Concept Design Review

1. Concept Design Review Kozak Micro Air Vehicle Project: P07121 01.19.07 Jeffrey Kozak Advisor Mechanical Engineering Geoff Amey Computer Engineering Benjamin Metz Mechanical Engineering Timothy Nowicki Mechanical Engineering David Blonski Industrial Engineering Team Leader Mark Baybutt Electrical Engineering Patrick O’Neil Mechanical Engineering Daniel Segar Mechanical Engineering Andrea Wyant Electrical Engineering Perry Young Mechanical Engineering

2. Agenda • Introduction • Needs Assessment • Concept Generation Analysis • Concept Selection • Next Steps and Schedule

3. Introduction • Background • Fourth MAV senior design team • Third year RIT is participating in MAV Competition • Mission • Complete surveillance portion of 2007 International Micro Air Vehicle Competition by improving, but not redesigning, last year’s MAV. • Objectives • Rebuild last year’s MAV • Improve last year’s MAV

4. Introduction (contd) Subsystems Camera • Video Camera • Video Transmitter • Computer Engineering Platform Ground Control • Airfoil • Control Surfaces • Undercarriage • Mechanical Engineering • RF Transmitter • Video Receiver • Electrical Engineering • Computer Engineering Propulsion System • Propeller • Motor • RF Receiver • Battery • Servos • Speed Controller • Mechanical Engineering • Electrical Engineering • Computer Engineering

5. Needs Assessment • Rebuild last year’s MAV • Improve flight capabilities • Improve aerodynamics • Decrease roll induced by motor • Increase lift • Improve power efficiency • Increase thrust • Decrease power consumption • Decrease weight • Decrease maximum linear dimension • Increase camera capabilities

6. Needs Assessment

7. Concept Generation and Selection Customer Requirements Quality Function Deployment Pugh Analysis Concepts Ranked Concept Analysis Morphological Analysis

8. Needs Assessment – QFD Analysis Part 1

9. Needs Assessment – QFD Analysis Part 2

10. Concept Generation • Internal Search • Coursework • Materials • Aeronautics • Electronics • Communication • DPM • Clubs • Aero Club • MAV Club • Co-ops • Boeing • Impact Technology • Brainstorming • External Search • Benchmark • University of Florida • University of Arizona • Brigham Young University • Thesis • Last year’s team

11. Concept Generation – Morphological Analysis Stronger Antennae New Controller New Servos Decrease # of Servos New Receivers Increase Motor RPM Decrease Propeller Size Fewer Batteries Timing System Smaller Smaller Tail Standard Body Morphable Wing Pod Smaller Angle of Attack Winglets Thermoset Scalability

12. Concept Selection – Pugh Analysis Part 1

13. Concept Selection – Pugh Analysis Part 2

14. Concept Selection – Ranking

15. Next Steps and Schedule • Finish rebuilding last year’s MAV…………………01.26.07 • Begin test flying last year’s MAV………………….01.26.07 • Choose design for new pod………………………..01.26.07 • Begin testing adjusted angle of attack……………01.26.07 • Complete analysis of motor, prop system • Purchase motor and props for testing……………………01.26.07 • Complete motor prop analysis…………………………….02.09.07 • Complete prototype of new pod…………………...02.09.07 • Complete specs for new MAV……………………..02.16.07 • Firm design for new MAV………………………….02.23.07

16. Concept Selection – Pod design • Concept • Based on examination of other team’s MAVs and aerodynamic principles create a smaller mounting surface and a surrounding pod. • Constraint • All electrical components must be packaged as close together while allowing for easy access. • All electrical components must be packaged such that the center of gravity stays in front of the aerodynamic center of pressure. Overview Last year’s team used a single large piece of carbon fiber to mount electrical components and act as a vertical stabilizer. This large piece of carbon fiber provided to much yaw stability making it difficult to execute flight maneuvers. Exposed surfaces provided for excess drag. • Pros • Decrease drag • Decrease weight • Provides for a stable yet maneuverable aircraft • Cons • Potentially more difficult to manufacture • Conclusion • Should be implemented as a priority 2 improvement

17. Concept Selection – Thermosets • Constraint • Equipment; Funds • Pros • Increased Durability • Resistant to warping • Cons • Increased cost of materials • No readily available equipment Overview Thermosets would eliminate warping of the platform in high heat. • Conclusion • The increased durability does not offset the added cost of equipment and materials.

18. Concept Selection – Morphing Wing • Concept • Rather than use elevons, the wing would flex to change the airfoil, causing a controlled turn. Additionally, the wing would be lighter as it would be made from a skeletal structure. • Constraint • Testing data – No data currently exists on the flight dynamics of a morphing wing design • Pros • Lighter • Possibly better control • Cons • No test data • Would take 5 times longer to make the wing Overview Last year’s team experimented with a morphing wing to replace the conventional elevon design • Conclusion • The use of a morphing wing would constitute a redesign of the MAV, rather than an improvement over last years design. Therefore, it is out of the scope of this project.

19. Concept Selection – Optimize Propulsion System • Concept • Choose higher RPM motor and smaller prop Overview Last year’s propulsion system was designed with the previous years’ MAV in mind, which was much larger and heavier than the current year’s. Furthermore, the thrust:weight ratio was based on the propulsion system alone and not inclusive of the platform. • Constraints • Power consumption, weight, size • Cons • Increased power consumption • Pros • Decreases counter-torque • Conclusion • Top priority

20. Concept Selection – Camera • Concept • Implement timing feature so camera captures images 10x per second instead of 30x per second • Constraint • Takes 1 sec. to reboot system • Conclusion • Use current camera Overview Last year’s camera was analyzed for improvements • Pros • Small • Lightweight • Low power needs • Already purchased • Meets resolution requirements • Mold fitted for current camera • Transmitter works for up to 3 Km • Cons • Increased power consumption

21. Concept Selection – Winglets • Constraint • Research is mixed; extensive field testing would be needed to determine usefulness of winglets • Pros • Increased lift • Increased stability • Do not need as large of undercarriage • Cons • Increased drag • Increased max linear dimension • Time consuming to build Overview Possible means of improving stability and aerodynamics • Conclusion • Worthwhile only if substantial time is available for significant field testing.

22. Concept Selection – Angle of Attack • Concept • Based on XFLR5 analysis, adjust attack angle to between 5 -10 degrees; adjust as needed based on field testing. • Constraint • Stall angle is approximately 10 degrees; wind tunnel testing is not an option • Pros • Increased lift • Very feasible • Cons • Increased drag Overview Last year’s team did not adjust angle of attack to improve lift • Conclusion • Should be implemented as a priority 1 improvement

23. Concept Selection – Scalability • Concept • Design propulsion system to be modifiable for different size airfoils • Constraint • Budget limits number of motors and other items that can be purchased • Time Overview Last year’s propulsion system was designed for a 9 inch airfoil. The airfoil ended up being 7.5 inches. • Pros • Smaller platform can be developed and implemented later in process • Cons • Time consuming • Not a high need • Conclusion • Should be implemented as a priority 3 improvement

24. Concept Selection – Receiver • Concept • Identify all commercially available receivers; compare metrics to receiver implemented last year • Constraint • Stall angle is approximately 10 degrees; wind tunnel testing is not an option Hitec/RCD HFS-05MS • Pros • Reduced weight from 9.2g to 4.0g • Reduced overall size from (1.2 x 0.8 x 0.5”) to (0.6 x 1.35 x .35“) • Reduced current consumption from 20.41mA to 5.1mA • Speced as having equal to greater range Overview Possible means to reduce weight, size and power consumption while increase range • Cons • Decrease channel count from 5 Ch. to 4 Ch. Berg 4L Receiver • Conclusion • Purchase and implement Berg 4L receiver in current design

25. Concept Selection – Size 7.5 Inch Planform Size Design Considerations. • Airfoil was designed with scalability in mind. • Original Size was 9”. • Flew very successfully at original size. • 05 Platform Team believed that 7.5” would be the smallest optimal size for a successful design. • Flights of 7.5” have not been as successful as the 9” design yet. • Smaller size would require smaller and more expensive components, new molds. • Would not be feasible with current budget. • Larger size would result in a more stable and conservative design. • Would not be competitive in competition. • The airfoil is believed to be the greatest achievement of the 2005 Design Team and with much more areas to improve on, to keep the size 7.5” would be beneficial.