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?