For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 22091 20024

16th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics ConferenceJune 15-18, 1998 / Albuquerque, NM

AIAA 98-2791Applied Aerodynamics Education:Developments and Opportunities

W.H. Mason and W.J. DevenportVirginia Polytechnic Institute andState University, Blacksburg, VA

AIAA-98-2791

1

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1

APPLIED AERODYNAMICS EDUCATION:DEVELOPMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

William H. Mason,* and William J. Devenport†

Department of Aerospace and Ocean EngineeringVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Mail Stop 0203, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

Abstract*†

Many practicing engineers feel that recent graduatesaren’t ready to go to work after graduating. They feelthat new graduates don’t really understand“engineering.” Boeing has produced a list of desirableattributes intended to guide engineering educators inimproving the “product,” as well as starting an indus-try-university-government group to address engineer-ing education. In this paper we review the issues fromour current perspective and suggest that the Boeinglist of attributes can be connected to the broader issueof cognitive development, and Perry’s model in par-ticular. We then describe the modern, mainly web-based, methods we are using to attempt to improveaerodynamics education. Using Java and other ap-proaches, students can investigate aerodynamic con-cepts without becoming distracted by programmingissues.

Introduction

We have been actively involved in engineering educa-tion for nearly a decade. Within the broad context ofengineering education, this paper addresses our under-standing of the educational challenges facing engineer-ing educators based on our classroom and industrialexperience, our classroom and laboratory instructionalefforts in aerodynamics, and new opportunities avail-able for improved education afforded us by the devel-oped of the web and other advanced technology suchas Mathematica. We also consider the possibilities foreducation-industry interaction

Many engineers in industry have expressed con-cern about the education of engineering students. Per-haps the most famous (infamous?) assessment is at-tributed to Lee Nicolai:1 “We educate great scientists

* Professor, Dept. of Aerospace & Ocean Eng., VirginiaTech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, Associate Fellow AIAAmason@aoe.vt.edu† Associate Professor, Dept. of Aerospace & Ocean Eng.,Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, Member AIAACopyright © 1998 by W.H. Mason and W. DevenportPublished by the American Institute of Aeronautics andAstronautics, Inc., with permission.

but lousy engineers.” John McMasters from Boeinghas also written about Boeing’s perception of theproblems with the current system.2,3 In general, forthe last ten years we have heard that the products ofthe schools are “not really ready” to go to work.

After some investigation, it appears that the prob-lem expressed by industry has more to do with thedevelopment of an engineering mentality than thetechnical preparation of the students, although thereare also some concerns in that regard. Previously, wesurveyed the members of the AIAA Applied Aerody-namics TC from government and industry to try tounderstand the issues a little more specifically.4 Thesurvey was intended to address the technical issues ofwhat specific topics needed more emphasis in aerody-namics classes, but the respondents chose to empha-size the general engineering attitude, and the workethic in general, with equal vigor. Apparently, thisproblem still exists.

In an attempt to address the general engineeringissues, at Virginia Tech case studies were used in anApplied Computational Aerodynamics course.5 Thisworked reasonably well, pushing the students to usetheir own judgment in applying computational meth-ods. The students found the requirement to locate in-formation, work in teams, and develop a basis formaking decisions very difficult. Apparently, thesewere all new aspects of their education. One can onlyspeculate as to whether the importance given to stu-dent teaching evaluations keeps teachers from intro-ducing this engineering emphasis in courses. Cer-tainly the grading is much more subjective and thefaculty work load is much higher. Students are ex-tremely uncomfortable with this approach, and thatmight explain the poor teaching evaluations typicalof using this approach with large groups (as witheverything else, small classes can use these ap-proaches much better). We have described related ef-forts associated with design.6,7,8 and multidisciplinarydesign optimization education elsewhere.9

The first section of the paper describes our experi-ence in trying to prepare students for careers in engi-neering, with a review of our perception of “the prob-lem” in developing the “engineering attitude” from

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2

students that are still developing maturity. We willtry to understand where we’ve been and where wemight go. Next, we examine the opportunities af-forded education by the emergence of the internet andrelated technology. We will then discuss recent devel-opments in web/Java oriented instruction in founda-tion courses, and describe our work in senior/graduatelevel elective courses oriented toward both additionalaerodynamics education and the development of anengineering approach. Finally, the new opportunitiesfor industry-academia interaction are discussed.

Where we’ve been

To consider ways to produce better applied aerody-namicists in the future, we need to consider past expe-rience. Two items stand out. Ira Abbott, of Abbott &von Doenhoff fame, was the after dinner speaker at aNASA Conference on Advanced Technology AirfoilResearch at Langley in 1978. He talked about the waynew engineers broke-in in the early days of theNACA. He said that they plotted wind tunnel data forabout two years before they were allowed to do any-thing else. This afforded a postgraduate opportunity tolearn on the job that probably doesn’t exist today.The first author plotted data at McDonnell and laterfor the Army at Edwards AFB during co-op and sum-mer jobs. The opportunity to learn more aerodynam-ics, especially in the wind tunnel with veteran aero-dynamicists is probably rare today.

A second anecdote involves my colleague, AdjunctProfessor Nathan Kirschbaum. Nathan graduated fromMIT in 1951, and spent his entire career in the aero-space business, primarily in aircraft configurationdesign. When he considers the range and depth ofknowledge we expect from our students in designclass he shakes his head in wonderment. He is amazedat our expectations compared to his day. The oft-usedanalogy is that we make them drink from a firehose.

There is no doubt that we are putting a lot in thecurriculum. At the same time, many universities aredemanding more courses be taken in a core curriculumwhich includes the humanities and the social sciences.And in many cases, state legislatures are putting lim-its on the number of hours required to graduate. Theresult is that the requirements placed on the studentsare already significant and no more credit hours aregoing to be added to the graduation requirements. Inresponse to industry, most courses include projects,frequently team-based. This adds a major burden to thestudent workload. Thus, although industry would liketo see us add a lot more, it’s unrealistic for a four yeardegree. However, it’s a natural for a five year degree,with the final product being an MS or MEng.

Where we are now

There is no doubt that the educational system willundergo significant change. Remarkably, many engi-neering colleges are ignoring the inevitable. Althoughthey claim to be embracing change, it’s essentiallysuperficial. The faculty, for the most part with noexposure to engineering practice, are simply not ca-pable of the needed change. Since the current facultyare responsible for hiring the new faculty, no mecha-nism for change exists. Several powerful recent dis-cussions of the situation seem to have been com-pletely ignored. The Monster Under the Bed byDavis and Botkin10 addresses education in general.Two other important engineering specific examina-tions of education were written by Ferguson11,12 andGoldberg.13 Both of these deserve attention, but ap-pear not to have received any.

There are however some positive developmentstoward making the Master’s Degree the primary engi-neering degree. MIT has embarked on this approach,and descriptions of the program in Aeronautics andAstronautics14 and Electrical Engineering15 are avail-able. Other schools are also following this trend.16

Virginia Tech has introduced a somewhat novel pro-gram that combines the students from five participat-ing departments in a program that requires two com-mon core courses and department-specific courses toallow the student to major in a particular degree.17

There is one other significant development. As anoutgrowth of Boeing interest in engineering educa-tion, a Industry University Government Roundtableon Engineering Education (IUGREE) has been meet-ing for the last several years. This organization dem-onstrates a real commitment to engineering educationby the top management of the major companies inthe aerospace business. The results of this activityhave not been felt at the working level by educators,although individual company efforts such as summerprograms to expose faculty to current practice havebeen ongoing for several years. The work of thisgroup will be interesting to follow.

The educational dilemma — Perry’s theory ofdevelopment of college students

The problem of getting students to develop the atti-tude toward aerodynamic analysis and design that in-dustry seems to want has a direct connection to theproblem of development of college students identifiedby Perry.18 The educational theory community hasbeen aware of Perry’s model of development for manyyears. It’s part of an education major’s basic course-work. However, few engineers and engineering educa-tors are aware of this theory.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

3

The first author learned about it when he attendedthe National Effective Teaching Institute, which hasbeen given by Rich Felder and Jim Stiles regularly inassociation with the annual ASEE Conference. Afterlearning of the theory, details were found in the bookby Wankat and Oreovicz,19 Mason read the chapter inthis book on Perry’s model and was astounded to seea perfect description of his own students. Havingcome from industry, his views on engineering educa-tion were closely aligned to the assessments by Nico-lai and McMasters. It turned out that engineering stu-dents have simply not been pushed to develop to thelevel of cognitive development required to satisfy therequest for an “engineering attitude.”

Table 1, which the first author constructed in1993 to help digest the theory, shows the problem,and warrants study. The characteristics that Nicolaiidentified first in his list include the ability “to shiftback and forth between left and right brained activi-ties”, “perform trade studies to make the compromisesnecessary for achieving a balanced design”, “be able todevelop selection criteria considering all relevant is-sues”. Examining the table, we can see that the char-acteristics Nicolai is looking for most likely corre-spond to a stage 5 or above on the development chart.According to Wankat and Orevicz, a new engineeringgraduate is unlikely to be at a stage 5 or above atgraduation. As a design teacher, Mason often ap-proaches the group as if they were at stage 5. This isa serious problem, students at stage 2 or 3 can’t evenunderstand the discussion of issues at a stage 5 level.However, stage 5 has an special problem. In thisstage you start to question your life choices, spouse,career, etc. It’s best to move quickly to a level ofcommitment.

The problem is that most engineers, as well asstudents, want a “right” answer to a problem. Eventhough they are exposed to open-ended problem solv-ing, students have a hard time actually working com-fortably in this environment. Typically, they don’tlike the subjective grading associated with this typeof academic work. In general, the teachers don’t likeworking with students in this manner either. Every-body wants straightforward problems with unambigu-ous answers. It matters little that this model, theprimary paradigm for engineering education, has noth-ing to do with actual engineering practice. Althoughthe liberal arts courses often attempt to push the stu-dents to move further up the development ladder bystressing analysis of multifaceted problems, the per-sonality types attracted to engineering seem not tobenefit from these courses. Whether the instruction isinadequate or the students simply unwilling, the bene-

fits of this aspect of the liberal arts courses don’tseem to be realized.

No matter how far along the mental developmentpath we are in areas we are familiar with, almost allof us immediately revert to a stage 1 or 2 when facedwith an entirely new subject area. We want to knowthe answer, with no concern for the subtleties of thesubject.

As currently operated, engineering schools givethe students as much information as possible, as effi-ciently as possible, with little regard for pushing thestudents to move up the level of the developmentladder defined by Perry. There are of course a few ex-ceptions. However, “diving in” and trying to relate tostudents as seasoned engineers is doomed to failure.Trying to teach students as if they were on stage 4 or5, when they are actually at 2 or 3, will simply resultin frustration for both the students and the instructor.

One study has been published recently that pre-sented the results for engineering students.20 At theColorado School of Mines, they predicted that onaverage, entering freshmen were at a stage of 3.27,while students graduated at a stage of 4.28. This wasbelow their goal of stage 5 for graduates. There was awide variation in the student achievement. They foundthat one third of their students were below stage 4 atgraduation. They thought that the improvement ofone stage on average over four years was a significantachievement.

Industry must understand that they need to com-plete the development of their engineers, providing away for their engineers to progress to levels 8 and 9after they graduate. Viewed from this vantage point,we can all understand the problem and tackle it con-structively. In the intensely competitive global mar-ket place it would appear critical to achieve a com-petitive advantage for industry work toward this goal.

Opportunity: Computers and Education

Computers per se certainly aren’t new for aerospaceengineering or aerodynamics education. Sometimes itappears that this a recent development. The firstauthor took a required FORTRAN course in the mid’60s and was given plenty of programming assign-ments as an undergraduate. Availability of a computerwas never a problem, although access was awkward.*

The computer certainly played a role in educationeven then.

However, with the advent of the personal com-puter and the introduction of graphical interface * Today’s students haven’t seen a computer card and areconfused about why old input instruction manuals de-scribe “card numbers.”

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

4

browsers, and finally, the possibility of platform in-dependent computing through Java, computers can beviewed in an entirely different light. Other key devel-opments include platform independent document dis-semination through Adobe’s PDF file format and freeAcrobat Reader, and spreadsheet and high level toolssuch as MATLAB and Mathematica which are nearlydevice independent. Opportunities to improve educa-tion have come with this revolution and require care-ful consideration. A staggering array of possibilitiesexists, and educators have been introducing educa-tional innovations for some years.

Some examples of applied aerodynamics orientedinstructional software include the programs fromDesktop Aeronautics by Ilan Kroo of Stanford,21

originally developed for the Macintosh, work by KurtGramoll and co-workers at Georgia Tech,22 also forthe Macintosh, and by Higuchi from Syracuse,23

again for a Macintosh. The first author jumped-the-gun slightly by developing codes for programmablecalculators in the early ’80s.24 This last effort demon-strated the problem of developing programs that wereplatform specific, and also failed to anticipate thecoming revolution in personal computers. We re-viewed the general status of aerodynamic programavailability for classroom use several years ago.25 Wehave a web page extension of that paper with a cur-rent assessment, intended for students in aircraft de-sign.26

Despite the widespread availability of software,the impact on most engineering education appears tobe limited. A study by J.B. Jones of Virginia Techshows that that we are simply not yet realizing thepotential benefits from computer.27 Before describingour efforts to improve the situation, we will review acouple of issues.

Computation in place of theory?

Our faculty have considered whether to de-emphasize the theoretical content of our courses infavor of a more application oriented approach. Weconcluded that an emphasis on the fundamentals ofaerodynamic theory cannot be reduced. The power ofcomputers is such that very large calculations can bemade by a single junior engineer. Thus, we need tomake sure that the students are provided with thetheoretical basis for the computations being carriedout. In today’s environment the importance of a fun-damental understanding of basic fluid mechanics iseven more important. Thus the issue becomes how toprovide this information. An approach that uses elec-tronic means to aid the student, so that fundamentalscan be learned without requiring too much effort notspecifically germane to the study is required. This has

to done in a way that will move the student alongPerry’s stages.

Actual “programming” by undergraduates

With the introduction of high-level environmentssuch as spreadsheets, MATLAB and Mathematica, therole of classical programming languages, and the em-phasis on students learning them with any degree ofproficiency has arisen. It appears that engineers goingdirectly to work with a BS degree may not engage inclassical programming. Those that do often say thatFORTRAN was not used. Thus, practicing engineersshould be aware that while students use existing ap-plications extensively, the emphasis on traditionalprogramming is diminishing rapidly. This is possiblymore important for the universities, where graduatestudents are typically expected to do programming,and their skills in this area are becoming very weak.It appears counterproductive in a content-specificcourse to have students struggle with programming,when that skill has little to do with the specificcourse material. This is an example of the problem oftrying to separate specific course material from engi-neering skill in general.

A Solution: Use of Java in foundations courses

Several key courses offered in aerodynamics at Vir-ginia Tech have moved to the web in large part.These include the required undergraduate course incompressible aerodynamics, the required junior yearundergraduate lab and the required first year graduatecourse in theoretical aerodynamics. The purpose is toimprove student understanding by enhancing insightinto the material. A by-product is reduced cost interms of textbooks and the ability to refine the mate-rial continuously.

Background

As described above, educators have realized thevalue of computer-based tools for enhancing engineer-ing education for some time. More recently, it hasbecome clear that the capability of the computer tointeract with its user, to compute and then display theconsequences of that interaction in a dynamic form,provides an avenue for learning that is simply notavailable in the classroom or textbook. Efforts de-scribed above were platform specific, using the Mac-intosh. Other efforts have been workstation based.

For the most part, the efforts have been local tothe course or institution where they were developed.The fundamental problem was that programs were noteasily distributed and were not usually compatiblewith more than one computer operating system. Formost educators, translation and distribution of soft-

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

5

ware beyond their own students was simply not worththe effort, especially when the program itself may beshort and simple.

The advance of technology now offers a real solu-tion to these problems in the form of the new Javaprogramming language and the World Wide Web. Asit has for society in general, the web has also becomean essential resource and tool for students and educa-tors. Its strength and popularity arise from the factthat access to information is not machine or locationdependent. Anyone running a browser on any machinecan access any Web page from anywhere in the world.In effect, the World Wide Web solves the distributionproblem (one computer company says “the network isthe computer”, it took us a while to understand - wedo now). Originally, web pages had a weakness, inthat they only offered static access to information. Tofoster an appreciation of basic engineering principlesand to stimulate an interest in pursuing further educa-tion in engineering, dynamic interaction is also re-quired. Java solves that problem and allows the userto run programs directly through the web browser.Many Java applets have been developed for this pur-pose at Virginia Tech. We provide two examples.

The Java applets described here are also availableto practicing engineers and industry where they cancontribute formally or informally to continuing edu-cation and, depending on content, provide simple de-sign or computational tools.

Example #1: Potential Flow

To illustrate how these instructional units workwe discuss one Java applet and accompanying HTMLdocumentation. The instructional unit is availableover the web at:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe5104/ifm/ifm.htmlNote that a Java capable browser is needed to run theapplet itself. This instructional unit is designed toassist the teaching and understanding of two-dimensional ideal flow. The applet is embedded in aseries of HTML documents that describe the applet,its educational goals and the subject matter beingaddressed. Examples are provided as well as the sourcecode.

A screen print showing the actual applet windowis illustrated in Fig. 1. The window shows a grid (therectangular region containing the '+'s) and a graphicaluser interface containing four text fields labeled'Strength', 'Angle' 'X' and 'Y', and a pull-down menuwith the selections 'Freestream', 'Source', 'Vortex','Doublet', 'Source Sheet', 'Vortex Sheet' and 'DrawStreamline'. The fields 'X' and 'Y' show the positionof the mouse on the grid, the fields 'Strength' and

'Angle' may be edited to allow the user to enter anynumeric value.

The applet simulates a water tunnel in which thestudent adds any of a variety of elementary flows andthen visualizes the net resulting flow by adding dye atspecific points (i.e., a Hele Shaw table). The studentmay add any number of sources, vortices, doublets,source sheets, or vortex sheets. With 'Draw Stream-line' selected the computer will draw streamlines start-ing wherever the student clicks the mouse on the grid.

The applet allows the student to freely experimentwith ideal flow, without being tied to its (often cum-bersome) algebraic description. It teaches the studentabout the principle of superposition, about the formof those elementary flows and about the nature ofstreamlines. It also enables the students to easilyvisualize and experiment with any basic ideal flowfield they may meet in class or their textbook or anyother flow they desire.

This applet is platform independent. In terms offile size, the applet and its accompanying HTMLdocuments are small and load rapidly over a modem.It is accessible to anyone in the world with an in-ternet connection.

Example #2: Boundary Layer Calculation

A second, more recent, example demonstrates theuse of Java to compute a boundary layer.28 This ap-plet is one of a number of applets being developed todemonstrate the boundary layer methods described inthe book by Schetz.29 The applet is available at:

http://www.engapplets.vt.edu/

In this case, the student can enter the edge velocitydistribution and see the solution. Figure 2 provides anexample of the screen. Here, the reader should try itfor himself. Paper-based presentation is too far fromthe actual environment to provide real insight into theenvironment. Several other schemes are also avail-able. The use of Java in this course is critical to en-hancing student understanding. Where it was previ-ously difficult for students to actually compute mean-ingful solution, it becomes trivial.

Numerous other examples of Java-based onlineaids to instruction are available from the VirginiaTech AOE web page on web-related teaching materi-als, located at:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/courses/webteach.htmlas well as the applets project url given above. Ofspecific interest are the laboratory manual, severalother Java applets, including ones for conformaltransformation, and an online version of NACA1135. In almost all instances, the material is avail-able for anybody, at any location.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

6

This section has provided two examples of the useof Java in instruction. For the most part, we nolonger have to worry about students having differentcomputer setups than the one that was used to de-velop the application.

Other web-based teaching approaches

Building on the foundations established in the requiredcourses, several elective courses are offered to seniors,which are also available for graduate credit. Thesecourses emphasize design and engineering practice.They include courses in computational structural de-sign and optimization, flight control system design,and applied computational aerodynamics and configu-ration aerodynamics. Essentially, seniors have to takeat least one of these courses. For this paper, we willdiscuss the applied computational aerodynamics andconfiguration aerodynamics courses, taught alternateyears by the first author.

As seniors, we attempt to bring the students alongPerry’s ladder. Thus, touching on the material dis-cussed in the courses, but requiring more than thebasic information presented, the students are assignedterm projects.* To do this they work in teams ofabout three or four. Each topic is different, and thestudents present their assessment of the problem ex-amined in class presentations.

The Applied Computational Aerodynamics coursehas been described before,5 and the course notes andvarious codes are available electronically at:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/CAtxtTop.html†

This is a hybrid document, using an HTML frame-work to provide PDF files of course notes and to al-low students to download source codes for use in theclass.

Students are generally assigned one methodologyproject and one applications project. The methodol-ogy project results have generally been disappointingrecently. This is because student proficiency in pro-gramming has deteriorated as students use MATLABor spreadsheets rather than FORTRAN in othercourses. Typical applications projects could be as-sessments of existing aircraft or design projects re-

* The areas to be investigated are not cast specifically interms of the course material. To me the connection isobvious. However, several students from outside thedepartment taking the course, and not familiar with Ma-son’s approach, have asked if the term project has any-thing to do with the material being covered.† Virtually all the web addresses contained in this papercan be found starting at http://www.aoe.vt.edu/

lated to the AIAA Undergraduate Team Aircraft De-sign Competition. These have been described in detailpreviously.8 The most interesting assignments arearranged around topics of current interest. The onethat generated the most interest was the assignment toassess and pick the YF-22 or YF-23 as the winner ofthe ATF competition. Amazingly, the assignmentdue date, picked several months in advance, turned outto be the day the Air Force announced the winner.These types of projects require considerable engineer-ing judgment in addition to the specific course mate-rial. Curiously, after these projects were switched touse teams, the quality of the projects deteriorated.

In Configuration Aerodynamics students do onecomponent concept investigation and one case studyof an entire configuration. One example of a compo-nent investigation is the investigation of how a win-glet works. Examples of entire configuration investi-gations include the Voyager and the B-2. Althoughwe requested that these presentations be made elec-tronically so that they could be put on the web, thestudents generally copied material from copyrightedsources, so that it would appear to be a copyrightviolation to post the presentations on the web. Anadditional component of the class is the use of classicconfiguration aerodynamics papers, which are dis-cussed in class. The problem with that approach isthe bipolar nature of the class. About half the stu-dents seem to dominate the discussion, while theother half remain silent, probably not having read thepaper.

We have found that using the web makes courseadministration much easier. Past problems of puttingcodes on a floppy disk in a computer lab, with theinevitable virus, vanished. Distribution of notes be-came trivial using PDF files. And email seems to bevery effective. The location of the Applied Computa-tional Aerodynamics Course notes was given above.A somewhat different flavor of web use is availablefor the Configuration Aerodynamics course, which islocated at:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/ConfigAero.html

As a much newer course, not all the material is aswell organized. Since these materials are available toanyone, we appreciate comments. We certainly get alot of feedback about our information sources pages,design class notes and online codes (which includeQuickBASIC versions of several of the old calculatorprograms24). All of these web pages can be foundfrom the airplane design course site:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/SD1.html

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

7

Curiously, we get more comments on these sitesfrom web surfers outside the university, with a sig-nificant percentage from abroad, than the students inour classes. Neither of these classes has progressed tothe point of using Java applets. However, the stu-dents have used the methods described above, and ifappropriate they are available for use. Finally, thestudents surf the web to locate information on theiraerodynamic concepts and configuration case studies.Thus the web is a key part of the course.

A few lessons

Perhaps the key lessons are the impact Java can haveon courses, and that web orientation eases course ad-ministration. The ease with which information can beupgraded, and the ready acceptance, and even expecta-tion, that the course be essentially “on the web” haschanged the way some of us do business.

Platform independence is critical. Even if studentsall had PCs, the variation in systems from year toyear was a constant problem. Changes in compilersgiven to students each year also caused chaos. It isunfortunate that industry is apparently not ready tomaintain a common Java, and platform independencemay disappear.

Some of our experiences may be useful to others:

Unintended consequencesOne of our first applications of Java in an engi-

neering course was the Compressible AerodynamicsCalculator, at:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe3114/calc.html.This program, written in JavaScript, was designed assupplementary material for our compressible aerody-namics course AOE 3114 which most students takein the Spring of their junior year. The course teachesthe basics of one-dimensional compressible flow, ofshock expansion theory and of the method of charac-teristics. As such we had made extensive use ofNACA 1135 Equations Tables and Charts for Com-pressible Flow.

The calculator was conceived as a tool for replac-ing these tables and greatly reducing the drudgery ofperforming simple compressible-flow calculations.The idea was that with less time spent looking at thenumbers the students could spend more time thinkingabout the aerodynamic principles. To some extentthis has happened. The students make regular use ofthe calculator for homework and other assignments,and the calculator has received some attention fromusers outside the university, both at educational estab-lishments and in government and industry. However,the calculator has failed to replace the tables com-pletely. In exams and tests the students don’t have

access to a computer and must still use NACA 1135(which as a consequence they still have to buy). Be-ing less familiar with the printed tables they are thenmore likely to make mistakes and this leads to frus-tration. Universal access raises the possibility that wehave introduced this frustration into other aerodynam-ics classrooms across the nation!

Information Transfer vs. Information Presentation

Our experiences suggest that the world wide webhas two quite different educational functions and thatit can be important to identify the intended functionin preparing WWW material.

Eighteen months ago we made the decision toconvert the manual used for our undergraduate labora-tory course into an HTML document, with the ideal-istic objective of constructing a “paperless course”.The manual consists of some 250 pages of back-ground material, experiment descriptions and otherinstructions for students. The electronic version, nowavailable at http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe3054, boasts anequivalent volume of web pages. We make it avail-able in every laboratory through a networked com-puter and web browser.

To our surprise the web version of the manual hasnot replaced the paper copy. The latter still sells out.Students, it seems, don't like to read material fromcomputer screens any more than their professors. Thisdoes not mean the online manual is redundant - farfrom it. We get many positive comments from stu-dents pleased to be able to cut and paste figures andtables from the manual to their lab reports (with ap-propriate references of course), to print out a secondcopy of a chapter after the first one was damaged, andwho were able to prepare for the lab when out oftown without having to carry a heavy book. It seemsthat the dominant value of the web in this applicationis the ease with which it allows us to transfer mate-rial to students - it is not such a good tool for presen-tation. This is evidenced by the few JavaScript func-tions that are spread throughout the otherwise HTMLmanual. We could have saved some effort here sincethese are hardly used, the students come across themwhen reading their printouts!

With the idea of information transfer in mind, in1997 we added another facet of the web to our labora-tory experiments. The networked laboratory comput-ers that used to stand nearly idle, now carry emailclients and the Microsoft Office suite of programs. Inadvance of the lab experiment, students email the laba copy of a spreadsheet or similar document whichthey have prepared to receive the results and performsome of the analysis. During the experiment theycomplete the spreadsheet and then email a copy to all

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

8

the members (typically 5 or 6) of the laboratorygroup involved in the experiment, so all can incorpo-rate it first hand into their reports. This program wasentirely optional, but almost all students use it - it issimply a much more efficient and accurate way oftransferring preparation into the lab, and results out.

All this is not meant to imply that informationpresentation is not a practical application of the web.Presentation of information can be done very effec-tively using sequences of HTML screens (seehttp://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe3054/manual/stu1/session1for example) or the many Java and JavaScript pro-grams referenced here and elsewhere. However, it isworth noting that the primary function of these appli-cations is presentation rather than information transferbecause none of them are useful if printed out.

Uses of Java and JavaScript Programs.

Amongst the numerous Java and Javascript pro-grams that have been written for engineering educa-tion, it seems there are two types - the ‘virtual envi-ronment’ and the ‘calculator’ - both have substantialeducational potential.

An example of the first type of applet is the IdealFlow Machine

(http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe5104/ifm/ifm.html).described above. This applet, designed to assist theteaching and understanding of elementary two-dimensional ideal flow, creates an interactive graphi-cal environment aimed at enhancing understanding andinterest. It is not designed to produce numerical solu-tions (although some limited numerical output isavailable). The major role of this type of applet is thepresentation of concepts in a manner not possible ona blackboard or in a textbook. For example in fluiddynamics Java applets can represent fluid motion ex-plicitly and thus make clear the often misunderstoodrelationships between wave and particle motion, ge-ometry and velocity and the role of the pressure fieldin controlling flow. Further examples of such appletsinclude the Virtual Shock Tube:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe3114/shocker/shocker.html

and the Ideal Flow Mapper:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe5104/mapper/mapper.html.

An example of the calculator type applet is theprogram ILBLI

http://www.engapplets.vt.edu/fluids/bls,

(figure 2), also mentioned above. This applet is de-signed expressly for numerical input and output - theuser enters as numbers the various parameters neededto define the boundary layer flow (initial boundarylayer thickness, pressure gradient parameter, free-stream velocity, viscosity and edge velocity distribu-

tion) and the computational domain (starting and end-ing points, grid spacing etc.). The edge velocity dis-tribution is also input as pairs of numbers into a ta-ble - long lists of such number pairs can be cut andpasted from other applications. The user then pressesthe start button to initiate the calculation, the resultsof which are plotted real time as the calculation pro-gresses. The plots, however, are only rudimentary andare not mean't to provide any kind of environment toenhance learning, just an immediate feedback onwhether the calculation is advancing correctly. Thereal output of the program is in tables of numbersrepresenting the boundary layer velocity profile at aparticular location and the development of the bound-ary layer parameters along its length. These tables ofvalues may be cut and pasted from the applet into anyother applications and, indeed, have been formatted tobe Excel compatible.

In this type of applet the student is not the ex-plorer of a new (to them) theoretical concept, but theanalyst who has to provide the proper input to, andinterpret and analyze the output from, a computa-tional tool that contains no safeguards ensuring thatthe answers are meaningful or useful. A key part ofthis program, and its relations is its use of tabularinput and output that may be accessed using standardcut/paste/copy operations. This compatibility withthe 'clipboard' and thus applications native to the hostcomputer largely overcomes the limitation of JAVAprograms not being able to read or write files on thehard disk. It also opens up the possibility of develop-ing a suite of applets that the student can use in com-bination to investigate the solution to more generalproblems. For example, we are in the process of de-veloping a panel code applet and an applet to deter-mine transition location given laminar boundary layerparameters as a function of streamwise distance.Given a geometry in the form of a paneling scheme,the panel code will provide edge velocity and coordi-nates as table output, and these may then be pastedinto one of the laminar boudary layer codes. Resultsfrom this applet may then be pasted into the transi-tion calculator whose output is used to initialize oneof the turbulent boundary layer applets. In addition,one envisions output from the panel method beingpasted into a structural analysis applet, or outputfrom the boundary layer applets being pasted into adrag calculator, combined with output from a liftingline theory applet and then pasted into a performanceapplet. It seems then that the modularity and compat-ability that these type of calculators offer may gosome way into breaking down the artificial barriersthat students perceive between the different disciplines

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

9

in their field - a key step if these students are to be-come effective designers.

A related development: a digital textbookThe possibility of providing students with a modernaerodynamics text with interactive examples self-contained for use on a PC has been realized with thepublication of a digital textbook by Prof. Ilan Krooof Stanford.30 In some respects this book is strikinglysimilar to the approaches adopted at Virginia Tech.The book runs through a browser, making it nearlydevice independent. The book is quite an accom-plishment. It contains an amazing amount of mate-rial, including numerous QuickTime movies, somewith sound. There are also many interactive computa-tions included. I would suggest this book to anyone,and when I get email asking about a starting place tolearn applied aerodynamics we now recommend thisbook. We also have beginning graduate students in-terested in applied aerodynamics but without an aero-space engineering background use this book for inde-pendent study. More information describing the de-tails can be found at:

http://www.desktopaero.com

Opportunities for Industry

Techniques to allow interaction between students andindustry are now available using the internet. Severalyears ago, John McMasters proposed providing stu-dents with a few telephone numbers, so that studentscould contact experts in industry to contact with ques-tions. It’s my impression that this doesn’t work toowell. A fax might be a little better, but it also doesn’twork well. These types of interactions can provideanswers to specific questions. But they have limitedpotential for developing the “attitude” that industrywants. Engineers in industry are too busy, and thestudents don’t really know who to contact or exactlywhat to ask. The primary place this interaction occursis in design class. There, a limited number of contactsseems to work. But the number of students benefitingfrom this interaction is extremely small.

In the applications area, electronic interaction isnow possible. Already, newsgroups such assci.aeronautics provide a useful means of obtaininginformation. Unfortunately, there is also a largeamount of misinformation. A newsgroup run underthe sanction of the AIAA or the IUGREE, could filtersome of the extraneous information, and provide stu-dents with answers to questions. Using a set of emailaddresses to remind a list of industry volunteers tocheck the newsgroup, we could expect feedback thatwould be available to every reader, with a large in-crease in the student impact. A number of other more

advanced interactions are also available. For text-oriented interaction, liberal arts courses are typicallymore advanced than engineering classes. In manyclasses, students are required to interact with eachother and the whole class. Means to do this are avail-able today, and are inexpensive.

Is Industry Causing a Problem Themselves?

We think we understand the basis for industry concernabout engineering education. We have suggested away to address the situation by telling students toconsider the Master’s Degree as the first professionaldegree, and we think that the additional year for aMaster’s degree without an assistantship (typicallyclose to two for a student on an assistantship) makesa big difference. Our Practice Oriented Masters Degreeprogram seems to be an excellent solution for a stu-dent not wanting to pursue a research career.

However, when industry needs new engineers,they urge our students to go to work directly uponobtaining the BS degree. Some of our brightest stu-dents have done this and then gotten very disillu-sioned by their initial assignments. Our impression isthat they expected a job more typical of a studentwith an MS. For our best students, we don’t thinkthat company reimbursed tuition to attend school atnight for several years is the best choice. We getmany requests to write letters of recommendation forstudents after they’ve spent about two years in indus-try to go to graduate schools in other fields. Law andmedicine are two favorite areas. Industry must under-stand the world is different. Not many of today’s stu-dents are willing to plot data for two years. We canaddress engineering education issues, but industry hasto react to the changing culture.

Conclusions

We understand that industry wants better engineers:universities want to produce them! But everyoneneeds to understand the environment, we really areasking a lot of today’s student. We think that Perry’smodel is closely related to the Boeing “attribute” chartand Nicolai’s perception of the problems with educa-tion. Applied aerodynamics requires a level of matur-ity and sophistication that an average student doesn’tacquire by the time he earns a BS degree. We need toemphasize the need for the Master’s degree to be thefirst real engineering degree. This is the plan at MIT.Industry is not helping us in this regard.

We can remove some of the impediments to learn-ing aerodynamics by eliminating programming barri-ers through the use of modern methods such as web-based simulations using Java and Mathematica Note-

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

10

books. We also use the web to ease the delivery ofother course materials. This includes delivery of cus-tom course notes in PDF format, and making tradi-tional aerodynamics codes available for download offthe web. The use of email seems to improve commu-nications. By making most of this material univer-sally available, students can return to the sites whenthey need to review the material after they graduateand are working. This might encourage life-longlearning by providing a starting point for review andpointers to more information. Digital textbooks caninclude animated sequences and embedded interactiveexamples. The recent digital textbook by Ilan Kroo isan example. In short, most practicing engineerswould not recognize today’s “classroom” environ-ment.

We’ve provided web site addresses for the exam-ples cited. To assist the interested reader, we’ve put aPDF file of this paper on our web site, with color fig-ures and links to the web sites so that the reader canexplore the examples directly. This can be found at:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/MRRpubs98.html

An assessment of the effectiveness of the use ofthis technology will require several years, when in-dustry starts to gain experience with students thathave had the opportunity to learn aerodynamics usingthese approaches. We expect a positive reaction byindustry.

Acknowledgments

This paper reflects the activities of many of ourcolleagues, both at Virginia Tech and elsewhere.NASA and the NSF have sponsored some of the ac-tivities which have contributed to the efforts describedin this paper. In particular, William Devenport ac-knowledges the support of the National ScienceFoundation under grant DUE-9752311.

References 1 Leland M. Nicolai, “Designing a better engineer,”Aerospace America, April 1992, pp. 30-33,46.2 John H. McMasters and Steve D. Ford, “The[Airplane] Design Professor as Sheepherder,” AIAAPaper 90-3259, AIAA/AHS/ASEE Aircraft Designand Operations Meeting, Dayton, OH, Sept. 17-19,1990.3 John H. McMasters and James D. Lang, “EnhancingEngineering and Manufacturing Education: IndustryNeeds, Industry Roles,” 1995 ASEE Annual Confer-ence and Exposition, Anaheim, CA, June 25-28,1995.

4 W.H. Mason, “Applied Aerodynamics Literacy:What Is It Now? What Should It Be?” AIAA Paper91-3313, September 1991.5 W.H. Mason, “Applied Computational Aerodynam-ics Case Studies,” AIAA Paper 92-2661, June 1992.6 James F. Marchman, III and W.H. Mason,“Freshman/Senior Design Education,” AIAA Paper94-0857, January 19947 James F. Marchman III and William H. Mason,“Incorporating Freshman/Senior Design into theAerospace Curriculum,” ASEE Annual Conference,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, June 25, 1994.8 W.H. Mason, “Aircraft Design at Virginia Tech:Experience in Developing an Integrated Program,”AIAA Paper 95-3894, 1st AIAA Aircraft Engineer-ing, Technology, and Operations Conference, LosAngeles, CA, Sept. 19-21, 1995, an html version ofthis paper is available:http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/ACDesP/ACDesPgmVPI.html9 W.H. Mason, Zafer Gürdal and R.T. Haftka,“Experience in Multidisciplinary Design Education,”ASEE Annual Conference, Monday, June 26, 1995,Anaheim, CA (Conrad Newberry, session chairman:Multidisciplinary Design). An electronic version ofthis paper is available:http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/MRNR95.html10 Stan Davis and Jim Botkin, The Monster Underthe Bed, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1994.11 Eugene S. Ferguson, “How Engineers LoseTouch,” Invention and Technology, Winter 1993, pp.16-24.12 Eugene S. Ferguson, Engineering and the Mind’sEye, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992.13 David E. Goldberg, “Change in Engineering Educa-tion: One Myth, Two Scenarios, and Three Foci,”Journal of Engineering Education, April 1996, pp.107-116.14 E.F. Crawly, E.M. Greitzer, S.E. Widnall, S.R.Hall, H.L. McManus, J.R. Hansman, J.F. Shea andM. Landahl, “Reform of the Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Curriculum at MIT,” AIAA Paper 93-0325,January 1993.15 Paul Penfield, Jr., John V. Guttag, Campbell L.Searl, and William M. Siebert, “Master of Engineer-ing: A New MIT Degree,” Session 0532, 1993 ASEEAnnual Conference Proceedings, pp. 58-61.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

11

16 Nancy Fitzgerald, “Mastering Engineering,” ASEEPRISM, Jan. 1996, pp. 25-28.17 W.H. Mason and B. Grossman, “Virginia Tech’sNew Practice Oriented Aerospace Engineering Mas-ter’s Degree,” Session 0502, 1996 ASEE AnnualConference and Exposition, Washington, DC, June23-26, 1996. An electronic version of this paper isavailable:www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/MRNR96.html18 W.G. Perry, Jr., Forms of Intellectual and EthicalDevelopment in the College Years: A Scheme, Holt,Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970.19 P.C. Wankat, and F.S. Oreovicz, Teaching Engi-neering, McGraw-Hill, 1993.20 Michael J. Pavelich and William S. Moore,“Measuring the Effect of Experiential Education Us-ing the Perry Model,” Journal of Engineering Educa-tion, Oct. 1996, pp. 287-292.21 Ilan Kroo, “Aerodynamic analyses for design andeducation,” AIAA PAPER 92-2664, 10th AIAA Ap-plied Aerodynamics Conference, Palo Alto, CA, June22-24, 1992.22 Ralph Lathem, Kurt Gramoll and L.N. Sankar,“Interactive Aerodynamic Analysis and Design Pro-grams for Use in the Undergraduate Engineering Cur-riculum,” 1993 ASEE Annual Conference, Urbana-Champaign, IL, June 1993.23 Hiroshi Higuchi, “Enhancement of Aerodynamicsand Flight Dynamic Instruction with InteractiveComputer Visualizations,” Computer Applications inEngineering Education, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 87-95,1994.24 W.H. Mason, Aerodynamic Calculation Methodsfor Programmable Calculators and Personal Com-puters, Aerocal, 1982, Pak#1: “Basic AerodynamicRelations,” Pak#2:”Basic Geometry for Aerodynam-ics,” Pak#3: “Basic Subsonic Aerodynamics,”Pak#4:”Boundary Layer Analysis Methods”.25 W.H. Mason, “Aircraft Design Course ComputingSystems Experience and Software Review,” ASEEAnnual Conference, Sunday, June 25, 1995, Ana-heim, CA (Gary Slater, session chairman: Softwareand Multimedia). For an electronic version of thispaper, look at:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/MRNR95.html

26 W. H. Mason,http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/ACDesSR/review.html27 J.B. Jones, “The Non-Use of Computers in Under-grasuate Engineering Science Courses,” Journal ofEngineering Education, January 1998, pp. 11-14.28 William J. Devenport and Joseph A. Schetz,“Boundary Layer Codes for Studewnts in Java,” Pro-ceedings of FEDSM ’98, 1998 ASME Fluids Engi-neering Division Summer Meeting, June 21-25,Washington, DC.29 Joseph A., Schetz, 1993, Boundary layer Analy-sis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.30 Ilan Kroo, Applied Aerodynamics - A DigitalTextbook, Desktop Aeronautics, 1997.http://www.desktopaero.com

Few challenges in engineering school provide motivation to move students to level 3 or 4,undergrads often taught as if everything is known

A problem, especially indesign: Often teach at level 5,

students at 2 or 3.

Harvard liberal arts students said to attain level 7 or 8 at graduation

Engineering schools : at least level 4 for graduate students OK

Engineering schools : at least level 3 for undergraduate schools OK

Table 1Perry’s Theory of Development, from Wankat and Oreovicz, Teaching Engineering

• Overall progression: from dualistic (right vs wrong) to a relativistic viewpoint• Students cannot understand or answer questions which are too far above them

Stage Characteristic Students Idea of a Good Instructor1. Basic

DualityFacts, solutions, etc. are eitherright or wrong.

2. Dualism:MultiplicityPrelegitimate

3. MultiplicitySubordinateor EarlyMultiplicity

4. ComplexDualism andAdvancedMultiplicity

5. Relativism

6. Relativism:CommitmentForeseen

7-9. Levels ofCommitment

Takes responsibility for one’s self,mature stages of development, truecompetence.

Instructor needs to provide freedomso that students can learn what theyneed to learn.

Starts to commit to professional career,starts to develop maturity andcompetence.

A revolutionary switch, world is full ofpossibilities, relativism becomes thenorm, absolutes are special cases, theredoes not appear to be a way to choose.Level 5 can appear “cold”, life choicessecond guessed. Should move throughthis stage quickly.

Students try to retain right vs wrongposition, but realize that there areareas of legitimate uncertainty anddiversity of opinion. Solve problemscleverly and correctly, may lackvision about relative importance ofproblems.

severe stress for students in a design course where multiple answers are expectedand students are expected to function in a world with multiple answers

Acts as a source of expertise, butdoes not know all the answers sincemany are unknowable. Helpsstudents become adept at formingrules to develop reasonable andlikely solution or solution paths. (Itis important for instructor to showthat good opinions are supported byreasons)

The big question is: “What does hewant?” Methods for evaluatingbecomes very important. Studentswant amount of effort put intosomething to count. A good teacherclearly explains methods used fordetermining the right answer even ifthey do not (temporarily) know it.Presents very clearly definedcriteria for evaluation.

Multiplicity has become unavoidableeven in hard science and engineering.There is still one right answer, but itmay be unknown by authority. Studentfirst realizes that in some areasknowledge is “fuzzy”. Honest hardwork is no longer guaranteed to producecorrect answers. Good grades seem tobe based on “good expressions”.

Students perceive that a multiplicityexists but still have a basic dualisticview of the world. There is a right andwrong. Multiple views or indicationsthat there are “gray” areas are eitherwrong or interpreted as authoritiesplaying games.

Engineering students preferengineering classes to humanitiesclasses. They can solve closed-endproblems with a single right answer.

Want teacher to be the source ofcorrect knowledge and to deliverthat knowledge without confusingthe issues. A good teacher presentsa logical, structured lecture andgives students a chance to practicetheir skills. The student candemonstrate that he or she has theright knowledge. From thestudent’s viewpoint a fair testshould be very similar to thehomework.

Level 3: Canpractice

engineering

To be a leader:Higher levelrequired

12

American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 1. Example of the Ideal Flow Machine

Figure 2. Example Java calculation of the boundary layer

13

American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics