Concept Selection
description
Transcript of Concept Selection
Concept Selection
Michael CaldwellMichael CaldwellJeff HaddinJeff Haddin
Asif HossainAsif HossainJames KobyraJames KobyraJohn McKinnisJohn McKinnis
Kathleen MondinoKathleen MondinoAndrew RodenbeckAndrew RodenbeckJason TangJason TangJoe TaylorJoe TaylorTyler WilhelmTyler Wilhelm
AAE 451: Team 2AAE 451: Team 2
Objectives
Selected mission objectives Assigned rankings (out of 120 possible points)
Objectives Team Ranking % of votes
Endurance (high AR, fuselage - batteries) 5 8.85
Manuverability (position of control surfaces) 8a 8.13
Lightw eight 6 8.75
Robust/Accessibility 4 9.48
Low Speed 3 10.10
Cost 12a 5.00
Stylish 2 10.21
Stable (CG vs. AC) 7 8.54
Easy To Fly (size) 8b 8.13
Technically Simple 1 10.31
High Lift (w ing area/lif t distribution) 10 7.50
Ground Clearance (props, tail) 12b 5.00
Possible Design Concepts
1) Diamond Biplane 2) Dragonfly 3) Pusher / Puller 4) Canard / Boom Tail / Winglets 5) Bird of Prey 6) Mad Menace 7) Crescent / V-Tail
Weighted Objectives
For each design, objectives are ranked either: 1 - Poor, 3 - Average, 9 - Excellent
Each objective score is multiplied by corresponding weighted average
Scores for each design concept are totaledObjectives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Technically Simple 9 9 3 3 1 3 3
Stylish 3 9 3 3 9 9 3
Low Speed 3 3 9 1 3 3 3
Robust/Accessibility 9 9 9 3 3 3 9
Endurance (high AR, fuselage - batteries) 3 3 3 9 3 9 3
Lightweight 9 9 1 3 1 3 9
Stable (CG vs. AC) 9 3 3 9 1 9 9
Manuverability (position of control surfaces) 9 1 3 9 1 3 3
Easy To Fly (size) 3 9 3 3 9 9 3
High Lift (wing area/ lift distribution) 9 9 3 3 9 9 9
Cost 3 3 3 3 1 3 3
Ground Clearance (props, tail) 9 9 3 1 9 9 9
Total 53.86 53.34 33.33 35.24 33.63 49.12 44.64
Weighted Objectives
As shown by weighted objectives method, design 1 (diamond biplane) score the highest
Variations can now be made to original concepts to increase objective scores
New concepts are added 8) Conventional 9) SemiSphere
Pugh’s Method
Using weighted objectives results, design 1 was used as datum
All other designs’ objectives are compared to datum + (better), - (worse), s (same)
Sum of each scoring criteria taken Design strengths and weaknesses
determined
Pugh’s Method
ConceptsObjectives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Technically Simple S - - - - - S S
Stylish + - S + + S S +
Low Speed S - S + + - - -
Robust/Accessibility S S S + + S S +
Endurance (high AR, fuselage - batteries) S - S + + S S -
Lightweight S - - - - S S +
Stable (CG vs. AC) S - + - S S + +
Manuverability (position of control surfaces) - S S - S S S -
Easy To Fly (size) + S S + + S S -
High Lift (wing area/lift distribution) S - S + + - - -
Ground Clearance (props, tail) S - S - + S S -
S + 2 0 1 6 7 0 1 4
S - 1 8 2 5 2 3 2 6
S s 8 3 8 0 2 8 8 1Total 1 -8 -1 1 5 -3 -1 -2
D
A
T
U
M
Team Concepts
From Pugh’s Method, three concepts were chosen 2) Dragonfly 6) Mad Menace 9) SemiSphere
Team Concepts
2) Dragonfly 9) SemiSphere
Final Concept
Mad Menace Features
High Aspect Ratio Wing
Forward Canard Three Fuselages “Quad” Landing
Gear Winglets
Final Concept
Pros High Lift High Fuselage
Volume Large Control
Surface Area Room for Variation
Cons Canard CG vs. AC Wing Structure Vertical Tail
Placement
Questions?