End of Week 7

Week seven has now passed and it was one of our most productive so far. We finished the construction of "The Anteater" and took it out to Prado Field, where we had an experienced flier test it out. Because there was an issue with the landing gear right before the test launch, we decided to scrap the two rear wheels and hand launch it as we did with the first prototype. Although the plane managed to stay in the air for longer than the first prototype did, the result of the test was very similar to that of the first prototype. Regardless of any attempts made by the pilot, the plane was unable to turn left, thereby making the plane come spiraling down as it continued to bank right. After close inspection, our new friend led us to believe that the plane was unable to turn left due to the placement of the servo horns. According to him, the placement of the servo horns on the ailerons should be closer to the pivot points (rather than the ends like we placed them) because this would minimize the amount of flexing in the foam, since the pivot point would provide the thickest piece of foam and would therefore yield the most stability. We were also told that we should provide bigger support surfaces, that we should look into replacing hot glue with some sort of epoxy, that we should attempt to use two servos for each component to increase the torque applied, and that we should make the servo horns that we are using as thick as possible. All in all, it was a very informative experience for the team regardless of the fact that the outcome did not coincide with our current goals.

Other than that, the following was accomplished in week seven:

• We purchased the rockets we need for the actual event. We will begin testing as soon as possible.
• We developed an airframe that we believe we may use as the final design. Further testing will determine whether we use it or not.

Unfortunately, we are unable to post the video of the test flight on this blog directly at this time. If anyone wishes to view this or other videos related to this project, they can follow the link listed below.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2k8jp00wckfshnb/eFC1tm8LAF?m

 

 

End of Week 6

As the previous post explained, a lot was accomplished this past week in regard to our second prototype, which Jason has dubbed "The Anteater" due to it's long nose. Considering a majority of what was done was described in the previous post, this will serve as description of the testing that took place in Friday's meeting involving the various propellers we recently purchased.

The first series of testing involved hanging our motor on a force sensor while connected to a speed controller and a 14.4 Volt battery configuration. The motor was then activated for about ten seconds, at which point the thrust data accumulated in this period was averaged. This process was done three times with each propeller.  The following data was collected through this process.

Trial	10 x 5 Propeller	10 x 10 Propeller	11 x 7 Propeller	11 x 8 Propeller
1	12.50 N	11.26 N	14.42 N	14.00 N
2	12.10 N	10.80 N	14.43 N	13.61 N
3	11.72 N	10.30 N	14.26 N	13.63 N
Average Thrust:	12.11 N	10.79 N	14.37 N	13.71 N

We then wanted to see how the thrust was affected as the battery life was used up. To do this, we fully charged the 14.4 Volt battery pack and hooked it up to the motor while the 11 x 7 propeller was attached. This propeller was chosen for this test because it put out the greatest thrust values in the previous test. We then used a volt meter to read the number of volts that the battery used to power the motor, at which point we ran the motor until the volt meter read about 12.5 Volts. We fit the data collected through logger pro with a line, at which point we used the time that it ran (293.46 seconds), the slope of the line that was fit to the data (-.01235), and a constant that the linear fit gave us (15.6) to find the average thrust given off by the prop-motor through that time.  The following was done by hand to find this value:

Average Thrust = (ʃ((-.01235)t+15.6)dt)/293.46 , where the integral is evaluated from t = 0 to              t = 293.46

Further testing similar to this will be continued this week.

Week seven will focus on accomplishing the following:

• Airfoils / Air Frame
• Finish construction of "The Anteater"
• Start testing the rockets that we ordered early in week seven
• Complete optimization of scoring formula
• Gather materials necessary for the construction of the wind tunnel
• Start the construction of the wind tunnel
• Power / Propulsion
• Determine NiCd vs NiMh
• More testing with the new battery configuration and new propellers

Trainer Plane Update

Each week we make so much progress. As you may have heard there have been several attempts at making our first plane fly. The first two was a result of a lack of thrust. The final was due to some design issues. We will continue the progress on the trainer plane but will start transitioning into the actual project designs this coming week.

While our first attempt at a plane did not fly due to thrust issues, it seems as though they haev been resolved. The 7.2 volt battery that was supplying the power was not sufficient and so we added another one in series for 14.4 volts. This took the thrust from ~2N to 14N! We were also able to do some testing on different props and those results should be posted soon. Also, we started endurance testing on the batteries to see how long they would last at full power. We tracked voltage and thrust as a function of time. This gave us great data and showed us that we can sustain good power for about 4:45 with the current configuration. The current 14.4V (2000mAh - Nimh) battery weighs ~1.2 lbs which is just under our limit of 1.5 lbs. It looks like this means we may not be able to utilize two motors. We will have to further evaluate this.

One of the major design issues we had was due to the empennage (tail) of the plane. The vertical portion of the tail was too wide as was the horizontal stabilizer. The new fuselage that was built yesterday (Friday) is much narrower. The vertical portion was also made taller to make the plane more stable. The bulk of the previous nose was also reduced in the new design. We were able to create a wiring tunnel through the nose to the electronics bay in the second edition so that the motor wires do not have to wrap around the bottom of the nose. The new design also includes landing gear that may give us a beter look at the plane handling without leaving the ground.

A second generation wing needs to be made and the electronics installed before the test flight. The flight test should take place at Prado next weekend. We will let an experienced pilot attempt to fly the plane and give us feedback on our design.

DBF Budget

The following is the budget for the entire Design Build Fly project.

Equipment Budget	Notes	Funds Necessary
Propellers	10 Total	$100.00
8 Channel Radio Controller	Must be at least 5 channels	$500.00
Servos	7 Total	$105.00
Speed Controller		$80.00
Motor Mount		$20.00
Modeling Clay		$20.00
Push Rods / Connectors		$35.00
Balsa Wood		$50.00
Carbon Fiber		$25.00
Telemetry		$200.00
Batteries		$250.00
Rockets		$200.00
Rocket Case		$50.00
Landing Gear		$30.00
Foam Engine		$400.00  $100.00

Total Equipment Budget
$2,165.00

Travel Budget	Notes	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sunday	Funds     Necessary
Hotel	5 rooms	$400.00	$400.00	$400.00	NA	$1,200.00
Vans	2 Vans	$300.00	$300.00	$300.00	$300.00	$1,200.00
Gas	1860 miles, 25 cents/mile	$232.50	NA	NA	$232.50	$465.00
Food	14 People	$325.00	$325.00	$325.00	$325.00	$1,400.00
Registration	14 People, $20/Person	$280.00	NA	NA	NA	$280.00

Total Travel Budget

$4,545.00

Total DBF Budget

$6,710.00

End of Week 5

Week five is now over and we have learned quite a bit. We spoke to the Aero department at Mt. SAC and it seems that there is no wind tunnel for us to test the various air frames and airfoils we plan to produce. Because of this, we will probably have to build our own unless we find one we can use off campus. We also made our first attempts at flying our test plane. Although we were unable to fly it successfully in either of our three attempts, we have realized that we made quite a few mistakes in the design our our first air frame. Considering this and the fact that the front of the air frame sustained quite a bit of damage in our third attempt  at flight, we are deliberating whether or not we should try to fix our existing frame or simply build a new one. This will be determined later this week. Other than that, the following was accomplished in week five:

• Society of Physics Students
• We won the campus clean up event that took place at Mt. SAC on Saturday.
• DBF Team
• A preliminary budget for the project was written out
• Airfoils / Air Frame
• The rudder was attached to the back of the plane prior to any test flights
• Problems regarding the configuration of the servos were fixed
• The airfoil equipment was initially placed on the wrong side of the wing. The first two test flights were made with this configuration. The third test flight was made with the equipment replaced on the correct side.
• One of the servos broke as a result of one of the test flights
• New equipment was purchased
• A new servo to replace the broken one
• Carbon fiber tubing to reinforce the wings
• Nylon hinges
• Pushrods
• Servo gear set
• Notes
• The airfoils seemed to be sustain very little damage due to any of the test flights
• We realized the foam used to build the test plane is not very dependable, as the plane accumulated a lot of damage throughout the testing process
• The elevators did not work as we intended them to, as the plane generated a ton of lift in the last test even when the elevators were not being activated
• The front of the air frame seemed to be too large. It needs to be much smaller in subsequent designs.
• The center of gravity was measured to be along the wings in all of its tests, just as it should be.
• The plane passed a glide test.
• Power / Propulsion
• An issue with one of the connections involved in powering the motor inhibited it from generating the thrust that we measured in the lab. Because of this, the first flight test failed.
• The issue was diagnosed and fixed after that test.
• Even after the connection issue was fixed, the motor did not generate enough thrust to allow the plane to fly in the second test flight.
• New equipment was purchased
• Male and female connectors
• 5000 mA battery
• Propellers
• Dimensions: (11 x 8) in^2, (10 x 5) in^2 , (11 x 7) in^2 , (10 x 10) in^2
• NiMH Battery Pack
• 7.2 Volts, 2000 mAh
• Our new battery pack was put in series with our old battery pack, thereby yielding 14.2 Volts
• This new configuration was used to power the motor in some preliminary testing and it seemed to increase the thrust that the motor generated by a substantial amount.
• Some of the bigger propellers were tested with the new battery configuration, but they seemed to generate less thrust than the 9x6 in^2 propeller we had already been using.
• The new battery configuration and the 9x6 in^2 propeller were used in the third test flight. Although these seemed to generate enough thrust to fly the plane, we did not have enough control of the plane for it to fly successfully.
• The 9x6 in^2 propeller broke as a result of the third test flight.

Week Five will focus on the following:

• DBF Team
• Write up a travel budget for the trip to Tucson, Arizona
• Airfoils / Air frame
• Determine whether we want to fix our first air frame prototype or start anew
• Design testing rig for in the wind tunnel to gain lift and drag components from wing
• Get rockets for sizing and design consideration
• Complete optimization of scoring formula
• Analyze three designs for testing
• Begin design for a wind tunnel
• Power / Propulsion
• Determine NiCd vs NiMh
• How long will battery last at full power (20 amps)
• Feasibility of splitting into two packs for multiple engines
• Look into placing ducted fans in series (turbine)
• Test the motor with the new battery configuration
• Test different sized propellers

End of Week 4

Week four is now in the books, and although meetings between each respective group have been primarily moved to Fridays in order to simplify things, quite a lot was accomplished. Notebooks have been acquired in order to allow us to tabulate what we accomplish every group meeting, any questions we have, and what we need to accomplish in subsequent meetings. This is being done in the hope that any member that misses a meeting can simply look through the previous entries and be caught up to speed. Other than that, the following was achieved in week four:

• Airfoils/Air Frame
• Finished the wings for the test plane
• Mass of the 1st wing with rods: 147 grams
• Mass of the 2nd wing with rods: 79.1 grams
• Ailerons were reattached
• They were also synchronized with the controller
• The tail was attached to the back of the plane
• Hot glue, toothpicks, and paperclips were used to bind things together
• Note: Hot glue was tested on the foam prior to any gluing. It seemed to bind two pieces of foam together even if one of the pieces was covered in tape. Separating the two pieces by simply pulling them apart did not go very well, however, so we will need to find a way to separate anything glued together that does not harm the pieces being separated
• Finished the frame for the test plane







• Mass was measured to be 113.9 grams
• Engine was mounted into the front of the plane.
• Propulsion
• Determined the thrust given off by the propeller-motor system using logger-pro and a more accurate apparatus
• 1.1 +/- .1 Newtons
• Note: The thrust increased when the wires powering the motor were put in parallel. This test yielded more than twice the thrust noted above.
• The best results for this test were found using a regulated power supply.
• Propeller-motor system: 155.7 grams
• Speed controller: 36.3 grams
• Radio: 15.4 grams
• Actuators: 10.2 grams each
• Note: there are 4 on the plane
• Actuator rods: 3.1 grams each
• Note: there are 6 on the plane
• Power
• Successfully charged 20 nC batteries
• 1.37 +/- .02 Volts
• 1500 mA
• Took 30 minutes to charge 8 cells
• 45.7 grams/8 cells
• Successfully charged two 16 packs of batteries
• We measured the voltage to be about 10.5 Volts, although the packaging said 9.6 Volts
• 800 mA
• 183.7 grams/packet





Celina and Axel contemplating how accurate their
apparatus will be
Week five will focus on the following:


• Airfoils / Air Frame
• Look into building wind tunnel if we can't get access to Aero Dept
• Design testing rig for in the wind tunnel to gain lift and drag components from wing
• Get rockets for sizing and design consideration
• Complete optimization of scoring formula
• Analyze three designs for testing
• Power / Propulsion
• Determine NiCd vs NiMh
• How long will battery last at full power (20 amps)
• Feasibility of splitting into two packs for multiple engines
• Look into placing ducted fans in series (turbine)
• Entire DBF Team
• Fly the test plane!

Note to all members

Team leaders will be chosen for each respective team next Friday. They will be chosen through a group vote. Also, anything that is done in the lab relating to the project must now be recorded in the notebooks that were mentioned at the beginning of this blog.

End of Week 3

Week three is now over, and looking back on it, quite a bit was accomplished. Our first fundraising activity was an utter success. Our entire stock of tamales was sold even after restocking it twice, thereby yielding the funds required for some of the supplies that we need. Other than that, the following was achieved in week three:

• Power / Propulsion

• Acquired more NiCd batteries from Professor Mason
• Continued to test batteries for output
• Disassembled F-18 model and took the servos and electronics for use on this project
• Purchased 40 Amp brushless speed controller
• Dual BEC and advanced programming
• Dimensions: 50mm x 26mm x 10mm
• 20 gram mass
• Purchased propellor motor
• Neodym 480-900 kV motor
• More information on this and other Neodym products can be found at Neodymmotors.com
•  Purchased propellor
• Dimensions: 9 inches x 6 inches
• Determined the thrust being put out by new propellor-motor system using logger-pro
• 1.1 +/- .1 Newtons
• Note: 11.1 Volts and 1.13 Amps were used to power the system
• Airfoils / Airframes

• Developed a new wire cutter to allow bigger pieces of foam to be cut
• Continued building different types of wings
• It was determined that the tips of the wings should not be too thin, as the wire cutter seems to butcher these ends when cutting through the foam
• Began work on building a working trainer model
• Frame drawn, cut out, and sanded
• Ailerons cut out
• Continued work on optimizing the scoring function to determine the best design

Week four will focus on the following things:

• Power / Propulsion

• Determine NiCd vs NiMh
• How many cells for 1.5 lbs
• How long will battery last at full power (20 amps)
• Feasibility of splitting into two packs for multiple engines
• Determine how we will mount engine onto trainer model
• Continuing testing of prop vs ducted fan
• Look into placing ducted fans in series (turbine)
• Airfoils / Airframes
• Look into building wind tunnel if we can't get access to Aero Dept
• Design testing rig for in the wind tunnel to gain lift and drag components from wing
• Test wings that we have built using whatever wind tunnel we get access to
• Get rockets for sizing and design consideration
• Complete optimization of scoring formula
• Analyze three designs for testing
• Finish the plane body for the trainer model

 

End of Week Two

The first week is in the books and it was a productive one!  We were able to recruit a lot of help and volunteers continue to show up as the word spreads.  At last count we have 30 members plus 3 advisors on board!  We have divided the group up into four teams, each with their own focus: Power, Propulstion, Airfoils and Airframe.  The meetings times for now are Monday and Wednesday at 12:00 and Tuesday, Thursday and Friday at 2:00.

Week two accomplished the following things:

• Power
• Obtain NiCd batteries from Professor Mason
• Begin testing batteries for output
• Propulsion
• Fabricated a testing apparatus to obtain thrust values from different systems
• Began testing on an electric ducted fan
• Airfoils
• Hand sanded a wing from scratch
• Designed and built a hot wire foam cutter (learned to appreciate it compared to hand-sanding)
• Airframes
• Worked on optimizing the scoring formula to determine best design
• Looked through different existing designs

 

Week three will focus on the following things:

• Power
• Determine NiCd vs NiMh
• How many cells for 1.5 lbs
• How long will battery last at full power (20 amps)
• Feasibility of splitting into two packs for multiple engines
• Propulsion
• Continuing testing of prop vs ducted fan
• Look into placing ducted fans in series (turbine)
• Look at different prop designs
• Airfoils
• Continuing to perfect the hot wire cutting technique
• Build different wing types for testing (symmetrical, flat-bottom, under-camber, etc)
• Look into building wind tunnel if we can't get access to Aero Dept
• Design testing rig for in the wind tunnel to gain lift and drag components from wing
• Airframes
• Get rockets for sizing and design consideration
• Complete optimization of scoring formula
• Analyze three designs for testing

Week three will also be home to the first fundraising activity.  We will be selling tamales and drinks as well as any baked goods that anyone wants to bring.  This money will go towards buying some of the supplies that we need. 

DBF Competition 2012/2013

We decided to participate in the annual competition put on by Cessna and Raytheon this year after learning that it will take place in Tuscon as opposed to Wichita.  The purpose of the competition is as the name says, to design, build and fly an aircraft with a specific purpose.  Each year the parameters change, giving no real advantage to a veteran school over a first-year school.  The link below is the full set of rules and below that is a summary. 

http://www.aiaadbf.org/2013_files/2013_rules.htm

This year the requirements/constraints are as follows:

CONTEST

• Flying portion of contest is 19-21 April 2013 in Tuscon, AZ
• All design/fabrication/testing must be documented and submitted via a report. 
• Report must be emailed by 5PM EST on 25 Feb 2013
• Final Score = Written Score  * Flight Score / Rated Aircraft Cost (RAC)
• Written Score is out of 100 points
• Flight Score = M1 + M2 + M3
• M1 = 2 * (Laps Flown / Max Laps Flown)
• M2 = 4 * (Stores Flown / Max Stores Flown)
• M3 = 6 * (Fastest Time Flown / Team Time Flown)
• RAC = Sqrt (EW * SF) / 10
• Empty Weight (EW) = Max (EW1, EW2, EW3)
• Size Factor (SF) = Max Length + 2 * (Wingspan)
• Point to point measurements will curve around aircraft as needed
• Shortest path, either over or under will be used.
• Scoring measurements are in feet, lbs and seconds.
• Assembly/flight crew is limited to pilot, observer and 1 ground crew.
• Teams will be allowed 4 flight attempts or 3 successful scoring flights.
• A mission may not be repeated to improve score.
• Missions must be flown in order and a new mission can not be flown until a successful score has been obtained for the previous mission.
• The aircraft will enter the assembly area with the payload for mission #2 and #3 uninstalled.
• The team will have a total of 5 minutes to load the payload and check out the systems.
• There is no work allowed during this time.
• The R/C receiver should be able to be turned on externally or must be left on. You will not be allowed to re-open any compartment after loading/checkout time to turn on the Rx
• The initial upwind turn of the first lap of each mission will occur after passing the turn judge.
• Signaled by raising a flag.
• Aircraft must remain straight and level until this time.
• Aircraft will use ground rolling take-off and landing.
• Aircraft must remain within a 30' x 30' square marked on the runway.
• Aircraft must be airborn before crossing any edge of that square.
• Aircraft must complete a successful landing without damage to the plane.
• Significant damage is at the discretion of the Flight Line Judge.
• Aircraft may "roll-off" the runway during rollout but may not "bounce" off the runway.
• Flight altitude must be sufficient for safe terrain clearance and low enough to maintain good visual contact.
• Flight order will be generated the Wednesday prior to the competetion and will be based upon report scores (Highest flys first).
• If you are not ready to enter the staging box when your rotation number comes up, you miss your opportunity for that rotation.
• If you enter the staging box, it will constitute a flight attempt.  Choosing to leave the staging box for any reason will forfeit that flight attempt.
• If you go to the flight line and are unable to begin flight when instructed you will forfeit that flight attempt.

MISSIONS

• Mission 1
• Take-off within prescribed area.
• Max number of laps in 4 minute flight time
• Time starts when the throttle is advanced for the first take-off attempt
• Lap is complete when the aircraft passes over the start/finish line in the air.
• Mission performance will be normalized over all teams successully completing this mission.
• Must complete a successful landing to get a score.
• Mission 2
• Take-off within prescribed area.
• 3 laps with max internal stores.
• Internal store determined by team and may not be zero.
• Weight of internal fixtures used to secure stores WILL be included in the empty weight measurement.
• Mission performance will be normalized over all teams successully completing this mission.
• Must complete a successful landing to get a score.
• Mission 3
• Take-off within prescribed area.
• 3 laps with mixed stores based on dice roll.
• Roll will occur when team enters assembly area.
• Mission performance will be normalized over all teams successully completing this mission.
• Must complete a successful landing to get a score.

Payload Configuration		1	2	3	4	5	6
Internal	Mini-Max	4	-	2	-	-	-
Left Wing	Mini Honest John	-	-	-	2	-	-
	High Flyer	-	1	-	-	1	1
	Der Red Max	1	1	1	-	1	1
Right Wing	Mini Honest John	-	-	2	2	2	1
	High Flyer	-	1	-	-	-	1
	Der Red Max	1	1	-	-	-	-

TEAMS

• Team members must be AIAA members and full-time students
• 1/3 of members must be Freshmen, Sophmores or Juniors.
• Pilot must be an AMA member
• Teams may accept sponsorship in the form of funds or materials and components.

DESIGN

• Aircraft
• Aircraft may be any configuration except rotary wing and lighter-than-air.
• No structure/component may be dropped during flight.
• Aircraft must be AMA legal meaning TOGW (take-off gross weight w/ payload) must be less than 55 lbs.
• Must remain substaintially the same as documented in the report.
• Ok to change control surface size.
• Not Ok to change from flying wing to conventional tail design.
• Payloads
• All payloads must be secured as to assure safe flight without possible variation of aircraft cg during flight.
• Internal stores must be completely inside the main fuselage or wing.
• Access to stores must be through bottom of aircraft to simulate bay doors (need not be mechanized)
• Stores must be aligned to the direction of flight (tails aft).
• Stores must be secured to a mounting rack/structure that is permanent to the aircraft.
• Must be positioned so that they could be released down one at a time.
• Must not contact each other or any part of the aircraft except for the specified mount/rack.
• Mounting points must be on the store body.
• No external fairings or blisters may be added, all external surfaces must remain the same for all 3 missions.
• External stores must be wing pylon mounted and fully external to the wing profile.
• Fins must be below the wing lower surface trailing edge.
• Mounting points must be on the store body.
• May not block the access/deployment of internal stores.
• Must have minimum store-to-store separation of 3" on centerline.
• Most inboard store must be at least 3" from aircraft centerline.
• Each team will provide a case containing the stores inventory required, including removable pylon assemblies.
• Case must have a latching lid and be able to be opened on one side only (on collapsing cases).
• Store mounts are not part of store weight.
• External pylons will be removed for empty weight measurements.
• Store minimum weights will be verified after each successful flight (not during tech inspection).
• Store may have no additional features beyond what is defined in the kit.
• Required inventory:
• Minimum 4 x Estes Mini-Max (p/n 002445) 0.25 lbs each (minimum). (Internal)
• 4 x Estes Mini Honest John (p/n 002446) 0.50 lbs each (minimum). (External)
• 2 x Estes Hi-Flyer (p/n 002178) 0.75 lbs each (minimum). (External)
• 2 x Estes Der Red Max (p/n 000651) 1.00 lbs each (minimum). (External)
• Each store must have it's model (name) and the required minimum weight printed on the body exterior.
• Motors
• No form of external assisted take-off is allowed.
• Must be electric powered with unmodified over-the-counter motor.
• May use multiple motors/multiple propellers.
• May be direct drive or with gear or belt reduction.
• May be brush or brushless.
• May be commerical ducted fan.
• Must use commerically available propeller hub/pitch mechanisms.
• May modify the diameter by clipping the tip or painting to balance but no other modifications are allowed.
• Allowed to change the propeller diameter/pitch for each mission.
• Power
• Motors and batteries limited to 20 Amp via in-line fuse from positive battery terminal to motor controller. (Only ATO or blade style plastic fuses may be used)
• Must use over the counter NiCad or NiMH batteries. (Must be shrink-wrapped over electrical contcat points.
• Individual cells must be commercially available and labels readable or documented.
• All battery disconnects must be "fully insulated" style connectors.
• Maximum propulsion battery weight is 1.5 lbs
• Propulsion battery pack must power propulsion system only. 
• Radio Rx and servos MUST be on a seperate battery. 
• Batteries MAY NOT be changed or charged between sorties during a flight period.
• Safety
• Must undergo a safety inspection before flight.
• Verify structural integrity.
• Visual inspection of electrical
• Radio range check
• Verify controls
• Check CG (must be marked before-hand)
• Must provide proof of successful test flight.
• Radio fail-safe. If loss of transmit signal, radio must select the following:
• Throttle closed
• Full up elevator
• Full right rudder
• Full right aileron
• Full flaps down (if so equipped)
• Aircraft must have a mechanical motor arming system seperate from onboard radio Rx switch. Will be "blade" style fuse mounted on the outside of the aircraft.
• Must be safed for payload changes, maunal movements and in the hanger area.
• Aircraft must demonstrate load configuration #1 (mission #3) and present photographs showing configurations #2 - #6.
• Must demonstrate wing tip test with either 4 internal stores or the maximum number to be attempted plus one "Der Red Max" on each inboard wing pylon.
• The number of internal stores can not be altered after tech inspection.

 DESIGN REPORTS

• Reports must have the University name on the cover page (reports missing this identification will not be judged).
• Maximum page count is 60 pages (the PDF reader "pages" wil be the official page count).
• Report PDF must be formatted as 8.5" x 11" pages.
• May use 11" x 17" pages for the drawing package.
• Electronic copy must arrive at designbuildfly@gmail.com by 5PM EST on 25 Feb 2013.
• Electronic files must be named: "2013DBF_{University}.PDF
• Electronic files must be a single file with all figures/drawings included.
• Electronic file should be less than 20 MB in size (including encoding for e-mail transmission).
• Reports will be scored out of 100 points.
• Sections must be in sequence, including the drawing package.  Out of sequence items will be treated as missing.
• ALL items should be present and easy to locate and identify.
• Report
• 1. Executive Summary: (10 points):
  · Provide a summary description of your selected design and why it is the best solution to the specified mission requirements.
  · Describe your key mission requirements and design features keyed to those requirements.
  · Document the performance/capabilities of your system solution.
  2. Management Summary (5 points):
  · Describe the organization of the design team.
  · Provide a chart of design personnel and assignment areas.
  · Provide a milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of the design / fabrication / testing processes.
  3. Conceptual Design (15 points):
  · Describe mission requirements (problem statement).
  · Translate mission requirements into design requirements.
  · Review solution concepts/configurations considered.
  · Describe selection process and results.
  4. Preliminary Design (20 points):
  · Describe design/analysis methodology
  · Document design/sizing trades
  · Describe/document mission model (capabilities and uncertainties)
  · Provide estimates of the aircraft lift, drag and stability characteristics.
  · Provide estimates of the aircraft mission performance.
  5. Detail Design (30 points total. 15 points for discussion items, 15 points for drawing package):
  · Document dimensional parameters of final design.
  · Document structural characteristics/capabilities of final design.
  · Document systems and sub-systems design/component selection/integration/architecture.
  · Document Weight and Balance for final design. Must include a Weight & Balance table for the empty aircraft and with each of the possible payloads
  · Document flight performance parameters for final design.
  · Document mission performance for final design.
  Drawing Package
  · 3-View drawing with dimensions.
  · Structural arrangement drawing.
  · Systems layout/location drawing.
  · Payload(s) accommodation drawing(s).
  6. Manufacturing Plan and processes (5 points):
  · Document the process selected for manufacture of major components and assemblies of the final design.
  · Detail the manufacturing processes investigated and the selection process/results.
  · Include a manufacturing milestone chart showing scheduled and actual event timings.
  7. Testing Plan (5 points):
  · Detail testing objectives, schedules, and check-lists.
  8. Performance Results (10 points):
  · Describe the demonstrated performance of key subsystems and compare it to predictions from Section 5. Explain any differences and improvements made.
  · Describe the demonstrated performance of your complete aircraft solution and compare it to predictions from Section5. Explain any differences and improvements made.