Full Aircraft Dimensions: - Real World Design Challenge
Small Unmanned Aircraft SystemsFY13 RWDC National Aviation ChallengeSubmitted byAERONAUTICAL DOLPHINSName Age Grade E-mail Phone Numbers (670) Arada, Jill Ann 17 11 jaalcada@ 235-3053Magat, Clariza 17 12 clarizamae.cookie@ 235-1660Xiao, Stephanie 17 11 nini_yuan1014@ 785-4083Xu, Cecilia Huixin 16 10 xucecilia1@ 287-8908Aglubat, John Paul 18 12 johngubat@ 288-2940Bigueras, Jessica 16 10 jess.bigu115@ 233-1964OBJECTIVE FUNCTION: 232,818.02Marianas High SchoolCNMI Public School SystemPO Box 501370Saipan, MP 96950 (670)664-3800January 18, 2013Coach: John RaulersonMarianas High School Mathematics Department and Aviation Department Chair237-3258 / 235-2568raulerson28@ All the team members have successfully completed all the surveys.Executive SummaryIntroduction: Small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) are quickly developing in the United States and are authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The option of using an unmanned aircraft to conduct missions is a safer, faster, and easier way of completing dangerous and time-consuming tasks. The pilot of the unmanned aircraft will be controlling the plane without the dangers of being in the air. The US Army has awarded organizations for the use of advancing unmanned aircraft systems. In order to provide the necessary aspects of a sUAS, our design is built around the sensor payload in order to detect the target. In creating the system that is able to detect the target with a sensor payload and a search pattern that the aircraft will follow, detecting and identifying an object is easily achieved. These factors impacted our design solution to keep the system simple, yet effective in locating anything in a designated area. Conceptual Design: In the first phase of our design, it was already necessary for us to think outside the box. We approached the challenge with all kinds of possibilities and brainstormed multiple design solutions in an effort to jump start our design process. First, we identified design categories with the most cost-efficient yet exceptional performance as measured by the Objective Function (T * C). These included: sensor payload, aircraft lift characteristics, weight, and number of aircrafts. We then used qualitative down-select where we identified key design variables which would have the biggest impact on the efficiency of our design. These included: aircraft layout, sensory payload and telemetry selection, UAV(s) search pattern, propulsion system selection, ground equipment selection, and additional UAV equipment. Preliminary Design: During the preliminary design phase, we identified selection criteria for our aircraft. We considered a wider range of wing designs which involved variables such as aspect ratio, sweep, and taper. We also selected balsa wood for the aircraft’s structure because it was lightweight and strong; wood is also notably easier to manipulate therefore making it easier to repair. Concurrently, the team chose to use ceconite 101 because it’s strength in comparison to cotton and its probable lifetime durability. To choose what kind of propulsion system our aircrafts would use, we considered the pros and cons of three scenarios (glow fuel, 87 octane, and batteries) of fuel. We then performed high order analysis to create the structure of our aircraft on Creo, (put more stuff on cognitive thinking.) Detailed Design: Our final design included a glider inspired fuselage with a 1800 Watt electric brushless dc motor. The wing uses a single airfoil, the NACA 4415, for high lift coefficient(1.866) in low Reynolds number flight and an average thickness of 14.994 percent and a camber of 3.974 to compensate for the storage, and extension of flaperons, which act as ailerons, flaps and spoilers for the aircraft. Our wing has an aspect ratio of 11.3, a taper ratio of .57, a sweep of 4.14 degrees and has a planform area of 414 square inches without the flaperons and 538 square inches with the flaperons fully extended with a chord increase of 2 inches. We are using a high wing design and have a wing dihedral of 5 degrees to keep the aircraft straight and stable in flight. We are using winglets to improve our take off and climb time as well as reduce lift-induced drag and the effect of wingtip vortices. We have a wing incidence of 1.56 degrees because our cruise speed will 73.42 and that alpha provides us with the lift coefficient that creates just enough lift to support the weight of our aircraft, 22.53 pounds of lift. Our aircraft also features airbrakes on top of its fuselage to help the aircraft create drag when it is slowing down to reduce the amount of lateral coverage lost in the detection phase where we zoom in on a possible target for confirmation for 5 seconds. Our four aircraft were able to search the entire 2 mile radius search area in Philmont Ranch, New Mexico in 17 minutes with each still having about 50% of their battery life to spare. We achieved a nominal Objective Function value of 240,602.21, traveled a combined total of 69.745 miles for all four aircraft without recharging, going at a cruise speed of 73.42 mph and making a combined total of 72 turns in the process.?Table of Contents1. Team Engagement1.1 Team Formation and Project Operation 061.2 Acquiring and Engaging Mentors 081.3 State the Project Goal 091.4 Tool Set-up / Learning / Validation 101.5 Impact on STEM 102. Document the System Design2.1 Conceptual, Preliminary, and Detailed Design2.1.1 Conceptual Design (Many Solution Candidates) 122.1.2 Preliminary Design (Few Solution Candidates) 142.1.3 Detailed Design (One Solution Candidate Refined) 202.1.4 Describe lessons learned 252.1.5 Describe project plan updates and modifications 272.2 Detail the Aerodynamic Characterization2.2.1 AeroData Characterization 292.2.2 Airfoil Validation 292.3 Selection of System Components2.3.1 Propulsion System 312.3.2 Sensor Payload Selection 322.3.3 Ground Station Equipment Selection 352.3.4 Additional UAV/UAS Equipment 352.4 Aircraft Geometric Details2.4.1 Wing Configuration 362.4.2 Tail Configuration 372.4.3 Fuselage 382.5 System and Operational Considerations 412.6 Component and Complete Flight Vehicle Weight and Balance 422.7 Maneuver Analysis 452.8 CAD Models 472.9 Three View of Final Design 483. Document the Mission Plan3.1 Search Pattern 503.2 Camera Footprint 513.3 System Detection and Identification 533.4 Example Mission 543.5 Mission Time and Resource Requirements 564. Document the Business Case4.1 Identify targeted commercial applications 594.2 Amortized System Costs 614.2.1 Initial Costs 614.2.2 Direct Operational Cost per Mission 644.2.3 Amortization 654.3 Market Assessment 664.4 Cost / Benefits Analysis and Justification 67Team EngagementTeam Formation and Project OperationWe established leadership positions in all the appropriate areas which was required and listed as followed: project management, science, engineering, mathematics, marketing and communications. Jill was the project manager and she was in charge of communications, Clariza was the lead design engineer, John Paul was the lead technical engineer, Stephanie was the lead mathematician, Cecilia was in charge of science and Jessica headed the marketing department. Our strategy was to collaborate and share ideas in ways that maximized our abilities. The team met up frequently to work on the project and communication among each individual was extremely important. We collaborated with many great individuals in our society which expanded our knowledge in all areas. The skillset of each member was vital in completing all aspects of the challenge.Being 14 hours ahead of the rest of the states, we had to calculate the time when webinars would take place. We usually met as early as five o’clock in the morning just to watch the webinars. Project plan versus calendar dates:The project manager (Jill) of the team organized the team’s schedule to make sure that each member was focused on their task. She was able to analyze her teammate’s hectic schedules, thus; implementing special accommodations when needed. In addition, she remained attentive to the advice given to her by the mentors as well as the job of relaying information to her team. Furthermore, during last year’s competition, she proved that she was efficient in gathering information from the mentors. The lead design engineer (Clariza) was exceptionally creative and introduced ideas that were beneficial to the team. She also led the team in research and allowed us to acquire the strongest, lightest and most cost efficient materials in respect to the aircraft’s mission. She was more than capable of the job because she worked on last year’s challenge. Clariza also assisted Jessica with important marketing decisions. Working as the lead technical engineer, John Paul was in charge of the software. Notwithstanding, being recently introduced to the software, he was able to familiarize himself with the state of the art technology in a short amount of time. He has proven to be very skillful and technologically advanced and therefore was deemed qualified for the title of lead technical engineer. His tenacity and patience toward the software was also commendable. New to the competition, Stephanie worked diligently to solve mathematical problems. She is currently taking AP calculus and excelling. She was the lead mathematician and she guided the team throughout all mathematical challenges. Stephanie familiarized herself with the problems that she faced and explained in detail, all her findings to the rest of the team. Acquiring the team’s leadership in science, Cecilia is new to the Real World Design Challenge. Currently, she is taking an AP Science course. Cecilia has shown great enthusiasm since her inception into the Real World Design Challenge. With her skill sets, we are able to attain a better understanding of scientific concepts needed to have a true understanding of the challenge.The marketing lead (Jessica) possessed exceptional marketing and business skills. Her special skills help us maximize the cost to business aspect of the aircraft and mission. She also identified all the pros and cons of each design possibility, giving her team mates essential input on how the aircraft could be designed and advertised. Furthermore, Jessica’s marketing and business experience proved to be a valuable asset to one of the two major components of the challenge. THE TEAMNameTitleResponsibilityJill Ann AradaProject MangerDistributing jobs, managing team schedules, and organizing information.Clariza MagatLead Design EngineerAnalyzing materials and presenting the price, pros, and cons, and leads researchJohn Paul AglubatLead Technical EngineerConducts analysis with MathCad, Creo, and FloEFD softwares.Stephanie XiaoMathematicianSolves mathematical obstacles the team faces.Cecilia XuLead Mission PlannerCreates possible mission plans with effective outcomes and is in charge of the search pattern.Jessica BiguerasMarketing LeadResearches about the possibilities of what the UAV is capable of and applies it to our aircraft as well as writing about it in the marketing section.1.2 Acquiring and Engaging MentorThroughout the challenge, we faced certain obstacles that required additional guidance. During the process of identifying mentors, we looked through the list that RWDC had provided. Although we already had one mentor that we met from last year’s challenge, we needed to increase our knowledge base to additional professions, which required more mentors. Therefore, we selected additional mentors from the list by looking at their title and professional background. We also considered the fact that the individuals on the list would be obligated to mentor other teams, therefore; we expedited our requests as soon as possible. We maintained a dialog with the mentors that replied to our email and sent back helpful information. Our media communication of choice was email.We contacted several individuals from the mentor list and received a few replies. We kept in mind that mentors may be busy and respected their decision in accepting or denying our request. We worked with Rene Buendia, David Billingsley, Jeff Duvan, and Manoj Rahematpura. Mr. Buendia, Mr. Billingsley, and Mr. Duvan were all new mentors. We worked with Mr. Rahematpura in the previous year. Aside from mentors on the list, we also collaborated with a few individuals from our school and community. We had Jonathan Liwag to help us with technical issues which was still our Achilles’ heel and Emory Frink who provided us with mentoring on aircraft physics. We looked over UAV websites and found the AeroVironment, Inc. website. We talked to Carly Garrison through email and although she is not on the mentor list, she agreed to become our mentor. She worked in the business development sector of the company and mentored us in the marketing section of the challenge, learning a great deal from her. We tried to convince her to become an official mentor for RWDC.Throughout the challenge, we met new people that enriched our knowledge. Learning from many great individuals helped us greatly with the understanding of the challenge process.MentorsNameEmailCompany NameManoj Rahematpuramanoj.rahematpura@pw.Pratt & WhitneyCarly Garrisongarrison@Aerovironment, Inc.David Billingsleydavid.billingsley@AAI CorporationRene Buendiarene.buendia@FAAJeff Duvanjeff.duvan@FAAEmory Frinkem.frink@Retired Pilot1.3 State the Project GoalOur team’s project goal was to design a small unmanned aircraft system, which includes one or more fixed-wing UAV’s, and to develop a business plan for our design. We were given a mission scenario to search for a missing, injured, and immobilized child with a blue jacket during the day at the Philmont Ranch in a designated 2-mile radius circular search area.Fortunately, this parts of the challenge statement create a strong relationship with the project goal. The objective function includes the total time required to complete the mission and the overall cost of the system while completing the mission fifty times. The objective function represents an enormous part of our efforts in completing the challenge because it is derived from our unique ideas and designs. Our design variables were also related to the project goal and we strived to create an optimal design in respect to cost. We wanted to minimize the cost of the UAVs and the ground-based components and complete the mission by rescuing the injured child as fast as possible. Our objective function, design variables, and project goal formed a clear relationship with our design solution. We started with the project goal and collaborated to create new ideas on possible designs. Our objective function was then brought forth after following through with the cost of the overall mission. It represents a great deal of our efforts and contributes greatly to our design solutions. 1.4 Tool Set-up / Learning / ValidationThe installation of Creo and Mathcad were relatively straightforward. Thanks to the tutorial videos on the PTC website which eliminated all of the roadblocks for the team. Therefore, we were able to figure everything out, without going through the trial and error process. The only delay was in the license files. John Paul tried utilizing the team’s old license codes. The license codes allowed us to install the software. However, John Paul couldn’t use the software until he had access to the updated license codes, which he finally received the day after installing the software. While John Paul has used other modeling software before like blender, Creo was not as user-friendly as he anticipated. However the tutorial videos and the webinar presentations proved to be extremely helpful. And the linking of the software to OpenVSP made it much easier as OpenVSP is much more user-friendly and quicker to use. We sent a request for the FloEFD product codes a few days after the national challenge came out. We waited for around three weeks until we received the codes. We emailed RWDC support several times and finally received the codes after a long time. John Paul then proceeded to input the codes into FloEFD, but a message box kept appearing that it has not received the license for the feature efdpro.1.5 Impact on StemBy participating in this challenge, each member of the team was enriched with knowledge and it influenced their perspectives on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as well as their potential career paths.Jill: “It is the second time I have participated in the Real World Design Challenge and I never get tired of learning new things from new people. This challenge helped me perceive STEM as extremely interesting. It made me think about my future and what I wanted to do in life. Engineering is quite a challenge and I love to take on challenges. The challenge impacted STEM interests in my school by giving an opportunity for students to solve real world problems in real world situations.”Clariza: “Before the Real World Design Challenge, I’ve always known that I would be a science major. On the other hand, after participating in the challenge for two consecutive years, there are so many more career paths I considered. I’ve always contemplated about taking a career path into engineering and technology, but I’ve never really taken it into serious consideration until joining RWDC. I still find it exciting to acquire new information and take on various challenges on a daily basis.”Cecilia: “This is the first time that I have participated in the Real World Design Challenge and it is quite a challenge. It’s difficult but at the same time, fun. I have learned a lot of things about aircraft and cameras. Also, I have never participated in a big project which deals with science. This challenge encouraged me to learn more about engineering and technology. It also helps me focus more on science because I have yet to explore much of it. With the current challenge, it also lets me understand many situations that needed modern science technology.”Jessica: “This is also my first time to participate in the Real World Design Challenge. I find it very challenging, but interesting. Participating in this challenge allows me to learn more about STEM and how to apply them in real life situations. This makes me think about my future a lot. I never knew the basic structures of an aircraft until I started my own self-studying requirements for the challenge. Learning from my teachers, teammates, and mentors, made me aware of what else is out there.”Stephanie: “I am new to the Real World Design Challenge and it’s really cool to use my knowledge of mathematics to solve the problems of the real world. For example, when I was challenged by the first problem which I never solved before, I felt excited during the process of finding a solution. Throughout the challenge, I have filled my brain with knowledge and realized that this is what I want to do. The challenge impacted my STEM interests by using what we learned in class to solve real world problems.” John Paul: “I’ve always been interested in engineering and science. I’ve always done research on possible inventions I may be able to try in the future with professional technology. The Real World Design Challenge got my interest because I want to get the feel of using applied science now. I’ve been doing research on aviation designs for a while. I like a challenge and feel that it’s time to use my knowledge for something a little more productive than just more research.”Document the System DesignConceptual, Preliminary, and Detailed Design2.1.1 Conceptual Design (Many Solution Candidates) In the beginning of the challenge, we collaborated and came up with many ideas. For our conceptual design, we considered all our possible options.The first topic we discussed was regarding the sensory payloads. We were looking for a camera that was lightweight, efficient, good quality, provided sufficient rolling limits, a commendable optical zoom, and is cost efficient. We considered all the choices from the catalog that RWDC offered.Picking from the catalogs, we had choices of propulsion systems that would either need fuel or batteries. We needed a propulsion system that would generate enough thrust for our aircraft to stay in flight at a constant velocity. We considered all the choices from the catalog and narrowed it down to the best choices for the mission. We considered all the choices from the RWDC catalog and came up with a conclusion that our propulsion system should be lightweight, should be able to generate enough thrust for our aircraft to stay in flight at a constant velocity, and of course, cost efficient. Propulsion System ChoicesSpecificationsGL-6GL-12GL-25GA-55GA-110E-6E-20E-70Weight0.5 lbs1.4 lbs2.1 lbs.4.9 lbs6.9 lbs0.43 lbs.1.1 lbs.3.5 lbs.Generated Thrust2.1 lbs5.1 lbs13 lbs33 lbs56 lbs2.0 lbs13 lbs35 lbsCost$109.99$499$545$595$795$170$295$559In-Flight Propeller Efficiency75%80%80%85%85%80%80%85%Powered byFuelFuelFuelFuelFuelBatteriesBatteriesBatteriesWe also considered the general shape of our aircraft to be sleek and lightweight. Sleek, lightweightWings are able to generate lots of liftMany different tail shapes and sizes consideredThe overall conceptual design of our aircraft included a large wingspan with a winglet on each wing. The size of our aircraft would be quite small, about three feet in length. Our components would be lined up in the fuselage where the sensory payload would be near the center of gravity. We also wanted the general components of our aircraft to be as close as possible to reduce the size of our UAV. For our wings, we considered high wing regarding lift and low wing regarding speed. We then planned to include winglets into our design. Winglets reduce the erraticness of wingtip vortices, improve energy efficiency and reduce our needed take off speed. For our ground station equipment we planned to have one of each component/workstation since we plan to use only one aircraft. .2.1.2 Preliminary DesignThe team started meticulously planning on the aircraft’s components as soon as the challenge was released. To begin the process of finding the most favorable components, we made sure to carefully read the catalog, beginning with the sensor payloads. To narrow our selection, we focused on the X1000, X3000, and X4000. The choices were simplified by looking for sensor payloads that had a competitive price, low power draw, and lighter weight with accommodations of wider rolling angles and a reasonable zoom. The X1000 was one of the contenders because of its feasible price, light weight, and low power draw. On the other hand, it lacked the ability to zoom. In competition, the X3000 claimed our attention because of its better rolling angles, reasonable telephoto, and reasonable weight. However, it had the highest power draw. Conversely, the X4000 was desirable because it included a zoom of 16x telephoto and in comparison to the X3000 had a lower power draw and wider rolling angles. Yet, the price of the X4000 was more expensive and it was the heaviest amongst all the sensor payloads considered. Initially, we chose to accommodate the aircraft two X1000s because of its price, however it lacked an appropriate zoom. Therefore, we narrowed down our choices to the X3000 and the X4000. After the conclusion of the sensor payloads, we discussed the propulsion system. We focused on a propulsion system that proposed an agreeable price and minimum weight, with sufficient power for our aircraft. In addition, it had to be environmentally friendly. Nonetheless, we simplified our choices to the GA-55, GA-110, and E-20. Our choices started off with the GA-55 and the GA-110, considering these were the units with enough thrust capable of providing enough power for our aircraft. As well as adequate power, both these choices were very heavy and expensive. The E-20, on the other hand, runs on electricity and would require batteries. Although we would need to find a reliable battery power, it is the lightest and cheapest propulsion system amongst our choices. In regards to the ground stations, we decided to have one emergency pilot, in case of any accidents, a main pilot maneuvering the aircraft. We also chose to have a payload operator, as well as one maintenance representative for mechanical issues. Preliminary design drawings:A. Our first designB. Increasing the diameterC. Sensor payload arrangementD. Decreased our wetted area E. Rearranging our componentsF. Decreasing the radius of the fuselageDescriptionsA. Our first designThe picture shows our very first design for our UAV. We tried to move the camera from the wing box to the aft fuselage but in reference to the picture above, the camera was too bulky to fit in the aft fuselage. Each square on the graph paper represents one square inch (Top View)B. Increasing diameterWe increased the diameter of the fuselage from 1.5 to 2.6 inches and moved the camera from the wing box to the aft fuselage. Also, we found out from the webinar on Nov. 27 that if our propeller was too big, then our power plant selection was also too big. (Side View)c. Sensor payload arrangementWe attached the wings to the top of the fuselage. We switched from the X4000 to the X3000 because it was not as bulky as the X4000 and it was also much lighter. Fortunately, the downsides of the X3000 were acceptable; therefore, we decided to stick with it. D. Decreased wetted areaWe then realized that we had extra volume in the back that we didn’t use. Thus, we moved the camera from the aft fuselage to underneath the wing box and eliminated the extra volume that was not being utilized in the aft fuselage area. This trimming process decreased our wetted area.E. Rearranging componentsIn the picture above, we moved the camera from underneath the wing box to directly aft of the nose because the camera was the bulkiest item and we wanted to install the items from largest to smallest. Thus, we decreased the radius of the aircraft once we pass the X3000. This deduction helped in the efficiency of the aircraft by further reducing the wetted area. We also moved the ram air turbine from the wing area to directly behind the propellers. F. Decreasing the radius of the fuselageIn the picture above, we are decreasing the radius of the fuselage as we pass the X3000 until we get to the attachment of the boom. We made it more streamline and lighter, by again reducing the wetted area. We brought the wings down to the center fuselage for attachment at the same waterline and fuselage stations of the CD and VD units.2.1.3 Detailed Design In reference the fuselage, our detail design rearranged the aircraft components from greatest volume to the least volume. The purpose behind this change was to decrease our wetted area. By decreasing our wetted area, it made our aircraft more efficient by reducing its weight. Furthermore, once the components were arranged in descending order, we realized that a large portion of the aircraft was not being utilized. Therefore, we started eliminating the excess. After the excess was trimmed off, we simply created a leaner more efficient aircraft.The airfoil we chose was the NACA 4415. We have tried several airfoil designs, but the NACA 4415 came out to be the best. ?The NACA 4415 airfoil showed pretty good results from javafoil testing as compared to the other airfoils we considered (NACA 0010 and the SD 7032). It was also an airfoil design that made sense. Short near flat bottom to let more air pass through and increase air pressure below to create lift, aerodynamically curved top to reduce lift-induced-drag, but also slow air particle moving across the top to reduce upper air pressure and create lift.“This classic airfoil has been analyzed with JavaFoil and compared against wind tunnel tests performed in the Laminar Wind Tunnel at Stuttgart, The data presented in NACA Report No. 824 and results produced by XFLR5, an implementation of the XFOIL algorithms. The airfoil coordinates were created with JavaFoil, using the standard number of 61 points.The maximum lift coefficient is over-predicted by both numerical methods (JavaFoil, XFLR5). The lift gradient is (dCl/dalfa) is also overpredicted because no boundary layer displacement effects are modeled. While these are modeled in XFLR5, the deviation from the experimental values is also rather large. The drag coefficient lies close to the experimental values but is considerably higher than the XFLR5 prediction. At lower lift coefficients, the lower surface becomes fully turbulent and the drag is predicted too high.” () We also added winglets to reduce the needed takeoff speed and improve our climb rate and our energy efficiency allowing the aircraft to last on longer missions. Our high aspect ratio wings allow for high lift while sacrificing maneuverability because maneuverability is not an all-too-important factor so long as our aircraft is capable of making its spiral search turns. We added dihedral to prevent side-slip angles and have more lateral balance and stability giving us more control of our turns. In addition to our aircraft design, we decided to include flaperons. Flaperons will allow us to roll the aircraft, take off at a slower speed, land at a slower speed, fly at a slower speed and maintain the same altitude. It also prevents our aircraft from flipping over in flight.Our wing’s sweep is designed to flatten the back edge of the wing to compensate for the flaperons, which we use for slowing down when we spot a potential candidate for confirmation. Our horizontal tail’s anhedral balances out the lift of the wing which occurs mostly near the nose to balance the fore and aft of the aircraft. Its sweep is similar in purpose to the wing’s, which is to flatten its back edge to compensate for elevators. The design behind our vertical is to keep the aft of the aircraft laterally stable as well as keep it at the aft most end without its root trailing end passing the length of the fuselage. Regarding efficiency, we further recognized the need to multi-function components to enhance efficiency. For example, we decided to move the antennas from the (Bottom Fuselage) Video Data link and the Command Data link and move them to the right and left wing tips respectively. Due, to this placement, our antennas became multi-functional because they now serve as followed: structural component for the winglets, counter torque for the propeller and finally communication between the base and the aircraft. Therefore, instead of only serving one purpose, the antennas have been made multi-function to serve three purposes. Also, the drag component of the antennas will be virtually eliminated. In regards to the equipment selected, we decided on both the X3000 for its reasonable price and telescopic capabilities and chose E-20 because it was light and cost effective as well as powerful enough to power our aircraft. The selection of a motor expanded the decision to be environmentally friendly because it lacked any harmful byproducts. Concurrently, the team agreed to select one component from both the sensor payload and propulsion system catalog. Both were able to function adequately and perform efficiently without any extra assistance from a second component. The selection of only one component for each equipment concluded in a cheaper and lighter aircraft. In order to charge our aircraft’s batteries, we needed to decide on a generator that we would use. We chose the magnetic generator. Magnetic generators make use of magnets in order to generate energy. It has the capability to generate enough power for homes. If it can generate enough power for houses, it can surely charge our aircraft’s batteries. Besides from performing the main goal, magnetic generators help save Mother Earth. In the manufacturing of magnetic generators, no toxic materials are used. The magnetic generator makes use of the energy it produces on its own through the motion it yields, thus concluding in an environmentally friendly and efficient generator amongst others. The material used on the aircraft will be both wood and fabric. The wood will be for structure; concurrently the fabric will be used as the aircraft covering. The fabric chosen for our aircraft is ceconite 101. Ceconite is exceptional for our aircraft and in comparison to cotton it is far stronger and durable. Conversely, ceconite 101 has probable lifetime durability. Due to its probable duration capabilities, we are not required to annually change the fabric covering making it more efficient and less expensive to use. In regards to the wood, the aircraft’s structure will be composed of balsa wood. Balsa wood is a fast-growing, organic product, therefore making it environmentally friendly. Balsa wood is notably lighter and stronger than its competitor. There are also organizations that make sure balsa trees are being regrown to replace the old ones, because of this we are not losing any balsa trees and harming the environment. Balsa wood is also easily repaired and easily manipulated to fit any specific preference. Both Ceconite 101 and balsa wood will equally sustain our plane due to its durability and strength. Additionally, the aircraft’s light weight and affordability make it feasible to customers. In regards to the search route, the team decided upon a spiral search pattern. The team continuously debated upon both the spiral and sector search. However, unlike the sector search, the spiral did not go beyond the designated search area, saving much time and reducing personnel cost. Thus, the conclusion of the spiral search route. Side view of our final design of the DragonflyRegarding the way the search area will be surveyed, we decided to use four identical aircrafts. We were caught up with the option to have only one aircraft versus having two aircrafts versus having four aircrafts. We considered the time and cost needed for each separate operation. The mission is to find the injured and immobilized child as soon as possible to delay further harm and the less time spent the better.It would take about 64 minutes for one aircraft to complete the designated search area using the spiral search pattern.It would take about 31 minutes for two aircraft to complete the search area using the sector track search pattern.It would take about 15 minutes for four aircrafts to complete the search area using the sector track search pattern.2.1.4 Describe lessons learnedWe learned many valuable lessons from the challenge. Our knowledge in aviation has greatly expanded. Aside from the vast knowledge we have learned, each member of the team also garnered skills like leadership and communication which each of us will use in our futures.Regarding our aircraft design, we learned that by using more aircraft to search the same area, the weight could be reduced by elimination of two batteries. This reduction will remove 2.2 pounds from each aircraft. Thus, the reduction in weight will make each aircraft more efficient. We also learned that it is better to move the wing and rearrange the components in order to maintain CG limits, over adding ballasts. Ballasts would allow us to maintain CG limits, but we would have to take on extra weight, which would take away from the efficiency of the aircrafts. Also, slowing the aircraft to the rate needed for turns and detection could be achieved by increasing the angle of attack while using the flaperons as spoilers. We then removed the micro alternators because it was proven that the batteries provided more than enough power for the motor and components. Creating a flight chart provided an excellent means of tracking important information such as: time (minutes, seconds and fractions of a second), distance (the length of the arc, ? turn, mid turn, the percent of completion of each entity, power consumption, and total power needed for each sector including the power needed to run the components. The search pattern is identified on this document as well as velocity changes for detection and turn sections. Although we are limited to 80 pages and could not include the whole charts, it helped us greatly.We were able to understand that the aircraft becomes more efficient when components are able to multi task such as the antennas and the flapperons. We also recognize that sometimes you have to move structure components to achieve the proper weight and balance. Furthermore, we had to relocate the wings in order to achieve a proper CG limit on the aircraft. After, obtaining, the proper CG limits we recognize the importance of establishing a datum line as well as a left and right butt-lines. Furthermore, we needed to establish a moment between to two antennas on opposite sides of the wing.During the live webinar broadcasted on November 28, 2012 they discussed that propeller would be at a disadvantage if we shortened it to an equal ratio of the propulsion system. Hence, both the propeller and the propulsion system were too big for the aircraft. We also learn that the propeller for a motor has a larger diameter than a propeller from an engine. Therefore, we had to select another propulsion system that would be an adequate for the size for our aircraft. Also, it is very important to participate in webinars. We noticed that in the state challenge, some designs had landing gear attached. Furthermore, we were informed that landing gear was not needed because the aircraft would be catapulted in the air. Participating in webinars give us vital information that helped us throughout the challenge.We were able to recognize that the focal length was the altitude of an isosceles triangle that is proportional to the altitude of the aircraft over the ground. And the base of the focal triangle is proportion to the lateral, forward and aft coverage distance on the ground. Additionally, math has played a major role in the design of our aircraft. There were various formulas to be learned that was used and applied to figure out the aircraft’s measurements. Regarding the design of our aircraft, we have learned many things. We found out that our aircraft will need fewer batteries because the power densities of the aircraft’s batteries are enough to support the time allotted. With this, we then learned that our aircraft will be able to climb faster because it will be lighter because of the reduced weight of the batteries. We also needed to increase the angle of attack and use the flaperons to create enough drag to slow the aircraft down to five miles per second. We then decided to add a speed brake to justify slowing down at five miles per seconds when our aircraft detects an object. In regards to flight detection, we learned that our aircraft will not have enough lateral distance covered to reach the outer limits of the circle if we didn’t start in the center of the search area. Therefore, we decided to work our way outward. As we continued our design processes, we soon learned that our flaperons will have three functions: ailerons, flaps, and spoilers. The team tested the objective function of having one, two, and four aircrafts. We then learned that having four aircrafts created a smaller objective function than the other two choices because of the reduced time. Essentially, we also learned that cooperation and teamwork is needed to succeed in challenges like these. Like they say, two brains are better than one and six brains working together is fantastic. 2.1.5 Describe project plan updates and modificationsFlaperons will be installed under the wings of the airplanes. Adding flaperons will prevent the aircraft from rolling over. Flaperons will also enable the aircraft to maintain altitude when the velocity is decrease. Other positive of the flapperons will be their multi-functional roll as flaps and ailerons. Furthermore, these devises will allow the aircraft to take off at a slower speed and land at a slower speed. It will also allow us to decrease our stall speed. We will not install landing gear because the aircraft will be catapulted in the air during takeoff and caught by a restraining net during landing. We learned of these methods during the December WebinarWe incorporate wing twist to stall the inboard wings before the outboard wings. This action will allow the pilot control of the aircraft in case of a stall. Furthermore, if the inboard wing is stalling, then you will still have lift on the outboard wings.Dihedral will allow the aircraft to have lateral stability during rolls. Our aircraft has a five degree dihedralWe have winglets installed to decease the takeoff roll, decease induce drag and increase the laminated air flow over the wings. Therefore, the winglets, make the aircraft more efficientWe will be using a magnetic generator, which will be recharging the batteries with free energy.We tapered the wings to counteract the effects of induce drag. Induce drag is created from high pressure air that is created beneath the wings, moves to the low pressure air above the wings. The result of this action creates a push down force on the top of the wings. This push down force is called induce drag. By tapering the wings, we expose less wing area to this push down force and thereby, reduce the effects of induce drag. 2.2 Detail the Aerodynamic Characterization2.2.1 AeroData CharacterizationThis shows the lift and drag coefficients for our aircraft from javafoil.2.2.2 Airfoil ValidationIt was difficult to complete this section due to the fact that it took an unprecedented amount of time to receive the codes for FloEFD. When we finally received said codes, John Paul received an error indicating the codes were either invalid or the license server could not be found. Because of technical difficulties we had to improvise with the javafoil results and with the lift coefficients and alpha calculations from javafoil we were able to calculate using the lift equation the most suitable angle of attack for our cruise speed as shown in the screenshot below.2.3 Selection of the System Components2.3.1 Propulsion SystemThe E-20, a Brushless DC motor, is the most favorable motor for our aircraft. It is capable of 13 pounds of thrust which is suitable for our aircraft since it is about 23 pounds. The size of its propellers is 26 x 10 inches which roughly measures up to two floor tiles which is adequate for our plane. In comparison to the other motors given, it holds the maximum power of 1800 watts at 8,000 RPM which provides more than enough power. Additionally, the input voltage ranges from 18.5 – 22.1 V, which is reasonable because of the maximum power it can exert. E-20DescriptionBrushless, DC ElectricUnit weight, including gearbox, propeller, and speed control1.1 lbs.Propeller18 x 8 (inches)Maximum power1800 Watts @ 8,000 RPMStatic Thrust at Sea Level, Standard Conditions13 pounds thrustEngine Efficiency 96%In-flight propeller efficiency80%Input voltage18.5-22.1VBatteriesNot includedMotor Dimensions2.3 diameter x 2.3 length (inches) cylinder, coaxial with propellerCost$295.00We plan to use lithium ion (TS-LYP) batteries to power our aircraft since we are going electric. The TS-LYP is a lithium-ion battery that has an improved nickel-based positive electrode which allows high capacity and durability. It stores 720 watts per kilogram which is enough to power our aircraft’s mission within a reasonable amount of time. We avoid the inconvenience of having to wait and refuel, for all we do is swap out batteries. Due to the information we extracted about the E-20, we voted that it was the best suited for our aircraft. 2.3.2 Sensor Payload SelectionFor our sensor payload, we chose the X3000. It has a reasonable price compared to both the X4000 and X5000, as well as being light. The X3000 also includes a decent roll and pitch limit of 80 degrees in all directions which surpasses the more expensive X5000. Additionally, the X3000 has a continuous zoom of 1x wide angle to 10x telescopic which is suitable enough to determine a child's face. However, among all the cameras, the X3000 has the greatest power draw. Therefore, we will install two micro-alternators to supplement the power needs of the X3000.*** - Chosen sensor payloadDetails:Sensor Payload Model:X3000***Price$38,000Stabilization:ExcellentImager:Daylight Electro-Optical CameraRoll Limits about x-axis:80° pan left80° pan rightPitch limits about y-axis:80° tilt up80° tilt downRoll/Pitch Slew Rate:200° per secondVideo Format:NTSCVideo Frame Rate:30 frames per 1.001 secondVideo Scan:InterlacedContinuous Zoom:1x Wide Angle to 10x TelescopicCamera Profile:Horizontal:Vertical:Resolution:640 pixels480 pixelsWide Angle Field of View:55.00°5.500°Telescopic Field of View:41.25°4.125°Weight:2.10 poundsCenter of Gravity:(measured from front, right corner at red X)X:2.00 inchesY:2.00 inchesZ:0.75 inchesDimensions when mounted:Internal Volume:External Volume:X Length:4.00 inches4.00 inchesY Width:4.00 inches4.00 inchesZ Height:1.00 inch2.00 inchesVoltage In:9-24 voltsPower Draw:10 watts (nominal)14 watts (maximum)Sensor Payload Model:X4000Price$42,000Stabilization:ExcellentImager:Daylight Electro-Optical CameraRoll Limits about x-axis:85° pan left85° pan rightPitch limits about y-axis:85° tilt up85° tilt downRoll/Pitch Slew Rate:200° per secondVideo Format:NTSCVideo Frame Rate:30 frames per 1.001 secondVideo Scan:InterlacedContinuous Zoom:1x Wide Angle to 16x TelescopicCamera Profile:Horizontal:Vertical:Resolution:640 pixels480 pixelsWide Angle Field of View:64.00°48.0°Telescopic Field of View:4.0°3.0°Weight:4.25 poundsCenter of Gravity:(measured from front, right corner at red X)X:2.5 inchesY:2.5 inchesZ:0.0 inchesDimensions when mounted:Internal Volume:External Volume:X Length:5.00 inches5.00 inchesY Width:5.00 inches5.00 inchesZ Height:2.25 inch2.00 inchesVoltage In:5-18 voltsPower Draw:2.5 watts (nominal)5 watts (maximum)Sensor Payload Model:X5000Price$75,000Stabilization:ExcellentImager:Daylight Electro-Optical CameraRoll Limits about x-axis:70° pan left70° pan rightPitch limits about y-axis:70° tilt up70° tilt downRoll/Pitch Slew Rate:250° per secondVideo Format:NTSCVideo Frame Rate:30 frames per 1.001 secondVideo Scan:InterlacedContinuous Zoom:1x Wide Angle to 30x TelescopicCamera Profile:Horizontal:Vertical:Resolution:640 pixels480 pixelsWide Angle Field of View:60.00°45.0°Telescopic Field of View:2.0°1.5°Weight:7.50 poundsCenter of Gravity:(measured from front, right corner at red X)X:6.00 inchesY:6.00 inchesZ:0.00 inchesDimensions when mounted:Internal Volume:External Volume:X Length:12.00 inches12.00 inchesY Width:12.00 inches12.00 inchesZ Height:4.75 inch5.00 inchesVoltage In:12-30 voltsPower Draw:15 watts (nominal)25 watts (maximum)2.3.3 Ground Station Equipment Selection: $57,785.452.3.4 Additional UAV/UAS Equipment: $4,692ItemCost / ItemQuantityOverall costVideo Data Link UAV Transmitter$2001$200Command Data Link UAV Transmitter$3001$300Flight Control System$2,0001$2,000Lithium-ion (TS-LYP) Batteries$105.7516$1,692Back-up Diesel Generator$5001$500Total Cost:$4,692ItemCostGround Station Equipment Total Cost$57,785.45Additional UAV/UAS Equipment Total Cost$4,692Total Cost of all Equipment:$62,477.452.4 Aircraft Geometric Details2.4.1 Wing Configuration DetailWe have tried several airfoil designs, but the NACA 4415 came out to be the best. ?The NACA 4415 airfoil showed pretty good results from javafoil testing as compared to the other airfoils we considered (NACA 0010 and the SD 7032). It was also an airfoil design that made sense. Short near flat bottom to let more air pass through and increase air pressure below to create lift, aerodynamically curved top to reduce lift-induced-drag, but also slow air particle moving across the top to reduce upper air pressure and create lift.Wing area: 414 square inchesAirfoil selection: NACA 4415Aspect ratio: 11.3 inchesTaper ratio: .57 inchesWing root chord: 7.711 inchesWing tip: 4.395 inchesDihedral angle (high wing): Sine 5 degreesWing Sweep: 4.1575 degreesMax chord thickness inboard wing: 1.15 inchesMax chord thickness outboard wing: 0.658 inchesWing thickness: 0.825 inchesInboard wing chord: 7.711 inchesOutboard wing chord: 4.395 inchesArea of winglet: 13.15 square inches eachThickness of winglet: 0.463 inchesMean aerodynamic chord: 6.204 inchesWinglet dihedral: 85 degreesAngle of incidence to fuselage: 1.58 degreesMean aerodynamic chord2.4.2 Tail Configuration The design we needed was a horizontal tail with a planform that would balance out with the front wing in the boom with the batteries and vertical tail while balancing the CG. Within the CG limit with was somewhere between 14 inches -15 inches back. The v-tail is for the aircraft and being able to catch enough lift to turn the aircraft. So we needed a planform for it that made would let it take up enough lift to overcome the dihedral in the front, but not by too much. If you look at our aircraft from the side you see that our wing from the side with the winglets nearly matches our vertical tail.?Also for balancing purposes, we wanted the tail to be as far back as possible so using the tail volume coefficient we were able to calculate the correct area for our tail so that it would be situated completely at the back of the aircraft.Tail type: ConventionalHorizontal stabilizer area: 70.967 square inchesHorizontal tail thickness/chord: 14.9%Horizontal taper ratio: .57Horizontal stabilizer aspect ratio: 2.825 inchesHorizontal tail sweep: 9.7078 degreesVertical stabilizer area: 28.02 square inchesVertical taper ratio: .333Vertical stabilizer aspect ratio: 2.1Vertical tail thickness/chord: 14.9%Vertical tail sweep: 38.61 degrees2.4.3 FuselageThe general components of our aircraft composes of the video data transmitter, command data transceiver, flight control (autopilot), the E-20 propulsion system, the X3000 sensor payload, and four of our batteries. We wanted these general components to be as close as possible to reduce the size of the aircraft which is why we have most of the components lumped up in the front "head" of the aircraft. The boom was just large enough to hold the batteries like the back of a flashlight the tail and the batteries stabilize the aircraft and balance out the front.?The picture above shows the location of the components which are mostly on the front of the aircraft.Fuselage wetted area: 264.18 square inches Fuselage length: 33 inchesFuselage depth: 3.30 inchesThis picture shows the change in the diameter of the fuselage with each inch (FS).Bottom view of our aircraft and the locations of the components2.5 System and Operation ConditionsThe entire unmanned aircraft system, from the sensor payload to the ground station, was chosen under careful consideration. The team made choices based on the cost, weight, and size of each individual component. On the other hand, heavier and pricier components were still considered if they compensated for that simple disadvantage. In choosing the sensor payload, we were able to narrow it down to the X1000, X3000, and X4000. After a systematic review, the X3000 was chosen to complement our aircraft. Our final decision was based on the fact that the X1000 wasn’t capable of zooming in and the X4000 was too bulky and heavy for our aircraft. Fortunately, the X3000 included wide rolling angles, along with 10x telescopic photo capabilities. Its size allowed it to fit within the geometry of our aircraft and its price was reasonable. The major disadvantage of the X3000 was its large power draw, however; we compensated for this by modifying the aircraft’s system. We would now have four aircrafts in our system. This setup contains four of each basic function, including the personnel needed to operate each station. We decided to purchase the two fleet trailers because it had a better bargain to accommodate four small UAV’s that are less than five feet each and its associated equipment. We had two major search patterns that we discussed constantly: the spiral search with one UAV versus the sector track with two UAV’s versus four UAV’s. Initially, we decided to use the sector track method because it would complete the mission in a shorter amount of time than the spiral search. However, the spiral search would cost less because there would only be one aircraft involved. With the additions of tall trees, short trees, and no trees section, we had to conform to the challenge. Additionally, during a discussion, we assumed that mission would be completed faster when one aircraft would start in the “no trees” section and the other would begin in the “short trees” section. On the other hand, although the spiral search would cost less, it would take more time to complete the mission. On November 27 during the Webinar, we asked the mentors about the effects of flying in a spiral; they responded that the rolling angle would not be significant enough to alter the lateral coverage area of the camera. This information added to the pros of the spiral search. We analyzed the merits of each search pattern and it came out that the sector track search was better than the spiral search. We would have enough lateral coverage between turns for the X3000. We wanted to find the injured child alive as soon as possible. The time one aircraft would have to complete all three sections of the search area would take an unreasonably long amount of time. As a result, we made our final decision based on the time and coverage. We then had to make the decision whether to use two aircraft or four. We calculated the time for four aircraft versus two aircraft and it came out that having four aircraft would be a better choice. Although the cost would increase because of the additional UAV’s, we calculated the objective function for both systems and the objective function for four aircraft was lower than the system with two aircraft. 2.6 Component and Complete Flight Vehicle Weight and BalanceAccording to a source (flysafe.raa.asn.au/groundschool/umodule9.html), an aircraft’s CG range is between 15 to 35 percent of its mean aerodynamic chord, therefore our aircraft’s CG range is between 10.43 and 11.35 inches from the nose. With the Configurator, we were able to calculate that our aircraft’s center of gravity is 10.51 inches from the nose and therefore well within the CG range. All components including added airbrakes and actuators are included in the configurator as well.Bottom view of CG Top view of CG2.7 Maneuver AnalysisManeuver Analysis During normal cruise, the maximum amount of pan our camera has to perform for this mission is 27.2. Our Camera’s maximum pan or roll in any direction is 80 degrees. Therefore, our aircraft is capable of taking the maximum bank of 30 degrees without losing coverage and thereby minimizing our turn radius shown here.These turn radii were chosen due to them being equal to the fore-and-aft coverage of our camera during operation. The small trees and no trees (shown in the camera#2 footprint) section have 474 feet of fore-and-aft coverage. The tall trees section has 322 feet fore-and-aft coverage. Tall Trees SectionShort Trees Section2.8 CAD ModelsView of components inside the aircraftBottom view of the aircraftSide view of the aircraftTop view of the aircraft2.9 Three View of Final DesignFull Aircraft Dimensions:Fuselage:Length: 33 inchesGreatest Height: 3.3 inchesGreatest Width: 5 inchesLeast Height: 1 inchLeast Width: 1 inchWetted Area: 264.18 inchesWeight: 6.13 lbsWing:Planform Area: 414 sq. in.Aspect Ratio: 11.3 ~Taper Ratio: .57~Sweep: 4.1575 deg (wing back edge is flattened to compensate for flapperons)Dihedral: 5 deg (to keep the aircraft aerodynamic laterally and keep the side-slip angle at 0)Wind Incidence: 1.56 deg (Produces aircraft’s weight in lift at cruise speed)Wing Root Leading Edge Location: [8 0 1.2296] in. (coordinate reference is the nose of the aircraft, wing is mounted directly atop and aligned with its fuselage station)Wing Span: 68.397 inchesSemi-Span: 34.199 inchesRoot Chord: 7.711 inchesTip Chord: 4.395 inchesMean Aerodynamic Chord: 6.204 inchesWing Aerodynamic Center: [11.05 15.538 2.388] in.Horizontal Tail Wing:Aerodynamic Center: 30.557 in. (distance from nose of tail’s quarter chord)Tail Arm: 15.517 in.Planform Area: 70.97 sq. in.Aspect Ratio: 2.83 ~Taper: .95 Sweep: 9.71 deg (flatten the back edge of Horizontal tail)Anhedral: 5 degSpan: 14.894 in. Root Chord: 5.7.Vertical Tail Wing:Planform area: 28.02 sq. in.Sweep: 38.61 ~Thickness/chord: 0.15 ~Aspect Ratio: 2.10 ~Taper Ratio: 0.33 ~Winglets: Area of winglet: 13.15 square inches eachThickness of winglet: 0.463 inchesMean aerodynamic chord: 6.204 inchesWinglet dihedral: 85 degreesAngle of incidence to fuselage: 6 degreesDocument the Mission Plan 3.1 Search PatternThe search pattern had to be changed in order to accommodate the needs of the national challenge. The search area for the national challenge has three different sectors with various tree lengths, creating an obstacle for our aircrafts. The size and description of the sectors include one area sized at 160 degrees central angle of the circle containing tall trees; 110 degrees central angle of the circle with no trees; and 90 degrees central angle of the circle composed of short trees. After a discussion over the best suitable search pattern, the team decided to use the track method to scout the designated search area. Additionally, the team decided on four sUAVs to search the area as opposed to two aircrafts. Having four aircrafts would best minimize the objective function, which is part of the national challenge, as well as acquiring a shorter time length. The four aircrafts are designated into different sectors: one for the area with no trees, one for the area with short trees, and two sUAVs will accommodate the area with the tall trees. The sector with tall trees is much more complex than the other two search areas, thus two aircrafts were chosen to complete the search area in order to narrow our lateral coverage which includes 19 tracks. Likewise, it would be more time efficient for two aircrafts to tackle the search area composed of twenty tracks, one aircraft searching the area with the short trees containing 10 tracks, and one aircraft scouting the area comprised of no trees with six tracks. Each aircraft is given enough time to search the sector carefully, making sure no area is omitted. Each of the four aircrafts will start in the center of the search area. Moreover, one of the two aircrafts designated for the tall trees sector will take the first track while the second aircraft scouts the second track; both airplanes are given individual tracks in the tall trees sector to prevent any accidents. The two planes will continue to fly out together in a zig-zag motion until they reach the circumference of their sector, finishing their designated area. The other two planes will use the same method to search their respective search areas. Concurrently, during the mission no aircraft will alter their altitude to prevent losing their lateral coverage. In order to avoid any dangerous crashes, each sUAS will fly to the ground station instead of the center upon completion of its designated sector. Hence, the mission will be completed once all four aircrafts have reached the ground station. 3.2 Camera FootprintNo Trees Sector Search?Mission Planning Worksheet does not account for the fore and aft coverage of the camera, which would complete the coverage area of the sector and remove the white spots.Short Trees Sector SearchTall Trees Sector Search 1Tall Trees Sector Search 23.3 System Detection and IdentificationThe aircraft’s operating speed will be a little over 72.46 miles per hour. While at the assigned cruise velocity and flight altitude, the camera will start viewing at 4 pixels wide range which is considered the software detection resolution. Additionally, as the flight progresses and the operator is able to detect various blue objects from the sensor payload, our aircraft will decelerate from cruise velocity, in order to facilitate enough time for full detection. The next step is to increase the camera’s view from 4 pixels to 8 pixels, which is considered the human detection resolution. Finally, the camera will process the 8 pixels wide view to a 20 pixels wide view for the confirmation resolution. If the confirmation resolution is confirmed as the child, the aircraft will send back the coordinates to base station in real time. On the other hand, if the confirmation is negative, the flaperons will retract and the aircraft will return to its assigned cruise speed. This process will be repeated until the mission is completed. The restriction of the “tall trees” zone is a limited 15 degree horizontal field of view, the “short trees” zone is a limited 30 degree horizontal field of view, and the “no trees” zone has no restrictions and provides the opportunity of the widest search coverage.The zone with short trees has 31.5 degrees field of view for the camera and the camera will pan 13.5 degrees left and right continuously until the end of the search route for that sector. The tall trees zone has 31.5 degrees field of view for the camera to have the camera detection box to cover the full horizontal area of the limited 15 degrees field of view and the camera will face straight down to detect the object and will be able to search the whole area. The zone with only grass will be detected by 27.4 degrees field of view which will increase our detection radius and we will pan left and right 27.45 degrees to cover the whole horizontal area to reduce the amount of turns needed to fully search the entire sector. 3.4 Example MissionThe Aeronautical Dolphins designed a new innovative UAV that will be able to respond to the given search and rescue operation. A person reported a potentially injured and immobilized child, who is wearing a blue jacket, and was reported missing at Philmont Ranch, in New Mexico. The search team concluded that he might be somewhere in a designated 2-mile radius search area which has three different sectors with various tree lengths, creating a challenge for our aircrafts. The largest sector is composed of tall trees, the second largest sector is composed of no trees, and the smallest sector has only short trees. Furthermore, our primary objective is to locate the child as soon as possible, while minimizing the cost. Thus, the team concluded that we will use an arc method in order to complete the search area with these different sectors as well as increasing our aircraft operation from 1 to 4 sUAS. Since the largest sector is composed of the tall trees, we will have two aircraft flying adjacent arcs in order to expedite the searching process. After we received a confirmation of a mission, we will rush out to our vehicles with our new and advanced, unmanned aircraft system called the Dragonfly I, II, III, and IV as well as our ground station equipments and crew. It will take us approximately 3.5 hours to travel from Colorado Springs (our home base) to New Mexico. After we arrived to the Philmont Ranch, we will quickly assemble our computers, data link ground receiver, and data link ground transceiver. It will take us approximately 0.5 hour to set up our ground station. After we set up our ground station, then we will launch all four Dragonflies with the aid of a catapult located in the center of the search area. As each Dragonfly takes off, it will begin to fly at 45.71 mph and will continue to climb until it reaches a cruise altitude of 1000 feet and a cruise speed of 73.42 mph. It will take each of the Dragonflies approximately 27 seconds to reach cruise altitude. The Dragonfly which is responsible for searching the no trees sector has a total of six arcs to search. Once the Dragonfly completes the takeoff and enters the outer most arc of the no trees sector, we have already used up 14.36 watts for our batteries. The only times we will slow down our speed to 48.42 is when we are approaching the end of the arc and entering into the turns. Furthermore, the first five turns for the no trees sector have the same ? turn and same mid-turn dimensions. While entering the first ? turn, we will maintain the speed of 48.42 and once we reached our straightway we build up velocity to 73.42. Again, we will once again slow down the Dragonfly per second for our last ? turn thus building up speed once we enter the next arc. Each arc is located at a different distance from the center of the circle of the search area. As we get closer to the center of the search area, the lengths of the arc get shorter and the dimension of our last turn deviates from the previous turns. During the process, in which Dragonfly’s sensor payload has detected a blue object, the aircraft will slow down from a cruise speed of 73.42 mph to 48.42 mph at a rate of 5 miles per second. Once it reaches 48.42 mph, and the object detected is not a child, then the aircraft velocity will increase back to 73.42 mph, at a rate of 5 miles per second. Once cruise speed is obtained, then the aircraft will continue with the normal searching process. This process will be repeated within all sectors. We have managed to search the whole no trees sector in just 14.50 minutes, with a total usage of 326.712 watts that includes power for the components and the motor. The no tree section will have two detection and identification sequences. For the short trees sector, the Dragonfly has a total of 10 arcs and nine turns to search on. The same process for detection and identification, entering and finishing the arcs, and entering and finishing each ? turns and straightway will be applied for this sector. About three of our straightway turns are much longer and much shorter than the rest, but again the same process will be applied in entering the straightway and entering the last ? turn. It took us approximately 14.26 minutes to complete this sector with just one detection from our sensor payload. In those 14.26 minutes we used a total of 315.433 Watts from both our motor and our components. Since the largest sector is composed of the tallest trees, we will have two aircrafts searching together in that sector. For example, after takeoff, one of the two aircrafts designated for the tall trees sector will take the first track or the outermost arc while the second aircraft searches the second track. To prevent any accidents, such as collusions, both airplanes are given individual adjacent arcs in the tall trees sector. The two planes will continue to fly out together until they complete their designated area. This sector has a total of 19 arcs and a total of two detection and identifications from our sensor payload. This arc took up an approximate of 33.124 minutes and a total of 703.238 Watts. Once the whole sectors for the whole search area have been completed all that information will be sent to the ground station. Finally, a search party will assemble and use established coordinates to rescue the injured child. Our tear down time is approximately 0.5 hour and driving back to our base at Colorado Springs will take up approximately 3.5 hours thus ending the whole search and rescue operation. 3.5 Mission Time and Resource Requirements Upward Acceleration Equation:0.5 ? Air Density ? Wing Planform Area ? Initial Speed+Acceleration ? MPH-to-FPS Ratio2 ? Earth-pound-to-Newton Ratio ? Meter-Feet RatioAircraft Weight ? Pound-to-Kg RatioThe Definite Integral of Upward Acceleration Equation for 0 to 1 is CLIMB RATE.01Acceleration=Velocity=Climb Rate01Velocity=Altitude GainedHow to Calculate Acceleration:Maximum Thrust - Drag?(Earth-Pound-to-Newton Ratio) = ForceAcceleration ms2= ForceAircraft Weight ?( Lb-to-Kg Ratio)Accelerationms2?ms-mph ratio= Accelerationmphs13.00-4.028?4.44822.5?0.454?2.237= 8.747mphsMission profile:Tall Trees SectorDragonfly IBegin search pattern and detection:After assembly of the ground station, located in the center of the search area, each aircraft will be catapulted into their respective sectors. After the aircraft becomes airborne, it will continue increasing altitude until it reaches a cruise altitude of 1000 feet, attaining a cruise speed of 73.42 miles per hour. One aircraft out of two designated in the tall trees sector will be catapulted to its designated area, which is composed of 19 arcs. Upon obtaining both the cruise speed and the cruise altitude, both aircrafts will be searching the tall trees area following a selected area which crosses over the sector. Once our camera captures what could be the injured child wearing a blue jacket, the aircraft’s velocity will slow down by decreasing power, while increasing the angle of attack and extending the flaperons upward to act as makeshift spoilers. Thus, we will be able to maintain our altitude without compromising our lateral, forward, or aft coverage. Furthermore, the aircraft’s sensor payload, the X3000, will zoom in and confirm if the unidentified object is indeed the child that we are looking for. If the object is not the missing child, the search will continue until the mission is completed. Identifying the “false” matches – Emphasize detection and identification:The same process will be repeated for detections and identifications. During detection, the aircraft will fly at cruise altitude. As a result, our camera can only detect what the child is wearing. However, if a blue object is spotted the aircraft will decrease speed and zoom into the objected until it is identified. Additionally, the process of detection and identification of the child involves total team effort in order for a successful mission. Dragonfly IIBegin search pattern and detection:Similar to the Dragonfly I, the Dragonfly II is the second aircraft designated towards the tall trees sector. Upon completion of ground station assembly, Dragonfly II will be catapulted to the tall trees. After becoming airborne, the altitude will continue to increase until it reaches the cruise altitude of 1000 feet and a cruise speed of 73.42 miles per hour. Once the desired speed and altitude are obtained, the aircraft will begin searching the tall tree sector while parallel to the Dragonfly I which uses a selected arc crossing over the sector. Once the X3000 captures what could be the injured child, the Dragonfly II will slow down by using the same process the as the Dragonfly. Thus, the Dragonfly II will be able to maintain its altitude without compromising its lateral, forward, or aft coverage. Afterwards, the Dragonfly II will zoom in using the same process as the Dragonfly I.Short Trees SectorDragonfly IIIBegin search pattern and detection:The Dragonfly III will be also be catapulted to the short trees sector consisting of 10 arcs. Additionally, when the aircraft becomes airborne it will increase altitude until it reaches the desired cruise speed and cruise altitude equivalent to the Dragonfly I and the Dragonfly II. After the speed and altitude are acquired, the aircraft will begin its search of the short trees sector using a selected arc, which also crosses over. Once the Dragonfly III’s sensor payload captures what could be the injured child, it will use the same process used by the Dragonfly I and the Dragonfly II. Concurrently, this will allow it to maintain altitude without compromising the lateral, forward, or aft coverage. Additionally, the Dragonfly II will zoom in using the same method as the Dragonfly I and II.No Trees SectorDragon IVBegin search pattern and detection:The Dragonfly IV will be launched into the no trees sector composed of 6 arcs after the Dragonfly I, II, and III are catapulted into their designated search areas. After becoming airborne, it will increase the altitude until it reaches the desired cruise altitude of 1000 feet and a cruise speed of 73.42 miles per hour. Once attaining the cruise altitude and cruise speed, the aircraft will begin searching its designated sector by using a selected arc which crosses over the sector. Once the X3000 detects an object similar to the injured child, the aircraft will slow down its velocity with the same procedure implemented by the three previous aircraft. It will likewise maintain its altitude without compromising its lateral, forward, or aft coverage. Thus, it will zoom in using the same procedure employed by the three previous aircraft. * Rescuing the missing child:As the “worst” case scenario, we will detect the missing child towards the end of the search mission. Once we have positively identified the young boy’s position, we will send the way points back to base and begin the ground search. The ground search team will be composed of local volunteers. Manpower requirements:1 X Payload Operator4 X Operational Pilot 1 X Range Safety/Launch and Recovery/Maintenance 4 X Safety PilotsDocument the Business Case 4.1 Identify Targeted Commercial ApplicationsIt is common knowledge that one of the basic benefits of a small Unmanned Aircraft System is to increase safety measures when handling dangerous missions, which can be inferred from a military standpoint. Flying an aircraft through enemy territory is heroic, but suicidal. With the help of sUAVs, the military is capable of spying on their enemies and finding ways to counterattack them. As time advances, sUAVs have evolved to be used for other purposes which include helping out civilian government agencies and other individuals. The challenge is a good example of its involvement with rescue and search operations. Other operations in demand of sUAVs are commercial aerial surveillances which include agricultural monitoring, firefighting, and security or law enforcements. Take for example the Puma Unmanned Aircraft System which weighs about 13 pounds and can stay in flight for around two hours. Just like our aircraft, it is powered by batteries and accommodates a high definition camera that is capable of streaming videos by computer. These aircrafts can be used to monitor animal population in the ocean since it is capable of landing on both water and land. However, if regulatory restrictions were eased, then our sUAVs could be considered an oversized remote control toy for the amusement of anyone interested. For the most part, small Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle systems are used for missions that are too “dull, dirty, and dangerous” in comparison to other aircraft systems.There are many rules provided by the FAA that regards to sUAVs. With disregarding some of these rules that the FAA provides, the Dragonfly is able to save more lives that are in danger and could be beneficial to the ground operations crew. An example of this is that operations should be conducted within visual line of sight to the pilot or operator. Imagine the pilot constantly looking up at the aircraft and constantly rotating his or her head. It’s a lot of work. So what we could do to prevent that from happening is to keep the visual line of sight by installing a forward facing camera while the aircraft is flying. The best part is that the pilot and sensor payload operator could operate the aircraft in home base. They don’t actually have to be in the field operation. The only people that could be there is the maintenance personnel such as the safety pilot, the people in charge of the catapult, and the people in charge of setting up the nets.Another rule is that operations should be conducted on a clear day. But what if in the middle of the operation, it starts to rain followed by heavy winds? Should we cancel the operation right there? What will happen to the missing person? So if this rule was not in full effect, then we could still go on with the operation whether it’s a clear day or not. For our aircraft to continue the operation with no problems with the weather, we could modify it. For example, we could apply this super hydrophobic spray that is developed by Ross Nanotechnology. And what it does is that it repels water or any other liquid that the surfaces touch. So it acts like a wiper for the cameras. This applies to the rule night operations shall not be conducted. Why is that? What if someone reported a missing and injured person late afternoon? Shall we just postpone the operation at night? What will happen to that person? Will his injuries worsen? Of course yes! If we cancel out the night operation not being conducted by the FAA, then we could still save the person. Of course that also means that we got to have sharp eyes. That also includes modifying our aircraft. This modification includes our camera acting like night vision, install external lights so that we could see the aircraft flying, and install infrared lights to detect heat signatures. Basically with eliminating operations to be conducted within VFR weather requirements and night operations, we could still save lives that are in danger. *Other rules regarding UAS is basically having certification, authorization, or permission to operate the UAS at a certain point and a certain distance. Examples are UAS cannot be conducted over: military bases, national parks, wildlife preserves, etc. These parameters cannot be changed.4.2 Amortized System Costs4.2.1 Initial Costs : $231,026.17Initial Cost: $231,026.17System Per-Hour Cost: $1,375.004.2.2 Direct Operation Cost per Mission Four small coordinated aircraft systems flying at high altitude, each having one sensor payload, one video transmitter, and real-time ID software at the ground station. Aircraft flight endurance for the electric battery-powered UAV is equal to 1 hour total flight time per aircraft. Ground-Team consisting of:1 X Payload Operator (150/hr. per analyst)3 X Ground Search Personnel 4 X Safety Pilot (100/hr. per pilot, 400/hr. total) 4 X Operational Pilot (150/hr. per pilot, 600/hr. total)1 X Range Safety/L&R/Maintenance Officer (175/hr. per officer, 175/hr. total)Launch & Recovery Assistants (50.00/hr. per assistant, 50/hr. total) Travel time to location: 3.5 hours driving from HQ in Colorado Springs, COSet-up time: 0.5 hourFlight time to rescue: 16 minutes 27 secondsTear-down time: 0.5 hourTOTAL OPERATION TIME: 4 hours 46 minutes and 27 secondsPer-System Operational Cost per Hour: $1375TOTAL Operational Cost per Mission: $849,184.274.2.3 Amortization $16,983.69The team used MathCAD to find the amortization cost of our sUAS. We added our initial system cost and the total operational cost per mission for fifty missions and then divided this total cost by fifty missions. Therefore, our amortization cost is about $16,983.69Fully burdened cost of 50 missions divided by 50 849,184.27 / 50 = 16,983.68544.3 Market Assessment Small unmanned aircraft vehicles are being used for reasons that particularly involve search and rescue missions. There is also a noted rise for utilization of sUAS by many organizations which includes the military. AeroVironment manufacturers sUAS that “are used extensively by U.S. military forces, and increasingly by allied forces, to help establish Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) superiority on the front lines of today’s hot zones.? In fact, AeroVironment’s Dragon Eye, Raven, Wasp and Puma AE have won each of the four U.S. Department of Defense full and open competitions for programs of record involving small UAS.” In an email from Carly Garrison, who works under Business Development for AeroVironment, inquired that most of the prices of a whole system that includes three UAS, a ground control system, a video terminal, and spare equipment costs about $300,000 with the individual costs of sUAS to be about $35,000. AeroVironment’s “Qube” which is a sUAS capable of completing a search and rescue mission has a price of $49,795, extra batteries and other extra items will be charged extra. Garrison emphasized that it was important for her company to keep it under $50,000, which is a normal price for a police cruiser. The U.S. Coastguard also conducts search and rescue missions. They use a variety of manned aircrafts such as the Sikorsky HH, Lockheed HC-130J Super Hercules, and the Dassault HU-25 A/C/D/ Guardian. With all these vehicles and the equipment needed, the system would not be affordable. Add in the costs of the pilots, too. Helicopters and other aircraft would cost more than our whole sUAS. In our system, although we only use one aircraft to search, we determine the exact location first in order to be efficient with our resources. Our unmanned vehicle is purely electric and recharging batteries would cost much less than procuring petroleum.Conversely, both AeroVironment and our team designed an aircraft that was capable of a search and rescue mission. Just like “The Dragonfly,” AeroVironment’s sUAS are electrically-powered and manually launched. Through the use of a motor, both aircrafts remain noiseless in flight and do not exhaust any byproducts, remaining very environmentally friendly. The differences between our aircraft and sUAS manufactured AeroVironment was the competitive price. The Dragonfly alone would cost a little less than a few thousands compared to the Qube. Our entire system alone would already include two sUAVs, ground equipment, and personnel costs that would sum up to less than $120,000 which is less than the cost of AeroVironment’s system. AeroVironment has priced their package roughly at $150,000 which includes three sUAVs, ground station equipment, and spare equipment. Meanwhile, the U.S. Coastguard also conducts search and rescue missions. Battling against cost, having manned aircraft and a licensed pilot would be extremely expensive for an organization. Our system cost gives companies an opportunity to own a sUAS at an affordable and practical price. It would also decrease the number of casualties in a search and rescue mission because it wouldn’t risk any more lives than the potential victims. In this case, it will help rescue more people because the size of an unmanned aircraft is smaller than a manned aircraft. A sUAS could easily maneuver in the search area as compared to a manned aircraft increasing time efficiency. 4.4 Cost / Beneficial Analysis and Justification Small unmanned aircrafts provide an inexpensive and safer way for search and rescue missions. Notwithstanding, the cost for personnel during the search and rescue mission will be costly. Our team has built an aircraft that will also help in reducing the time for paid personnel. The design along with the business plan will provide both a feasible and efficient answer to the targeted audience. Material SelectionThe material we chose for our aircraft is ceconite 101 and balsa wood. Ceconite 101 attains strength stronger than cotton with a higher durability. It is sold on the website with measurements of 72”, with every yard costing about $13.50. Besides its strength, ceconite 101 has a possible lifetime durability which means that throughout the entire lifespan of the aircraft, there is no need to change the fabric if it is maintained properly. This saves you a lot of money in comparison to fabric that doesn’t achieve the same strength and will command for changes throughout the lifetime of the aircraft. Likewise, we decided to use balsa wood for the aircraft’s structure. Not only is wood easier to manipulate in comparison to other materials, it is also light weight. Balsa wood is the lightest wood with phenomenal strength. Nonetheless, balsa wood is also environmentally friendly, and to decrease carbon footprint, people are able to grow their own balsa trees. It is noted that there are programs set out to protect the production of balsa wood wherein every time you cut down a tree, a new one is planted to replace it. With the fast growth of balsa wood, it wouldn’t take long to harvest the trees. The balsawood can also be found on aircraft spruce with measurements of 2" thick boards, 3 ft. long from 3"-6" wide, costing $17.85 each. Both of our material selections are lightweight with respect to the mission. The cost is also reasonable, especially with the lifetime durability of ceconite 101 and the balsa wood’s efficiency. Propulsion System SelectionThe Dragonfly assists in the advancement of electric motor innovations. Electric motors are noiseless, which would already stand out as an advantage against engines. Motors are also environmentally friendly, lighter, and have less moving parts. More importantly, they have a better power to weight ratio than engines. Conversely, the disadvantages of gas engines are the sources of power which includes oil, natural gas, coal, and fossil fuels. Additionally, fossil fuels are formed by once living organisms and take an extremely long period of time to be created; therefore, fossil fuels are very limited in resources. There are also major consequences in burning of fossil fuels that affect our environment and have added to human health concerns. Furthermore, since fossil fuels are very limited because of how they are created, the cost is very expensive and the cost would increase because of the aircraft’s need to refuel. A motor, however, has less moving parts than an engine which means less maintenance for the aircraft. Compared to an aircraft with an engine, an owner with an aircraft that has a motor, such as the Dragonfly, would have decreased maintenance cost. Choosing a motor against an engine would cost less for the customer. In the catalog, an engine with 13 lbs of thrust costs $545 while an engine with 5.1lbs of thrust cost $499. Our propulsion system, the E-20 has 13 lbs of thrust, exactly the same as the GL-25, and it also has more thrust in comparison to the GL-12. Fortunately, the E-20 only costs $295 which is a lot less than both engines. Energy SourceSince the Dragonfly uses an electric motor, it would need batteries that will be capable of recharging. We chose lithium-ion batteries because it has high density, no memory effects, and there are a variety of shape and sizes. The advantages of having no memory effects is the ability to keep their charge capacity overtime making them excellent for long-term use and in turn more cost-effective than other batteries. Conversely, the lithium-ion batteries are also notably the lightest batteries with the most energy density. In the future, lithium-ion batteries will possibly have the capacity to store ten times more power and last about 6,000 charges (nano-battery). Additionally, other technological advances such as the paper battery would eventually overcome the petroleum power density advantage. Henceforth, because of the innovations presented in batteries and not in oil, a motor is the most advantageous way to go for now and in the future because of its endless potentials. The easy manipulation of batteries makes it cheaper than oil because of its abundant resources. On the other hand, for now we will require a lithium-ion battery because it fits our requirements. We chose the lithium-ion battery TS-LYP because it has an energy density of 720 watts per kilogram and each watt is $0.47. As we calculated our battery power in regards to the time, our battery is capable of fully completing or spiral search once, but twice before our aircraft needs to change batteries. With no need to land in one mission, the cost of personnel is reduced and the time needed to find the missing child is decreased. But what is going to charge our batteries? We are planning to charge the batteries with a magnetic generator. The magnetic generator includes three magnets. Two magnets will oppose each other, creating a magnetic field; the third magnet will create balance, while the motor then converts the power of the force field to energy. The magnetic generator requires very little energy to begin working, but after that, it makes its own energy requiring no energy from outside forces. With these types of innovations, the owner of the aircraft will never pay to power their aircraft again. The cost will be decreased because of the wonderful advantages of using the E-20 motor and the advancement of battery technology. Structural DecisionsThe radius of the fuselage of our aircraft would increase from the propellers until it reaches the sensor payload and then decrease; forming a boom. There was not much equipment placed in the rear ends of the aircraft and to reduce weight, we decided to streamline it. This design calls for less cost on materials and a lighter weight.The decision to slim down the fuselage and create a boom was made in order to make the aircraft much lighter and more aerodynamic. We reduced the original wetted area from about 440 square inches down to 264.18 square inches. Most of the weight of the aircraft will be accumulated under the wing near the center of gravity with the weight of the batteries in the boom to balance out the aircraft.The Dragonfly’s design includes winglets. Furthermore, winglets provide an increase in climb during aircraft takes off, decreases the takeoff speed, and allows more laminated air to flow over the wings. The winglets make it more efficient for the aircraft to be in flight. Since the winglets make the wings more efficient, the range of the aircraft is increased. Therefore, the need to recharge becomes less and manned hours are reduced. Our aircraft’s antenna placements are very important to the aircraft’s design and function. The larger antenna will be placed on the left wing while the smaller antenna will be placed on the right wing. The placements of the antennas are essential because now they are able to counteract the torque, or rotation, that is created by the clockwise spin of the propeller. Of course, the antennas are used primarily for communication, but we have extended the functions of the antennas by adding anti torque of the propeller and added structural support of the winglets. We have now tripled the productive profile of these units, therefore improving the efficiency of the aircraft. Search PatternThroughout the entire challenge, we were conflicted between the spiral search and the three-sector search. The spiral will consume too much time while the three-sector search would require four aircrafts. Considering the objective function, we calculated both systems and it came out that the three-sector search that required four aircraft came out lower. Although both search patterns enabled us to search every area of the given search route, the three-sector search pattern was a more effective choice by greatly reducing the time needed to find the child The time required by the three-sector search was a great help as it reduced personnel costs.Sensor PayloadThe Dragonfly only has one sensor payload which is the X3000. Using one sensor payload lightens the weight of the aircraft and reduces cost as well as being able to perform the required job. Although our design only uses one sensor payload, the X3000 is a powerful sensor payload that does not need assistance from additional sensor payloads. It has an 80 degrees rolling and pitching limits and 10x telescopic zoom. The X3000 is superior to the X1000 and the X2000 because of the zoom features and telescopic field of view. Compared to the X4000, the X3000 is only five degrees apart in rolling and pitching limits; the X4000 having 85 degrees. On the other hand, the X5000 only has 70 degrees rolling and pitching limits. Although the X4000 and the X5000 have greater telescopic views than the X3000, our strategy plans that we would slow down our aircraft and zoom in on a detected object. Our strategy compensates for our telescopic view. Also, the X4000 and X5000 are quite expensive and already have many things in common with the X3000. Most importantly, our flight plan has been modified to adapted to the unique qualities of the X3000 Additional ComponentsInitially, our aircraft was going to include a HiRat aircraft in order to charge our batteries. However, we didn’t go through with the decision because of the high cost of this component. The HiRat was proved unnecessary and too expensive since it was just a designated back-up for the batteries. The Dragonfly only has one sensor payload and one propulsion system. Choosing one system component reduces the cost of the aircraft and the weight. The Dragonfly only needs one engine because of its in size and weight. Conversely, the X3000 is a powerful sensor payload that doesn’t need any assistance from additional sensor payloads. Most importantly, the flight plan allowed us the capability wherein we won’t lose coverage even through it uses only one sensor payload, which reinforces its efficiency. Concluded from all of the above mentioned, the audience will find that the Dragonfly is a good choice, if they decide for a market that includes both an efficient and affordable aircraft system. Additionally, the price is negotiable which includes a sales promotion; the more you buy, the cheaper the system. ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- velineon 3500 brushless motor instructions covers
- sizing electric power systems for model aircraft
- choosing between brush and brushless dc motors
- an885 brushless dc bldc motor fundamentals
- motor propeller esc and battery sizing introduction
- what motor do i use
- tfl sss motor specification list
- outrunner brushless motor chart dymond usa outrunner
- brushless aircraft motor cross reference guide
- pumping principles ceu course
Related searches
- real world issues topics
- real world problems for kids
- list of real world problems
- real world word problems worksheets
- real world problems for students
- real world problems science projects
- what are real world problems
- real world issue
- real world science issue
- real world terrain heightmap
- real world example of market failure
- real world stem problems