ME 423 / ME 424 ENGINEERING DESIGN VII & VIII

MICRO AIR VEHICLE: MICROSTEVENS-2008

A COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN REPORT

TEAM 5: MICKALENE BILTZ JARED JUDD ERIC LEMONGELLO JOHN VERDONIK MARCIN WOJTOWICZ

ADVISOR: E. H. YANG

FIELD ADVISOR: SIVA THANGAM

STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CASTLE POINT ON HUDSON

HOBOKEN, NJ 07030

MAY 1, 2008

i

Executive Summary The main objective of the Micro Air Vehicle project was to design, build and fly a modular, radio-controlled aircraft that was capable of carrying the highest payload fraction while it pursued the lowest empty weight possible. In addition, the vehicle was developed to meet packaging constraints and to be field assembled quickly. In order to accomplish this task, the following students formed a team and established a set of requirements by which completion of the project would adhere: Mickalene Biltz, Jared Judd, Eric Lemongello, John Verdonik and Marcin Wojtowicz.

The requirements chosen by the team matched those set forth by the SAE Aero Design Competition held in Marietta, Georgia in April 2008. The team had planned on competing in the Micro Class Competition, but due to a few last minute difficulties and illness of team members, the team was unable to attend the competition. The designs, calculation and analyses contained within this document; however, support the SAE requirements for the Micro Class. In addition, the included information is laid out in a way that demonstrates the processes and steps taken to complete the vehicle, from start to finish.

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... i

1.0 SAE 2008 Aero Design Competition .............................................................................................. 4

2.0 Project Management ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Project Schedule and Tasks ........................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Project Cost ................................................................................................................................. 5

3.0 Project Research .............................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Impact and Significance .............................................................................................................. 6

3.3 State-of-the-Art Review .............................................................................................................. 6

4.0 Design Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Conceptual Design Generation ................................................................................................... 7

4.2 Conceptual Design Screening and Selection .............................................................................. 9

4.3 Aerodynamic Analysis and Design ............................................................................................. 9

4.3.1 Initial Aerodynamic Analysis and Airfoil Selection ............................................................... 9

4.3.2 Final Aerodynamic Analysis................................................................................................. 11

4.4 Structural Analysis and Design ................................................................................................. 11

4.4.1 Wing Design ......................................................................................................................... 11

4.4.2 Tail Design ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.4.3 Superpatch Design ................................................................................................................ 15

4.4.4 Landing Gear Design ............................................................................................................ 16

5.0 Component Selection .................................................................................................................... 16

5.1 Motor/Propellers ....................................................................................................................... 16

5.2 Battery ....................................................................................................................................... 18

5.3 Controller/Receiver/Servos ....................................................................................................... 19

6.0 Design Summary ........................................................................................................................... 19

7.0 Performance .................................................................................................................................. 20

7.1 Payload Prediction .................................................................................................................... 20

7.2 Predicted Flight Performance ................................................................................................... 21

8.0 Stability ......................................................................................................................................... 22

9.0 Fabrication .................................................................................................................................... 23

9.1 Assembly Process ..................................................................................................................... 23

9.2 Construction .............................................................................................................................. 24

10.0 Testing........................................................................................................................................... 24

10.1 Test Set-Up ............................................................................................................................... 24

iii

10.2 Flight Results ............................................................................................................................ 25

10.3 Design Changes and Improvements.......................................................................................... 25

11.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 26

11.1 Final Design Specifications and Summary ............................................................................... 26

11.2 Future Considerations and Military Applications ..................................................................... 27

11.3 Senior Design Recommendations ............................................................................................. 27

12.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 29

13.0 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 30

4

1.0 SAE 2008 Aero Design Competition Each year, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) sponsors three (3) separate Aero Design competitions in Northern America. The Aero Design competition was created to provide engineering students with the opportunity to perform real-life engineering concepts. The competition spans a variety of engineering techniques and disciplines by requiring student teams to manage, conceive, model, create, fly and formally present their work.

There are three (3) main classifications of competition in which student teams may compete: Regular, Open and Micro. The team chose to base their design on the requirements for the Micro Class. The Micro Class competition requires student teams to design, build and fly an aircraft that is capable of carrying the highest payload fraction while pursuing the lowest empty weight possible. The Micro Class competition also required that the student teams design and construct a carrying for the aircraft, limiting the size of the vehicle. The competition also required the student teams to demonstrate the ease of aircraft assembly.

The 2008 Aero Design Requirements are available through the SAE website at the following address: http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/rules/rules.pdf. Equation 1: Flight Score Equation was given in the Requirements and dictated the weight parameters of the aircraft to be designed and built:

Equation 1: Flight Score Equation

From this equation, the weight restriction of the aircraft was determined to be ten (10) pounds or less.

Also included in the competition guidelines were the following parameters:

Also given in the Requirements, were the dimensions of the carrying case and the requirements for demonstration of field assembly. The carrying case was to have inner dimensions of 36 inches by 60 inches by 8 inches and must be capable of being carried by one person. The ability of the vehicle to be easily assembled was to be demonstrated by two (2) people within three (3) minutes.

2.0 Project Management

2.1 Project Schedule and Tasks After reading and understanding the requirements set forth for the project, the team developed a project management plan for the Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 semesters. The Fall 2007 semester encompassed the

Design No lighter-than-air or rotary wing aircraft Payload cannot contribute to the structural integrity of aircraft Payload must be fully enclosed Takeoff Time: 3 minutes Distance: 100 feet (30 meters) Landing Time: Unlimited Distance: 200 feet (61 meters) – Land in same direction as takeoff Cruise Must successfully complete a 360° circuit of the field

Flight Score = (10 – EW) * PF * 13 Where: EW = Empty Weight, PF = Payload Fraction = Payload Weight / Total Weight

5

first three phases of the project. The first phase of the project was to conduct research and obtain background information relating to the project topic, including information on micro air vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles and radio-controlled aircraft. It also included the development of several concept designs and the selection of one to modify. Phase two focused on performing technical analyses of the selected concept design. In phase three, the team focused on the structural aspects of the selected design. Special attention was given to designing the wing, tail and landing gear as these are the integral parts of the vehicle.

The Spring 2008 semester concentrated on the remaining three phases. In phase four, the team concentrated on refining and revising the ‘final’ design. This phase also allowed the team to look at prototyping and to try different construction and assembly methods for the various parts of the vehicle. In phase five, the team shifted focus to the actual construction of the vehicle and began flight testing. In phase six, the team continued to focus on testing the vehicle and focused on improving the design for further testing and for further research by other senior design teams.

In order to maintain a schedule and to achieve completion of the various tasks, a Project Management Plan and Gantt chart, including a Work Breakdown Structure was developed for each semester. Theses schedules are found in Appendix A: Project Management Plans.

2.2 Project Cost Throughout the various phases of the project, budgets were constructed, updated and presented. The team ordered parts through the following vendors: A Main Hobbies (www.amainhobbies.com), Dragonfly Innovations, Inc. (www.rctoys.com), Hobby Lobby (www.hobbylobby.com), 3D Hobby Shop (www.3dhobbyshop.com), Archery Warehouse (www.archerywarehouse.com), National Balsa Co. (www.nationalbalsa.com) as well as several hobby shops. The total project increases since the phase four submission due to unexpected incidents and miscalculation of the amount of Litespan needed to cover the wings. Due to a couple accidents in the laboratory, a new receiver, a new motor controller and a new 7.4 Volt battery needed to be purchased again. These purchases increase the project cost and also caused a slight delay in the construction of the plane. The total project cost was calculated to be $1347.89, shipping and handling prices included. A total breakdown of the project cost can be seen in Appendix B: Project Cost.

3.0 Project Research

3.1 Background The Micro Air Vehicle competition focused on designing a radio-controlled aircraft, such as a small plane or small, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The first use of an UAV was on August 22, 1849 when Venice, Italy was attacked by Austria. Austria’s UAV design consisted of five (5) balloons containing explosives. The UAV was released from an Austrian ship and relied on the wind to carry the vehicle over Italian lines, where it exploded.1

The first remote-controlled plane was built by Dr. William E. Good and his twin brother in May 1937. Recreational remote controlled planes and modern UAVs have changed drastically since 19372 and have resulted in thousands being sold. There are currently several different variations of remote-controlled, model planes and UAVs on the market. Design variations for aircrafts include jets, propellers, helicopters and blimps.

1 “History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History _of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles> 2 “Beginning of RC.” <http://jimsrc.com/good-information.html>

6

Remote-controlled vehicles and UAVs have found there way not only into the commercial industry, but into the military as well. One specific UAV of interest is the Raven by AeroVironment. The Raven is a battery powered mini UAV with a wingspan of 4.3 feet, a length of 3.4 feet, a weight of 4.0 pounds and a payload of 2.0 pounds. It has the ability to carry a higher payload to weight ratio than that of any other UAV available today, making it a commodity within the United States Military.3

3.2 Impact and Significance UAVs are a relatively recent development in the aviation industry. This can be attributed to the fact that they require sophisticated components to be feasible and effective. Rapid advancements in material sciences and electronics have aided the development of UAVs and have encouraged their introduction into the military, government and other related organizations. The military currently has a need for UAVs to assist in reconnaissance missions, since UAVs are virtually undetectable by radars. UAVs are also needed by the military for search and rescue missions. UAVs are generally required to have some type of adaptable payload bay to hold video equipment, transmitting equipment and/or digital cameras. Border patrol and search and rescue teams also have a strong need for UAVs for many of the same reasons as the military. UAVs have the potential to protect and save lives by preventing humans from entering dangerous areas and locations. It is evident that a considerable market exists for these vehicles, and, as they become more affordable, their variety of uses should increase, allowing the number of industries served to expand.

3.3 State-of-the-Art Review45 UAVs are aircrafts that are capable of operation without an onboard pilot. Instead, the UAV is either self-piloted or remotely-piloted from a distance. UAVs can be large as a commercial airplane or be small enough to fit into a backpack. Today, the military has a target size of six (6) inches for all UAVs. The United States Department of Defense (DoD) primarily started using UAVs around the early 1950s for surveillance purposes. After successful demonstration of the UAV, scientists envisioned them as a suitable platform to conduct experimental observations. The functionality of UAVs was combined with the excellent electrical performance of the ultra wideband (UWB) technology. UAVs were eventually used for more than just military operations and missions. UAVs have the ability to carry cameras, sensors and communication equipment as well as other payloads, which has the potential to provide a complete solution for remote field observations.

UAVs are generally classified according to their covered range. The DoD uses three (3) classifications: close, short and endurance. Close range refers to aircrafts flying in the range of 50 km or less, short range includes aircrafts flying from 50 km to 200 km while endurance aircrafts can fly beyond 200 km.

Several factors have combined to enable the UAV to become a crucial surveillance/reconnaissance asset. They include:

The use of light weight graphite composites that enable modern UAVs to carry more than double their empty weight in payload and fuel. This translates into tremendous increases in performance without the requirements to increase thrust or horsepower.

The breakthrough in the charge-couple device (CCD) technology that allows video cameras weighing only a few pounds to replace the ponderous heavy surveillance camera systems and provide very high resolution video at a fraction of the payload weight.

3 “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030, US Government, 2005.”

<http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/uav_roadmap2005.pdf> 4 “Aeronautical Systems: Endurance UAVs Will Revolutionize Combat.” Global Defense.com.

<http://www.global-defense.com/1997/AeronauticalSystems.html> 5 Tubbs, Ryan. “Hardware Modeling and Machining for UAV-Based Wideband Radar.”

<http://nia.ecsu.edu/ureoms2007/teams/ku1/tubbs_ku_meridian.pdf>

Sn

Tlih

The fourt

General Athese lorevolutiocapable a

4.0 Des

4.1 CoFocusingcategory,basic desand a flythree dimfor each

The singconsistinof this delarge paytake-off a

Figure 1

The bi wadded anlight weihigh lift.included

mall, compavigation an

The ability toinks come inorizon via sa

th bullet poi

Atomics Aeng-dwelling

onized thinkiand versatile

sign Analy

onceptual g on the requ, and the addsigns that thying wing plmensional apdesign.

gle wing deng of a large esign were tyload to weiand landing

: Single Wi

wing conceptn extra wing ght, had sho. The neutraits ability to

pact, inertialnd pinpoint ro transfer then small packaatellite.

nt is arguabl

eronautical Sg UAVs. Ting on the ue UAVs are u

ysis

Design Geuirements anded goal of

he final aircrane (both be

pproximation

esign concepwing and a sthat is wouldight ration, hdistance, du

ing Concept

t (Figure 2: designed to

ort take-off aal points weo produce hig

l guidance real-time targe very high dages and allo

ly the most c

Systems (GAThe companuse of UAVsuseful in a b

enerationnd objectives

creating an raft design cent and fixedn using Soli

pt (Figure small tail secd have a lowhave high lifurability and

t Designs

Bi Wing Coo produce adand landing dere its cost, gh drag and

and globalgeting capabdata rates thow full-moti

critical of th

A-ASI) has bny’s GNAT s and set theroad range o

s laid out in aircraft with

could be cread). For eachdWorks and

1: Single Wction set at a

w cost, it woft and fairlyease of asse

oncept Desigdditional liftdistances, ha

its turning its difficult

l-positioningbility. hrough modeion video to

e above tech

been at the 750 and

e standard fof surveillan

the 2008 Aeh a high lift ated from: a

h of these ded created a l

Wing Concea large distanould be lighty low drag. Tembly of the

gns) was sim. The advantad a high pay

stability anassembly.

g systems t

ern high-banbe passed in

hnological ad

forefront in Predator u

for future UAce and recon

ero Design Rvalue, the t

a single wingsign concep

list of advan

ept Designs)nce behind tht weight, havThe neutral paircraft.

milar to the stages of thisyload to weind its durab

that allow v

dwidth data n real time e

dvancements

developing unmanned aAV developnnaissance a

Rules for theeam developg plane, a b

pts, the team ntages and d

) was a simhe wing. Thve stable turpoints were

single wing s design weright ration, aility. The d

7

very precise

links. Theseeven over the

s for UAVs.

and fieldingaircraft havepment. Theseapplications.

e micro-clasped three (3i-wing planedeveloped a

disadvantage

mple designe advantagerning, have athe design’

concept, bure that it waand produceddisadvantage

7

e

e e

g e e

s ) e a s

n, s a s

ut s d s

8

Figure 2: Bi Wing Concept Designs

The flying wing concept was the more high risk model that had the potential of resulting in the ability to provide significant lift. Two flying wing concepts were created by the team: bent (Figure 3: Bent Flying Wing Concept Designs) and fixed (Figure 4: Fixed Flying Wing Concept Designs). The advantages of the bent flying wing concept included its high stability, low drag, high lift, low weight and easy assembly. The disadvantages were that it was an unproven design, had no set location for a payload area and was unstable in the longitudinal direction. The advantages for the fixed flying wing included high stability, low drag, high lift and easy assembly. The disadvantages were that is was unstable in high winds and had tail stabilizers that were less maneuverable.

Figure 3: Bent Flying Wing Concept Designs

Figure 4: Fixed Flying Wing Concept Designs

9

4.2 Conceptual Design Screening and Selection After developing the various conceptual designs and determining the advantages and disadvantages, the team prepared a Concept Screening Matrix (Table 1: Concept Screening Matrix) comparing the conceptual designs to each other. The Concept Screening Matrix ranked the concepts and provided the team with the best choice for their basic design: a single wing plane. From the matrix, it was determined that the single wing plane design would be the safest design, allowing the team to meet all requirements set forth in the 2008 Aero Design Rules. Using the single wing plane design as a base, the team chose to modify the design, creating a single wing – flying wing combination design, with an extended wingspan and a long, narrow tail. The team believes that this design has the potential to be a superior aircraft.

Table 1: Concept Screening Matrix

Concepts A B C D Selection Criteria Bi-Wing Single Wing Bent Flying Wing Flying Wing Weight* 0 0 0 0 Cost 0 0 0 0 Take-off/Landing + 0 - - Turning 0 + - - Durability** 0 0 0 0 Stability 0 + - - Construction 0 0 0 0 Field Assembly - - - + Lift + + + + Drag - + + + Payload to Weight Ratio 0 0 0 0 Sum + 2 4 2 3 Sum 0 7 6 5 5 Sum - 2 1 4 3 Net Score 0 3 -2 0 Rank 2 1 3 2 * Due to construction and selection of materials ** Due to construction, not the concept

4.3 Aerodynamic Analysis and Design

4.3.1 Initial Aerodynamic Analysis and Airfoil Selection After selecting a design for the team's aircraft, an initial aerodynamic analysis was done to determine the effects of drag on the vehicle and to choose the best airfoil. In order to select the airfoil, however, several assumptions were made to complete the initial calculations. Table 2: Initial Design Parameters and Table 3: Initial Assumptions present the initial assumptions and parameters used for calculations and airfoil selection. See Appendix C: Initial Aerodynamic Calculations.

10

Table 2: Initial Design Parameters

Initial Design Parameters Propeller 11" x 4" Engine Speed 11,000 rpm Empty Weight 3 lb. Full Weight 12 lbs. Wing Length 48" Take-Off Distance 100 ft. Landing Distance 200 ft. Altitude 1200 ft.

Table 3: Initial Assumptions

Initial Assumptions Propeller Efficiency 80% Flap Area 40% of total wing area Flap Length 40% of chord Oswald Efficiency 0.80 Wing Height from Ground 7" CL@2° (Cruising) 1.54 CL@4° (Take Off, Flaps 15°) 2.818

Once these initial assumptions were determined, the team focused on selecting the airfoil that would help the aircraft to achieve high lift and low drag. The team selected an Eppler 423 airfoil based on research of model airplane airfoils and a performed analysis using JavaFoil. JavaFoil is a relatively simple program that allows users to perform "traditional" analyses on airfoils, focusing mainly on potential flow analysis and boundary layer flow analysis. The values from the above tables were plugged into the JavaFoil applet and the lift and drag coefficients were outputted, as well as a chart of the pressure distribution. This program also displayed the drag polar and the lift coefficient versus the angle of attack (Figure 5: Lift Coefficient).

An Eppler 423 airfoil (Figure 6: Eppler 423 Airfoil Pressure Distribution) was selected for its high lift coefficient and increase in the surface area of the wing. By increasing the surface area, more lift can be generated during flight, which is needed to carry loads greater than the empty weight of the plane.

Figure 5: Lift Coefficient

11

Figure 6: Eppler 423 Airfoil Pressure Distribution

4.3.2 Final Aerodynamic Analysis Once the airfoil was selected, and the majority of the structural design was in development, the team performed a detailed aerodynamic analysis of the entire structure, including the effect that the enclosed payload had on the drag. Appendix D: Aerodynamic Calculations contains the Excel spreadsheet used to perform this analysis.

4.4 Structural Analysis and Design

4.4.1 Wing Design A crucial part of the plane design was the wing design (Figure 7: Wing Design). The wing design for the team's single-wing plane concept highly resembles that of a flying wing. The structure is made from carbon fiber arrows, which are relatively inexpensive, easily obtained, extremely lightweight and very strong. The strength of the carbon fiber arrows is approximately double that of aluminum with about half the density (arrow’s density is 1550 kg/m3)6. These arrows act as the backbone structure for the ribbing design of the wingspan. The ribbing structure of the wing is made out of 3/32 inch balsa wood. Balsa wood was chosen because it is inexpensive, light weight and for its ease of manufacturability, as many individual ribs are needed for the wingspan. The original wing design called for the ribs to be spaced at intervals of one (1) inch. However, after the team had the opportunity to experiment with the monocoat used to cover the wings, it was determined that a larger interval could be used. Therefore, the design was changed to place the ribs at intervals of four (4) inches. (Figure 8: Rib Spacing)

6 “Metal or Alloy Density Measurements”. <www.simetric.co.uk/si_metals.htm>

12

Figure 7: Wing Design

Figure 8: Rib Spacing

In order to connect the arrow shafts together to create the long wingspan, aluminum pins will be used. Composite materials were not able to be used for this specific part because the size needed is not readily available and would be costly to the team to have it custom made. Aluminum was chosen as an alternative for the pins because it is easily machined, strong and relatively lightweight. Fletching glue was used to secure the arrow shafts together.

The wing design also called for a five degree (5°) bend at the thirds of the wing. This required the aluminum pins to be bent at five degree (5°) angles. The bend in the design provided the aircraft with greater stability in both windy and non-windy conditions and was expected to result in a straighter flying pattern by the aircraft. Also, at this bent location, the end of the wings was removable, to ensure that the requirement that the aircraft must fit in a carrying case of a certain dimension is met.

Analyses were done using SolidWorks on the wing design framework. Figure 9: Maximum Displacement, shows the maximum displacement when a uniform load of 16.5 pounds is applied to the wing to be 2.06 inches, which was determined to be acceptable by the team.

13

Figure 9: Maximum Wing Displacement

4.4.2 Tail Design In order to develop a stable tail design (Figure 10: Tail Design), the team focused on the outcomes from previous teams' flights, in which tail instability was a partial attributor to failed attempts at weight reduction. This was commonly done by using a single rod that extended from the back of the fuselage to the empennage. This rod was unable to provide enough resistance to sudden changes in torque created by the empennage. To rectify this problem, the team focused on the materials and structure of the tail.

Carbon fiber arrows were once again chosen for the material for the tail for the same reasons they were selected for the wing design. The team’s original design called for a tapered truss that tapered from longitudinal arrows four (4) to two (2) inches apart, toward the empennage to provide extra reinforcement at the tail/fuselage interface. After performing a finite element analysis using CosmosWorks, this type of design was determined to go beyond the rigidity needed and was considered to be too complex to construct.

Another design considered by the team was a truss that used four (4) arrow shafts glued together in a diamond pattern, creating a reinforced rod. This design was also considered to be too complex and that a simpler version would work just as well. Therefore, the team decided upon a straight triangular truss. This design placed three (3) longitudinal carbon arrows shafts 1.5 inches apart from each other.

To reduce weight further, a V-tail design was adopted for the aircraft. The design allowed for the use of two (2) servos, since the pitch and yaw would be controlled by two (2) surfaces. This was done instead of using three (3) servos, two (2) for the stabilizers and one (1) for the rudder. It would have been possible to not use a rudder servo, making the rudder immovable, and to keep the stabilizer servos, but the team opted to use the two (2) servo approach for better control of the aircraft's yaw. The angle between the V-tail was chosen to be 110 degrees (110°). This angle resulted in an approximate 2:1 ratio of horizontal surface area to vertical surface area, making it a good copy of the traditional rudder/elevator setup.7

7 V-Tail Forums. Hobby-Lobby International. RC Groups.com. <www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57768>

Figure 1

Figure 4Analysesis the comshafts togAnalysisFactor ofapplied obe applie

Figure 1

Figure 1

0: Tail Desi

4 – Tail Desis of the trianmponent to gether to for) showed thef Safety, shoon each arm.ed to this pie

1: Triangul

2: Tail Brac

ign

ign ngular truss d

which the Vrm the triane maximum ows the fact. This indica

ece.

lar Truss A

ce Factor of

design and oV-tail planesngular truss.

von Mises tor of safetyates that the

nalysis

f Safety

of the V-tails and servosA stress an

stress of they to be appro

piece will b

design weres are attachenalysis of thee truss to be oximately 2

be able to wi

e done in Soed. It also coe truss (Figu2.08e7 N/m6 when a loithstand the

olidWorks. Tonnected theure 11: Trian

m2. Figure 12oad of two (expected for

14

The tail bracee three arrowngular Trus2: Tail Brace2) pounds irces that wil

4

e w s e s ll

4.4.3 SThe "supattached.forces. Aand its reto the sustructure integrity to help re

Figure 1

Analysesdeflectionload. Figtwo (2) c

Figure 1

Superpatchperpatch" (F For this re

A poly-carboeasonable struperpatch we

aerodynamiof the plane

educed the d

3: Superpa

s were once n of the cen

gure 15: Supecentimeters (

4:Superpat

h Design Figure 13: Season, it waonate plasticrength to weere made ouic. The payle. The paylodrag.

tch

again perfonter of the serpatch Disp(in a twisting

tch Deflectio

Superpatch)s critical tha was choseneight ratio. Iut of 3/32 inload was attoad bay was

ormed usingsuperpatch toplacement shg motion) wh

on

was the paat this part n because oft was also e

nch balsa woached to thedesigned to

g SolidWorko be approxhows the disphen 2 ten-po

art of the aibe able to wf its light wasily machinood and were superpatcho be enclosed

ks. Figure 14ximately sevplacement o

ound loads w

ircraft to wwithstand seeight (muchned by the tere put into p

h, but had nod by an aero

4: Superpatcen (7) millimf the superp

were applied

which all otheveral differh lighter thaneam. The ribplace to mako affect on todynamic sh

ch Deflectiometers undeatch to be apto the part.

15

her parts arerent types on aluminumbs that attachke the entirethe structuraell, designed

on shows theer a 1000-pspproximately

5

e f

m) h e

al d

e si y

16

Figure 15: Superpatch Displacement

4.4.4 Landing Gear Design The landing gear that the team selected was pre-fabricated model airplane landing gear. The model chosen is a .40-.60 size carbon fiber gear design (Figure 16: Landing Gear). This model can be adapted to fit the location in which it needs to be attached, because no pre-drilled holes exist in the gear. This allowed the team to attach the gear according to the design. This gear was chosen for its tremendous light weight frame (almost 13 ounces lighter than a similar aluminum frame) and its strong base. The total weight is approximately 1.45 ounces and is capable of holding 50 to 60 pounds and deflects enough to act as a suspension.

Figure 16: Landing Gear

5.0 Component Selection

5.1 Motor/Propellers The motor selected by the team was the Brushless Atlas 2927/08 (Table 5: Motor Specifications and Figure 17: Brushless Atlas 2927/08). A comparison between brushless and brushed electric motors was done and the brushless electric motor proved to be the best fit for the team's design. This particular motor was chosen because of its relatively light weight and its moderate cost.

17

Table 4: Motor Specifications

Motor Specifications kV 910 rpm per volt Maximum RPM 13,468 Maximum Thrust 351.84 oz Propeller Size 13 inch diameter Weight 16.03 ounces

Figure 17: Brushless Atlas 2927/08

After researching various motor types, trade-offs were made between cost and thrust and between weight and thrust. Thrust was used as the most important performance because it is directly related to the amount of payload that the aircraft can carry. In Figure 18: Cost versus Thrust Trade-off, it was shown that the Atlas 2927/08 motor had the highest maximum thrust per dollar. In Figure 19: Weight versus Thrust Trade-off, it was seen that the Atlas 2927/08 had the on of the best thrust to weight ratios when it was compared to other models.

Figure 18: Cost versus Thrust Trade-off

18

Figure 19: Weight versus Thrust Trade-off

Using the Brushless Atlas 2927/08 motor and its recommended specifications for the battery (4.3 – Battery) and propeller, the thrust was obtained. The propeller recommended was a 13 inch diameter APC Slowflyer propeller. The total weight of the motor, battery and its mount was 16.03 ounces. The maximum thrust provided by the motor was approximately 22 pounds. Assuming that slippage would occur, it was determined that the motor would operate at about 75% of this value, or 16.5 pounds. The motor was also able to be used as a reverse thruster, which helped to reduce the landing distance required by the aircraft.

5.2 Battery The battery recommended, and chosen by the team, for use with the above motor was a lithium polymer battery, which provided for a higher voltage under load. The model chosen by the team was part of the eXtreme V2 Series Thunder Power RC lithium polymer batteries (Table 6: Lithium Battery Specifications). This series of batteries offered high continuous and burst discharge rates. Figure 20: Discharge Cycle shows the discharge cycles for a typical Thunder Power RC eXtreme V2 lithium polymer battery.

Table 5: Lithium Battery Specifications

Lithium Battery Specifications Voltage 14.8 V Cells 4 Capacity 2200 mAh Maximum Continuous Discharge 25 C Maximum Burst Discharge 50 C Maximum Continuous Current 55 A Maximum Burst Current 110 A Size 33mm x 32mm x 107 mm Weight 218 grams = 7.69 ounces Maximum Force 1200.751 foot pound-force Continuous Force 600.375 foot pound-force

19

Figure 20: Discharge Cycle

5.3 Controller/Receiver/Servos The controller selected by the team was the Spektrum DX6DSM6CH Park Flyer System (Figure 21: Spektrum Park Flyer System). This controller came with four (4) S75 sub micro servos. When choosing the controller, it was important for the team to consider the frequency of the system, the number of channels, the weight, cost and programmability of the receiver. This controller had a frequency of 2.4 GHz, which was the suggested frequency stated in the SAE 2008 Aero Design Requirements. The controller had six (6) channels and the receiver had a weight of approximately seven (7) grams. It was also an ideal model for mixing different types of control, such as that for the V-tail.

Figure 21: Spektrum Park Flyer System

6.0 Design Summary A brief summary of the final design results for the team's aircraft are presented in Table 7: Plane Specifications. Appendix D: Aerodynamic Calculations contains a detailed listing of the design specifications. Figure 22: Final Design is a screen shot of the team's design.

20

Table 6: Plane Specifications

Single Wing Final Design Results, Eppler 423 Airfoil Wing Length 96 in Chord Length 9.80 in Height of Wings from Ground 9.5 in Empty Weight 3 lbs ½ Payload 13.86 lbs Full Payload 27.72 lbs Velocity Estimate (based on Propeller) 73.3 ft/s Dynamic Pressure (based on Propeller) 5.98 psi Lift (Cruising, based on assumptions) 62.71 lbs Surface Area (needed to lift full payload) 3.33 ft2 Vstall (stalling velocity) 41.96 ft/s VLO (lift off velocity) 50.35 ft/s Cl, max @ 12 degrees 2.4 Cd @ 0 degrees 0.03 Thrust (Lift Off) 16.0 lbs Power (Lift Off) 563.9 ft-lb/sec Payload Fraction 0.902 Fuselage and Landing Gear Drag 0.06

Figure 22: Final Design

7.0 Performance

7.1 Payload Prediction Density altitude is a function of atmospheric pressure and temperature at a particular altitude. It is, in essence, the density of the standard atmosphere. However, the altitude value will either be greater than or less than the true altitude, depending on the condition of the air. Table4: Payload Fraction Prediction Equations lists the equations used to calculate the payload fraction versus density altitude curve.

21

Table 7: Payload Fraction Prediction Equations Equations Description Symbol Value Units AGL = MSL + E Marietta, Georgia Approx. Elevation E 1000 ft

T = To – B*AGL Universal Gas Constant R 1717 ft-lb/slug-°R

P = Pa*[1-(B*AGL/To)]g/RB Adiabatic Lapse Rate B 0.003566 °R/ft

PinHg = P*47.88/3375 Dimensionless Exponent g/RB 5.26 -

Ρ = P/(R*To) Temperature at Sea Level To 518.69 °R

X = 17.326*P/To Atmospheric Pressure at Sea Level Pa 2116.2 lb/ft^2

Density Altitude = 145,366*(1-X235) Absolute Viscosity - Air μ 3.76E-07 slug/ft-sec

Reynolds No. = ρ*V*c/μ Chord c 9.8 in

L = .5*Cl*ρ*Ap*V2 Span b 96 in

PW = L-W Planform Area Ap 940.8 in^2

TW = PW+W Velocity V 73.3 ft/sec

PF = PW/TW Lift Coefficient Cl 2.4 - Plane Weight W 3 lbs

Equation 2: Payload Fraction shows the equation calculated from the payload fraction versus density altitude curve. Appendix E: Payload Prediction contains the full excel file used to calculate the payload fraction versus density altitude curve.

Equation 2: Payload Fraction

7.2 Predicted Flight Performance The performance of the aircraft for cruising and take-off is shown in Table 8: Aircraft Performance. Appendix D: Aerodynamic Calculations contains the calculations for the aircraft performance.

Table 8: Aircraft Performance

Cruising DRAG: Cd @ 2deg 0.186 L/D ratio 8.265 Thrust Required (to overcome drag) 3.717 lbs Power Required (drag) 272.562 ft-lb/sec 0.496 hp TakeOff: Cl,to (Flaps down) 2.166 V,.7 (70% V,LO) 35.244 ft/s Lift,to 19.560 lbs Φ 0.715 Drag,to 2.043 lbs S,to (TakeOff Distance) 100 ft Thrust,to --- Using D10 16.0 lbs Power,to (using V,.7) 563.9 ft-lb/sec 1.025 hp

Payload Fraction = -1E-06*(Density Alt.) + 0.9053

22

8.0 Stability The success of the team’s flight was dependant upon the ability of the plane to be controlled during flight. The initial design resulted in a calculated neutral point of 3.51 inches from the leading edge of the wing. The quarter chord for the wing was calculated to be 2.5 inches from the leading edge. The aircraft was determined to be stable when the center of gravity was located between the neutral point and quarter chord. The design of the aircraft allowed for a one (1) inch margin in which to place the center of gravity. It was also important to place the center of gravity as close to the quarter chord as possible in order to maximize the stability of the plane.

After testing the aircraft for the first time, the team decided to increase the surface area of the V-tail, based on the aircraft performance. This increase in the surface area served three (3) main purposes. First, the increase in surface area provided a better response when the pilot controlled the tail. Second, a greater distance between the wing’s leading edge and the neutral point was created, allowing a larger margin with which to place the center of gravity. Third, the increased surface area provided better stability for the entire plane by being capable of resisting sudden forces caused by the wind. With these purposes in mind, the team strove to provide a chord fraction of 0.2 to 0.3 between the quarter and the neutral. Calculations were done using the equations and variables in Figure 23: Tail Section Equations. As seen in Table 9: Tail Section Calculations, a fourteen (14) inch tail section provides a 2.35 inch space with which to place the center of gravity. Calculations were also done for a six (6) inch and ten (10) inch tail section. Appendix F: Tail Section Calculations contains the complete calculations for each of the three (3) propellers.

Figure 23: Tail Section Equations

Table 9: Tail Section Calculations 14" tail section

tail length 14 in. tail chord 5 in. V-tail angle 55 degrees V-tail angle 0.9599 rads x-dimension 11.46788 lt 2.5 ft St 0.79638 ft^2 c 0.83 ft S 6.11 ft^2

VH 0.393 (1-δε/δα) 0.6

hacwb 0.25

percent chord between the quarter chord & the neutral point 23.56% length b/w q-chord & np 2.35 in. hn 0.486

, 1 It = Distance between center of gravity and tail quarter chord St = Tail projected surface area c = Wing chord length S = Wing projected surface area Hac,wb = Fractional multiplier based on neutral point

23

To achieve this tail length, 2 – eight (8) inch long extensions needed to be added. Since the plane needed to fit in an eight (8) inch high box, creating new fourteen (14) inch tail pieces was not an option, since the design called for the V-tail to remain attached to the tail boom. The eight (8) inch extensions were, therefore, designed to be attached to the original six (6) inch base sections. This was done by drilling holes into the edge of the base, thus, revealing the inside of the arrow shafts used in its construction. The extensions had aluminum pins glued into its arrow shafts; pins that were inserted into the arrow shafts on each base. The angle between the two tail surfaces was set to be 110 degrees (110°), from the vertical it was 55 degrees (55°). Through manipulation of the plane’s payload, the center of gravity was able to be located within an inch of the quarter chord, creating a high degree of stability for the plane.

9.0 Fabrication

9.1 Assembly Process The order in which the team's aircraft was constructed, and the schedule with which they had to adhere, was important to the final outcome of the aircraft. Therefore, the team developed a construction plan that was as follows. The first parts to be made were the superpatch, the ribs, the tailboom and the tail. All of these parts were made independently of each other, simultaneously, and then assembled together. The connecting end wings were the next part to be built because they were also independent of each other. Following construction of these parts, the ribs were attached to the center portion of the wing as well as to the carbon cross members. Each carbon member and each rib was glued into place on the center wing and the wing ends. The tailboom was then added into the superpatch. Upon attachment of the tailboom, the tail, made out of plied balsa wood, was attached to the boom. The wires to the servos and the engine were then attached and put into place and the landing gear was drilled and installed.

Following the positioning of the landing gear, the rib sections of the wing were coated with glue and a layer of Litespan (a lighter version of Monokote) was placed over the ribs to cover them. The Litespan seams were iron sealed and a heat gun was used to shrink and flatten the coat, creating a tight, smooth fit to the ribs. The servos were then set using glue and two sided tape, whereas the motor was set using the aluminum mount with which it came. The area over the superpatch did not have a completely sealed Litespan covering, to allow easy access to remove and reinstall the batteries upon charging. Finally, the end wings and the main wing had a strip of opposing Velcro applied to secure the end wings in flight.

All parts, with the exception of the mechanical components (i.e. motor, propellers, battery, etc.) and the landing gear were manufactured by the team. The aluminum pins that held the connection of the wing sections together were made by bending an existing aluminum pin to make a five degree (5°) angle. The pin was then cut to the appropriate length on each side of the bend. The carbon arrow fibers used for the tailboom were cut using an abrasive saw, due to the angles and curved edges called for in the design. The team used abrasive drill bits to cut these sections and bonded the arrows using strong, lightweight glue.

The ribs were made of balsa wood, located four (4) inches apart. The thinner ribs were made of 3/32 inch thick balsa wood, plied together. The larger ribs were made of 3/16 inch balsa wood to help reduce the weight of the plane. A metal rib was created by the team and used as a stencil for the ribs. The ribs were cut out using the stencil and a hegner saw, allowing the team to mass produce the ribs.

The superpatch was made of poly-crystalline plexy-glass that was 1/8 of an inch thick. It was glued together using a type of glue that dissolves the poly-crystalline, making it able to weld together the other members.

24

9.2 Construction Actual construction of the plane was done mostly according to the above process. However, a few problems occurred that caused the team to adjust their construction plans. The incident that had the most impact on the construction schedule was a result of miscommunication with the Stevens’ Purchasing Department. The team had place a purchase order through the Mechanical Department for a large shipment of supplies and equipment from Hobby-Lobby International. The team was told the order would be placed within twenty-four (24) hours and that the shipment should be received in approximately five (5) days from the time the order was place. After about one week, the team checked in with the Mechanical Office, but had not yet received their package. The team then followed up with the Purchasing Department and was told that the order had been placed and should arrive in house soon. However, after visiting Purchasing almost daily for about two (2) weeks, it was finally discovered that the purchase order had not been placed as originally stated. After this discovery, the order was placed immediately using the Mechanical Department’s credit card and the shipment was received a couple days later. Although this problem was easily fixed, because of the miscommunication between the Purchasing Department and Hobby-Lobby International, the delay cost the team two (2) weeks worth of work. This incident was a major reason the plane was not completely flight worthy in time for the SAE competition. Had Purchasing followed up on the order upon submitting the purchase order, they would have found out that the vendor did not accept purchase orders and a different method of payment could have been used. Thus, saving the group time and allowing them to remain on schedule.

Two other incidents that occurred during construction resulted in having to repurchase a couple of items. While testing the electrical equipment, both the motor controller and receiver were damaged by the propeller. After testing the equipment, it was determined that neither piece worked, resulting in reordering the parts. Although this did not have a long delay, it did put the team slightly behind schedule because they could not test all parts.

Construction of the plane did not only occur before test flights were conducted, but after. The changes made to the plane and the construction of those parts is discussed under the Testing section.

Appendix G: Construction Photographs contains photographs from the construction of the plane. Photographs were taken in the senior design laboratory throughout the course of the project.

10.0 Testing

10.1 Test Set-Up Testing was important to the success of the team's aircraft. The team conducted several test flights, at various locations and with various pilots, to determine the actual performance of the aircraft and to modify and make adjustments to the design should problems arise. Test flights were done under real-time flight conditions that mimicked those of the competition. Table 10: Flight Checklist contains the sample checklist the team used as a reference. Video was taken of each flight attempt, the successes and failures.

25

Table 10: Flight Checklist

Flight Concerns Comments Location Date Takeoff Plane moves in straight line motion Takes off within 100 feet Takeoff time Cruise Performs 360° circuit without failure Aircraft is stable Aircraft is easily handled Cruise time Landing Aircraft is easily maneuvered Landing Distance with 200 feet Landing time Miscellaneous Motor does not overheat Battery power does not run out Landing gear remains in tact Plane remains in tact

10.2 Flight Results Test flights were conducted by the team on Saturday April 12, 2008 and Tuesday April, 22, 2008 in three (3) different locations. On Saturday April 12, testing was done at a field in Vernon, New Jersey in the morning and in New Hampton, New York at the Wawayanda Flying Club in the afternoon. On Tuesday April 22, testing was done at a field in Moonachie, New Jersey near Teterboro Airport. More flight attempts were done individually by teammate John Verdonik and a member of the Wawayanda Flying Club on various days. Video and photos were taken of the flights.

The results of the test flights were considered to be a success by the team. The first flight attempts were not very successful, but did prove that the plane was extremely durable. In the first four days of attempted takeoffs the plane crashed approximately 35 times, several of them at fairly high altitudes and speeds. Each crash resulted in minimal, if any, damage to the plane.

After the many failed flight attempts, the team made a few adjustments and were able to successfully take off and fly the plane twice with a payload of approximately four (4) pounds. However, due to the inexperience of the team members, with respect to flying remote controlled planes, the team was unable to have a successful landing. The landing of the second controlled flight was rather hard and resulted in a fair amount of damage to the plane’s wings and tail. The damages, however, were able to be repaired and the team is still undergoing testing. The team is determined to see the plane take-off, fly controllably and to land without damage. In order to achieve this goal, the team is working once again with pilots from the Wawayanda Flying Club.

Test flight photographs are found in Appendix H: Test Flight Photographs and were taken at the various test flight sites throughout the testing process.

10.3 Design Changes and Improvements By conducting test flights, the team determined that several design changes needed to be made. The first change to be made was adding extensions to the V-tail. The reasons for making this change were discussed in the Stability section of the report. Another change made was to the detachable section of the

26

wings. Testing showed that the right wing had a different angle of attack than the left wing, causing the plane to constantly turn towards the right. To adjust this angle of attack, fishing line was used to straighten the wing and fix the angle of attack, resulting in a straighter take-off path.

Another change that the team made was to add a thin, light weight steel cable that connected the landing gear. This was done to create stiffer landing hear, so a greater payload could be carried. The cable was attached loosely allowing for some flex for suspension. The wheels were also changed from a foam based wheel to a light weight rubber wheel. It was determined during tests that the foam wheels compressed too much. The rubber wheels were better equipped to handle a greater payload and thus a more forceful landing.

After failing to have a controlled flight and after several unsuccessful take-offs, the team decided to add ailerons to the end wings. The design had originally only called out for flaperons located at the center of the plane. This was done to ease assembly and to reduce weight. However, the flaperons were located too close the center of the plane, creating difficulty in stability and control. The original design did not have ailerons on the end wings in an effort to reduce weight and ease of assembly. Therefore, ailerons were added to increase control and to help the plane with take-off.

Flight testing also demonstrated to the team that the plane did not weigh enough when empty to overcome the amount of lift provided by the wings and the amount of thrust the motor gave. This caused the plane to attempt to climb too quickly, resulting in the plane flipping over. Through these attempts, the team learned that the design was tail heavy because the center of gravity was located too far toward the tail of the plane. To fix this problem, the team moved the motor forward on aluminum spacers. Approximately four (4) pounds of steel payload was also added to move the center of gravity forward more and to increase stability.

The final change made to the plane was to reinforce all weak components with carbon fiber and to strengthen with CA glue, creating a bond and hardening the carbon fiber. This improved the strength of the components and made the plane even more durable.

11.0 Conclusions

11.1 Final Design Specifications and Summary The final design, with test flight changes incorporated are detailed in the following summary. The wingspan is eight (8) feet with a chord length of 9.8 inches and a height from the ground of 9.5 inches. The airfoil contour is that of the Eppler 423. The tail section is approximately three (3) feet long. The V-tail has an angle of 110 degrees (110°) between the two surfaces. Each tail wing base is six (6) inches long and has an eight (8) inch extension to increase the stability of the plane. The plane utilized an Atlas brushless 2927/08 motor, a four cell 7.4 Volt battery, a thirteen (13) inch propeller and S75 servos. The controller was a DX6 DSM 6-channel Park Flyer model that was programmed specifically for flying the team’s plane.

The total empty weight of the plane was approximately three (3) pounds, which included the weight of all materials and electrical components. The plane was calculated to carry an expected payload of approximately twenty-seven (27) pounds and to have a payload fraction of 0.902. The take-off specifications include a thrust of 16.0 pounds, a lift of 19.56 pounds and a total power of 1.025 horsepower. The cruising specifications were calculated to produce a power of 0.496 horsepower and a thrust of 3.717 pounds. It is expected that the plane is capable of flying at full throttle for approximately five (5) minutes and add a lesser throttle for upwards of fifteen (15) minutes.

27

The final plane design is seen in Figure 24: Final Design. Additional drawings of components and the full design are found in Appendix I: Plans.

Figure 24: Final Design

11.2 Future Considerations and Military Applications Based on the success and failures of the team’s plane, the team has thought of several considerations and design changes they would have made. One change would be to make the super patch longer to allow more flexibility with positioning the center of gravity. Notches could be placed into the superpatch to allow for tighter installation of electrical components, creating a more aerodynamic shell. The team would have also found more efficient and more reliable methods to construct and machine the plane and its components.

The team also determined ways that the plane could be adjusted to be more applicable for real life use in the military. One change would be to have all wood components made from some type of composite and carbon fiber. Due to the cost and manufacturability of composites, it was not realistic for the team to use them for this design. All parts and components would also have the capability of being constructed and machined with a higher degree of precision. The precision needed by the military would have been quite costly for the team. Also, the competition did not allow professionals to assist with the project.

A carbon plating could also be added beneath the motor to provide further protection from the various elements to which the plane is subjected. Selecting a battery with higher ampere-hour would increase the flight time of the plane. By attaching a transmitter and a camera to the payload, the plane would be prepared for reconnaissance and search and rescue missions. All of these changes and many more, would help to make this design suitable for military missions.

11.3 Senior Design Recommendations Through the course of the project, the team has faced many obstacles that they were forced to overcome. Several of the problems occurred with the management aspect of the program, not necessarily with the technical aspects of the project. The team has, thus, provided a few suggestions for the future of the course.

First, the team found it very difficult to gain technical guidance from their advisor. The advisor was very capable and extremely helpful with the project management side of the project. However, his specialty was not with aerospace, but with nano and micro materials. This forced the students to either seek advice elsewhere, or to do the majority of the project on their own. Although help was available, it

28

would have been easier to have a single point of contact. It also appeared that the team’s project did not fall into his areas of interest, making communication sometimes difficult. He was also unaware of the SAE competition operations and requirements. Having advisors who are aware of the project and have a slight interest would aid the teams greatly and would motivate them to excel.

Another consideration relates to the course operations. The team was often not made aware of how to proceed with purchasing and ordering materials as well as things along the lines of what equipment, tools and materials are available for use through the Mechanical Department and the school. The team and advisor were not informed about purchasing procedures until they approached Camilla Minervini. It would be very helpful to have a pamphlet or document that explained the correct steps to take to purchase materials. It would also be helpful to have a detailed list of what materials and equipment they students could use as well as accessibility into the senior design lab.

All of these suggestions are given only to further aid the students. It would also be very helpful to make sure all advisors know of their role in the projects and are aware of how the senior design course works. This is especially true for first time advisors. Better communication between advisors and course instructors and well as between course instructors, advisors and the student teams, would aid the teams greatly.

29

12.0 References Technical Material

1) SAE 2008 Aero Design Rules. http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/rules/rules.pdf

2) "History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_umanned_aerial_vehicles

3) "Beginning of RC." http://jimsrc.com/good-information.html

4) "Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030, US Government, 2005,

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/uav_roadmap2005.pdf

5) "Aeronautical Systems: Endurance UAVs Will Revolutionize Combat." Global Defense.com. http://www.global-defence.com/1997/AeronauticalSystems.html

6) Tubbs, Ryan. "Hardware Modeling and Machining for UAV-Based Wideband Radar."

http://nia.ecsu.edu/ureoms2007/teams/ku1/tubbs_ku_meridian.pdf

7) "JavaFoil – Analysis of Airfoils". http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javafoil.htm

8) "WinFoil – Aeronautical Design Software". http://www.winfoil.com/overview.htm

9) "RC Model Products Index for Hobby-Lobby.com". Hobby-Lobby International, Inc. www.hobby-lobby.com/contents.htm

10) "Metal or Alloy Density Measurements". www.simetric.co.uk/si_metals.htm

11) V-Tail Forums. Hobby-Lobby International. RC Groups.com.

www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57768

12) John D. Anderson, Jr., Introduction to Flight, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2005. (used in Professor Thangam's Introduction to Aerospace Course)

Engineering Software

SolidWorks CosmosWorks JavaFoil Applet WinFoil Microsoft Excel

30

13.0 Appendices Appendix A – Project Management Plans and Gantt Charts Appendix B – Project Cost Appendix C – Initial Aerodynamic Calculations Appendix D – Aerodynamic Calculations Appendix E – Payload Prediction Appendix F – Tail Section Calculations Appendix G – Construction Photographs Appendix H – Test Flight Photographs Appendix I – Plans Appendix J: Nugget Charts

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Resource Names

1 Phase 1 27 days? Tue 8/28/07 Thu 10/4/07

2 1: Project Planning 21 days? Tue 8/28/07 Tue 9/25/07

3 Project Start 0 days Tue 8/28/07 Tue 8/28/07

4 Project Selection 11 days Tue 8/28/07 Tue 9/11/07 3 Team

5 Evaluate/Define Project 6 days Wed 9/12/07 Wed 9/19/07 4 Team

6 Identify Opportunities 6 days? Wed 9/12/07 Wed 9/19/07 4 Team

7 SAE Competition Guidelines 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Team

8 Project Budget 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Micki

9 Identify Technical Areas 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 John

10 2: Project Background 10 days? Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07

11 Research 10 days? Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Team/John

12 Project Significance 10 days? Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Max

13 Project Impact 10 days? Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Max

14 3: Concept Generation/Selection 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07

15 Define Technical Analysis Areas 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 John

16 State-of-the-Art Review 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Jared

17 Concept Design Development 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Team/Eric

18 Concept Selection 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Team

19 Final Concept Selection 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Team

20 Expected Performance 10 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/25/07 4 Eric

21 4: Deliverables 5 days Thu 9/27/07 Thu 10/4/07

22 Written Proposal 0 days Thu 9/27/07 Thu 9/27/07 2,10,14 Team/Micki

23 Proposal Presentation 0 days Thu 10/4/07 Thu 10/4/07 2,10,14 Team

24 Phase 2 27 days Thu 9/27/07 Fri 11/2/07

25 5: Technical Analysis 11 days Thu 9/27/07 Thu 10/11/07

26 Technical Model 11 days Thu 9/27/07 Thu 10/11/07 22

27 Cost Model 11 days Thu 9/27/07 Thu 10/11/07 22

28 Modify Conceptual Designs 11 days Thu 9/27/07 Thu 10/11/07 22

29 Drawings and Illustrations 11 days Thu 9/27/07 Thu 10/11/07 22

30 6: System Design 24 days Thu 9/27/07 Tue 10/30/07

31 General Design 24 days Thu 9/27/07 Tue 10/30/07 22 Eric

32 Control/Modeling/Simulation 24 days Thu 9/27/07 Tue 10/30/07 22 Max

33 Communications/Wireless Control 24 days Thu 9/27/07 Tue 10/30/07 22 Jared/Max

34 Actuation/Propulsion 24 days Thu 9/27/07 Tue 10/30/07 22 John

35 Design Specifications 24 days Thu 9/27/07 Tue 10/30/07 22 Eric

36 Performance Highlights 24 days Thu 9/27/07 Tue 10/30/07 22 Eric

37 Features Highlights 24 days Thu 9/27/07 Tue 10/30/07 22 Eric

38 7: Deliverables 0 days Fri 11/2/07 Fri 11/2/07

39 Progress Presentation 0 days Fri 11/2/07 Fri 11/2/07 25,30 Team

40 Phase 3 25 days Mon 11/5/07 Sat 12/8/07

41 8: Engineering Design 19 days Mon 11/5/07 Thu 11/29/07

42 Final Design Selection 19 days Mon 11/5/07 Thu 11/29/07 39 Team

43 Create Engineered Drawings of Final Design 19 days Mon 11/5/07 Thu 11/29/07 39 Max

44 9: Prototype 22 days Mon 11/5/07 Tue 12/4/07

45 Material Selection 22 days Mon 11/5/07 Tue 12/4/07 39 Micki

46 Assembly Instructions 22 days Mon 11/5/07 Tue 12/4/07 39 Micki

47 Order Materials/Parts 22 days Mon 11/5/07 Tue 12/4/07 39 Micki

48 Collect Used Materials/Parts 22 days Mon 11/5/07 Tue 12/4/07 39 Team

49 10: Deliverables 3 days Tue 12/4/07 Sat 12/8/07

50 Written Final Report 0 days Tue 12/4/07 Tue 12/4/07 41,44 Team/Micki

51 Final Presentation 0 days Sat 12/8/07 Sat 12/8/07 41,44 Team

8/28

Team

Team

Team

Team

Micki

John

Team/John

Max

Max

John

Jared

Team/Eric

Team

Team

Eric

9/27

10/4

Eric

Max

Jared/Max

John

Eric

Eric

Eric

11/2

11/2

Team

Max

Micki

Micki

Micki

Team

12/4

12/8

M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M Tg 26, '07 Sep 2, '07 Sep 9, '07 Sep 16, '07 Sep 23, '07 Sep 30, '07 Oct 7, '07 Oct 14, '07 Oct 21, '07 Oct 28, '07 Nov 4, '07 Nov 11, '07 Nov 18, '07 Nov 25, '07 Dec 2, '07 Dec 9,

Task

Split

Progress

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Appendix E: Project Management Plan and Gantt ChartCreated: September 2007

Page 1

Project: Fall Senior Design GanttDate: Thu 9/27/07

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish P ResourceNames

1 Phase 4 25 days? Thu 1/17/08 Thu 2/21/08

2 1: Project Updates 11 days Thu 1/17/08 Thu 1/31/08

3 SAE Competition Guidelines - Clarification 0 days Thu 1/17/08 Thu 1/17/08 Team

4 Redefine Project Objectives 11 days Thu 1/17/08 Thu 1/31/08 3 Team

5 2: Project Tasks 14 days? Tue 1/22/08 Fri 2/8/08

6 Order Materials/Equipment 12 days? Tue 1/22/08 Wed 2/6/08 Micki

7 Engineer Drawings - Final 7 days Tue 1/22/08 Wed 1/30/08 Jared

8 Landing Gear - Final Concept 7 days Tue 1/22/08 Wed 1/30/08 Jared/Max

9 Carrying Case - Design 7 days Tue 1/22/08 Wed 1/30/08 Jared

10 Payload - Final 7 days? Tue 1/22/08 Wed 1/30/08 Eric

11 Assembly Process 12 days? Tue 1/22/08 Wed 2/6/08 John

12 Budget Update 12 days? Tue 1/22/08 Wed 2/6/08 Micki

13 "Prototype" 14 days? Tue 1/22/08 Fri 2/8/08 John

14 Begin Construction of Plane - Ribs, tail connections, etc. 14 days? Tue 1/22/08 Fri 2/8/08 John

15 3: Seminars 6 days? Tue 2/5/08 Tue 2/12/08

16 Design of Experiment - Prof. Zhu 1 day? Tue 2/5/08 Tue 2/5/08

17 MEMS Actuator for Space - Prof. Yang 1 day? Tue 2/12/08 Tue 2/12/08

18 4: Deliverables 5 days Thu 2/14/08 Thu 2/21/08

19 Written Report 0 days Thu 2/14/08 Thu 2/14/08 Team/Micki

20 Proposal Presentation 0 days Thu 2/21/08 Thu 2/21/08 Team

21 Phase 5 34 days? Fri 2/8/08 Thu 3/27/08

22 5: Project Construction 18 days Fri 2/8/08 Tue 3/4/08

23 Vehicle Construction 1 day? Fri 2/8/08 Fri 2/8/08 Team

24 Carrying Case Construction 1 day? Fri 2/8/08 Fri 2/8/08 John

25 6: Seminars 11 days? Tue 2/26/08 Tue 3/11/08

26 MEMS/NEMS Technology - Prof. Shi 1 day? Tue 2/26/08 Tue 2/26/08

27 Design Fabrication, and Application of Nanoengineered Surfaces for Low-Friction Flow - Prof. C 1 day? Tue 3/4/08 Tue 3/4/08

28 Standards and Safety in Engineering Design - Prof. Prasad 1 day? Tue 3/11/08 Tue 3/11/08

29 7: Paperwork 2 days? Fri 3/7/08 Mon 3/10/08

30 E-Poster 1 day? Mon 3/10/08 Mon 3/10/08 Micki

31 Website 1 day? Mon 3/10/08 Mon 3/10/08 Max

32 Travel Arrangement/Plans 1 day? Mon 3/10/08 Mon 3/10/08 Micki

33 Competition Written Report 1 day? Fri 3/7/08 Fri 3/7/08 Team/Micki

34 8: Deliverables 0 days Thu 3/27/08 Thu 3/27/08

35 Progress Presentation 0 days Thu 3/27/08 Thu 3/27/08 Team

36 Phase 6 30 days? Thu 3/27/08 Thu 5/8/08

37 9: Project Construction 18 days? Thu 3/27/08 Mon 4/21/08

38 Construction of Vehicle - Final 18 days? Thu 3/27/08 Mon 4/21/08 3 Team

39 Construction of Carrying Case - Final 18 days? Thu 3/27/08 Mon 4/21/08 3 Team/John

40 10: Seminars 15 days? Tue 4/1/08 Mon 4/21/08 3

41 Nanomanipulation - Prof. Zhu 15 days? Tue 4/1/08 Mon 4/21/08 3

42 Can we Learn Design Disciplines from Models and Toys? - Prof. Prasad 10 days? Tue 4/8/08 Mon 4/21/08 3

43 Nanotube and Nanotechnology - Prof. Fisher 5 days? Tue 4/15/08 Mon 4/21/08 3

44 11: Competition 2 days? Thu 4/17/08 Fri 4/18/08

45 Written Report 2 days Thu 4/17/08 Fri 4/18/08 3 Team/Micki

46 Oral Report 2 days Thu 4/17/08 Fri 4/18/08 3 Team

47 Flight 2 days? Thu 4/17/08 Fri 4/18/08 Team

48 12: Senior Design Day 1 day? Wed 4/23/08 Wed 4/23/08

49 Poster 1 day Wed 4/23/08 Wed 4/23/08 3 Micki/Team

50 Display 1 day? Wed 4/23/08 Wed 4/23/08 Micki/Team

51 13: Deliverables 5 days Thu 5/1/08 Thu 5/8/08

52 Written Final Report 0 days Thu 5/1/08 Thu 5/1/08 44 Team/Micki

53 Final Presentation 0 days Thu 5/8/08 Thu 5/8/08 44 Team

1/17

1/17 1/31

1/22 2/6

1/22 1/30

1/22 1/30

1/22 1/30

1/22 1/30

1/22 2/6

1/22 2/6

1/22 2/8

1/22 2/8

2/5 2/5

2/12 2/12

2/14

2/21

2/8 3/4

2/8 2/8

2/8 2/8

2/26 2/26

3/4 3/4

3/11 3/11

3/10 3/10

3/10 3/10

3/10 3/10

3/7 3/7

3/27

3/27

3/27 4/21

3/27 4/21

4/1 4/21

4/8 4/21

4/15 4/21

4/17 4/18

4/17 4/18

4/17 4/18

4/23 4/23

4/23 4/23

5/1

5

12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/2 3/9 3/16 3/23 3/30 4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4January February March April May

Task

Progress

Milestone

Summary

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up Progress

Split

External Tasks

Project Summary

Group By Summary

Deadline

Appendix C: Project Management Plan and Gantt ChartCreated: January 2008

Page 1

Project: Spring Senior Design GanttDate: Thu 2/14/08

Appendix B: Project Cost

Item Amount Cost per Item Total Cost Balsa Wood – 3/32" x 12" x 48" 10 $11.48 $114.80 Balsa Wood – 3/8" x 2.5" x 48" 2 $1.98 $3.96

Battery - Thunder Power RC eXtreme 1 $104.00 $104.00

Controller (w/servos) – SPM2460 Spektrum 1 $199.99 $199.99

Adapter – Octopus RC Charging Cable 1 $11.95 $11.95

Battery Charger – Thunder Power RC 1 $79.95 $79.95

Spinner – 2" 2 $2.20 $4.40 Spinner – 1 ¾ " 2 $2.10 $4.20

Servos Wire - .5mm Black 2 $1.90 $3.80 Servos Wire - .5mm Red 2 $1.90 $3.80

Servos Wire - .5mm Yellow 2 $1.90 $3.80 Arrows – Gold Tip Big Game 1 $78.95 $78.95

Motor – Brushless Atlas 1 $138.00 $138.00 Propeller – 14" 2 $5.00 $10.00 Propeller – 13" 2 $5.00 $10.00

Servo Mount Tape 4 $2.90 $11.60 Velcro 4 $2.10 $8.40

Litespan Monokote – 36x20 5 $7.00 $35.00 Wheels – 1" 1 $2.80 $2.80

Wheels – 2 1/16" 4 $5.30 $21.20 Litespan Glue 1 $9.80 $9.80

Balsa Wood Glue 2 $8.90 $17.80 UHU-Hart – Glue 2 $9.50 $19.00 Adhesive Sealant 1 $12.90 $12.90

Heat Gun – 100 W 1 $19.95 $19.95 Misc. - - $50.00

New Motor Controller 1 $67.98 $67.98 New Receiver 1 $95.99 $95.99

Additional Materials (Battery, Litespan, etc.) - - $161.88

TOTAL: $1347.89 Original: $1074.98 Over: $272.91

Appendix C - Initial Aerodynamic Calculations

Propeller = 11"x 4.8 Cl @ 0deg 1.2167Engine = 11,000 rpm Cl @ 2deg 1.54 - Cruising

Cl @ 4deg 1.731 - Take-offWing length (b) = 96 in Cl @ 4deg,flaps 2.818 - Flaps @ 15degAspect ratio (AR) = 9.80 Cl,max @ 12deg 2.4Planar Area (S) = 940.80 in^2 6.533 ft^2Chord Length (c) = 9.80 inFlap Area @ 40% S 376.32 in^2 2.613 ft^2Cd,0 0.03e (Oswald Eff.) 0.8Height of wings off ground (h) 8 inRolling Friction (μr) 0.05

1 in^2 = 0.006944 ft^21 lb = 0.0311 slugs

Empty Weight 3 lbs 0.093 slugs1/2 Weight 16 lbs 0.497 slugsTotal Weight 32 lbs 0.995 slugs

Density (ρ) @ 1200ft 0.002318 slugs/ft^3

73.3 ft/sDynamic Pressure based on Ve (q∞) 6.23 psiVstall based on Planar Area 41.96 ft/sV,LO 50.36 ft/s

Cruising DRAG:Cd @ 2deg 0.126L/D ratio 12.190Thrust Required (to overcome drag) 2.625 lbsPower Required (drag) 192.501 ft-lb/sec 0.350 hp

TakeOff:Cl,to (Flaps down) 2.166V,.7 (70% V,LO) 35.249 ft/sLift,to 20.376 lbsΦ 0.640Drag,to 1.429 lbsS,lo (TakeOff Distance) 100 ftThrust,lo --- Using D10 16.0 lbsPower,lo (using V,.7) 563.0 ft-lb/sec 1.024 hp

Calculations

Velocity Estimate Based on Propeller (Ve)

Initial Assumptions Airfoil (Eppler 423)13"x6" X 80% Eff. =

21

Appendix D - Aerodynamic Calculations

Propeller = 11"x 4.8 Cl @ 0deg 1.2167Engine = 11,000 rpm Cl @ 2deg 1.54 - Cruising

Cl @ 4deg 1.731 - Take-offWing length (b) = 96 in Cl @ 4deg,flaps 2.818 - Flaps @ 15degAspect ratio (AR) = 9.80 Cl,max @ 12deg 2.4Planar Area (S) = 940.80 in^2 6.533 ft^2Chord Length (c) = 9.80 inFlap Area @ 40% S 376.32 in^2 2.613 ft^2Cd,0 0.03e (Oswald Eff.) 0.8Height of wings off ground (h) 9.5 inRolling Friction (μr) 0.05Fuselage & Landing gear Drag 0.06

1 in^2 = 0.006944 ft^21 lb = 0.0311 slugs

Empty Weight 3 lbs 0.093 slugs1/2 Weight 15.36 lbs 0.477 slugsTotal Weight 30.72 lbs 0.955 slugsFull Payload 27.72Payload Fraction 0.902Density (ρ) @ 1200ft 0.002226 slugs/ft^3

73.3 ft/sDynamic Pressure based on Ve (q∞) 5.98 psiVstall based on Planar Area 41.96 ft/sV,LO 50.35 ft/s

Cruising DRAG:Cd @ 2deg 0.186L/D ratio 8.265Thrust Required (to overcome drag) 3.717 lbsPower Required (drag) 272.562 ft-lb/sec 0.496 hp

TakeOff:Cl,to (Flaps down) 2.166V,.7 (70% V,LO) 35.244 ft/sLift,to 19.560 lbsΦ 0.715Drag,to 2.043 lbsS,lo (TakeOff Distance) 100 ftThrust,lo --- Using D10 16.0 lbsPower,lo (using V,.7) 563.9 ft-lb/sec 1.025 hp

Calculations

Velocity Estimate Based on Propeller (Ve)

Initial Assumptions Airfoil (Eppler 423)13"x6" X 80% Eff. =

22

Appendix E - Payload Prediction

Absolute Altitude (MSL)

True Altitude(AGL)

Temperature(T0)

Pressure(P)

Pressure(PinHg)

Density (ρ)

Density Altitude

Payload Weight(PW)

Total Weight(TW)

Payload Fraction(PF)

0 1000 515.12 2040.8 28.95 0.002307 904.567 28.23 31.23 0.9039100 1100 514.77 2033.4 28.85 0.002301 1004.682 28.18 31.18 0.9038200 1200 514.41 2026.0 28.74 0.002294 1104.797 28.14 31.14 0.9037300 1300 514.05 2018.6 28.64 0.002287 1204.912 28.10 31.10 0.9035400 1400 513.70 2011.2 28.53 0.00228 1305.026 28.06 31.06 0.9034500 1500 513.34 2003.9 28.43 0.002273 1405.141 28.01 31.01 0.9033600 1600 512.98 1996.6 28.32 0.002267 1505.255 27.97 30.97 0.9031700 1700 512.63 1989.3 28.22 0.00226 1605.37 27.93 30.93 0.9030800 1800 512.27 1982.0 28.11 0.002253 1705.48475 27.88 30.88 0.9029900 1900 511.91 1974.8 28.01 0.002246 1805.599417 27.84 30.84 0.90271000 2000 511.56 1967.3 27.90 0.002239 1905.714083 27.80 30.80 0.90261100 2100 511.20 1960.0 27.80 0.002233 2005.82875 27.75 30.75 0.90251200 2200 510.84 1952.7 27.69 0.002226 2105.943417 27.71 30.71 0.90231300 2300 510.49 1945.3 27.59 0.002219 2206.058083 27.67 30.67 0.90221400 2400 510.13 1938.0 27.48 0.002212 2306.17275 27.63 30.63 0.90201500 2500 509.77 1930.7 27.38 0.002205 2406.287417 27.58 30.58 0.90191600 2600 509.42 1923.3 27.28 0.002199 2506.402083 27.54 30.54 0.90181700 2700 509.06 1916.0 27.17 0.002192 2606.51675 27.50 30.50 0.90161800 2800 508.71 1908.7 27.07 0.002185 2706.631417 27.45 30.45 0.90151900 2900 508.35 1901.3 26.96 0.002178 2806.746083 27.41 30.41 0.90132000 3000 507.99 1894.0 26.86 0.002171 2906.86075 27.37 30.37 0.90122100 3100 507.64 1886.7 26.75 0.002165 3006.975417 27.33 30.33 0.90112200 3200 507.28 1879.3 26.65 0.002158 3107.090083 27.28 30.28 0.90092300 3300 506.92 1872.0 26.54 0.002151 3207.20475 27.24 30.24 0.90082400 3400 506.57 1864.7 26.44 0.002144 3307.319417 27.20 30.20 0.90072500 3500 506.21 1857.3 26.33 0.002137 3407.434083 27.15 30.15 0.90052600 3600 505.85 1850.0 26.23 0.002131 3507.54875 27.11 30.11 0.90042700 3700 505.50 1842.7 26.12 0.002124 3607.663417 27.07 30.07 0.90022800 3800 505.14 1835.3 26.02 0.002117 3707.778083 27.02 30.02 0.90012900 3900 504.78 1828.0 25.91 0.00211 3807.89275 26.98 29.98 0.89993000 4000 504.43 1820.7 25.81 0.002103 3908.007417 26.94 29.94 0.89983100 4100 504.07 1813.3 25.70 0.002097 4008.122083 26.90 29.90 0.89973200 4200 503.71 1806.0 25.60 0.00209 4108.23675 26.85 29.85 0.89953300 4300 503.36 1798.7 25.49 0.002083 4208.351417 26.81 29.81 0.89943400 4400 503.00 1791.3 25.39 0.002076 4308.466083 26.77 29.77 0.89923500 4500 502.64 1784.0 25.28 0.002069 4408.58075 26.72 29.72 0.89913600 4600 502.29 1776.7 25.18 0.002063 4508.695417 26.68 29.68 0.89893700 4700 501.93 1769.3 25.07 0.002056 4608.810083 26.64 29.64 0.89883800 4800 501.57 1762.0 24.97 0.002049 4708.92475 26.60 29.60 0.89863900 4900 501.22 1754.7 24.86 0.002042 4809.039417 26.55 29.55 0.89854000 5000 500.86 1747.3 24.76 0.002035 4909.154083 26.51 29.51 0.89834100 5100 500.50 1740.0 24.66 0.002029 5009.26875 26.47 29.47 0.89824200 5200 500.15 1732.7 24.55 0.002022 5109.383417 26.42 29.42 0.89804300 5300 499.79 1725.3 24.45 0.002015 5209.498083 26.38 29.38 0.89794400 5400 499.43 1718.0 24.34 0.002008 5309.61275 26.34 29.34 0.89774500 5500 499.08 1710.7 24.24 0.002001 5409.727417 26.29 29.29 0.89764600 5600 498.72 1703.3 24.13 0.001995 5509.842083 26.25 29.25 0.89744700 5700 498.36 1696.0 24.03 0.001988 5609.95675 26.21 29.21 0.89734800 5800 498.01 1688.7 23.92 0.001981 5710.071417 26.17 29.17 0.89714900 5900 497.65 1681.3 23.82 0.001974 5810.186083 26.12 29.12 0.89705000 6000 497.294 1674.0 23.7118 0.001967 5910.30075 26.08 29.08 0.8968

23

Appendix E - Continued

0.9020

0.9030

0.9040

0.9050

Stevens Institute of TechnologyPayload Fraction vs. Altitude Density

24

Payload Fraction = -1E-06*(Density Alt.) + 0.9053

0.8960

0.8970

0.8980

0.8990

0.9000

0.9010

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Payl

oad

Frac

tion

Density Altitude (ft)

Appendix F - Tail Section Calculations

tail length 6.000 in. tail length 10.000 in.tail chord 5.000 in. tail chord 5.000 in.V-tail angle 55.000 degrees V-tail angle 55.000 degreesV-tail angle 0.960 rads V-tail angle 0.960 radsx-dimension 4.915 x-dimension 8.191

lt 2.500 ft lt 2.500 ftSt 0.341 ft^2 St 0.569 ft^2c 0.830 ft c 0.830 ftS 6.110 ft^2 S 6.110 ft^2VH 0.168 VH 0.280(1-δε/δα) 0.600 (1-δε/δα) 0.600hacwb 0.250 hacwb 0.250percent chord b/wquarter chord &neutral point 0.101

percent chord b/wquarter chord &neutral point 0.168

length b/w q-chord& np 1.005 in.

length b/w q-chord& np 1.676 in.

hn 0.351 hn 0.418

tail length 14.000 in.tail chord 5.000 in.V-tail angle 55.000 degreesV-tail angle 0.960 radsx-dimension 11.468

lt 2.500 ftSt 0.796 ft^2c 0.830 ftS 6.110 ft^2VH 0.393(1-δε/δα) 0.600hacwb 0.250percent chord b/wquarter chord &neutral point 0.236

length b/w q-chord& np 2.346 in.hn 0.486

6" tail section 10" tail section

14" tail section

Appendix G: Construction Photographs

Picture 1: Superpatch Construction Picture 2: Superpatch Construction

Picture 3: End Wing Construction Picture 4: Wing Assembly

Picture 5: Plane Assembly Picture 6: Final Plane Assembly

Appendix H: Test Flight Photographs

Picture 1: Test Flight Day 1 Picture 2: Wawayanda Flying Club (Wawayanda Flying Club)

Picture 3: Test Flight Day 2 Picture 4: Test Flight Day 2 (The results of a major crash)

Picture 5: Broken Tail Boom and Wing Picture 6: Broken Center Wing

812.8092.5°

A7.82

6.25

45

BEND

at a 2.5 degree angle

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

Arrow SHEET 1 OF 1

JJ

JV

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:10 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

Composite

3 2

FINISH

PROHIBITED.

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

TWO PLACE DECIMAL

MATERIAL

THREE PLACE DECIMAL

NEXT ASSY

INTERPRET GEOMETRIC

USED ON

Arrow with one sideTOLERANCING PER:

APPLICATION

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS

1

DETAIL A SCALE 1 : 1

7.82

6.25

A

DETAIL A SCALE 2 : 1

7.82

6.25

Both ends of the arrow shaft have a 2.5degree angle to the vertical.

812.80

812.12

2

Modified Arrow

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

ArrowSHEET 1 OF 1

JJ

JV

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:10 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

COMPOSITEFINISH

MATERIAL

3

TOLERANCING PER:INTERPRET GEOMETRIC

45

TWO PLACE DECIMAL

PROHIBITED.

THREE PLACE DECIMAL

BEND

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS

1

87.5°

R0.2525.37

25.13

23

(2.5 degree)

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

half insert 2.5 deg

SHEET 1 OF 1

JJ

JV

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 4:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

AluminumFINISH

MATERIAL

Half Insert TOLERANCING PER:INTERPRET GEOMETRIC

45

TWO PLACE DECIMAL

PROHIBITED.

THREE PLACE DECIMAL

BEND

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS

1

3.12R

2.54

1.844.125

.500

1.844

.500

.1251.844

.1251.844

.125.125

Super Patch Part 1

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

superpatch parts

SHEET 1 OF 4

JJ

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

Poly-CarbonateFINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

5 4 3 2 1

1.594.125

.500

.125

.500

1.594.125

1.594.125

1.594.125

6.14

Super Patch Part 2

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

superpatch parts

SHEET 2 OF 4

JJ

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

Poly-CarbonateFINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

5 4 3 2 1

.315

.428 .428

1.844.125

.500

.125

.500

1.844.125

1.844.125

1.844.125

1.500

.315

Super Patch Part 3

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

superpatch parts

SHEET 3 OF 4

JJ

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:4 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

Poly-CarbonateFINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

5 4 3 2 1

3.250 3.250

Super Patch

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

superpatch parts

SHEET 4 OF 4

JJ

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS: The assembly is shown upside down.It consists of 3 of part 1, 2 of part 2 and5 of part 3. The part is configured as such in order to transmit the forces evenly.

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

Poly-CarbonateFINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

5 4 3 2 1

69.31

2x 4.06 24.96

110.0°

1424.96

55x R

24.96

THRU8.13

38.1019.05

1433

14

3x

7.65

87.02

14

2

Tail Brace

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

tail braceSHEET 1 OF 1

JJ

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

BALSA WOODFINISH

MATERIAL

3

TOLERANCING PER:INTERPRET GEOMETRIC

45

TWO PLACE DECIMAL

PROHIBITED.

THREE PLACE DECIMAL

BEND

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS

1

7.87 7.87R

24.61

84.96 69.85

3.94

5.08

2

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

ribSHEET 1 OF 1

JJ

JV

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

34

Wing Rib

NAME DATE

TITLE:

5

spreadsheet.

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

BALSA WOODFINISH

MATERIAL

are supplied in the form of an excel

TOLERANCING PER:INTERPRET GEOMETRIC

The coordinates for the outer edge

COMMENTS:

TWO PLACE DECIMAL

PROHIBITED.

THREE PLACE DECIMAL

BEND

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS

1

248.81 6.35

7.82

7.827.82

19.05

33

38.1

0

812.80

Triangular Tail Truss

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

Tail Truss

SHEET 1 OF 1

EL

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:4 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

5 4 3 2 1

50.80

196.

8017

7.80

12750.80 61.91 50.80

15.3

8

Tail Extension

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

tail extensionSHEET 1 OF 1

JEJ

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

5 4 3 2 1

812.8096.84 99.22 96.84 99.22 99.22 96.84 99.22 90

59.8

7

A

50561

.15

249.

78

VIEW A SCALE 1 : 5

End Wing

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

Starboard wingSHEET 1 OF 1

JEJ

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

5 4 3 2 1

241.

05

115°

155°

249.

50

140.36

36.86

26.01

37.59

9.54

Landing Gear

1DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

Landing GearSHEET 1 OF 1

JV

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:3 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

5 4 3 2 1

2426.57110°

812.80812.80810.91

275.

94

327.80

503.08

57.8

2

290.82

63.5

0

250.

37

126.

99

1045.51

D

C

B

AA

B

C

D

12345678

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

NEXT ASSY USED ON

APPLICATION

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

MATERIAL

FINISH

DRAWN

CHECKED

ENG APPR.

MFG APPR.

Q.A.

COMMENTS:

DATENAME

TITLE:

SIZE

BDWG. NO. REV

WEIGHT: SCALE: 1:10

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

1

JEJ

SHEET 1 OF 1

final assemblyDO NOT SCALE DRAWING

Title: SAE Competition: Micro Air VehicleTeam Members: Mickalene Biltz, Jared Judd, Eric Lemongello, John Verdonik, Marcin WojtowiczAdvisor: E.H. Yang Project #: 5 Date: 9/29/2007

ME 423 Phase I Nugget Chart - Proposal, Conceptual Design & Design Selection

● Conceptual Designs and Highlights● Project Objectives

Competition Objectives• Design and build a portable aircraft that can carryy the highest payload fraction possible while pursuing the lowest empty weight. The aircraft must meet all SAE competition rules and regulations• Design and build a carrying case for the aircraft that meets SAE competition requirements• Focus design on lift/drag and on payload to weight ratio

Concept Design Criteria Selection• Take-off, Landing, Turning, Stability, Cost, Lightweight, Durable, Construction, Field Assembly, Payload to Weight Ratio, Lift, Drag

Concept Designs & RankingsRank

A - Bi-Wing 2B - Single Wing 1C B Fl i Wi 3

● What Are the Key Issues/Problems to Solve

● Why This Project and State-of-the-Art

● Drawing and Illustration of Promising Concepts

• SAE competition guidelines and rules are challenging and competition is quickly approaching• Design needs to be low weight and low cost• Stability will be a main focus for the team• Aircraft must take-off, fly a specified course and land without crashing• Ease of assembly is required to be demonstrated at competition

C - Bent Flying Wing 3D - Flying Wing 2

Project Significance• Small size makes them virtually undetectable by radar, making them a key part of military and government surveillance, reconnaissnace, border patrol and communicationsState-of-the-Art• Lightweight graphite composites - greater weight can be carried• Charge-couple device (CCD) - lightweight cameras can be used• Small, compact, inertial guidance and GPS - precise navigation• Ability to allow full-motion video to be passed in real time

Title: SAE Competition: Micro Air VehicleTeam Members: Mickalene Biltz, Jared Judd, Eric Lemongello, John Verdonik, Marcin WojtowiczAdvisor: E.H. Yang Project #: 5 Date: 11/1/2007

ME 423 Phase II Nugget Chart - Technical Analysis

● Results Obtained at this Point● Project Objectives

Competition Objectives• Design and build a portable aircraft that can carryy the highest payload fraction possible while pursuing the lowest empty weight. The aircraft must meet all SAE competition rules and regulations• Design and build a carrying case for the aircraft that meets SAE competition requirements• Focus design on lift/drag and on payload to weight ratio• Design limited to 10 lbs (Competition Scoring Equation)

Full Payload Cruising

Full Payload Take-Off

Velocity = 4 9 fts

Surface area to lift 1 2 l b s = 2 . 8 1 f t 2

Chord = 8. 4 "Aspect Ratio = 5 . 6 9V stall = 3 9 . 1 6 ft

s

V LO = 4 7 . 0 fts

C D = . 19 6LD = 7. 8 6

T R = 1. 5 3 lb sP R = 74 6 3 ft - lb = 1 36 h

CL,TO = (CL4 * .60) +(CLflaps * .40) = 2.17

V70%,LO = 32. 9 fts

LTO = 7.64lbsDragTO = 1.08lbsTLO = 5 9lbs

● Design Specifications

● Technical Analysis Areas

● Drawing and Illustration

Design Parameters - Airfoil – Eppler 423• Propeller = 11"x4 • Initial Assumptions• Engine Speed = 11,000 rpm• Empty Weight = 3 lb• Full Weight = 12 lbs• Wing length = 48“• Take-off Distance = 100ft• Landing Distance = 200ft• Altitude = 1200ft

Technical Models Modeling and Simulation• Dynamic Model (Aerodynamics) • Winfoil• Static Model (Stress) • Javafoil

• Solidworks with FloworksSimulated Models• Wind Analysis

Propeller Efficiency = 80%Flap Area = 40% of total wing areaFlap length = 40% of chordOswald Eff . (e) = .80Wing height from Ground = 7"C L@ 2 Cruising ) = 1. 54C L@ 4 (Take -Off , Flaps 15 ) = 2. 818

P R = 74 . 6 3 fs = . 1 36 h p TLO = 5.9lbs

PLO = 192. 8 ft�lbs =.351hp

Title: SAE Competition: Micro Air VehicleTeam Members: Mickalene Biltz, Jared Judd, Eric Lemongello, John Verdonik, Marcin WojtowiczAdvisor: E.H. Yang Project #: 5 Date: 12/6/2007

ME 423 Phase III Nugget Chart - Engineering Design

● Major Results Obtained in this Semester● Project Objectives

Competition Objectives• Design and build a portable aircraft that can carryy the highest payload fraction possible while pursuing the lowest empty weight. The aircraft must meet all SAE competition rules and regulations• Design and build a carrying case for the aircraft that meets SAE competition requirements• Focus design on lift/drag and on payload to weight ratio• Design limited to 10 lbs (Competition Scoring Equation)

Single Wing Final Design Results, Eppler 423 AirfoilWing Length - 96"Chord Length - 9.80"Height of Wings from Ground - 7"Empty Weight - 3 lbs½ Payload - 16 lbsFull Payload - 32 lbsVelocity Estimate (based on Propeller) - 73.3 ft/sDynamic Pressure (based on Propeller) - 6.23 psiLift (Cruising, based on assumptions) - 62.71 lbs

● Prototype Plan & Purchase Requisition

● Technical Analysis to Engineering Design

● Drawing and Illustration of Final Design

• Create mock-up of prototype during winter break• Collect materials (new and used) over winter break• Updated budget total = $1074.98• Registration Fee = $450.00 (part of budget total)

( g )Surface Area (needed to lift full payload) - 3.33 ft2Vstall (stalling velocity) - 41.96 ft/s VLO (lift off velocity) 50.36 ft/sTechnical Models

• Dynamic Model (Aerodynamics)• Static Model (Stress)• Airfoil - Eppler 423

Engineering Design• Motor and controller determined• Analyses (stress and factor of safety) performed using Solidworks and Cosmosworks for each of the separate parts

Title: SAE Competition: Micro Air VehicleTeam Members: Mickalene Biltz, Jared Judd, Eric Lemongello, John Verdonik, Marcin WojtowiczAdvisor: E.H. Yang Project #: 5 Date: 2/14/2008

ME 423 Phase IV Nugget Chart - Refine Design & Prototype Building

● Achievements & Updates● Project Objectives

Competition Objectives• Design and build a portable aircraft that can carryy the highest payload fraction possible while pursuing the lowest empty weight. The aircraft must meet all SAE competition rules and regulations• Design and build a carrying case for the aircraft that meets SAE competition requirements• Focus design on lift/drag and on payload to weight ratio• Design limited to 10 lbs (Competition Scoring Equation)

Achievements• Final Design• Ordered parts and materials• Assembly Plan and Process• Test build sections - "prototyping" - already in process• Registered for the competition

Updates• Project budget - over budget by about $300

● Assembly Plan

● Refine/Revise/Finalize Design & Prototyping

● Drawing and Illustration of Final Design

• Superpatch, End wing sections, Tail boom• Center wing• Run wires, servos and flaps• Apply Monokote to superpatch and center wing• Landing gear• Attach landing gear• Engine and battery mount• Fuselage and payload - detachable

• Possible entrance into ASME Design Competition• Collected materials from ME Stockroom

Final Design• Design for langing gear• Wing rib spacing to determine Monokote application• Updated engineer drawigns

Test Build - "Prototyping"• Aluminum pins - casted• Carbon arrows - cut and attached• Wing rib spacing and Monokote application

Title: SAE Competition: Micro Air VehicleTeam Members: Mickalene Biltz, Jared Judd, Eric Lemongello, John Verdonik, Marcin WojtowiczAdvisor: E.H. Yang Project #: 5 Date: 3/27/2008

ME 423 Phase V Nugget Chart - Prototype Building & Performance Testing

● Achievements & Updates● Project Objectives

Competition Objectives• Design and build a portable aircraft that can carryy the highest payload fraction possible while pursuing the lowest empty weight. The aircraft must meet all SAE competition rules and regulations• Design and build a carrying case for the aircraft that meets SAE competition requirements• Focus design on lift/drag and on payload to weight ratio• Design limited to 10 lbs (Competition Scoring Equation)

Achievements• Submitted SAE Aero Design Technical Report

- Submitted: Friday, March 7, 2008

Updates• Entered ASME Old Guard Technical Poster Competition

- Competition: Saturday, April 5, 2008• SAE 2008 Aero Design Competition

- Competition: April 18-20, 2008

● Performance & Testing

● Prototyping & Construction

● Drawings and Illustrations

Expected Performance• Payload Fraction = -1E-06*(Density Alt.) + 0.9053• Anticipated Calculated Payload (full) = 27.72 pounds

Testing• Developed "Flight Checklist" - items to look for during take-off, cruise, landing and miscellaneous areas• Test flights - check with local flying clubs for test pilots

• Updated Gantt Chart - behind original schedule by about 2 weeks due to purchasing issue

• Purchasing issue resulted in materials being delivered about two (2) weeks behind schedule - main assembly recently started• Tested electrical components

- Damaged motor controller - re-ordered part• Parts Built:

- Ribs cut and drilled and plied together where applicable- Superpatch cut and assembled- End wings assembled

Title: SAE Competition: Micro Air VehicleTeam Members: Mickalene Biltz, Jared Judd, Eric Lemongello, John Verdonik, Marcin WojtowiczAdvisor: E.H. Yang Project #: 5 Date: 5/1/2008

ME 423 Phase VI Nugget Chart - Performance Testing & Design Improvement

● Final Specifications● Project Objectives

Competition Objectives• Design and build a portable aircraft that can carryy the highest payload fraction possible while pursuing the lowest empty weight. The aircraft must meet all SAE competition rules and regulations• Design and build a carrying case for the aircraft that meets SAE competition requirements• Focus design on lift/drag and on payload to weight ratio• Design limited to 10 lbs (Competition Scoring Equation)

Aircraft Specifications• Wingspan = 8 feet • Propeller Size = 1 inches• Chord Length = 9.8 inches • Empty Weight = 3 pounds• Wing Height from Ground = 9.5 inches • Exp.Payload = 27 pounds• Tail Wing Size = 14 inches • Payload Fraction = 0.902

Take-Off• Thrust = 16.0 pounds• Lift = 19.56 pounds• Power = 1.025 hp

● Design Changes and Improvements

● Testing

● Drawings and Illustrations

Tail Wing• 8 inch extensions added to tail wing to increase stability and control

End Wings• Ailerons were added to increase control

Stability• Center of Gravity position was relocated by moing the motor forward using aluminum spacers and increasing tail wing length to 14 inches

Cruising• Power = 0.496 hp• 2 Main Test Dates:

- Saturday April 12, 2008 - Vernon, NJ & Wawayanda Flying club in New Hampton, NY - No successful flights - very durable plane

- Tuesday April 22, 2008 - Moonachie, NJ - 2 controlled flights, crash landings• Ongoing tests being conducted with pilots from the Wawayanda Flying Club