In Pursuit of Production Minimalism
Fwiw, the SR-71 was not engineering excellence. It was slapped together to do what needed to be done. It literally leaked jet fuel onto the ground when it wasn&#x27;t in the air, in order to allow the metal body panels to literally stretch and close gaps in its skin when it was in flight (because physics). The air frame couldn&#x27;t handle a takeoff with a full fuel tank, so it had to be filled up right after taking off. 90% of the parts manufactured didn&#x27;t work. It was difficult to maintain and eventually developed a &quot;speedy&quot; one-week turn-around time to get it to fly again after a mission, assuming a base had the specialized tools and support staff to do so.<p>The SR-71 is an example of how the sheer will to get something done can indeed accomplish great feats, if at great cost and complexity. It&#x27;s also an example of how innovation is no guarantee of success; since the Blackbird was retired, we still have no airplane as fast as one built in the 1960&#x27;s.<p>A great plane is just what it needs to be. It may not be the most minimal it could be, but it will be the most effective. Another example, the A-10 Warthog, is not &quot;minimal&quot;, but it is an amazing plane.<p>I think to get the best result based on the desired outcome, you have to pursue craftsmanship and excellence through continuous education, practice, and improvement, and not worry how it looks so much as how well it works. Complexity is a sin, except when it is necessary.