AERO2355 FINAL - Report Group 20

Systems Engineering Pty Ltd, RMIT, Australia

AERO 2355 GROUP 20 – Final ReportMr. F. Elali, Mr. B. Obian, Mr. Y. Turilay, Mr. F. Thomspon, Mr. K. Al-Kindi

[Abstract: Include an abstract of 100 words describing the contents of the report.]

……………/135

(135+10 for presentation)

Report No.# AERO-GROUP20-REP-02Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

Report No.# AERO-GROUP20-REP-02

Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

AERO2355 2 of 19

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION (5 POINTS) .................................................................................................. 4

2 TEAM (5 POINTS) ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN FINAL REPORT.....................................................................52.2 PLANNING (GANTT CHART OR SIMILAR) (WEEKS 9-13).........................................................5

3 MAV DESIGN ............................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 ORIGINAL DESIGN SUMMARY (10 POINTS)..............................................................................63.2 MANUFACTURING PROCESS........................................................................................................73.2.1 WING (5 POINTS).....................................................................................................................................73.2.2 FUSELAGE (5 POINTS).............................................................................................................................73.2.3 VERTICAL STABILISER AND RUDDER (5 POINTS)...............................................................................83.2.4 HORIZONTAL STABILISER AND RUDDER (5 POINTS).........................................................................83.2.5 LANDING GEAR (5 POINTS)....................................................................................................................83.2.6 ASSEMBLY (10 POINTS)..........................................................................................................................9

4 DESIGN ALTERATIONS DURING MANUFACTURING (10 POINTS) .......................... 10

5 VERIFICATION ......................................................................................................................... 10

5.1 COMPONENTS TESTS (3 POINTS).............................................................................................105.2 INTERFACE TESTS (3 POINTS).................................................................................................115.3 STRESS TESTS (3 POINTS)....................................................................................................... 115.4 GROUND TESTS (3 POINTS).....................................................................................................115.5 FLIGHT TESTS (3 POINTS)....................................................................................................... 11

6 DESIGN ALTERATIONS DURING TESTING (10 POINTS) ............................................ 12

7 FINAL DESIGN SUMMARY (10 POINTS) ........................................................................... 12

8 MAV FLIGHT PERFORMANCE (10 POINTS) .................................................................... 13

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 13

9.1 REFLECTION (5 POINTS)..........................................................................................................139.2 RECOMMENDATIONS (5 POINTS)............................................................................................ 139.3 CONCLUSIONS (5 POINTS)....................................................................................................... 14

10 TEAM MEMBERS – LESSONS LEARNED (10 POINTS) ................................................ 14

10.1 TEAM MEMBER 1....................................................................................................................1410.2 TEAM MEMBER 2....................................................................................................................15

11 REFERENCES (5 POINTS) ................................................................................................... 17

12 APPENDIX A – TEAM STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION (5 POINTS) .................... 17

AERO2355 3 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

1 Introduction (5 points)

The PDR was an introduction and a description of what the mission requirements were for the specified MAV, including important pre-manufacturing constraints and requirements in terms of function and performance, as well as time and space constraints. Indeed, it defined all the hardware materials of the MAV and conceptual designs of what the aircraft may look like during its manufacturing stage. Basically, the PDR showed the ingredients and ideal look of what the MAV will be at the offset of its development.

The CDR on the other hand was a more in-depth analysis of the MAV. In terms of the estimate take-off weight of the MAV, the wing area as well as the wing design, the design of the control systems, fuselage landing gear and also the electrical system of the MAV. Indeed, the CDR provided the recipe on how the MAV will be manufactured and built in terms of designs and specific geometric ratios which defined the size of the MAV. Throughout the CDR, it became a benchmark for how the manufacturing processes will go and how the weight of the aircraft will be distributed in terms of placement of electrical appliances and the distance of the centre of gravity of the MAV in respect to its wing aerodynamic centre.

Indeed, throughout this final report, it will provide an in-depth analysis and description on how the MAV was manufactured in terms of its original design and the overall manipulated design in terms of manufacturing. The reasoning for providing an in-depth analysis is to project the ability to change the original design in order to ease manufacturing and ensure that the major components, such as the wing and the vertical/horizontal stabilizers are manufactured at an optimal level for a required flight. Taking into consideration the problems and complexities that the manufacturing processes for the original design will provide, this final report will explain all the problems arise during manufacturing and how these problems were accounted for and whether or not the solution had any altercation on the original design that was described in the CDR.

As well as the manufacturing processes of the MAV, the assembly of all components will also be briefed and analyzed due to the use of other materials such as fiber tape, epoxy glue and super glue, which had major effects of the level of performance of the MAV. Therefore, the problems arising from assembling the individual parts of the MAV will be explained and the solutions to those problems will be provided in order to project the overall design of the MAV and what changes were needed during the manufacturing and assembly of the desired MAV.

Testing and verification is also a major step and hurdle during the manufacturing and assembly of the MAV. Therefore, the final report will give a brief description of how all components of the MAV were tested in terms of its stress capabilities, its ground and flight abilities, and also the interface between other components.

Overall, the final report is the final outcome of the MAV, giving its final form from the pre-design (PDR), to its critical design (CDR) and the effect of manufacturing and assembly which produces the overall outcome.

AERO2355 4 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

2 Team (5 points)

2.1 Roles and Responsibilities in Final Report

The design of this MAV is strongly linked on how well the tem in general work and communicate with each other. In saying that, below is the description of what responsibilities each group member have in terms of the manufacturing of the MAV, the report writing, as well as the pilot and co-pilot.

Fawez Elali – Team Leader – ensuring that all components of the report are coherent and fit the profile of the MAV

Yash Turilay – Pilot - analyze the testing of the MAV

Joe Saad – Co-pilot - describe the manufacturing and assembly processes of the MAV

Bassel Obian – Lead Manufacture –

Fletcher Thompson – Team Member 1

Khalid Al Kindi – Team Member 2

2.2 Planning (Gantt Chart or similar) (weeks 9-13)

Responsibilities

Team Leader

Pilot Co-pilot Lead Manufacturer

TM1 TM2

Final reportIntroductionTeamMAV DesignDesign Alterations in MANUDesign Alterations in AssemblyVerificationFinal Design SummaryMAV Flight PerformanceLessons Learned Collating the Final Report

AERO2355 5 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

3 MAV Design

3.1 Original Design Summary (10 points)The design chosen to manufacture and assemble was that from the concept design based off the research found followed by the calculations done. The overall plane is composed of different parts and its original design is as follows:

1. Wings: Initial design was a tapered wing set at an incident angle of 3 o. Using matlab to calculate the lifting line theory, the following key wing characteristics were found:-AR = 8- = 0.5-iw = 3o

-b = 89.443 cm-croot = 14.9 cm-ctip = 7.45 cm-MAC = 5.794 cm

2. Fuselage: It was crucial that an easy to manufacture fuselage was needed and so original design of two cut out pieces where created with the horizontal cut out being similar to a symmetrical aerofoil in a way whilst the vertical cut out was only orientated on the top half of the horizontal side. The vertical was easily put into place by allowing it to set tightly through the horizontal foam and its main purpose was to have the wings sit through it to rest on the horizon whilst the horizontal cut out was to also provide support for the tail plane, landing gear, motor and all electrical components. Its length was to be no more than 89.74cm with a diameter of approximately 0.15m.

3. Tail Plane: Conventional tail design was implemented due to its low complexity and through various calculations, the characteristics of the horizontal and vertical tail planes where calculated.

Key horizontal tail characteristics:-H = 0.80- bh = 0.38369m-ctip = 0.06369m-croot = 0.0796123m -elevator area = 0.009m2

Key vertical tail characteristics: -v = 0.85- bv = 0.0.28187m-ctip = 0.1723m-croot = 0.0.2027m -rudder area = 85cm2

However, it was later discovered that the calculations done were incorrect which led to larger than normal characteristics for the tail.

4. Landing gear: A tri-wheel landing gear was initially thought of and utilised in the design with 2 wheels being at the front whilst the third wheel was to be placed

AERO2355 6 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

at the rear end of the plane to give a configuration where the nose of the plane is pointing upwards.

5. Centre of gravity: Through various calculations, the centre of gravity was found to be 0.258m from the front of the plane which worked out to be very close to the quarter of the wing.

3.2 Manufacturing Process

3.2.1 Wing (5 points)

To manufacture these tapered wings, 3mm and 5mm foam was used to make 2 sets of the same wing. It was decided that to ease the manufacturing and assembly of the wings, that it be better to make the wings as a single piece rather than 2 in which they would be slotted through the vertical section of the fuselage. The tips and root of the wing was drawn parallel to each other spanning a certain distance from each other and were later joined to form a 2d wing in which was cut out.

3.2.1.1 Problems

Overall, this was a fairly simple manufacturing process and technique and only issue associated with this was making sure dimensions where accurate. However, this design was not stiff enough and would flap around.

3.2.1.2 Solutions

Placed some stiff and thin carbon rods along each side of the wing but didn’t provide enough lift in which a whole new design was implemented and is discussed later on.

3.2.2 Fuselage (5 points)

As stated before, the fuselage was composed of 2 parts, the horizontal and vertical cut-outs and was made from 5mm foam. The horizontal section was first created and this was done by drawing 2 points symmetrical to each other and spanning the set distance apart. The nose section of this part was to be round and so that was left to the end. The section before the rounded semi-circular nose was drawn with consideration of the radius of the nose to be taken into account in terms of the whole span length. Once that section was drawn, the nose was then included and the whole thing was cut out. In the straight section, a certain distance and width of foam was cut out to make way for the vertical section to be mounted into. The vertical tail was easier to produce as it only has to sit on top half of the horizontal cut out. The shape was drawn onto the 5mm foam but to mount into the horizontal section, the rectangular shape was extended from the bottom part of the vertical section so that its rectangular height would allow for it to pass through the cut out that was made on the horizontal section. Also, since the wings were to pass though the vertical cut out, a distance just under the wings c root was cut out so that the wing was able to fit and sit pretty tightly.

3.2.2.1 Problems

AERO2355 7 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

Overall, manufacturing for the fuselage was not too complicated as the only real challenge was cutting out the circular section properly and allocating enough room so that the vertical section would sit into the horizontal properly as well for the wing to sit into the vertical cut out. Biggest issue was that measurements and cutting precision had to be pretty precise otherwise it would have to be done again from the start plus due to a long fuselage spanning length, it was not stiff enough.

3.2.2.2 Solutions

Thick carbon rod tubes were implemented to increase the stiffness of the horizontal section to prevent in from flapping too much.

3.2.3 Vertical Stabiliser and Rudder (5 points)

Very similar manufacturing process to the wing where the whole vertical plane was cut out according to calculated results. The rudder was then cut out from the newly created vertical plane. The rudder was then mounted onto the plane via sticky tape. The bottom of the plane was extended so that it would pass through the horizontal tail plus the fuselage.

3.2.3.1 Problems

Poor and rigid deflection due to sticky tape

3.2.3.2 Solutions

Fibre tape was used as it provided a more steady deflection. Also, to help keep the rudder stable, a thin piece of steel wire was pierced through towards the edge of the rudder to the top of the vertical tail so that it’d constantly be aligned.

3.2.4 Horizontal Stabiliser and Rudder (5 points)

Exact same process as the Vertical stabiliser and rudder where in this case, different dimensions are utilised and a small rectangular cut out was made to allow for the vertical tail to pass through.

3.2.4.1 Problems

Same situation as the vertical tail

3.2.4.2 Solutions

Same fix as the vertical tail.

3.2.5 Landing Gear (5 points)

It proved too difficult to produce a stable landing gear and so to ease manufacturing, a complete set was purchased. The front 2 wheels where mounted onto a circular bent rod whilst the rear gear was mounted onto a single piece.

AERO2355 8 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

3.2.5.1 Problems

Proved fairly hard to mount on to the plane as is.

3.2.5.2 Solutions

Foam was used to create a mounting platform so that this newly created flat surface was easy to mount onto the horizontal fuselage. Pieces of foam were cut out and stuck together around the rod circular rod and in the case of the rear wheel; the rod was pierced through the foam.

3.2.6 Assembly (10 points)

Before assembly was initiated, the motor was mounted onto a piece of thin balsa wood. To allow it to be mounted onto the nose, pieces of foam were cut out and stuck to the back of the wood and then a section, the same thickness as the 5mm horizontal foam was cut out to allow the motor to be mounted.

Assembly began by assembling the fuselage by connecting the 2 components together followed by the landing in which the flat surfaces where glued and taped on to the bottom half of the horizontal cut out of the fuselage. The wing then followed as it was slotted through the empty gap created in the vertical cut-out of the fuselage. Tricky part was setting the 3o incidence angle and this was achieved by creating two pieces of foam, one for each side of the wing that would hold the wing upwards so that we would get something very close to 3o.

The tail plane was then slotted through the horizontal plane which was then placed through the fuselage and the rear end. The motor was then attached by gluing the support onto the fuselage’s nose. The motor was the connected to the 2 cell battery through connectors, which provided the motor the sufficient energy in order to spin the propeller. Indeed, the battery was the median between the control arms of the espionage and the nose of the MAV, providing sufficient room for the addition of the server’s as well as the placement of the battery itself.

The servo motors were then placed along the same height as the rod with the help of placing foam underneath. This was important as to achieve good deflection, it needed to be at a right angle with the rod connecting to the motor itself plus the rudders. Also piece that is mounted onto the rudders needed to be close to the beginning of the rudder rather than the end in order to achieve better deflection

3.2.6.1 Problems

Setting up the incidence angle for the wings but was resolved. The components weren’t sticking properly with the glue

3.2.6.2 Solutions

Had to be patient when assembling as the glue didn’t become rigid fast enough

AERO2355 9 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

4 Design Alterations during Manufacturing (10 points)

Initial design seemed good at first but due to the floppiness of the wings, the plane would not generate enough lift to take off and so, as a result, led to a few major design alterations. We decided that by increasing the surface area of the rudders and elevators, it would contribute to lift and control and so a larger vertical and horizontal tail plane was made using the same manufacturing process mentioned previously.

The landing gear being held by glue alone was not strong enough as the landing gear itself was pretty heavy and so, fibre tape was utilised to re-enforce the landing gear on the fuselage.

The implementation of new wings was the biggest alteration to the original design as a NACA dihedral wing was chosen over the tapered wing. A new wing meant a different manufacturing process which was long and complicated to make. The wing consisted of 3 parts, 2 of which are the same and go on each side of the third part, which stays the middle. The middle part is straight whilst the other 2 sides are mounted on at an angle to create something similar to a polyhedral.

First, the 2d geometry of the NACA aerofoil was created multiple times and to get the big piece of foam to form an aerofoil shape, a certain distance of each part of the wings were cut out and placed on a heating board in the shape similar to the 2d aerofoil created and a heat gun was used to mould it to that shape. Once each of the 3 components was moulded into an aerofoil shape, those little 2d aerofoils were placed on the inside of the big piece to create a stronger and stiffer aerofoil. It was crucial that these are placed equally across each of those 3 parts. The 2 side parts of the wing where then glued and fibre taped at a certain angle to the middle piece. Once the glue had dried up, the wing was then assembled as a high wing instead of the original mid wing design. The 2d aerofoil piece in the middle component of the wing lined up symmetrically to the vertical component of the fuselage and was glued and fibre taped on. In order to stabilise the wing from waving around that point, the same concept to the fix the angle of incidence was used but in this case, it was used to provide the necessary structural support for the wing.

5 Verification

5.1 Components tests (3 points)

The main components to be tested were the elevators, rudder, and throttle, as well as the battery, servos, transmitter, receiver and propeller/motor. We visually inspected if all the components looked fine to operate. The tail plane controls and motor/propeller were tested when it was plugged in to the receiver. We found out that our plane was

AERO2355 10 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

moving backwards due to reverse wiring, as well as the leading edge of the propeller being put on backwards. Servos were tested before putting onto the fuselage, as we didn’t want to go into the trouble of removing it if it wasn’t functioning properly. Battery tests were conducted using the volt meter, ensuring that we only used it when it was near 100% charged, and we didn’t go under the threshold voltage.

5.2 Interface tests (3 points)

The most common problem we faced when we had built our MAV was that the sub-systems and components such as the rudder and elevators etc, wasn’t functioning properly with the rest of the MAV. We had to completely re design the tail plane, as once it was plug into the receiver, we could not get a lot of deflection due to the short servo arms. This was not detectable earlier due to it had to be plugged in and we had to move the joysticks on the remote to clearly see what was the issue. We rectified the issue, by cutting 45deg slits into the tail plane, as well as increased the lever arm of the servo to get a bigger moment arm, as well as extending the push rods.

5.3 Stress tests (3 points)

We performed various stress tests on the wings and fuselage of the plane.We performed a HOT stress test on the wings with a heat gun. Also general stress tests were performed with our prototype before the actual flight test. We conducted it by throwing the plane around in an enclosed environment to see if the fuselage would break from several different heights and also altered the speed of the impacts. We also tried to bend the wings to its max potential before we could tell it was going to snap and shatter. We conducted several different take offs and purposely stall it to see if there was a difference in the fuselage crash landing in different positions.

5.4 Ground tests (3 points)

Ground testing would probably have to be one of the easiest tests to conduct. We tried to taxi our prototype on the netball court surface to see if there was any noticeable difference and/or hardship in controlling our MAV. This test was very easy as it didn’t waste our resources and we didn’t have to build new parts if it wasn’t taxi-ing properly, only slightly adjust it, till it reaches its potential. We found out that, the landing gear adjustment was the hardest to reach right, in terms of allowing the MAV to taxi perfectly in a straight line. Balance of the MAV in the longitudinal axis, played a big role in getting it perfectly right.

5.5 Flight tests (3 points)

Flight-testing pretty much requires the individual to successfully fly and navigate their MAV in an enclosed environment. First we started off with a less hazardous test, which included just seeing if it glided properly from one person to another. Next we tried it with the elevator deflected and the throttle on 50%. Then finally we tried from the ground, if it passed the other 2 mini tests. The reason why we don’t jump straight into flying it, is because we wanted to make sure that the CG was in place and the throttle and tail plane was functioning well in order to successfully fly the MAV. (Less chance of a crash landing)

AERO2355 11 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

6 Design Alterations during Testing (10 points)

The newly redesigned MAV with the NACA aerofoil wings proved to be much better than the original design as it was generating lift but due to a drastic change in the design would take off for a very short amount of time before coming back down. This was due to the centre of gravity being way off with respect to the aerodynamic cord length. So we decided that more alterations were needed for take-off.

It was important that the MAV’s mass should be decreased as the plane itself was unnecessarily big and heavy so we decided to decrease the whole size of the plane. This was achieved by first decreasing the size of the fuselage so that it would decrease the amount it would flop around and then everything else was made in accordance with the size reduced. The wing design was also changed slightly as instead of using 3 fairly large components, the middle part was removed and the 2 remaining parts formed a dihedral high-wing. The edges were glued and fibre taped to the top of the vertical fuselage whilst pieces of foam were utilised to keep the wing at a set angle whilst also providing support.

Although it still had some centre of gravity issues, 10cent coins were utilised to help bring it closer to the wing aerodynamic chord. This was our final design of the MAV.

7 Final Design Summary (10 points)

This table below provides a final design summary of the MAV for group 20 with all sufficient data and flight performance provided:

7.1.1 Wing specifications:Wing area: .084m^2 Wing type: NACA 4115, 5’’ (120mm) chordWing configuration: Polyhedral angle First Dihedral Angle: -Wing span: 700mm Second Dihedral Angle: -Mean aerodynamic chord: 120mm

7.1.2 Wing design parameters: Aspect ratio: 8 Wing setting angle: 3 degreesTaper ratio: 0.5 Initial Angle of attack: 4 degrees

7.1.2.1 Ailerons 7.1.2.2 FlapsSpan ….Chord …..

7.1.2.3 Winglets

7.1.3 Tail Specifications:

7.1.3.1 Horizontal tail 7.1.3.2 ElevatorSpan: 200mm Span: 180mm

AERO2355 12 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

Chord: 120mm Chord: 50mm

7.1.3.3 Vertical tail 7.1.3.4 Rudder (Trapezoidal Shape):Taper ratio: 0.85 Height: 136mmHeight: 140mm Root chord: 50mmMean aerodynamic chord: 100mm Tip chord: 70mmRoot chord: 202.7mm Root Taper Angle (from horizontal): -Tip chord: 172.3mm

7.1.4 Fuselage DimensionsHeight: 150mm Length: 600mmWidth: 150mm

7.1.5 Weight and Weight distributionMass 120gramsLocation of CoG .258m from nose of

MAV

7.1.6 MAV flight performance

70/110

8 MAV Flight Performance (10 points)

Indeed, calling the MAV flight performance a success would be an over statement. The true problem at the flight testing was the pilot’s ability to control and practice with the MAV during its final production. This had caused many accidents and damage prior to the flight test itself. Even though the MAV had the ability to take-off, once the damages were solved, too much lift was affected and the addition of weight did not help in the process. Therefore, during the flight testing of the MAV, the landing gear had to make way in order to reduce the weight and a self-reliable take-off was not present due to the absence of the landing gear. Hence, a team member threw the MAV as it circled the arena and, even though stalling, performing a safe landing and ensuring that the MAV had some sort of a flight pattern and control from the pilot.

Overall, the MAV had scored a flight performance magnitude of 70/110 with many lessons learned, ensuring that if this MAV was to be re-designed, all parameters will be dealt with accordingly and ensuring that a safe flight with substantial wind resistance and speed is possible and reliable.

9 Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1 Recommendations (5 points)

Simple design approach. Light weight aircraft. Putting emphasis on the endurance factor. Start the building the plane early. Finding out the CG (Centre of Gravity) before putting the parts together.

AERO2355 13 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

Before the assembly process, make sure all the steps and parts are correct. Landing gear construction is essential. Avoid using too much tape that can mess up the aircraft patterns. Having enough time to test the airplane is necessary. The more flight testing, the better the plane gets. Ailerons may not be used, as they are difficult to control MAV. Control surfaces should have better finishing. Electrical system must be put along with the assembly. Fixing any issues once they emerge, do not wait till the end. Group working and contribution is vital in ending up with a good design.

9.2 Conclusions (5 points)

According to what has been required by Bourmistrov ( 2015), the report aims to bring aerospace engineering students together to simulate a real-life collaborative engineering project by designing a successful MAV (Micro Aerial Vehicle). MAV’s have become a very powerful tool the aerospace industry for experimental aircrafts used to observe the flight characteristics and behaviour of small-scale models. From PDR point of view, this report clearly outlines the vision of Group 20’s MAV as well as a detailed analysis of other design elements such as; team allegations, project aim, concept sketches, risk management, to name a few. However, for the CDR, the group explained and calculated some of the vital aspects for a successful flight experience such as wing configuration, propulsion system, electrical system and many more. We had to make the plane aerodynamically steady and stable when flying had to be investigated to get it work and practicing to fly the MAV in the assigned area. In general, we may have missed some points in the designing which was the reason for our plane did not fly well, but we learnt lessons for the future.

10 Team Members – Lessons Learned (10 points)Many lessons were learnt whilst participating in the DBF project. Firstly, it was very important to get a start early, not only with building the MAV, but to finish of the PDR as early as we could. It was also important to spend a lot of time, on our main design in the PDR, as this essentially determines if your plane is going to be successful in 1-2 attempts or 10-12 attempts. Main lesson learnt was to keep ideas as simple as you can. There was no need to produce an aesthetically pleasing MAV, all it had to do was fly and successfully complete the course. There were many mistakes that I learnt from in terms of building the main fuselage and the wing. As well as not making the tail too heavy.

Wing:- Make at least 2 wings to compare the differences (airfoil + dihedral)- Do not glue components in straight away.- Reinforce the wings so they don’t buckle under pressure.- Do not make a massive wing – waste of excess material, and makes it too heavy- Aircraft flew better with 2 panels instead of 3

Fuselage:- Keep the fuselage as simple as you can. Either a T or an V shape would have

been sufficient. - Multiple layers of foam were not needed.

AERO2355 14 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

- Needed to increase the angle of attack of the wings, but it was too late as we had cut out too much already.

- Determine where the rest of the components are going to sit, before you glue them in place. Such the battery, motor, servos etc.

Tail:- We didn’t need a massive tail plane to control the plane; a small rudder/elevator

would have been plenty. (+ Would’ve minimized the weight at the back)- Did not need to make the tail plane out of 5mm depron foam as this made it too

tail heavy. - Our first design didn’t take into account the interference between the elevator

and rudder. (When the elevator is deflected up, the rudder could not move side to side)

- Effectively finding the CG was essentially to fly successfully.

Overall, this project was quite easy to conduct, and a lot of time and effort went into building the perfect MAV, even though we went through many setbacks. The simplicity design in the end allowed us to successfully fly the MAV without any major issues.Upon the entire project, I truly feel, we needed to start a lot earlier in terms of building the MAV, since majority of the work was left to do in weeks 9-12.

10.1 Team member 1

Overall, this design build fly project was a very educational and interesting experience as it allowed a small group of 5-6 students to construct a MAV with the materials and electronics provided to us. Although it was very interesting for the most part, we had faced heaps of problems with the biggest one being that our plane wasn’t taking off properly. When this problem first arose, it was annoying but it was a challenge that we endured and solved, slightly. It came to the final flight test and it still had taking off issues but decided to remove the heaviest part being the landing gear, and doing so gave us the opportunity to fly the MAV until we realized that the controls were fairly bad. Overall, if we hadn’t bought a landing gear set, but instead made one from scratch, we probably would have avoided this take off issue much earlier which would of allowed us to actually test our plane in the air. It would have been a lot better if we didn’t spend so much time on the original design due to the fact that we were building it with the expectation that it will fly but it didn’t and so, if we built it as if it were a prototype, we could have allocated much more time to tend to other future situations that we would of encountered.

10.2 Team member 2

System engineering main role in this course was to put the MAV project on a real and steady guideline. It has put, in addition, the emphasis into perspective of the value thought about PDR and CDR. The broken parts of the report has further eased out the process of designing a valid aircraft along with the given feedback after each submission. Hence, we got to think deeply in any problems raised and solve it, so we further improve the final MAV within specified time. Not to forget the value we have gained, this project put both basics and advanced perspective of the system engineering process. Although the group couldn’t get the airplane to fly off as required, we had enough information with both experience and feedback learned from the project, complimenting each other in a way to help us gaining a better and real industry

AERO2355 15 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

understanding and managing project. If we had discovered the errors (that made our plane NOT flying as it should be) earlier, we could have saved ourselves both time to test the aircraft and expenses of material. Lastly, watching other groups completing the entire process rightfully and smoothly did not let us down, but rather making sure we learn from such designs for future project.

Tips for Future Designs

- Cutting the parts in a nice and straight manner.- Correctly moulding the wings and allowing the right time to let it set. (As per the

aerofoil selected)- Correctly balancing the aircraft, even a little bit of weight distribution will

matter.- Ensuring the carbon rod is placed in the right place in order to operate the tail

plane and ailerons. - Getting all the internal wirings correct – connecting all the right components to

the receiver and hence ensuring it follows radio controls.- Mounting all the internal components to the fuselage.- Ensuring that the hinges allow full moveability of turning components.- Calibrating the aircraft for a perfect flight.- Reducing plane weight so that less thrust and lift needed to achieve better flying.- Keeping the aircraft as simple as possible.- Building the aircraft as soon as possible, so more time to prepare and testing.

AERO2355 16 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

11 References (5 points)

Bourmistrov, A 2015, Project Brief.Excell, J 2013, 'The rise of micro air vehicle ', <http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-rise-of-the-micro-air-vehicle/1016519.article>.

12 Appendix A – Team Statement of Contribution (5 points)

Team Member OneName: Fawez ElaliEstimate of Contribution of Report (0-100%): 20%Signature:

Signatures of Other Team Members:

Team Member TwoName: Joe SaadEstimate of Contribution of Report (0-100%): 20%Signature:


AERO2355 17 of 19

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-rise-of-the-micro-air-vehicle/1016519.article%3E

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-rise-of-the-micro-air-vehicle/1016519.article%3E


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

Team Member ThreeName: Yash TurilayEstimate of Contribution of Report (0-100%): 20%Signature:


Team Member FourName: Bassel ObianEstimate of Contribution of Report (0-100%): 20%Signature:


Team Member FourName: Khalid AlKindiEstimate of Contribution of Report (0-100%): 20%Signature:


AERO2355 18 of 19


Version: 1.0

Date: 05-11-2015

Team Member FourName: Fletcher ThomsponEstimate of Contribution of Report (0-100%): 0% (no contribution).Signature:


AERO2355 19 of 19

Documents

AERO2355 FINAL - Report Group 20