSc mech eng and a heating engineer too with more ticks in boxes than you can shake an spiece of spruce at -and if you think that isn't a proper engineer, take a look at the regs and standards  I need to know when I come and condemn your dangerous heating system and leave you in the cold.... Yes I fit the mould too but my spelling is perfekt. I'm off now to hide from the flak. Get a bit grumpy towards the weekend  as I need a flying fix.

[Erfolg]

I think the suggestion of engineers having no practical experience, is a sweeping generalization. Most of the engineers I knew, had worked at a practical level. As major engineering companies incorporated practical work, prior to commencing the studies and during the holidays. Also the institutions required proof of practical training/experience.

 

As to knowing all the answers, I think the majority of Professional engineers are acutely aware of how much they do not know. Ignorance is bliss. It is often reducing the unqualified issues to an acceptable level and looking for the unexpected and non programmed issues that cases the stress.

 

Of course the UK is one of the countries where engineers can be replaced by any one, it is so easy.

 

It does not suprise me that engineers are often modellers, it is fun, with our own dead lines, we set our own goals, control all aspects of the programme, decide the budget. No re submission if any aspect of the project is changed. . Yep easy and fun compared to engineering

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Its been really interesting to see just how many modellers are engineers/technologists etc. But like Erfolg perhaps I don't find it so surprising. A lot of people who went into engineering did so because they have an interest in things "technical" so I suppose its not so surprising that they select a very technically orientated hobby.

 

Its also interesting, along the way, to see how many engineers "did it the hard way". Reading what Gemma writes sounds very similar in some ways to my own background. I was brought up on a council estate in Liverpool - and believe me you haven't lived if you didn't experience Liverpool council estates in the seventies As I said above I started out as an apprentice tool maker - and it was generally considered a "plum" opportunity. Those were the days when it was still just true that the skilled working class were considered something of an "elite" in those circles! So my parents were very happy. My father was a fitter - and a hugely gifted "natural engineer" - sadly, being a working class youngster in Liverpool in the 1930's further education simply wasn't even a dream for him! He left school at 14. He was enormously inventive and skillful and if there was an "inspiration" which led me into engineering it was him. Like Gemma's dad he taught me basic skills, woodworking, soldering, simple metal work etc at an early age. Sadly he died when I was 18 - just as I was being transferred from "the tools" to the drawing office. He would have been very proud of that!

 

So there me were, my Mum, my younger sister and I. Like you Lee there seemed no chance for me to go to University - I was the breadwinner! But I was lucky I suppose. I was doing an ONC and got good results and  my employer offered to sponsor me through University. I say I was lucky - I think that's true in terms of the opportunity being available - but I feel quite strongly that I earned the right to use the opportunity. I suppose I then became the classic "working class over-achiever" Going on to a PhD etc.

 

I know I'm not alone in following this type of route. Being the first in my family to go to University and making the most of opportunities as they presented themselves, moving from "the tools" onto university.

 

Regarding the question "what exactly is an engineer?" I don't think its to do with "bits of paper. I agree with what I think Ackers said above that all qulaifications can do is open doors - put your foot on the first rung of the ladder. To achieve Chartered Engineer status you need a lot more than a degree - in fact you can become a Chartered Engineer without a degree - but its quite unusual these days - but not impossible.

 

For me whether someone is an Engineer or not depends fundementally on what they do - not what qualifications they have. If you run projects, control resources (both budget and manpower), if you make strategic and fundamental decisions on what technology will be used to solve a given problem, if at the end of the day its your neck on the line if it goes over budget, is delivered late or fails to perform to spec, Then in my book you're an engineer - whatever your qualifications say! But if you largely impliment other people's plans, if when it goes wrong you can say "I did it that way because s/he told me too", if you don't decide and control the resources, then your probably a Technician in my view - not an Engineer.

 

Does it matter? Is one "more important" than the other? I don't believe so. Most big projects can't be delievered without both sets of skills, the engineer's knowledge to plan and design the solution, the technician's skills to adapt and realise the design in practice. The two need each other and in the best projects there is a real mutual respect from each for the knowledge and skills of the other.

 

Just my views and experience.

 

BEB

[Reno Racer]

Thank you all for your posts; in the main it seems that many of you have an engineering background or an interest in technology. There also appears to be good across all engineering disciplines and across all levels of engineering, from Chartered Engineer to technicians and shop floor mechanics. What a wealth of experience this brings to the hobby and makes a forum like this so useful and informative.

It is also clear I think that, sadly, the UK misunderstanding of the word Engineer, is still out there.  the word 'Engineer', which is an internationally recognised 'status' (probably the wrong word, but you get my drift) term, yet in the UK has been allowed to proliferate across all levels of engineering; people that are fantastic tradesman, mechanics, technicians etc, are not engineers (not my opinion, see the UK Engineering Council website). This in no way means they are bad at their job or that they don't understand their area of engineering. 

At work, we are legislatively governed by the professional standards of the Engineering Council (BTW, this governs all engineering institutions and bodies) and as such , my 12+year time served specialist mechanic or electro-optical technician meet the criteria for registration as an Engineering Technician. My graduate trainee engineers and engineering department managers/shop floor supervisors can be an Incorporated Engineer (as BEB suggests this is the guy who applies current technologies and methods). The Chief Engineer is a Chartered Engineer. In an organisation of 450, there is only 4 qualified (by experience, competence and qualifications) Chartered Engineers. They operate at the strategic level and with novel and future technologies and direct the output required of the shop floor. 

That's why I suggest even a fantastic domestic heating repair man is not an 'Engineer', he/she should be a 'Engineering Technician', if using he correct legislative terminology.

Of course, these are simply words and have no effect on our ability to be professionals in the engineering disciplines, at whatever level. more importantly, they generally seem to make no difference to our abilities as builders, modellers and flyers. 

Edited By Christian Ackroyd on 06/08/2010 08:26:53

[Lee Smalley]

a couple of points

re the spitfire, yes it was hard to manufacture and repair and all the faults we know it had but remember this it was the only aircraft to fly throughout the war and be continously upgraded with serious degredation in its manouvrability and performance, the later marks of 109 were described as positively dangerous by luftwaffe pilots and whilst some marks were faster it was never able to match the spitfires manouverability something that good was never going to be easy to make the hurricane whilst much easier to make was never able to be upgraded and indeed by end 1940 it was positively outdated.

 

re Engineers its sad that there are virtually no companies now that invest in their staff to a degree level anymore it seems unless you are wealthy (relatively)and can pay your way through uni or are in the forces then your gonna struggle, apprentiships  sadly seem to be a thing of the past, what a shame !

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Can't disagree with either of those points Lee.

 

BEB

[Reno Racer]

Lee, 

Tend to agree mate, I think at all levels, from degrees to 'proper' apprenticeships, we (UK Plc) are sadly loosing out due to lack of investment in UK engineering.

Did you see the program on jets by Jez Clarkson last night - he covered Whittle's idea and how we let our jet engineering prowess slip away to the US (after giving them the info in exchange for ammunition and trucks in WW2). He also suggested that because the 'establishment' shunned Frank Whittle's ideas in the 30s, which led him to patent the jet engine, his ideas became public info, which the German's picked up.

I suspect there is a degree of truth in that; not much seems to have changed in 70 years! 

[A.A. Barry]

Lee, the last point you addressed also happened here in Aus.

1960> I started my mechanical apprent. in 1963, the govnt of the day had a scheme to promote companies to employ lads into the trades, 1/2 of the wages where met by the employer and 1/2 was met by the govnt.

I started a 5 yr term, but ended up having it reduced to 4, anyway, a lot of young guys where employed in all sorts of trades under this, Aus didn't need to have overseas people from the 3rd world countries (THEN), most send their $'s home, because we could train our own, UNTIL......

A change in policies........1980

Local companys refused to take on new apprent's because of the cost $$$$$, so for many yrs, we where lacking in young men taking up a metal trades, except for the "forces and  very large company's

 2005, the Govt decide "OH, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO", today there is a 1/2"baked scheme" under a government assisted apprentice labour companys,

 But I should be lucky, because now all us old farts are being kept on, asked not to leave, and well paid.

That's govenments for you

A.A.Barry 

Edited By A.A. Barry on 06/08/2010 12:47:09

[Lee Smalley]

i dont think the germans picked up too much from whittles ideas as they went down the axial route rather than  the centrifugal  and whilst its hard to prove as pre war records have been destroyed, there is good evidence that the geremans were running jet engines as early as 1933 they first flew a jet powerd aircraft in 1938 henshel i think it was and these were all axial since the 80s the goverments here in uk seemed to have deemed engineers not that important and financial bods far more important, well look where that got us !!

[Erfolg]

I do not know where the jet engine content has come from, though you are certainly correct in much of your beliefs, Lee.

 

It appears that Whittle no more invented the jet engine than Dyson the cyclone.

 

It is certain that he built one of the earliest effective jet engines, for aircraft,

 

An English Church Minister (John Barber) filed the first patent for the concept back in the 1800s i think.

 

The first self sustaining gas turbine was built by a Norwegian engineer (Elling) in about 1900. Still exists today.

 

A French man, Guilliane, filed a patent to use an axial flow engine for aircraft flight in approx 1920.

 

Griffith wrote a paper before Whittle at the RAE in about 1930.

 

The number of ground running gas turbines and hybrid types predating Whittle is breathtaking.

 

Metallurgy and economy appeared to be a major issue, for all these that predate Whittle.

 

None the less, just like Dyson, Whittle built a device that could be used in an aircraft.  Ohain (the German) can be considered a contemporary.

 

As to who was first depends on your criteria, nationality and above all patriotism during a war. The" truth is the first casualty in war" and the long story does not fit to well with boosting national pride, resolve and national moral.. Particularly when it was apparent that German jet aircraft were operational.

 

I suspect that not trying to enforce the Whittle patent (was it just for a single stage centrifugal jet?, like our model jets) was as much a device to avoid arguments regarding axial flow issues, and multi staged compressors (high compression ratios) as to having a patent that was enforceable.

 

Like many things, little is truly new and unique.

[Erfolg]

I was reflecting on the biographies of the training of many of the engineers in this thread.

 

What appears tangibly different, from present day generations of youth is how much work we all did.

 

We all seemed to compete to get employer sponsorship for our education. We all accepted that we would work in the workshops, when not actually training. Long hours of study were the norm, for all.

 

The other aspect, which is not I suspect to myself, was continuous training. Learning programming, computing theory, modelling techniques concepts. All after obtaining qualifications.  Being prepared to learn about codes for pressure vessels. Relearning that CAD use was more relevant than theory in earning a crust. Coming to terms with Relational databases and on and on.

 

I also guess like most engineers I have worked in many industries, turbines, aircraft, printing, nuclear, anything to earn a living. In the past it seems engineers would and could do anything, you just studied a bit more if necessary, it is all engineering.

 

I guess that was and is the challenge of engineering, all seems similar, but is actually evolving and us with it.

 

I compare that with a very few current students I have spoken to and a 60 hour week of work and study would be outrageous and unfair. The thought that you actually got peanuts, I now assume my employer received my grant? Never questioned it then.

 

I studied with a HK Chinese lad called Pek, no amount of work was to much for him, I suspect the same is true today, for many in Asia.

Edited By Erfolg on 06/08/2010 18:26:09