alt Hacker NewsIn what way is this like vibe-coding -- or do you just mean both are bad?
According to the report:
> The aircraft owner who installed the modified fuel system stated that the 3D-printed induction elbow was purchased in the USA at an airshow, and he understood from the vendor that it was printed from CF-ABS (carbon fibre – acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) filament material, with a glass transition temperature3 of 105°C.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69297a4e345e3...
Isn't this simply a part that shouldn't have been allowed to be sold based on it being both faulty and also misleading?
Replies
In the report they tested samples of the part and found that they actually had glass transition temperatures of 52.8°C, and 54.0°C... so sounds like the owner fell victim to false advertising.
3D printing is to mechanical engineering what vibe coding is to computer science.
With the rise of accessible 3D printers that can print engineering materials, there are a lot of people who try to create functional parts without any engineering background. Loading conditions, material properties, failure modes, and fatigue cycling are all important but invisible engineering steps that must be taken for a part to function safely.
As a consumer with a 3D printer, none of this is apparent when you look at a static, non-moving part. Even when you do start to learn more technical details like glass transition temperature, non-isotropic strength, and material creep, it's still not enough to cover everything you need to consider.
Much of this is also taught experimentally, not analytically - everyone will tell you "increasing walls increases strength more than increasing infill", but very few can actually point to the area moment of inertia equation that explains why.
3D printing has been an incredible boon for increasing accessibility for making parts in small businesses, but it has also allowed for big mistakes to be made by small players. My interpretation is the airshow vendor is probably one of these "small businesses".
The implication was that the part took shortcuts and made something that only looked good on the surface. But couldn't stand up to deeper scrutiny.
Well how confident would you be that this part isn't exposed to temperatures above that glass transition temperature? It is installed near the engine.
In the sense that production costs have undercut evaluation costs permitting a cadre of un(der)-qualified entrants to the space.
Not a new story in the progression of human endeavors; see the printing press, perspective painting, digital photography, residential construction.
Experimental Aircraft are less licensed than non-experimental, so this is more of a YOLO pilot.
The person who coined the term vibe coding is now doing a soylent-like [1] experiment where he only will read content that has been regurgitated by an AI [2], so yes I think it's a fair characterization of "vibe coding".
1: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/10/soylent-creator-hack...
If vibe coding is shipping code that you don't understand and can't ensure it's safety,
And if this part was simply 3d scanned and printed in whatever material seemed strongest,
Then it could be an apt analogy
[dead]
I think by vibe coding he means taking these things at face value instead of rigorously looking if they are up to the standard. When coding you would rigorously look if the code is good / produces any bugs. With vibe coding, you give a prompt and just accept the output, which might be full of errors and blow up (or melt). The analogy is that, yes you can print airplane parts, but they were sloppy and just accepted them at face value instead of rigorously looking if they are up to the required (bug free) standard, ie they wont melt.