Here's a picture from Wikipedia

enter image description here

A MiG-17 fighter has been converted into a monument by... well, sticking a beam into its rear. This certainly is a technical challenge and involves good knowledge of aircraft design.

Would a question about implementing this specific way to support a plane when converting it into a monument be on-topic here?

  • $\begingroup$ I think that will depend on the exact question you want to ask. Go ahead and post and see how it's received. BTW, that's a Mig 17, not a Mig 27. $\endgroup$
    – user11933
    Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 9:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Airsick The question would be how such attachment of a beam to the plane rear is done. $\endgroup$
    – sharptooth
    Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 9:21
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I agree that it is more of a general engineering question, having very little to do with aerospace, and would be better answered on the engineering SE site. $\endgroup$
    – fooot
    Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 14:46

2 Answers 2


No. For such a conversion, any modification which makes the plane no longer airworthy can be made (i.e., you can put as much steel struts in there as you'd like, and just remove heavy parts like engines, fuel etc.), and as such requires zero knowledge of aircraft design. In fact, I feel pretty confident designing a steel structure to support this aircraft, having exactly zero experience with aircraft design in my masters mechanical engineering.

For reference, let's quote the scope of this SE site:

  • Flying technique, maneuvers, navigation, procedures, etc.
  • Air Traffic Control
  • Aviation Weather
  • Aviation Regulations
  • Aerodynamics (related to aircraft)
  • Aviation Safety

Oddly enough, I don't even see "aircraft construction/design" in there, which might be a good one to add.

  • $\begingroup$ Okay, you would build the structure without this knowledge but could you design how the plane is attached to it and possibly reinforced without knowing how aircraft is built? Is it solely a structural engineering problem? $\endgroup$
    – sharptooth
    Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 13:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I believe it is a fully structural engineering problem - I would bet a beer tray that the attachment is not solely in the tail, but just a beam running through a large part of the aircraft, while the aircraft is stripped down from anything invisible from the outside. I would thus vote to close this as off-topic based on the answers you'll get, not so much based on the question itself. I believe this is justified, since some questions are kept on-topic because the answers are more on-topic than the question would suggest. But of course, this answer does not represent consensus (yet). $\endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ @sharptooth I would tend to agree with sanchises here: If the plane is never going to be airworthy again (as is the case for most of these monuments) you need zero aeronautical engineering knowledge to mount it on a stand: You would open the plane up and find the beefiest structural member you can to bolt to (or alternatively you would add your own structure). Diagrams of the aircraft structure & its load limits would be useful to have, but could easily be worked out by a halfway-competent engineer. $\endgroup$
    – voretaq7
    Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ Some knowledge of aircraft design would be nice to have, if for no other reason than when the wind blows from the right direction it will be creating more lift than might be expected without it due to the design of the wing / tail. $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 17:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Lnafziger Yes, but again, these calculations can be heavily simplified (I would go for max. g load times MTOW as a force estimate) - unlike in the aviation industry, the margins are very wide - when in doubt, just add a cubic meter of concrete. $\endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 19:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jaycarr I would ask that you undelete your answer. Showning that users of this site disagree with something is as important to Meta as what they agree with. The down-votes don't affect you in any way whatsoever, do they? $\endgroup$
    – CGCampbell
    Commented Nov 1, 2015 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ I've upvoted this answer, because this is my stance as well. This kind of post isn't really aviation. Even taking into consideration possible wind effects on the flight surfaces, isn't "aviation" by my way of thinking. If it were, any large, moveable structure/mobile/statue/artwork could be considered "aviation" as well. Once the jet is mounted, especially at the angle this one is, no amount of wind, less than say, an F5, will affect it, and something the magnitude of an F5 tornado/hurricaine will affect it no matter the lifting surfaces. $\endgroup$
    – CGCampbell
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ IOW, as I see it, a builder has to take into consideration all forms of weather on this monument, but none of it is "aviation", it's just wind effects on a monument. Sorry, but that is how I feel. $\endgroup$
    – CGCampbell
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 23:14

I think this question would be just fine. The scope of this site is still being developed, and that's why we have discussions like this.

I've always seen our scope as being "anything that is aviation related" this can include things like aviation history, and monuments are built in response to that. I don't think that we have to even sell it as being an engineering question that's related to aircraft structure, I think we can just say, "hey, it's aviation related, let's see if we can't answer it here." The general wisdom being: it's better to be too broad than too narrow in scope. Especially in beta.

In conclusion, I do think this question is a bit off kilter, but I think those kinds of questions are good for a site like this. So I say go ahead and ask it.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @cgcambell - Fine, but I want to say that I find it extremely annoying when an answer is voted down and no explanation is given. $\endgroup$
    – Jae Carr
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 5:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well, first, this is meta. It doesn't (shouldn't?) affect your standing in any way. This is a meta question asking should a type of question be allowed. You hold the opinion it should. I would think the DV'ers are expressing their disagreement with your stance, but you're right. Normally I am an advocate for anonymity in voting (in se) but here it would be helpful to know the why $\endgroup$
    – CGCampbell
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ Normally I share your opinion of keeping the scope as open as possible. But in this case the question doesn't seem to address anything specific to aviation, and there is another site where general engineering questions can go. I haven't voted on this answer, just wanted to provide some feedback. $\endgroup$
    – fooot
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ Well, that's appreciated at least. I guess I still have a sour taste in my mouth from an experience I had in meta.SE. Honestly, the downvoting didn't bug me so much as the lack of any rational conversation on the topic. But hey, so long as people are willing to voice their opinion here, I'm cool... $\endgroup$
    – Jae Carr
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 19:18
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not so sure that the scope of the site is still being developed, if by that you mean, because it's still beta. I'm pretty sure this site will be made real, just as soon as SE can schedule it into the graphics design work that entails. It's not "trying to make it" ... it has made it, just not yet finished. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't decide to change the scope... which we will still be able to do even after it is out of beta. $\endgroup$
    – CGCampbell
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 23:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .