Formula One's relevance to aviation

[Pingguest]

Since a couple of years Formula One is focused on making itself more relevant to the road car industries. It lead to the introduction of new regulations that banned 'irrelevant' technology and made room for 'relevant' technologies - e.g. energy recovery systems.
However, in terms of the chassis and aerodynamics one cannot foresee Formula One to be relevant for the road car industry. Monocoques are not widely used, stressed member engines are rare and there is no reason to mimic Formula One's open-wheel design. In fact, Formula One can better be compared to airplanes.

This made me wonder whether Formula One is relevant for the aviation industry. Does anyone know about technology or knowledge that was transferred from Formula One to aviation?

[Manoah2u]

I'd say it's the other way around; aviation expertise (perhaps aerospace expertise even more) finds its way to F1, instead of F1 technology to aviation.

The technology of lightweight materials entered F1 after it was successful in the Aeronautical industry.
CFD or Computational Fluid Dynamics was a limited resource available only to the top Aeronautical companies. It's advantages of cost reduction of prototype testing and quicker product development time found it's use in F1, which is all about making the fastest car in the fastest possible time. CFD is in fact one of the most important resource in F1 development.

There are some easy examples.

Aluminum monocoque construction. State of the art for aircraft from roughly WWII on, introduced in F1 in the late '60s by Matra. Still widely used in aviation but obsolete in F1. It was replaced by Carbon fiber monocoque construction. Pioneered in defense applications (fighter jets), introduced to F1 by McLaren in the early '80s.

If you look at history, you'll notice defense project engineering leads to several 'inventions' on technical levels. This is possible because of the defense budget that allows research; something F1 is very restricted to, whereas aviation defense has - in comparison - an near infinite budget. Inventions thus indirectly come from the aviation industry, and then find it's way to F1 where they can 'adopt/adapt' the technology to their 'benefit'.

In other words; if sometime soon, aviation industry finds a way of having a plastic material that is sufficiently strong enough for the loads it has to handle, then this material might find its way to F1 to eventually replace carbon fibre. Some forms of plastic are available and perhaps even stronger then current Carbon Fibre though.

[jwh]

F1 expertise does seem to cross boundaries into other design areas - lightweight construction and crashworthiness are equally important to light aviation obviously.

[jwh]

What forms of plastic are stronger than CF?

[KeiKo403]

What forms of plastic are stronger than CF?

Tupawear lids!

Glad someone has started this topic though as I've ofter thought F1 has no real relevance to the outside world of road cars. Yes road cars can take ideas from F1, but thats just like how F1 can take ideas from NASA/etc.

I think a lot of the problems facing F1 though is that the governing body place too much emphisis on road car relevance. Road car relevance would be air bags, the ability to car more people, not get from 0-62 in sub 3 seconds, not the ability to corner 90 degrees with 4.3G's. So just looking there F1 has more relevance to aviation (figther jets) than road cars.

[SectorOne]

Does anyone know about technology or knowledge that was transferred from Formula One to aviation?

I think there was something about the rolling road used by F1 teams in the wind tunnel that was then later used by airplane manufacturers to simulate landing and taking off.

source: Willem Toet in one of the Sauber Aero vids.

I´ll also reserve the right to have gotten it completely wrong

[PlatinumZealot]

Carbon fibre bodied planes are going into production. I don't think plane fuselages were made of carbon fibre before. Maybe a few parts but I don't think the fuselage for obvious reasons.

The F1 telemetry and prediction programs have made the cross over to air port traffic control industry.

[flynfrog]

Originaly had grand Prix engine I believe

http://bugatti100p.com

[Edax]

I'd say it's the other way around; aviation expertise (perhaps aerospace expertise even more) finds its way to F1, instead of F1 technology to aviation.

The technology of lightweight materials entered F1 after it was successful in the Aeronautical industry.
CFD or Computational Fluid Dynamics was a limited resource available only to the top Aeronautical companies. It's advantages of cost reduction of prototype testing and quicker product development time found it's use in F1, which is all about making the fastest car in the fastest possible time. CFD is in fact one of the most important resource in F1 development.

There are some easy examples.

Aluminum monocoque construction. State of the art for aircraft from roughly WWII on, introduced in F1 in the late '60s by Matra. Still widely used in aviation but obsolete in F1. It was replaced by Carbon fiber monocoque construction. Pioneered in defense applications (fighter jets), introduced to F1 by McLaren in the early '80s.

If you look at history, you'll notice defense project engineering leads to several 'inventions' on technical levels. This is possible because of the defense budget that allows research; something F1 is very restricted to, whereas aviation defense has - in comparison - an near infinite budget. Inventions thus indirectly come from the aviation industry, and then find it's way to F1 where they can 'adopt/adapt' the technology to their 'benefit'.

In other words; if sometime soon, aviation industry finds a way of having a plastic material that is sufficiently strong enough for the loads it has to handle, then this material might find its way to F1 to eventually replace carbon fibre. Some forms of plastic are available and perhaps even stronger then current Carbon Fibre though.

Historically yes, I'd say you're right. But it might be that this is reversing. The valuation of a passenger or a military life has gone up quite a bit in the past decades. What you see is that aviation and military is much more reliability driven than it used to be.They do a lot of cool research but the actual implementation is much slower than in the past.

In aviation and military applications, the trend I see is that they wait with implementation of of new technology until it has proven itself in other fields. Space has always been that way. They are actually very conservative in the use of new technology, because they cannot afford the loss of flight hardware.

That means that F1 will get more of a frontrunner position. And actually with some technologies you already see that happening. Take for instance additive manufacturing. Since 10 years you can spot quite a few printed parts on the cars, both in plastic, short fiber composites and metals (eg. http://www.windform.com/applications-motorsport.html).

In aviation there are a lot of design studies on AM but the only example I know of parts actually flying today are the fuel nozzles on the GE LEAP engine.

[J.A.W.]

Bonded composites were used in aviation for decades prior to F1 ( viz: WW2 Mosquito/Hornet)..
( also see the experimental Gordon Aerolite "plastic Spitfire")

Likewise recip aero-engines were expensively developed to be light/powerful/reliable/fuel efficient while
being complex yet manageable - as a matter of policy, from basic principles..

[Jersey Tom]

Historically yes, I'd say you're right. But it might be that this is reversing. The valuation of a passenger or a military life has gone up quite a bit in the past decades. What you see is that aviation and military is much more reliability driven than it used to be.They do a lot of cool research but the actual implementation is much slower than in the past.

In aviation and military applications, the trend I see is that they wait with implementation of of new technology until it has proven itself in other fields. Space has always been that way. They are actually very conservative in the use of new technology, because they cannot afford the loss of flight hardware.

That means that F1 will get more of a frontrunner position. And actually with some technologies you already see that happening. Take for instance additive manufacturing. Since 10 years you can spot quite a few printed parts on the cars, both in plastic, short fiber composites and metals (eg. http://www.windform.com/applications-motorsport.html).

In aviation there are a lot of design studies on AM but the only example I know of parts actually flying today are the fuel nozzles on the GE LEAP engine.

Eh I just don't agree with that. Consumer and military markets (be they automotive or aerospace) will always eclipse motor racing - which is pocket change by comparison. There's just far more money and way more people involved. And yes, longer lead time. It's not because engineers in racing "just work faster" - in other fields there are far more stringent criteria to meet, regulations, possibility of litigation, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I like motorsport engineering as a career. It has its unique perks and things you can do. But other engineering markets are far more serious. I'd be shocked to ever see F1 or other pro motorsport 'technology' be seriously relevant to road cars or planes or what have you.

[Edax]

Eh I just don't agree with that. Consumer and military markets (be they automotive or aerospace) will always eclipse motor racing - which is pocket change by comparison. There's just far more money and way more people involved. And yes, longer lead time. It's not because engineers in racing "just work faster" - in other fields there are far more stringent criteria to meet, regulations, possibility of litigation, etc.

Your first argument is obviously right, the amount of money and people involved is larger. But you have to realize that a lot of these resources are spent on making things massproduceable, reliable and cheaper not necessarily on creating breakthrough technologies.

The lead time itself also may be of influence. It has increased tremendously. The spitfire was commissioned in 1935 and the first prototype flew in 1936. the A350 was publicly announced in 2004 and flew in 2014.

Typically a development goes to a number of stages or gates. One of them is the freeze of the specifications. This is done based on an assessment of the capabilities of available technologies. After that gate is it is very hard to introduce new technologies.

That means that much of the technologies that are outdated before introduction of the actual product as they have been selected several years back. There was a period where the most advanced computers were the ones that were used for targeting of artillery. Now a high end computer will probably run circles around the ones used in the latest military hardware. Simply because they were selected several nodes back.

But it also restricts transfer (influence) of technology. To give a practical example. Say you work at Boeing and have a great idea. You cannot implement it on the 737MAX which is entering pre-production, you are also too late for the 777X which comes out in 2018-2019 and is frozen. The next opportunity for introduction would be the NSA which is predicted somewhere in 2024/25. That is almost a decade.

Until it is in design and the sales people are bragging about the capabilities of your idea, you are kindly requested not to tell anyone about it. So in terms of aviation influencing F1 or visa versa, the latter may be much more likely since any good idea in F1 will be out in the open (on F1technical) within one season, whereas an idea in aviation will remain under a shroud for years.

[Greg Locock]

Good oh. Please list the technologies that were available in F1 before they were included in program content for automotive or aircraft production models. As I remember it for example F1 was still using great big machined aluminium hardpoints to be incorporated into the composite layup when the sailplane industry had been doing it better for decade(s) beforehand. The only examples I can think of are (arguably) turbos and active suspension.

[scottracing]

I agree with the points that Edax made regarding the aircraft industry. I worked for Airbus for nearly 10 years and one of the biggest issues is using new and novel materials in aircraft. As stated above you might have a new wonder material lighter than carbon and 20 times as strong, but it will take several years of testing and development before its allowed anywhere near an airframe.
Its the polar opposite in F1 where exotic materials are used on a daily basis, I know that many material manufacturers will provide F1 teams a new material to try out as It can be incorporated into the car in weeks and not years.
The main difference between the two and an old analogy we use in aerospace is ' there are no breakdown garages at 36000ft' the amount of safety protocols and testing that goes into an aircraft is crazy, if you are responsible for any part you need to make sure its correct. In F1 its still critical but you are certainly allowed to do a lot more in a shorter space of time.

[Edax]

Good oh. Please list the technologies that were available in F1 before they were included in program content for automotive or aircraft production models. As I remember it for example F1 was still using great big machined aluminium hardpoints to be incorporated into the composite layup when the sailplane industry had been doing it better for decade(s) beforehand. The only examples I can think of are (arguably) turbos and active suspension.

Well I allready gave the example of additive manufactured parts, which are now common in F1.

other examples are:
- carbon-carbon brake disks, first introduced by Brabham. later adopted by Concorde.
- DLC friction coatings were first introduced by F1 (Renault?). Now pretty commonplace.
- Plasma sprayed zirconia TBC's introduced by Renault F1 and Subaru motorsports. Later used as a protective coating on jet engines.
- A new development is the low temperature spraying of TBC's on composites, also first seen on F1 (monkey seats, Merc 2014 engine heat shield).

This is also something which may end up in aviation.
http://www.automotivemanufacturingsolut ... r-the-road

Considering that American Airlines did a study on chrome paint for composite planes and did not find a suitable solution in terms of weight and durability, F1 development isn't doing too badly.