Paul Bevilaqua

Neil Armstrong Distinguished Visiting Professor (2019-2021)

Dr. Paul Bevilaqua is an aeronautical engineer, who is well known for his work in aerodynamics and aircraft design. He worked for Lockheed Martin from 1985 to 2011 and is world-renowned for inventing the vertical lift concept in the F-35 Joint-Strike Fighter during his time there. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). He is a recipient of several awards, including AIAA's F. E. Newbold V/STOL and Aircraft Design awards and Daniel Guggenheim Medal; Lockheed Martin's Kelly Johnson Inventors, Aerostar, and NOVA award; the Society of Automotive Engineering's Aerospace Vehicle Design and Development Award; and the American Helicopter Society's Paul E. Haueter Award. He was recognized as Engineer of the Year by Design News magazine in 2004.

Dr. Bevilaqua worked with faculty in the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the School of Mechanical Engineering. Topics of collaboration included aerodynamics, flow control, aeroacoustics, and new concepts in aircraft design.

Jump to:
Lectures
Courses
News
Photos

Lectures

Designing Aircraft for Best Value

Watch on YouTube

Paul Bevilaqua gave this virtual presentation, "Designing Aircraft for Best Value", on November 9, 2021. He is a retired Chief Engineer of the Skunk Works at Lockheed Martin. He earned his MS and PhD degrees in Aeronautics and Astronautics at Purdue University, while a commissioned U.S. Air Force officer. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Dr. Bevilaqua's presentation was co-hosted by the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Would you recommend a non-US citizen to go into aerospace engineering because of the ITAR regulations?

Every aerospace product is not subject to ITAR restrictions. Most countries that buy American aircraft negotiate R&D and manufacturing "offsets" to reduce or earn back some of the cost of the airplane. In fact, an aerospace engineer with connections to a foreign buyer may have some advantages as an employee.

With your work on the F-35's liftfan, what are your thoughts on similar technologies like the lift fans used in the Yak-141?

The YAK-141 used lift engines instead of a lift fan. An engine is more complicated and requires more maintenance than a lift fan. The hot exhaust gases impinge on the bottom of the aircraft as it takes off and lands; the undersides of all of YAK's STOVL aircraft were coated with material similar to Space Shuttle tiles to insulate the airframe from the heat. The hot exhaust gases can also be ingested by the lift and cruise engines, causing the engines to stall. The Marine Corps told me not to even consider lift engines. McDonnel Douglas proposed a lift engine and were eliminated from the competition.

Regarding your cost analysis, does the manufacturing cost induce the hardware and software testing cost as well or it is just the manufacturing cost of the final product?

The RAND equations were developed in 1985 and used data from the 1960's and 1970's. Avionics was a higher order term then, that I didn't show. So the software was included, but it was almost a negligible term. Today, it is a significant cost item.

How do you think this discussion applies to an airplane that requires an entirely new propulsion system like H2 or Electric or Hybrid, etc?

In 1985, composite materials were not in the database, so we applied factors to the aluminum materials; they turned out to be optimistic. The engine suppliers will provide estimates for their new propulsion system concepts, just as the engine suppliers do today.

How profitable is U2?

We have not manufactured any new U-2's in decades. I don't know what profit was negotiated at the time. They were needed in a hurry and the prototypes were designed and built in 9 months. They are actually F-104's with sailplane wings, having many parts in common. I imagine each aircraft was profitable, but there weren't very many built.

What design strategy/methods have you found the best to drive these cost considerations? SCUM. Agile, etc?

Lean principles applied to the design process: only include what the customer values, don't add any gold plating, which includes using off-the-shelf parts when they are good enough.

How can we deal with a proposal that loses because it meets fewer requirement at a lower cost to a more capable more expensive proposal that gets cancelled due to cost later?

Today, we work with our customer to tell him what everything he is considering will cost. When he ultimately issues a set of requirements, you have to meet all of them at the lowest cost. If a proposal is more capable than asked for in the requirements (gold plated) and more expensive, it can't win, by law. Government contract administrators are instructed, “If you didn't ask for it, you can't pay for it.” On the JSF program, Boeing's design couldn't perform Mission X: a short take off, supersonic flight, and a vertical landing. They didn't meet this basic requirement, so they lost.

Courses

J. William Uhrig and Anastasia Vournas Distinguished Short Course Series

Watch on YouTube

Short Course Series (3 Videos) — March 26-28, 2019

News

Neil Armstrong Distinguished Visiting Fellow Bevilaqua maximizes visit

As part of the inaugural Neil Armstrong Distinguished Visiting Fellow program, AAE alumnus Paul Bevilaqua gave a three-day short course, "Introduction to V/STOL Theory and Practice," participated in the Industrial Advisory Council's ethics panel, and met with faculty and students.

Professor Bevilaqua speaking in classroom

Professor Bevilaqua speaking to 2 students

Professor Bevilaqua at front classroom showing a presentation

Professor Bevilaqua at computer desk seen through webcam

Professor Bevilaqua showing presentation via Zoom

Partners

Facilities

Programs