Thermodynamics engineers apply these concepts to build and design aircraft and spacecraft. Here is what you need to know about becoming a thermodynamics engineer: 

What Is Thermodynamics?

Thermodynamics is a branch of science that examines energy and the transfer and conversion of energy. Applications of thermodynamics are present throughout many areas of science and engineering, including biochemistry, applied physics, and mechanical engineering.

What Is a Thermodynamics Engineer?

Thermodynamics engineers use their knowledge of thermodynamics to help develop, construct, and test products.

A thermodynamic engineer can work in many different engineering fields. Although their expertise is vital in the world of aerospace engineering, they can also work in areas such as mechanical engineering or chemical engineering.

When it comes to aviation and aerospace, thermodynamics is used extensively in engine design and testing. Simply put, the concepts behind thermodynamics are what turns fuel into thrust in an aircraft or spacecraft engine.

Thermodynamics engineers can work for employers, such as aircraft manufacturers, rocket launch companies, and engine manufacturers. There are also many work opportunities outside of aviation and aerospace, such as in power generation and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system design.

How Long Does It Take to Become a Thermodynamics Engineer?

Jobs in thermodynamics engineering require a bachelor’s degree in engineering at a minimum.

Undergraduate engineering degrees are typically four-year programs, but it is not uncommon for students to take five or six years to finish, due to the heavy workload and opportunities for experiential learning opportunities.

Thermodynamics engineers will typically study one of the broader branches of engineering at school—such as aerospace engineering or mechanical engineering—before specializing in thermodynamics.

Aspiring thermodynamics engineers must also complete an engineering licensing program, which includes intensive exams and supervised work experience. As is the case with many engineering jobs, some employers will require or prefer candidates to have a master’s degree in engineering.

How Much Do Thermodynamics Engineers Make?

Being a thermodynamic engineer is a well-paying career. Thermodynamics engineers typically fall under one of the broader fields of engineering, most commonly aerospace, mechanical, or chemical engineering.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, these types of engineers enjoyed a median pay of approximately $100,000 in 2023. Aerospace engineers had a median annual salary of $130,720, chemical engineers $112,100, and mechanical engineers $99,510. 

The post How to Become a Thermodynamics Engineer appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Willford retired in May 2022 after a 32-year career at the Cessna Aircraft Company where he worked in a number of high profile programs. And technically, while Cessna is now part of Textron Aviation, Willford makes it clear that he considers himself a “Cessnan.”

In an interview with FLYING, Willford provides an inside perspective on aircraft design and his career at Cessna.

FLYING Magazine (FM): When did you know you wanted to become an aviation and aerospace engineer?

Neal Willford (NW): My father was a corporate pilot and mechanic, and he started bringing my brother and me to the annual [Experimental Aircraft Association] Fly-Ins at Rockford, Illinois, and Oshkosh, Wisconsin.Though I was around airplanes, I never had a desire to become a professional pilot. I liked building things, andI liked math and science, so engineering seemed like a natural choice. During college, I tried getting a job in the aerospace industry, but it was an absolutely awful time to try to get hired. Fortunately, Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, was hiring, so I landed my first aerospace job there.

FM: How did you end up working on a number of Cessna’s business aircraft programs?

NW: About the time Cessna introduced the CitationJet at the 1989 [National Business Aviation Association] show, Boeing was moving much of [its] engineering activity to Seattle, and I didn’t want to move. When Cessna started hiring engineers to help design the new jet, I applied and got a job there. I was hired to be a design engineer in the propulsion group, and I thrived in that environment. Once the airplane was designed and the prototype was flying, I volunteered to go work on the all-new Citation X, where I was responsible for designing the nacelle and finishing up the APU installation.

FM: Why did you move from Cessna’s business aircraft programs to developing its single-engine piston line?

NW: When Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), Russ Meyers honored his promise to re-enter the piston market. I was always a “little airplane” guy, so when the engineering effort really got underway for reintroducing the 172, 182, and 206, I became a group leader in the propulsion group. In my career, I worked on several single-engine programs, including the Next Generation Piston proof of concept, and the Beechcraft Denali and Cessna SkyCourier.

FM: What was your role as Cessna designed its own light sport aircraft?

NW: When Jack Pelton decided Cessna should take a serious look at getting into the light sport market, he tasked a small group of us to make a trip to the U.S. Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Florida, in 2006. After Jack watched our head of the Cessna Pilot Centers get a ride in an LSA, he said to me, “We need to do this. Go build one.” I selected a small group of designers, and we flew the LSA proof of concept nine months to the day after Jack said to go build it. I led the engineering effort for what became the Model 162 Skycatcher.

FM: What do you think was at the root of the lower-than-expected sales and discontinuation of the 162?

NW: It is easy to forget that the Skycatcher deliveries started when we were in the grips of the great recession. Many of the orders were taken before then, when the economy was booming, and I suspect that this was a major factor in the lower LSA sales for all manufacturers.

FM: Describe your personal motivation when you are presented with a challenge that seems impossible to overcome.

NW: I’ve learned the importance of being proactive and always having options beyond what you are attempting in order to solve an issue. Much of engineering is problem solving, whether addressing challenges during the design phase or during flight testing. Bill Lear once told his engineers to “stop thinking and try something,” and there’s a lot of truth to that statement.

FM: When you work on a “clean sheet” design like the SkyCourier, how are the performance parameters established?

NW: Sometimes the parameters are defined by the limitations of the category of airplane, such as the airspeed and maximum takeoff weight limitations of an LSA. Input can also come from customer advisory boards as used for the SkyCourier. Without prioritization of desired attributes, it is next to impossible to develop a product that can do everything that a customer wants and meet the expected price point.

FM: From an engineer’s point of view, if you look out 10 to 20 years into the future of GA, what do you see?

NW: The next 10 to 20 years could be very interesting for general aviation. Near term, if the FAA’s MOSAIC program does what is hoped, then there may be opportunities for lower cost airplanes larger than an LSA to be designed and put into production. Longer term, autonomous aircraft for cargo-carrying purposes will likely be accepted sooner than ones designed for carrying people.

FM: What is the biggest challenge facing aviation engineers in the future? And what about all-electric airplanes?

NW: I don’t think the general public realizes that “technically-viable” and “FAA-certifiable” are two completely different things. How successful some of the more promising eVTOL [electric vertical takeoff and landing] companies become in bringing their product to market may depend on if they can successfully navigate FAA certification and still have a viable and profitable product. 

Electric propulsion offers the aircraft designer moredesign flexibility for relocating the propulsion units than can be done with a reciprocating or even a turbine engine. I see hybrid-electric aircraft being a viable interim solution because they still allow the propulsion unit flexibility that an all-electric aircraft provides,without the range and weight challenges that are the result of current battery technology.

FM: Now that you’re retired, what are you flying?

NW: I’ve been a private pilot since 1987 and most of my hours are in the Thorp T-211 Sky Scooter that I built and have been flying for 10 years—it’s the only airplane that I have ever owned.

Quick 6

Who’s the one person living or dead you would most like to fly with?

Without a doubt, Jimmy Doolittle

If you could fly any airplane or helicopter you have not yet flown, what would that be?

P-51 Mustang, especially if someone else was paying the fuel bill

What is one airport you’ve always wanted to fly into?

Put-in-Bay Airport (3W2) on Lake Erie’s South Bass Island

What do you believe has been aviation’s biggest break-through event or innovation?

The availability of low-cost GPS devices

What is one airplane (past or present) you wish you could have worked on as an engineer?

The Travel Air Mystery Ship

When not flying, I’d rather be…

Working on my Model Ts. I’m currently restoring a 1911 Model T touring car.

This article was originally published in the December 2022/January 2023 Issue 933 of FLYING.

The post A Precision Approach appeared first on FLYING Magazine.