




 



Presentation Overview

-Mission & Performance

-Reasons for Design
-3-view & aircraft dimensions
-Aerodynamics
-Stability and Control
-Structures
-Propulsion
-Cost Analysis
-Construction
-Conclusion
Mission

-Design and Build a R/C Airplane that must

-Carry a gyro for augmenting aircraft stability
-Carry a 1lb slug simulating data logging equipment
-Fly inside Mollenkopf Athletic Facility
-Flight duration of at least 12 minutes
Mission & Performance

Cruise & Turn

Climb Descent
Takeoff Land

-Estimated Values -Constraint Values

-Takeoff distance: 35.5 ft -MAX. Takeoff distance: 120 ft
-Climb angle: 12 -MIN. Climb angle: 5.5
-Cruise & Turn: 13 min -MIN. Cruise & Turn: 12 min
-Cruise speed: 25 ft/s -MAX. Cruise speed: 30 ft/s
-Turn Radius: 20 ft -MIN. Turn Radius: 37.5 ft
Constraint Diagram

-Text
 Concept Description
  
-Square fuselage
-Rectangular wings
-Conventional swept tail
-Taildragger landing gear


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







 
3 View of SID5
-DIMENSIONS IN FEET
Aircraft Dimensions

Wing span (b) 6.6 ft Span v-tail 1.3 ft

Chord 1.5 ft Root chord V-tail 1.3 ft
Fuselage length 5.9 ft Tip chord V-tail 0.8 ft
Span h-tail 3.2 ft
Root chord h-tail 1.3 ft L.E. sweep V-tail 21.0

Tip chord h-tail 0.8 ft

¼ chord sweep v-tail 10.9
L.E. sweep h-tail 18.4 Vertical tail area 1.3 ft2

Total wetted area 61.2 ft2

Horizontal tail 3.3 ft 2

area Incidence wing 3

¼ chord sweep h- 14.0 Incidence h-tail 0
tail
Aerodynamics

-Selection of Airfoil for Wing

-Selection of Horizontal and Vertical Tail
-Lift Curve
-Drag Polar
-Lift to Drag Ratio vs Angle of Attack
-CMARC Analysis
Aerodynamics

CL 3.93 rad-1

Velocity Re

CLwing 4.10 rad-1

Stall 20 ft/s 186279
CLo .5242

Cm -.4235 rad-1 Cruise 25 ft/s 232849

Cmo 0.50
Max 30 ft/s 279419
CDo .0427
Aerodynamics
-Airfoil Selection: Selig-Donavan 7062
-Low Reynolds Number, Slow Speed Flight
-Experimental Data/ Xfoil Analysis
-CL vs Alpha Curve, Drag Polar
-Ease of Construction
-Horizontal and Vertical Tail: Flat Plate Assumption
Aerodynamics

Method CL-max

Warner 1.25

Roskam 1.48

Average 1.37

2-D 1.53
Aerodynamics

Phase Angle of Attack CL

Climb 4.0 .75
Cruise 3.0 .70
Turn 5.2 .84
Stall 9.0 1.3
CMARC Analysis
Stability and Control
 Feedback Loop Description
 Gain Selection and Description
 Static Margin, CG, and Aerodynamic Center
 Control Surface and Tail Sizing
 Horizontal and Vertical Tail Size Verification
 Trim Diagram
 Pertinent Static Stability Derivatives and Comparison
Loop Closure Description
 Rate feedback in the pitch axis
 Vary the stability of the short period mode
 Block Diagram Pilot inputs elevator command
TX Pilot

e Aircraft q
RX + Servo q( s)
+/ - ?  e (s)
kr Servo converts voltage
to elevator deflection

qm Pitch Rate Gyro

qm ( s )
Sign of feedback gain is chosen q( s)
to stabilize or destabilize
the mode
 Feedback Gain Implementation
Gain Picked Required Gain Required Phase Gain Margin (dB) Phase Margin
Margin (dB) Margin (deg) (deg)
-0.33 >/= 6 >/= 45 25.8 Infinite
(stabilizing)
0.33 >/= 1 >/= 10 1.11 Infinite
(destabilizing)
 Completed flight in Mollenkopf w/ stabilizing gain
 Behaved as expected, pilot described response as sluggish
 Damped out oscillations when perturbed
Nyquist Diagrams Nyquist Diagrams
From: U(1) From: U(1)
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

Imaginary Axis
Imaginary Axis

0 To: Y(1) 0
To: Y(1)

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6
Stabilizing Case Destabilizing Case
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4

Real Axis Real Axis

Static Margin, CG, and Aerodynamic Center
• Static Margin Desired is 10%, puts CG at the 27% chord
location
• Past 451 final reports agree that 10-15% is an
agreeable range for model aircraft
• Pick toward lower end of range to help with trimming
• Pick desired Static Margin and place internal
equipment to obtain the CG that gives this Static
Margin

XLE
XCG
XNP
XACHT

Distances in ft
Sizing of Control Surfaces And Tails

• Historical Methods (as described in Raymer’s Aircraft

Design: A Conceptual Approach)
V-tail H-tail
• Control Surfaces
• Guidelines Span(ft) 1.3 3.2

• Ailerons: 15-25% chord and 50–90% span AvgChord(ft) 1.0 1.1

• Elevators: 25–50% chord and ~90% span Aspect Ratio 1.30 3.00

• Rudders: 25–50% chord and ~90% span Taper Ratio 0.6 0.6

• Selected: LE Sweep 21.0 18.4

(deg)
• Ailerons: 15% chord and 90% span
Dihedral 0.0 0.0
• Elevators: 40% chord and 95% span (deg)
• Rudder: 40% chord and full span Planform 1.3 3.3
• Tails Area (ft2)
• Sized using the Tail Volume coefficient method
• Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient = 0.45
• Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient = 0.04
• Coefficients based on old 451 Air designs
Analysis Of Tails
-Horizontal Tail
Longitudinal X-Plot
4
Lr e q
Lmax p o s s
3.5
Design Point (3.3 ft^2) Xc g
Xn p
Distance / Wing Chord

2.5

1.5

0.5
2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5
Horizontal Tail Area [ft 2 ]
Analysis Of Tails
-Vertical Tail
-“Weathercock” Stability Criterion
Cn  0.057rad 1 (Dr. Roskam’s Airplane Design Series)
Lateral X-Plot
0.25

0.2

Design Point (1.3 ft^2)

[rad 1]

0.15
-
bet a

Constraint Point
Cn

0.1

0.05

0
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
2
Vertical Tail Area [ft ]
Trim Diagram

-Text
Trim Diagram
Static Stability Derivative Comparison

SID-5 Cessna MPX5

All units
are rad-1 172

Cm -0.40 -0.89 -1.13

Cn 0.12 0.07 0.16

Cm -0.81 -1.28 -1.15

e

Cn r
-0.08 -0.07 -0.11

Note: The MPX5 is a model aircraft designed by Mark Peters

for his thesis, “Development of a Light Unmanned Aircraft for
the Determination of Flying Qualities Requirements”, May 1996.
Structures Overview

-Basic layout of the wings

-Structures matlab code
-Material properties
-Equipment layout
-Weight breakdown
-Landing gear analysis
Basic Layout of Wing

Spar
-located at the 1/4 chord
Sparcaps
-spruce
-1/8” x 1/8” x 6.6’
Shearweb
-balsa
-1.5” x 1/16” x 6.6’
Ribs
-balsa
-spaced every 3 inches from tip
-include lightening holes
Added balsa at leading and trailing edge
Geometric Layout of rib & wing

Typical rib section

Code
Code run using preliminary size of aircraft,
load factor, and a chosen spar size
-Wing loading
-Schrenk’s approximation (Raymer)
-Shear force
-Moment
-Find centroids
-Moments of inertia
 My 
 xx   
-Normal stress  Iz 
 WING LOADING
Trapezoidal approximation

q ( y )  q (0) 1 
2y
1    
 b 
w * 3.75
q ( 0) 
b

Elliptical approximation

4S  2y 
q( y)  1   ^ 2
b * pi  b 
SHEAR FORCE
MOMENT
Normal STRESS
Material Properties

-Normal Stress (at spar caps) = 2750psi

Young's Stress
Modulus Density (yield)
Material (ksi) (lbf/ft^3) (psi)
Balsa 625 11 1725
Plywood 800 37 4000
Spruce 1500 34 8600
Monokote (oz/sqin) 0.0021
Epoxy (oz/sqin) 0.007
CA glue (oz/joint) 0.0068

Table taken from Spring ’99 AAE 451 report

(Team WTA)
Internal equipment layout

Equipment Volume(in3)
Gear box 3 x 1.5 x 1
Motor 2.25 x 1.5

Speed Controller 1.5 x 1.25 x 1

Receiver 1.75 x 1.25 x 0.75
Gyro 1.5 x 1.25 x 1.25
Data Recorder 1.75 x 2.25 x 3.25
Battery(18) 2x1x1
Servo 1.5 x 1.25 x 0.75
Interface 1.25 x 3.5 x 5.75
Predicted Weight Breakdown

Wing 42.0 Receiver 1.0(oz)

(oz) Speed controller 3.0(oz)
Tail 9.5
(oz) Gyro 3.5(oz)
Fuselage 11.0 Tattletail8 15.0(oz)
(oz)
Motor 7.5(oz)
Misc 9.8
(oz) Gearbox 1.5(oz)
Propeller 1.0(oz)
Servo(4) 2.0(oz)
Cell weight(18) 2.8(oz)
Total Weight SID5 =
163.2 (oz), 10.2(lbs)
Landing Gear
-Conventional taildragger landing gear
-Lateral separation
angle of 37.7
-Located
1.2’ from nose
0.6” in front of
the leading edge

Method for sizing and placement of landing gear

Figure 11.4 Raymer
Propulsion

•Constraint Values for Propulsion Design

-Motor Selection
-Propeller Selection
-Speed Controller Selection
-Gearbox Selection
-Battery Sizing & Energy Balance
-Results from the Flight Tests
Propulsion

• Constraint Values for Propulsion Design

-From Sizing Codes
-Maximum Thrust Required = Climb Thrust = 3.35 lbf
-Maximum Power Required into Air =109 Watts
-Endurance Time = 13.3 minutes
-Maximum Available Energy =
1) 2592 Watts-Min. (18 Sanyo 2000mAh Ni-Cd, 1.2 Volts)
2) 3888 Watts-Min. (18 Panasonic 3000mAh Ni-MH, 1.2
Volts)
 Propulsion
• Motor Selection
-Tool : Modified Motor Code provided by Prof. Andrisani
-Criteria : High Efficiency, High Power at Low Current
Efficiency at different Battery Currents

95
Efficiency(%)

90 At 17 Amps
85 At 23 Amps
80 At 30 Amps
75
AstroCO25 Aveox 1415/1.5 Aveox 1415/2 Maxcim N32-13Y Maxcim N32-13D
Motors
Power Output at diffent Battery currents

800
Power output

600 At 17 Amps
(watts)

400 At 23 Amps
200 At 30 Amps
0
AstroCO25 Aveox 1415/1.5 Aveox 1415/2 Maxcim N32- Maxcim N32-
13Y 13D
Motors
Propulsion
Efficiency of 8" pitch Propeller

0.6
Efficiency

0.4 Gear Ratio =3.53

Gear Ratio =3.75
0.2 Gear Ratio =4
0
13 14 15 16 18 20 22 24
Diameter
P o w e r (W a tts )

Maximum Power Ouptut at Different Voltage

800
600
At 19.2 Volts
400
At 21.6 Volts
200
0
AstroCO25 Aveox Aveox Maxcim Maxcim
1415/1.5 1415/2 N32-13Y N32-13D

Motors
Maximum Efficiency of Motor at Different Voltage

0.92
E ffic ie n c y

0.9
0.88
0.86
0.84 At 19.2 Volts
0.82 At 21.6 Volts

0.8
0.78
0.76
0.74
AstroCO25 Aveox Aveox Maxcim Maxcim
1415/1.5 1415/2 N32-13Y N32-13D
Motors
 Propulsion
• Propeller Selection
-Tool : Modified Gold Code provided by Prof. Andrisani
-Criteria : High Efficiency, Low Power Usage, High Thrust
at 25 ft/sec.
Power used to run 8" pitch Propeller
Power (kwatt)

2.5
2 Gear ratio=3.53
1.5
Gear ratio=3.75
1
0.5 Gear ratio=3.53
0
13 14 15 16 18 20 22 24
Diameter (inch)
Thrust produced by Propeller at 8" pitch

30
TRhrust(lbf)

20 Gear Ratio=3.53
Gear ratio=3.75
10 Gear ratio =4
0
13 14 15 16 18 20 22 24
Diameter (inch)
 Propulsion
•Gearbox and Speed Controller Selection
-Tool : Modified Gold Code provided by Prof. Andrisani
-Criteria : Minimum Power dissipated by Controller, High
Efficiency, Low RPM

Speed Controller Gearbox

Model Maxµ35B-21 Maxµ35B-25NB Gear ratio RPM Power input Power output
Efficiency (%) 99.3 99.06 3.53 8292.30 333.95 317.25
Resistance 0.009 0.012 3.75 7805.80 333.95 317.25
Power output (W) 367.2 367.2 4 7318.00 333.95 317.25
Power input(W) 369.80 370.67
Power Dissipated (Watts) 2.60 3.47
 Propulsion
• Battery Sizing & Energy Balance
-Tool : Modified Motor Code provided by Prof. Andrisani &
Iteration procedure to match Battery Size
-Criteria : Minimum Number of Battery Cells, Minimum
Energy Usage
-Ni-Cd Battery : Easy to Charge and Handle. Heavy Weight
and Low Capacity, Proven Battery.
-Ni-MH Battery : Low Weight and High Capacity. Sensitive
to Heat and Hard to Charge.
Ni-Cd # of Battery Cells Energy Provided(W-min)
16 2304
18 2592
Ni-MH # of Battery Cells Energy Provided(W-min)
16 3456
18 3888
 Propulsion

• 3 Choices to Final Propulsion Design Consideration

-Common Features : MaxCim N32-13Y Motor, Maxµ35B-21 S.C.
-Choice 1 : 14X8 Propeller, 3.53 Gear Ratio
-Choice 2 : 14X8 Propeller, 3.75 Gear Ratio
-Choice 3 : 14X10 Propeller, 4 Gear Ratio
Energy Usage for Each Choice

3000.00
Energy (Watt-Min)

2000.00 Choice 1
1000.00 Choice 2
0.00 Choice 3
Total Cruise Turn Climb TO
Endurance
Phase Breakdown
 Propulsion
•Final Propulsion Design Selection
-Choice 1 : MaxCim N32-13Y Motor, Maxµ35B-21 S.C, 14X8
Propeller, 3.53 Gear Ratio, 18 Battery Cells
-Overall Efficiency : 38.55%
Required Thrust Throttle Setting Estimated Throttle Setting
Cruise 2.14 54.4 50%
Turn 2.56 65.1 60%
Climb 3.35 85.2 80%

Choice 1 Prop. Motor S.C. GB

14X8 Maxcim N32-13Y Maxµ35B-21 3.53
Efficiecy (%) 44.93 90.94 99.30 95
Power required by Prop. Watts 296.70 MAX. Thrust required lbf 3.35
Battery Power needed Watts 345.85 Thrust provided by Prop. lbf 3.93
Battery Power Provided Watts 369.81 MIN.Energy required W-Min 2662.71
Power provided into air Watts 133.31 EST. MIN. Energy required W-Min 2452.71
MIN. Power into air req. Watts 109.00 MAX.Energy provided W-Min 2592.00
MIN. Endurance Time Min 12.00 Total Endurance time Min 13.29
 Propulsion
•Results from the Flight Tests
-Main Target to Achieve is to make 12 minute Endurance
-Ability to take off in 40 yards or less
Endura nce Te sts
2Ah Ni-Ca d
Time Throttle set Time Throttle set
2 min 100% 1.2 min 100%
7.5 min 50% 10.35 min 60%
3Ah Ni-MH
Time Throttle set Time Throttle set
1.5 min 100% 1 min 100%
8.33 min 50% 14.4 min 60%

Flight Test 19-Nov 21-Nov

TO Distance (yd) 20 20
Endurance (min) 14.5 10.75
Mission & Performance
-Phase Time Breakdown, Energy & Power
Requirement
Time (Min) Energy Required (W-min)
Total Endurance 13.29 2548.22
Cruise 9.17 1651.42
Turn 4.01 863.85
Climb 0.07 18.85
TO 0.05 14.10

Speed (ft/sec) Thrust(lbf) Batt. Power (W)

Turn Speed 25 2.56 220.89
TO Speed 24 3.35 289.05
Climb Speed 24 3.35 289.05
Cruise Speed 25 2.14 184.65
Cost Analysis

-Wing Test Materials ~ $90

-SID5 Materials ~ $259.95
-SID5 Electronics ~ $1125
-Man Hours (estimate) ~ 2650
-Labor ($75/hour) ~ $198,750
-Total ~ $200,125
Price Breakdown of SID5

LXK196 1/4-20 WING BOLT (4) 1 1.25 1.25 4/4 1.25

GPMQ4258 6-32 (4) STRUT FITTING 6 2.29 13.74 24/24 13.74
LXJ041 SOCKHD SCRW 6-32X1 1/2 (4) 6 1.4 8.4 24/24 8.40
GPMQ3130 6X1/2 (8) SHEET METAL SCREW (8) 3 1.35 4.05 24/24 4.05
K+SR2803 1/2 STREAMLINE ALUM TUBE (4) 1 11.99 11.99 2/4 6.00
GPMQ3750 2-56X12 PUSHROD (6) 2 2.19 4.38 6/12 2.19
GPMQ3791 2-56 THREADED CLEVIS (12) 1 5.19 5.19 8/12 3.46
GPMQ3860 SWIVEL CLEVIS (2) 2 0.99 1.98 4/4 1.98
GPMQ3901 CONTROL HORN (2) 3 0.8 2.4 6/6 2.40
LXH958 KLETT LANDING GEAR .40-.60 1 20.99 20.99 1/1 20.99
DAVQ5310 2 1/4 WHEELS (2) 1 3.89 3.89 2/2 3.89
LXD850 TAILWHEEL BRACKET 1 1.99 1.99 1/1 1.99
LXK159 3/4 TAILWHEEL 1 1.39 1.39 1/1 1.39
LXJ212 INSTANT JET 2OZ 2 9.99 19.98 2/2 19.98
LXJ215 SLOW JET 1OZ 1 6.19 6.19 1/1 6.19
TOPQ1205 ALUMINUM MONOKOTE 1 54.99 54.99 1/1 54.99
TOPQ1204 ALUMINUM MONOKOTE 2 13.99 27.98 2/2 27.98
TOPQ0402 METALLIC BLUE MONOKOTE 2 13.99 27.98 2/2 27.98
JR XP8103 Radio 1 500.00 500.00 1/1 500.00
MaxCim Motor System 1 400.00 400.00 1/1 400.00
Battery Pack 2 112.50 225.00 1/1 225.00
TOTAL 1411.86 USED PARTS 1384.95
KIT PRICE 122.83
 Construction
-AutoCAD drawings: actual size
-Component templates created
-Wing construction
-ribs: balsa
-spar caps: spruce
-shear web: balsa
-leading edge: balsa
-aileron construction: balsa (w/ribs)
-monokote
-struts
 Construction
-Vertical and Horizontal Tail Construction
-balsa truss structure
-built off AutoCAD drawings
-monokote
-Fuselage
-balsa truss structure
-constructed sides first
-built top by holding sides and gluing pieces
-sheet bottom to support components
-velcro to inside for electronic components
-monokote added
 Construction
-Endplates
-balsa truss structure
-monokote
-plastic screws to attach to fuselage
-Landing Gear
-main landing gear
-tail gear
-Motor mount
-Control Surface attachments
-ailerons
-rudder
-elevator
Construction

Component Weight
Payload 1 lb
Endplates 0.27 lb
Fuselage, motor, controller, tail, landing 3.78 lb
gear, propeller, 2 servos, receiver, gyro
Upper wing, struts, control rods 1.30 lb
Lower wing, 2 servos, wires 1.53 lb
2000 mAh NiCd 3.38 lb
3000 mAh NiMH 2.17 lb
Total Weight: w/ NiCd: 11.26 lb
w/ NiMH: 10.05 lb
Actual Performance

Cruise & Turn

Climb Descent
Takeoff Land

-Estimated Values -Actual Values

-Takeoff distance: 35.5 ft -Takeoff distance: 24 ft
-Climb angle: 12 -Climb angle: ~20
-Cruise & Turn: 13 min -Cruise & Turn: ~12 min
-Cruise speed: 25 ft/s -Cruise speed: ~27 ft/s
-Turn Radius: 20 ft -Turn Radius: 12 ft
Flight Results: Saturday- Flight 1
Pilot: Dave Henady
ATM. Press.: 30.22 mm Hg Temp: 30 F
Location: Delphi Airport
Mission: Attempted First Flight
Comments: ~extremely windy
 ~had problem keeping airplane from blowing away
 ~sustained minor damage from being blown into parked car
 ~need to add down trim to plane-Pilot
 ~initially was too cold for motor to function, had to be brought in and warmed up
 ~plane was predictable and handled well-Pilot
Duration: 3 minutes
Take off Distance: ~plane basically hopped into the air
Landing: ~no major problems
Battery Utilized: NiCd
Damage Report: ~cracked rib
Repair Time: ~minor
Flight Results: Sunday- Flight 2
Pilot: Dave Henady/ Pat Dempsey
ATM. Press. 30.30 mm Hg Temp: 46 F
Location: Mollenkopf Athletic Center
Mission:A. Short hop (P.D.)
B. Short hop+turn (P.D.)
C. Endurance Test (D.H.)
Comments:A. Fine take off and landing needed some power.
B. Fine take off , very stable turn and hard landing due to not
adding enough power.
C. Very smooth take off,turned and flew very nicely.
Very predictable flying and stable.
Very Maneuverable.
A lot of power.
Flight Results: Sunday- Flight 2
Duration: A: less than 15 sec.
B: About 20 sec.
C:Appr. 14 min. 30 sec.
Flight Speed: A: 25 ft/s
B: 25 ft/s
C: 27~ 30 ft/s
Take off Distance: A: 15 yards
B: 15 yards
C: 20 yards
Landing: A: 10 yards
B: 2 yards
C: 40~50 yards
Battery Utilized: NiMH
Flight Results: Sunday- Flight 2
Damage Report: A: No damage.
B: Separated firewall of motor.
C: No damage.
Repair Time:  A: None
B: 5 min.
C: None
Flight Results: Sunday- Flight 3
Pilot: Dave Henady
ATM. Press.: 30.30 mm Hg Temp: 46 F
Location Mollenkopf Athletic Facility
Mission: Flap Test during indoor flight
Comments: ~Flight started out well
~Adding flaps on landing is not the best idea
~Plane was stopped by student to keep from hitting wall
~adding flaps pitched plane up, and had to add more down elevator
~Group heart attack occurred shortly after crash
~it was demonstrated that feedback gain can be used
Duration: 5 minutes
Take off Distance: 20 yards
Landing: ~Plane was caught in ground effect. Would not land.
~Touched down late and then hit student
Battery Utilized: NiCd
Flight Results: Sunday- Flight 3
Damage Report: ~crushed leading edge on left side of bottom wing
~crushed leading edge on majority of upper wing
~about 15 broken ribs
~broken elevator
~major damage to group morale
Repair Time: ~substantial, about 90 man hours
 Flight Results: Tuesday –Flight 4
Pilot: Dave Henady
ATM. Press.: 30.33 mm Hg Temp: 46 F
Location Mollenkopf Athletic Facility
Mission: demonstrate a/c flight both w and w/o feedback gain
Comments: ~Very predictable
~gyro dampened out oscillations
~made the controls more sluggish
Duration: 5 minutes
Take off Distance: 15 yards
Landing: 30 yards. No problems
Battery Utilized: NiCd
Damage Report: Happily None to Report
Repair Time: Nonexistent
Flight Results: Tuesday- Flight 5
Pilot: Sean Henady
ATM. Press.: 30.33 mm Hg Temp: 46 F
Location Mollenkopf Athletic Facility
Mission: perform the a/c mission of 12 minutes
Comments: ~did not make 12 minutes because performed a lot of maneuvers
~flew nicely
~did four circles hands off
~pilot enjoyed flying this plane
Duration: 10:43 minutes
Take off Distance: 20 yards
Landing: 30 yards. No problems
Battery Utilized: NiMH
Damage Report: Happily None to Report
Repair Time: Nonexistent
Flight Results: Tuesday- Flight 6
Pilot: Sean Henady
ATM. Press.: 30.33 mmHg Temp: TEMP:46F
Location Mollenkopf Athletic Facility
Mission: High Performance Test
Comments: Short take off with full throttle setting.
Tight turn with 6 yard radius.
Demonstrated nice roll rate.
Successful stall turns.
Tested the minimal stall speed with power on and off.
With power off stall speed was less than approximately. 20 ft/s.
With power on stall speed was less than approximately.15 ft/s.
Achieved maximum speed in Mollenkopf was approximately.100 ft/s.
Flight Results: Tuesday- Flight 6
Duration: Approximately 8 min.
Take off Distance: 8 yards
Flight Speed: Between 10 and 58 mph.
Landing: 10 yards
Battery Utilized: NiCd.
Damage Report: No Damage.
Repair Time: Nonexistent
conclusion

-aircraft completed mission

-aircraft was more maneuverable than designed
-aircraft cost $60 more than predicted
-aircraft weight was similar
-aircraft was able to perform with and without gain
-took 2700 hours to build
-if future models were built using a machine to cut out parts would be
explored.
-materials other than balsa may be explored if indoor flight was
continued. (not the most robust)
Questions?