Systems Engineering as an Effective Educational Framework for Active Aerospace Design Learning

Richard Curran1 , Michel van Tooren2, Liza van Dijk3

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands 2629HS

Abstract. The main contribution of the paper is to present and review the main proposition of this paper, that: ‘Systems Engineering provides a beneficial educational framework and process for helping students to understand the aerospace design process more quickly’. The authors 1) illustrate the Systems Engineering components, 2) the integration into the actual final year design project and 3) present evidence that the SE educational framework is an effective way of teaching aerospace design. Finally, an example from the design project is presented to highlight the technical quality of work ensured through the use of the SE process. In terms of assessing the impact of SE education and student learning, the overall DSE grade is strongly correlated to a good SE applied mark while the team based approach is shown to ensure that a consistently good implementation of SE is being achieved in the DSE, regardless of some of the individuals’ poor marks in the taught component. The DSE team structure ensures a natural spread of the SE abilities with a view to making the outcome less sensitive to individual’s ratings but rather a function of the best ratings for each required expertise within the collective, i.e. division of labour to those best able within the team. It is concluded that SE education is most significant in introducing the students to a technical management framework whose worth will not be fully realized until their experience of its value in the complex technical and organization environment experienced within a much more dynamic project management scenario faced within industry. Moreover, SE education is more fully realized and the impact evident when it is applied rather than theoretical.

Keywords: Systems Engineering, Aerospace, Education, Design Project.

I. Introduction

The main contribution of the paper is to present and review the effectiveness of a Systems Engineering approach in the aerospace design education [1-6] at the Technical University of Delft (TUD) [7-9]. The basic approach will be outlined as well as presenting some of the main components that make up the Project Management aspect and the more technical Systems Engineering aspect [10-19]. The integration of these into the actual design project will also be addressed moving to the main proposition of this paper, that: ‘Systems Engineering provides a beneficial educational framework and process for helping students to understand the aerospace design process more quickly’. Consequently, it is the intention of the authors through this paper to 1) illustrate the Systems Engineering components, 2) the integration into the actual final year design project and 3) present evidence that the SE educational framework is an effective way of teaching aerospace design. Therefore, the relevance of the paper addresses the implementation and understanding of SE methods, the relevance and potential exploitation within design education. Finally, an example from the design project is presented to highlight the technical quality of work ensured through the use of the SE process.

II. The need for Systems Engineering within Aerospace Education

The objectives of the Design Synthesis Exercise at TUD are to enhance the students’ skills in:

a) Designing b) Applying knowledge

1 Chairholder Air Transport & Operations Department, R.Curran@tudelft.nl. AIAA Senior Member 2 Chairholder Design Aircraft and Rotorcraft Department, AIAA member. 3 Management-assistant Air Transport & Operations Department.

9th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (ATIO) <br>and <br>Air21 - 23 September 2009, Hilton Head, South Carolina

AIAA 2009-6904

Copyright © 2009 by R Curran. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.

c) Communicating (discussion, presentation, report) d) Working as a team e) Sustainable development

As the Bachelor DSE design exercise at TUD is part of the MSc. undergraduate program the aim is not to attain a flawless final result but as stated at the beginning of this paper, the main proposition is that: ‘Systems Engineering provides a beneficial educational framework and process for helping students to understand the aerospace design process more quickly’. Consequently, the students are encouraged to harness their natural drive to create "the best design", but to realise that certain design choices will be made which will not be optimal ultimately as they are at a very early stage of the design process. However, this is entirely in sync with the real design experience when choices and decision making can only be partially iterated within the limited timeframe and budget of any design exercise. The simulation of this aspect within ISDE of such an iterative process is an invaluable element in obtaining design experience. That brings us back to the main proposition of this paper, which is to consider SE as an effective framework for achieving the five objectives listed above. Each objective is well associated with the goal of SE, sustainable development fitting within the SE goal of achieving a life-cycle balanced solution that integrates product, process and people requirements. The 3rd objective of this paper was 3) to present evidence that the SE educational framework is an affective way of teaching aerospace design education, as well as 1) illustrating the Systems Engineering components and 2) showing the integration into the actual final year design project. Figs 1 and 2 illustrate some of the established benefits of SE within the industrial setting where it can be seen that a 7-10% cost allocation to early SE effort can reduce cost and schedule overrun from 200% to under an acceptable 20%, with little additional cost-benefit evident beyond this.

Figure 1. Impact of SE of cost overrun (Moody et al)

Figure 2. Impact of SE on schedule overrun (Mar & Honour )

However, how do we interpret this relative to design projects being carried out within the educational sector? Fig 1 would suggest that within an educational design project, the students will 1) have to put in double the effort (time) that they anticipated in order to do what they want (with all of the associated issues within a team context and varying levels of expectation and commitment) and that projects tend never to finish unless bounded by time or cost! Fig 2 would suggest that the students 2) need to put 1/10th of their effort (time) into SE, especially at the beginning, if they are to achieve what they want within the allocated time scales, but encouragingly, that this is possible!

III. The Systems Engineering Methodology Implimented at TUD A M.Sc. from TUD takes 5 years to complete in principle and includes a full-time 10-week design project

called the Design Synthesis Exercise. Each student is required to complete this in the final year of their Bachelor Degree part of the studies and each student forms part of a team of 10 persons working on their own distinct project. Brief proposals are presented to the students by a Principle Supervisor as part of the early selection process so that they have some choice in selecting a particular project that they will be more highly motivated by. The Principle Supervisor is supported by 2 other members of staff, typically from different Chairs so that there is a range of competency, while the students are also encouraged to consult other relevant staff members during the project as required.

The general outline of the DSE is illustrated in Figure 3 which shows a first facilitating Systems Engineering

phase, with associated Project Management tasks, that leads up to the Requirements Review. There then follows two design loops at a conceptual and preliminary level respectively, with an associated mid-term review and final review respectively. The Requirements Review entails the formation and submission of a Project Plan followed by a Baseline Report. The Project Plan is associated with project management deliverables such as a Functional Flow Diagram, Function Breakdown Structure, Gantt Chart, Organogram, and project description while, subsequently, the Baseline Report includes the technical systems engineering deliverables. The Functional Flow Diagram and Functional Breakdown Structure in the Baseline Report relate specifically to the technical design, rather than project management. In addition, this includes a Requirements Discovery Tree, Technical Budget Breakdown, Technical Risk Assessment and Maps, and a Design Option Tree.

Fig 4 shows the generic form of the Work Flow Diagram (WFD) describing the sequence of activities, inputs and outputs, responsibilities and times relating either to the project management or the technical design for the Project Plan and Baseline Report respectively. This is developed in detail to take the project up to the Mid-Term Review point, at which stage all these deliverable are then redone for the second stage of the design loop shown in Fig 3.

Figure 3. General SE process flow for the DSE project

An example of the generic Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is shown in Fig 5, again used as part of the project management definition (in the Project Plan) or technical systems engineering definition (in the Baseline Report). The WFD describes a chronological view of the functionality to be captured while the WBS is hierarchical in nature, presenting the user with two view points in order to help capture all of the relevant functionality. It is often helpful to do the WFD first and then to develop a consistent WBS that can be used to capture addition aspects that are less obvious when thinking of the design’s functionality, such as maintenance, and of course the WBS offers the chance to develop a much more detailed view of the required functionality.

Figure 4. Generic Work Flow Diagram describing the sequence of activities, inputs and outputs, responsibilities and times

Figure 5. An example of a Work Breakdown Structure

IV. Intregration of the System Engineering Framework into the Design Project

The true integration of the Systems Engineering and Program Management elements into the design project

itself is of critical and fundamental importance. It must be stressed to the students that the SE aspects are actually there to help them do the design project in a more effective manner, rather than just jumping straight into the designing. Fig 6 presents a full check list of the deliverables associated with the four major submissions: Project Plan, Baseline Report, Mid-Term Report, and Final Report.

However, this check list can be counter-productive if the students only think that each of the items needs to be included and that it correlates well to the marking structure (although even with it they still tend to forget items!). In fact, the deliverables for any one Report are highly interdependent and are better understood as relating to a process highlighted in Fig 3. For example, it has already been mentioned that for the Baseline Report, the FFD leads nicely into the FBS and that the FBS should be consistent with the FFD as both offer two views in the inclusive capture of function requirements, both chronological and hierarchical. Furthermore, these then facilitate the generation of the Requirements Discovery Tree (RDT), the basic functional requirements from the WFD and WBS being augmented further by constraining requirements to develop a more comprehensive RDT that is still consistent with the WFD and WBS. This then acts as the precursor to doing a technical budget breakdown where a very high level breakdown of technical parameters such as weight, drag and even cost for example. However, this needs to be consistent with the Design Option Tree so that the product architecture considered is realistic and relevant. The technical risk assessment and mapping then gives an overview of all of the relevant risk, whether technical, scheduling or cost.

No Product Project

Plan

Baseline

Report

Mid -term

Report

Final

Report

1 DSE work -flow diagrams _ _

2 DSE work break -down structure _ _

3 DSE project -approach description _ _

4 DSE Gantt chart _ _

5 DSE team organization/organogram & HR allocation _ _

6 Functional flow diagram(s) _ _

7 Functional breakdown _ _

8 Requirements disc overy tree _

9 Resource allocation/ Budget breakdown _ _

10 Technical risk assessment/risk map _ _ _

11 Design option structuring (tree) _ _

12 Interface definition/N2 charts _

13 Trade method, rationale and organization _

14 Trade crit eria _

15 Criteria weight factors _

16 Trade summary table _

17 Operations and logistic concept description _ _

18 Project design & development logic (post DSE) _

19 Project Gantt chart (post DSE) _

20 Cost break -down structure _

21 H/W, S/W block diagrams (interactions, flows) _

22 Electrical block diagram _

23 Data handling block diagram _

24 Sustainable development strategy _ _ _

25 Compliance Matrix (table with tick marks for all requirements

that are met) _

26 Communication flow diagram ! !

27 Manufacturing, Assembly, Integration plan (production plan) !

28 Return on investment, operational profit ! !

29 Market needs estimate ! ! !

30 Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Safety (RAMS)

characteristics ! ! !

31

Performance analysis ( e.g. flight profile diagrams, payload -

range diagrams, climb performance, noise characteristics,

emissions, etc.)

! !

32 Configuration / layout (internal /external) ! ! !

33 Spacecraft system characteris tics (e.g. communications link

budget, memory size, etc.) N/A N/A N/A N/A

34 Aircraft system characteristics (e.g. fuel and hydraulic system

lay -out, auxiliary power estimate, environmental control, etc.) ! !

35 Aerodynamic characteristics estimate (e. g. lift, drag,

aerodynamic moments, drag polar, etc.) ! !

36 Structural characteristics (e.g. loading diagrams, stresses,

bending, flutter, etc.) !

37 Stability and control characteristics (e.g. control forces, c.g.

limits, etc.) !

38 Material c haracteristics (e.g. yield, ultimate, fatigue, etc.)

39 Astrodynamic characteristics (e.g. orbit, trajectory, decay rate, !V-budget)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Figure 6. Full listing of deliverables in the DSE

The integration into the design project is an aspect that is specifically picked up in the assessment process. In the assessment process each of the SE elements identified in Fig 6 are assessed relative to 1) being included, 2) being of sufficient quality and 3) being successfully integrated into the DSE design project. In addition, marks can be gained or lost for consistency, version tracking and traceability, report quality, etc. The grading structure for the non-SE elements of the DSE is shown in Fig 7, being the other 7/8ths of the total mark, but the effective SE process (1/8th of the mark) is specifically designed to directly improve the effective design process.

V. Examplar Case Study of the Technical Educational Benefits An example of the trade-off process formalized within the SE approach is provided in Fig 8. The SE process requires the students to spend approximately 1/3 of their time in developing a strong engineering rationale (through the FBS, RDT, and DOT) for their assessment of a broad range of design synthesis solution, as illustrated by Fig 8. The exemplar project entailed the design of a micro-air-vehicle that could perform complex aerodynamic maneuvers to enable it to be an unobtrusive surveillance agent, with obvious energy challenges in terms of effectiveness.

Figure 8. Exemplar trade-off considerations formalized through the SE approach

Monoplane Biplane Tandem

Dim e n sion s (l × w × h ) 0.36 x 0.45 x 0.06 0.43 x 0.45 x 0.06 0.47 x 0.45 x 0.05

Mass 16.48 g 17.48 g 18.18 g Asp e c t Ratio 3.90 3.90 3.90 Win g Sp an 0.450 m 0.450 m 0.450 m

Ave rag e flig h t sp e e d 2.35 m/s 1.40 m/s 1.36 m/ s

Ce n tre o f g rav ity 51% of chord from leading edge 41% of chord from leading edge 51% of chord from leading edge

Pow e r c on su m p tion 1551.2 mW 1440.8 mW 2149.5 mW

Flap p in g fre q u e n c y 3.69 Hz 6.17 Hz 7.90 Hz

Tail c on fig u rat ion Bird tail Inverted V -tail Con ventional tail

Roc kin g am p litu d e 8 mm ± 0 mm Rotation

Com m e n ts

The monoplane that is considered in this phase of the design process is based on the Freebird model that is available at ornithopter.org.

The biplane that is considered is based on the Luna, which is als o available at ornithoper.org.

The tandem is based on an existing model that has only been built on a very small scale. In order to build the test model for this configuration, this small model first had to be scaled up.

Final Individual

Grade

Group Grade

Technical

QualityTeam Process

Individual

Technical

Quality

Individual

Team Role

20 % 10 %

30 % 35 % 35 %

Figure 7. Grading structure for the non-SE elements

Fig 9 illustrates that the SE approach helps greatly in developing early solutions to some of the wider design requirements captured through the FBS, RDT and trade-off study.

Finally, Fig 10 presents a solid model representation of the result of the design project. The Figure is included to highlight that the students are still expected to deliver a solid engineering design, although the result should be even better given the SE approach.

VI. Analysis of Impact of Systems Engineering on Design Education This paper began by establishing the industrial impact and need for systems engineering within aerospace industry, and went on to show how this has been integrated into the design education at TUD through a systems engineering methodology that provides a technical management framework for the final year design project that completes the Bachelor degree. However, it is important at a pedagogic level to investigate to what degree the SE component contributes effectively to the students learning. Particularly, it is clear that the teaching of SE should be covered in the syllabus but to what extend is this being effective? Consequently, this section will investigate the correlation between SE grades, for both theoretical teaching and its practical application, and the final grades achieved in the Bachelor level design project, i.e. the Design Synthesis Exercise (DSE) at TUD. The distribution of overall grades achieved in the DSE is presented in Fig. 11, although it should be remembered that the students are grouped into teams of approximately 10 for the DSE and that an individuals mark is highly linked to the output of the team. The data is composed from DSE results collected from five academic years between 2004 and 2008, representing just over 1500 students. The final DSE grade is composed of a number of sub-elements,

Figure 9. Example of truly systems oriented approach required through SE

Figure 10. Solid model of final design to illustrate engineering delivery within a SE approach

as described earlier in Fig. 7, and therefore, the grades are presented to one decimal place. Historically, the grade allocated to the student is rounded to the closed half point but from 2009 this will be to the closest integer as part of a new directive at the Faculty. In the Dutch system, a ‘6’ can be thought of as a basic pass, a ‘7.5-8’ is satisfactory, while a ‘9’ is truly excellent. This subjective guide is generally evident in Fig. 11, although there seems to be an over allocation of the ‘8’ grade. With reference to Fig. 7, the majority of the grade results from the design content and has more of a subjective ‘good design/worked very hard at project’ element to it than if compared to mathematics ‘right or wrong assessment framework’. It is probable that we are seeing evidence of the assessors perception of a good DSE project achieving a grade of ‘8’, as there is even less ‘8.1’ grades than ‘8.2’, suggesting that the ‘8’ is a watershed mark. Perhaps the higher frequency of ‘7.5’ grades is also evidence of the assessor’s operating with the ‘half-grade’ system; again the occurrence of ‘8.5’ is twice as likely as the grades either side!

!

"!

#!

$!

%!

&!!

&"!

&#!

&$!

&%!

$'% ('! ('" ('# ('$ ('% %'! %'" %'# %'$ %'% )'! )'" )'#

* + , -. /012-30415

6/278249:

Similarly, the associated grades for the SE taught course at TUD are presented in Fig. 12, where the taught course is meant to set out the theoretical basis for SE and to introduce the students to its basic components. In the context of this study it is very important to note that the taught SE course is seen as the provision of the SE fundamentals that are then to be applied in the applied SE component that is part of the DSE exercise (to be presented subsequently). Unlike the team based DSE grades set out in Fig. 11, the SE taught grade associated only by the individuals performance in the course. The distinction between the taught SE component and the applied SE component may be significant in that it could help provide evidence as to whether SE teaching is primarily a more experiential learner-led educational subject or not. The SE grades have always been rounded up or down to the closest integer and therefore the 1542 data points corresponding to Fig. 11 are presented in integer bins in Fig. 12. It is immediately evident that the pass grade of a ‘6’ is a watershed grade with the average lying between ‘7.5-8’. However, it is also evident that relevant to the grading perception of a ‘9’ being a truly excellent result, there is an unusually high return on both ‘9’s and ‘10’s. This may be an effect of the assessment for the SE taught course having a component-based structure where full marks are attributed to the successful completion of the various sub-elements.

Figure 11. Distribution of DSE grades

!

"!

#!!

#"!

$!!

$"!

% " & ' ( ) #!

* + ,- ./01,2/304

5.1671389

The relationship between the two sets of results presented in Figs. 11 and 12 are presented in full in Fig. 13. There is large deviation in the DSE grades associated to the SE grade bins but it is interesting to note that the degree of deviation is quite consistent over the pass range from ‘6-10’, although it seems that certain ‘6’ grades are allocated for SE when the ultimate DSE grade of those students actually turn out to be lowest. A linear trend line shows a slightly increasing correlation between the SE taught grade and the final DSE grade achieved. This may infer that the more able students do better in the SE component but that there is not a highly significant correlation with doing well in the team-based DSE, due to the DSE teams having a naturally spreading abilities with a view to making the outcome less sensitive to individual’s ratings but rather a function of the best ratings for each required expertise within the collective, i.e. division of labour to those best able within the team.

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

SE Grade bands

DS

E g

rad

es

Figure 12. Distribution of taught SE grades

Figure 13. Distribution of DSE grades relative to taught SE grades

In order to better interpret the spread of results presented in Fig.13, Figs. 14 and 15 present the correlation of both relative to the averaged SE grades and averaged DSE grade respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 14 that there is a positive correlation between an increasing DSE grade and the average SE grade.

!

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

)

*

"!

' ( ( ) ) * * "! "!

+ , - ./ 0123.41526

78301/32.,-.90123

The corresponding correlation of averaged DSE grade achieved for the SE grade bins in shown in Fig. 15 to have only a very slight positive relation, although it should be remembered that there is more smoothing of the results due to the use of the integer bins averaging the results over a full grade (when compared to the ‘0.1’ grade increments associated with Fig. 14)! But given that the results are based on the data from 1542 students over a 5 year period, it seems clear from Fig. 15 that a higher grade in the taught SE component does not infer that students are more likely to get a higher mark in the DSE component. However, due to the SE integer banding and the consequent averaging of very large numbers of students, as shown in Fig. 12, it is felt that Fig. 15 is much too coarse. However, the main issue that should be taken into account in interpreting the results is the fact that there are groups of 10 students in each DSE team and therefore the spread of individual SE grades or ability is smoothed and that the better SE performers can understand and complete the SE implementation within the team. Fig. 15 may be confirming that the team based approach is ensuring that a consistently good implementation of SE is being achieved in the DSE, regardless of some of the individuals’ poor marks in the taught component.

Figure 14. Positive relationship of averaged taught SE grade achieved relative to DSE grades

!

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

)

*

"!

$ % & ' ( ) * "!

+ , -. /012-30415

672/0821-9+,-./012

Fig. 1 illustrated that one of the most significant impacts of SE is in limiting cost overrun, inferring also better time and programme management. Unfortunately, this learning outcome is not easy to measure within the DSE as the students are locked to the timetable within the educational degree framework; overrun being an unquestionable rationale for the provision of SE education to engineering students. There is also a hypothesis that the primary function of SE effort is primarily in providing a procedural framework that is required to help manage the distributed effort of multiple teams working on equally complex products; such as that experienced in aerospace, rather than the impact of SE being focused on design creativity. It is concluded that while the theoretical teaching element of SE conceptualizes and theorizes many elements of the creative design process, its primary function at a university design level is in teaching the industrial methods that are necessary at an implementation level, and that this has been effectively implemented at TUD where the team-based DSE approach dampens the effect of certain team members not having excelled in the SE taught component.

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

6 7 8 9 10

SE grade

Ov

era

ll p

roje

ct

gra

de

Figure 15. Smoothing of impact of SE individual grades on the averaged DSE grade achieved due to the DES team based approach

Figure 16. Relationship of overage DSE project grade to the achieved practical SE grade

However, we also need to consider the applied component and application of the SE syllabus, which is implemented at TUD as 1/8th of the DSE effort (see Fig. 7), in order to also investigate if the practical implementation within the team-based structure shows a positive correlation. Following on from the theory element of SE education at TUD, the impact of the applied element on the DSE is investigated in Figs. 16 and 17. Fig. 16 shows that there is indeed string positive correlation between the SE grade achieved and the final DSE project grade, although there is a large standard deviation and again, there seems to be a over-allocation of the ‘8’ grade in SE.

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

6 7 8 9 10

SE grade

Se

pa

rate

de

sig

n g

rad

e

The overall correlation presented in Fig. 16 is however also plotted in Fig. 17 in terms of the SE grade (contributing 1/8th of the total mark) relative to the individual design focused grade (7/8ths of the total mark). The general conclusions noted for Fig. 16 are again evident but it is seen that the correlation between the SE grade for the applied elements and the separated technical design mark is in agreement with the trend evident in Fig. 15, in that the impact of SE performance is not that highly correlated to excelling in the DSE. However, the correlated impact of educational practice for SE shown in Fig. 17 is more significant than that evident for the theory component shown in Fig. 15 in that the spread of individual SE, supporting the hypothesis that SE is primarily an applied, experienced-based component of the design education. This all seems to reinforce the earlier implied hypothesis that SE education is most significant in introducing the students to a technical management framework whose worth will not be fully realized until their experience of its value in the complex technical and organization environment experienced within a much more dynamic scheduling scenario faced within industry. Moreover, SE education is more fully realized and the impact evident when it is applied rather than theoretical. However, it should be noted that the nature of the historical data utilized within the paper has not made it possible to ultimately analyze the impact of having or not having an SE educational component. The authors strongly advocate the SE element within the TUD syllabus but it seems likely that the true impact of this educational innovation will be more evident through its impact in the industrial context, where one is operating in an infinitely more complex technical and organizational background. A comparison of non-SE based design education and the TUD approach is perhaps called for to truly investigate the impact and worth of SE education with the university degree programme.

VI. Conclusion Ultimately, the paper triangulates all of the components mentioned in order to address the main proposition that: ‘Systems Engineering provides a beneficial educational framework and process for helping students to understand the aerospace design process more quickly’. This is achieved by: 1) illustrating the Systems Engineering components utilised at TUD, 2) looking at the integration of SE into the final year DSE design project at TUD and 3)

Figure 17. Relationship of overage DSE project grade to the achieved practical SE grade

presenting evidence that the SE educational framework is an effective way of teaching aerospace design. Therefore, the relevance of the paper addresses the implementation and understanding of SE methods within concurrent thinking related to design education. Through the analysis of 1542 student results over the last 4 years at TUD it has been shown that SE education is most significant in introducing the students to a technical management framework whose worth will not be fully realized until their experience of its value in the complex technical and organization environment experienced within a much more dynamic scheduling scenario faced within industry. In terms of assessing the impact of SE education and student learning, the overall DSE grade is strongly correlated to a good SE applied mark while the team based approach has been shown to ensure that a consistently good implementation of SE is being achieved in the DSE, regardless of some of the individuals’ poor marks in the taught component. The DSE team structure ensures a natural spread of the SE abilities with a view to making the outcome less sensitive to individual’s ratings but rather a function of the best ratings for each required expertise within the collective, i.e. division of labour to those best able within the team. It is concluded that SE education is most significant in introducing the students to a technical management framework whose worth will not be fully realized until their experience of its value in the complex technical and organization environment experienced within a much more dynamic scheduling scenario faced within industry. Moreover, SE education is more fully realized and the impact evident when it is applied rather than theoretical. However, it should be noted that the nature of the historical data utilized within the paper has not made it possible to ultimately analyze the impact of having or not having an SE educational component. A comparison of non-SE based design education and the TUD approach is perhaps called for to truly investigate the impact and worth of SE education with the university degree programme.

VII References and Bibliography

[1] Synthesis of Subsonic Aircraft Design, E. Torenbeek. [2] Airplane design, Roskam. [3] Aircraft Design, A conceptual Approach, D.P. Raymer. [4] Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, N.F.M. Roozenboom, J. Eekels. [5] Jane’s All the Worlds Aircraft. [6] Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicles Structures, Bruhn. [7] Hinte, E van, and MJT van Tooren, First Read This: Systems Engineering in Practice, 010 Publishers, ISBN 10

9064506434. [8] Saunders-Smits, GN, Melkert, JA, Curran, R, Cooper R and J Early, “Crossing Borders - 6 Years of

International Aerospace Student Design Projects”, SEFI/IGIP Joint Annual Conference, University of Miskloc, Hungary, 1-4 July 2007.

[9] Roling, P, Cooper, R, and R Curran, Design of an Interceptor UAV , Proceedings of the 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. 2008.

[10] Raghunathan, S, Price, M, Curran, R, Benard, E, Watterson, JK, and S Sterling, “International Aero School”, Aerospace International, February 2005, pages 14-17.

[11] Hsu, J, Raghunathan, S, and R. Curran, A Proposed Systems Engineering Diagnostic Method, Proceedings of the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 5 - 8 January 2009, Orlando, Florida.

[12] Loureiro, G and R Curran, (Editors). Complex Systems Concurrent Engineering, Springer, 2007. [13] Curran, R, Castagne, S, Early, J, Price, M, Raghunathan, S, Butterfield J & A. Gibson, “Aircraft Cost Modelling

using the Genetic Causal Technique within a Systems Engineering Approach”, The Aeronautical Journal, Royal Aeronautical Society, 2007.

[14] Price, M, Raghunathan, S and R. Curran, “An Integrated Systems Engineering Approach to Aircraft Design”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2007.

[15] Price, M, Early, JM, Curran, R, Benard E, and S. Raghunathan, “Identifying Interfaces in Engineering Systems”, AIAA Journal, Volume 44, Issue 3, 2006, pages 529-540.

[16] Raghunathan, S, Price, M, Curran, R, Early, J, Benard, E, Murphy, A and J. Wang, “Systems Engineering Approach to Research on Aircraft Integration”, Aero India 2007, 6th International Aerospace and Defence Exhibition, 7th-11th February 2007, Air Force Station, Yelahanka, Bangalore.

[17] Curran, R., Castagne, S., Rothwell, A., Price M., and Murphy, A. (2005). “Integrating Manufacturing Cost and Structural Requirements in a Systems Engineering Approach to Aircraft Design.” 46th AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Houston, Texas, AIAA-2005-2068.

[18] Curran, R., Early, J., Price, M., Castagne, S., Mawhinney, P., Butterfield J. and Raghunathan S. (2005). “Economics Modelling for Systems Engineering in Aircraft”, Paper No. AIAA-2005-37364, AIAA's 5th Annual Aviation Technology, Integration, & Operations (ATIO) Forum, Washington DC, US.

[19] Mawhinney*, P, M. Price, C.G. Armstrong, R. Curran, A. Murphy, E. Benard, J. Early, S. Raghunathan, H. Ou, J. Wang, “Design and Analysis Integration using Systems Engineering for Aircraft Structural Design”, Paper No. AIAA-2004-6204 AIAA 4th Annual Aviation Technology, Integration, & Operations (ATIO) Forum, Chicago, Illinois, September 2004.