The homebuilt industry is at times plagued by aircraft programs that fail miserably, despite initial claims of revolutionary capabilities.  The result is generally a substantial loss of invested funds, a poor or even a dangerous airplane, useless tooling, a stack of unpaid bills and disillusioned investors and depositors.  In looking at some of the most publicly visible failures of recent years, in virtually every case the downfall can be attributed to a single cause:  The lack of an experienced configuration engineer/designer responsible for the program's design tasks, technical guidance and program control.

Some of the most memorable failures of recent memory are the Dream Wings Valkyre, the Prescott Pusher, the Cirrus VK-30, the Omega II and the Questair Venture (to a lesser point) among others.  The interesting aspect of this is that this problem is not solely owned by the "Experimental" industry.  Large scale, well funded programs also suffer from this phenomenon.  Here, recent examples include the AASI Jet Cruiser, the Beech Starship, and the Boeing JSF entry. 

In each case, the failure of the program can be directly attributed to a lack of configurational development experience and know-how in those responsible for the program's design tasks.  It is therefore of paramount importance to understand what a configuration designer (or configurator) is and what the difference is between that person and an aerodynamicist or aeronautical engineer.

In simplest terms, the configuration design engineer is a generalist. He (or she) must be well versed in all aspects and requirements of an aircraft development program including aeronautics and flight mechanics, structures and structural design, systems, human factors, operational requirements, materials, manufacturing processes, and at times even marketing issues and customer preferences.  In short, the configurator is an individual who has the background and practical knowledge needed to design an entire airplane to any set of requirements and performance goals.  When required, such as on high end aerospace programs, this individual is backed up by specialists who support his efforts, however it is still the configurator who is responsible for making the selections and final decisions.

The configurator can be a specialist in one or more areas however, his principal strength is the ability to keep all aspects of an airplane in mind when running the show.  This is very beneficial as it allows for program guidance with a minimum amount of entrenchment in any particular level of detail, beyond that which is necessary to achieve the design requirements.  Furthermore, this ability allows the designer to account for variables and design issues up front, thus minimizing redesign and rework cycles, which can be very expensive and time consuming in even the smallest of operations.

A program configurator also has a second, less technical function:  that of artist.  It is common marketing knowledge that how a product looks has a lot to do with how it will perform in the marketplace - and an airplane is no exception.  An experienced configuration designer will understand that the first steps of any airframe development are about 50% artistic.  As such, the designer will strive to not only meet the program's technical goals but the aesthetic ones too.

To become a configurator, it is imperative to not only have the necessary technical education and background, it is also of paramount importance that the individual serves a training or apprenticeship program, where he is taught and/or guided by those with more experience.  Configuration design is not a degree offered by any educational institution - it is an intensive effort to gain the necessary amount and variety of experience through program involvement. 

Today these apprenticeship  programs are rare.  Very few companies spend the necessary resources training individuals for this discipline.  Instead, development programs today tend to be staffed to the hilt with specialists, most of whom rarely have insight into processes beyond their level of expertise.  This unfortunately results in poorly run programs that end up with very costly, less than ideal "design by committee" products.

In general aviation, this type of program often results in  a poor performer or simply, an unworkable airplane.  It is therefore important to have the right individual responsible for the development so that the aforementioned problems can be avoided up front.