Daft terminology question
Moderator
Thread Starter
Daft terminology question
What does anybody think is the difference between aeronautical engineering and aerospace engineering.
Personally, I think that the main difference is that aeronautical engineering doesn't deal with rockets and spacecraft, whilst aerospace engineering does. I have colleagues on the other hand who thing that aeronautical engineering is only about the whole aeroplane, and aerospace encompasses structures, fluid mechanics, etc. which he doesn't think is included in aeronautical engineering.
A trivial question I'll admit, but I'm interested in anybody else's views nonetheless.
G
Personally, I think that the main difference is that aeronautical engineering doesn't deal with rockets and spacecraft, whilst aerospace engineering does. I have colleagues on the other hand who thing that aeronautical engineering is only about the whole aeroplane, and aerospace encompasses structures, fluid mechanics, etc. which he doesn't think is included in aeronautical engineering.
A trivial question I'll admit, but I'm interested in anybody else's views nonetheless.
G
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Age: 48
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to second your opinion, G. I've never had much interest in space cadet stuff, but was forced to take an orbital mechanics class so that our school could be accredited in "aerospace" engineering.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have colleagues on the other hand who thing that aeronautical engineering is only about the whole aeroplane, and aerospace encompasses structures, fluid mechanics, etc. which he doesn't think is included in aeronautical engineering.
Even in the far distant past when I got my degree, structures, supersonic flow, etc. were all part of the curriculum. Even if I went into the "Stability and Control" branch in the end.
Aircraft and spacecraft are two branches of the same tree.
Moderator
.. always thought it was a matter of what the Institution figured would get it the most funding ? .. and, as we all know, a year or so out for a graduate and the thing is irrelevant. I figure that about 1 percent of my undergraduate studies had any direct relevance to the real world.
Ours was aero eng and, as I recall, we did 2-3 courses in orbital mechanics during years 3 and 4, various courses in supersonics and hypersonics .. and so it went on, ad infinitum .. with several of us deciding that sailing was more fun anyway.
But, then again, chaps like ChristiaanJ and me are in that benign class of folk fondly known as "old pharts" so our views on all these new-fangled things are probably irrelevant.
Ours was aero eng and, as I recall, we did 2-3 courses in orbital mechanics during years 3 and 4, various courses in supersonics and hypersonics .. and so it went on, ad infinitum .. with several of us deciding that sailing was more fun anyway.
But, then again, chaps like ChristiaanJ and me are in that benign class of folk fondly known as "old pharts" so our views on all these new-fangled things are probably irrelevant.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ZSPD
Age: 56
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Johannes Kepler was formulating his eponymous laws of planetary motion (17th century Astronomia nova, Harmonices Mundi) there was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology. But there was a strong division between astronomy (a branch of mathematics within the liberal arts) and physics (a branch of the more prestigious discipline of natural philosophy). Kepler also had a religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.
In the 21st century old pharts will be arguing cybernautical vs cybernetical. Its relevance to the real world? Just as relevant as the perihelion and the apohelion.
In the 21st century old pharts will be arguing cybernautical vs cybernetical. Its relevance to the real world? Just as relevant as the perihelion and the apohelion.
Moderator
Or as a chemical engineer colleague once put it ..
(a) when I am with chemists, I talk engineering .. drives them nuts
(b) when I am with engineers, I talk chemistry .. drives them nuts
(c) when I am with chemical engineers, we just talk about women .. which has a far more rational priority.
(I guess that sort of observation falls now within the ambit of the politically incorrect ?)
(a) when I am with chemists, I talk engineering .. drives them nuts
(b) when I am with engineers, I talk chemistry .. drives them nuts
(c) when I am with chemical engineers, we just talk about women .. which has a far more rational priority.
(I guess that sort of observation falls now within the ambit of the politically incorrect ?)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
I only half answered your question.
I would say the difference is mostly historical.
In the days when it was still called aeronautical engineering, the curriculum didn't really have anything concerning space flight (such as orbital mechanics, launcher structures, guidance ...). If you wanted to specialize in that field, it would be post-grad, even if you could fall back on subjects like structures, aerodynamics and stability and control from your earlier courses.
Once space-flight-related subjects became part of the regular curriculum, it became more logical to call it aerospace engineering (and also it sounded more "advanced", of course ....).
CJ
I only half answered your question.
I would say the difference is mostly historical.
In the days when it was still called aeronautical engineering, the curriculum didn't really have anything concerning space flight (such as orbital mechanics, launcher structures, guidance ...). If you wanted to specialize in that field, it would be post-grad, even if you could fall back on subjects like structures, aerodynamics and stability and control from your earlier courses.
Once space-flight-related subjects became part of the regular curriculum, it became more logical to call it aerospace engineering (and also it sounded more "advanced", of course ....).
CJ
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Age: 75
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
Why I did Aeronautical eng at City in 67-70 we did principles of rocket flight, basic orbital mechanics, transfer orbits, etc. We did concentrate on structures, aerodynamics, S&C bu the basics were there. I recall post gards doing stuff with ion thrusters and hypersonics. I always that "aerospace" was a strictly American term.
Why I did Aeronautical eng at City in 67-70 we did principles of rocket flight, basic orbital mechanics, transfer orbits, etc. We did concentrate on structures, aerodynamics, S&C bu the basics were there. I recall post gards doing stuff with ion thrusters and hypersonics. I always that "aerospace" was a strictly American term.
Educated Hillbilly
I may be wrong on this, but before the requirements changed and a three year degree was sufficient for chartership requirements.
Aeronautical Engineering degrees simply tended to be those that had full accreditation from the RAEs and IMECE for full exemption from the engineering council exams to gain chartership.
Aerospace Engineering degrees didn't necessarily meet all the academic requirements for chartership; hence graduates would still have to sit Engineering council exams to gain chartership or do some kind of further abridged course. In some cases the degree would only satisfy the requirements for Incorporated membership.
Aeronautical Engineering degrees simply tended to be those that had full accreditation from the RAEs and IMECE for full exemption from the engineering council exams to gain chartership.
Aerospace Engineering degrees didn't necessarily meet all the academic requirements for chartership; hence graduates would still have to sit Engineering council exams to gain chartership or do some kind of further abridged course. In some cases the degree would only satisfy the requirements for Incorporated membership.
Moderator
Thread Starter
I think that if you look at the degree course being offered now, they come in various flavours (aeronautical engineering, aerospace engineering, aviation engineering, aeronautics and astronautics...) usually available in both BEng (only good for IEng nowadays unless you top up with an MSc) and MEng (good for CEng).
I do a bit of teaching on three courses at two universities; two are called "Aerospace Engineering", the third is called "Aviation Engineering"; all come in MEng, and two (one of each flavour) offer BEng also. All of them are accredited by the RAeS.
The non-accreditable courses tend to be called things like "aviation studies" or "aeronautical science".
G
I do a bit of teaching on three courses at two universities; two are called "Aerospace Engineering", the third is called "Aviation Engineering"; all come in MEng, and two (one of each flavour) offer BEng also. All of them are accredited by the RAeS.
The non-accreditable courses tend to be called things like "aviation studies" or "aeronautical science".
G
Educated Hillbilly
I see Southampton use the term Aerospace and Southamptons course is indeed fully accredited so that does disprove my thoery.
The new four years of acedemic study requirement for chartership; I seem to remember that when this was introduced there was a cut off date. That is providing you graduated by a certain date (before 1999 or 2000) you could still become chartered with just a three year accredited degree (ie: BEng).
Could anyone shed any light on this.
The new four years of acedemic study requirement for chartership; I seem to remember that when this was introduced there was a cut off date. That is providing you graduated by a certain date (before 1999 or 2000) you could still become chartered with just a three year accredited degree (ie: BEng).
Could anyone shed any light on this.
Last edited by portsharbourflyer; 22nd Apr 2008 at 15:41.
Personally, I think that the main difference is that aeronautical engineering doesn't deal with rockets and spacecraft, whilst aerospace engineering does. I have colleagues on the other hand who thing that aeronautical engineering is only about the whole aeroplane, and aerospace encompasses structures, fluid mechanics, etc. which he doesn't think is included in aeronautical engineering.
I agree with you. I think it's well established that aeronautical engineering includes structures and fluid mechanics. If I wanted to distinguish "whole aeroplane" stuff, I'd use the term flight mechanics.
FWIW Wikipedia divides Aerospace Engineering into Aeronautical Engineering and Astronautical Engineering on the basis that "the former deals with craft that stay within Earth's atmosphere, and the latter deals with craft that operate outside of Earth's atmosphere". I think that's a useful division.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bookworm,
For what it's worth...
The faculty in Delft (Netherlands) was called "Vliegtuigbouw", which translates to "aircraft construction".
It's now called "Luchtvaart and Ruimtevaart Techniek" which literally is "air flight and space flight engineering", so "aeronautical and astronautical engineering" is close.
In English the faculty now uses "aerospace engineering" like everybody else.
I don't know about you people, but, unlike "aeronautical", to me "astronautical" has a nice antique favour to it.
"Astronautical Society" evokes pictures of greyhaired gents in a London club, evoking over their sherry the days of Blue Streak, Black Arrow, Prospero and Beagle.
For what it's worth...
The faculty in Delft (Netherlands) was called "Vliegtuigbouw", which translates to "aircraft construction".
It's now called "Luchtvaart and Ruimtevaart Techniek" which literally is "air flight and space flight engineering", so "aeronautical and astronautical engineering" is close.
In English the faculty now uses "aerospace engineering" like everybody else.
I don't know about you people, but, unlike "aeronautical", to me "astronautical" has a nice antique favour to it.
"Astronautical Society" evokes pictures of greyhaired gents in a London club, evoking over their sherry the days of Blue Streak, Black Arrow, Prospero and Beagle.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ports it sounds about right.
The scottish engineering Mafia stitched it all up when the polys started to call themselves Uni's. The Engineering student applications started going down in quality and numbers.
From memory they were also trying to get a minimum UCCA points, so even if you passed a MEng, if you had got in through clearing or needed next to nothing to get in you still couldn't get a CEng. It was when everyone was dropping entrance requirments. They were trying to tie it down to 10 Uni's in the UK for accreditation. It would have also had the advantage that those 10 would likely get the bulk of the research grants.
It was hugely political and was to stop the breeze block Uni's from stealing students from the red brick. It didn't help that RIGIT or as RGU as it is now was going from strength to strength and producing Engineers for the oil industry through the ONC, HND, BEng upgrade route. Aberdeen Uni's Mech Eng deptment was struggling with only the oversea's students keeping it afloat.
Personally I think the name of the course is purely dependent on if the Director of Studies can spell aeronautical or not. Or what perversion of engineering they are, aeronautical if they are thermo/fluids, aviation engineering if structural and Astronautical if they are ex Bae employees with a loose grip on the real world.
The scottish engineering Mafia stitched it all up when the polys started to call themselves Uni's. The Engineering student applications started going down in quality and numbers.
From memory they were also trying to get a minimum UCCA points, so even if you passed a MEng, if you had got in through clearing or needed next to nothing to get in you still couldn't get a CEng. It was when everyone was dropping entrance requirments. They were trying to tie it down to 10 Uni's in the UK for accreditation. It would have also had the advantage that those 10 would likely get the bulk of the research grants.
It was hugely political and was to stop the breeze block Uni's from stealing students from the red brick. It didn't help that RIGIT or as RGU as it is now was going from strength to strength and producing Engineers for the oil industry through the ONC, HND, BEng upgrade route. Aberdeen Uni's Mech Eng deptment was struggling with only the oversea's students keeping it afloat.
Personally I think the name of the course is purely dependent on if the Director of Studies can spell aeronautical or not. Or what perversion of engineering they are, aeronautical if they are thermo/fluids, aviation engineering if structural and Astronautical if they are ex Bae employees with a loose grip on the real world.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as an Air Transport or Airline Engineer, does it make a difference? I've worked with all manner of vehicles that defy gravity by various means and its all about aviating to me...
For example, consider a Typhoon climbing at max chat. How much is due to aerodynamics and how much is due to thrust? As long as the 'surly bonds' are broken, we're all in the same business.
For example, consider a Typhoon climbing at max chat. How much is due to aerodynamics and how much is due to thrust? As long as the 'surly bonds' are broken, we're all in the same business.
In the US subspecializations are very common and freedom is duly granted in terms of general electives:
typically the course of study would be divided as such
1. mathmatics and general physics
2. basic engineering first two years
statics dynmaics [mechanics I and II] graphics [autocad]
engineering thermodymanics elctricity and magnetism and modern physics
computer sciences
Aeronautical topics
aerodynamics[ aerodynamic principles/ stability and control/ performance/ flight envelope/ and high speed aerodynamics]
Balistics
electives from other fields
circuit analysis[I don't necessarily mean electric types]/ internal combustion engines/ strength of materials/ material sciences/ turbine science /physical chemistry......
and that gives you a BE with a concentration in aerodynamics and to become an aeronautical engineer you attend a master program for advanced electives or go to work
aeronautics well I guess that's just flying
typically the course of study would be divided as such
1. mathmatics and general physics
2. basic engineering first two years
statics dynmaics [mechanics I and II] graphics [autocad]
engineering thermodymanics elctricity and magnetism and modern physics
computer sciences
Aeronautical topics
aerodynamics[ aerodynamic principles/ stability and control/ performance/ flight envelope/ and high speed aerodynamics]
Balistics
electives from other fields
circuit analysis[I don't necessarily mean electric types]/ internal combustion engines/ strength of materials/ material sciences/ turbine science /physical chemistry......
and that gives you a BE with a concentration in aerodynamics and to become an aeronautical engineer you attend a master program for advanced electives or go to work
aeronautics well I guess that's just flying
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Irvine CA USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aeron- vs aeros- engr
The recent bio of Werner von Braun (Michael J. Neufeld, the author of “Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War” (Knopf; $35)) I recall
mentions the aerospace engr name as NACA transitioned to NASA and
W vB did as well. I turned the book back into the library, so can't check
exactly. A recommended book, btw.
mentions the aerospace engr name as NACA transitioned to NASA and
W vB did as well. I turned the book back into the library, so can't check
exactly. A recommended book, btw.