1. Florida International University Mechanics and Materials Engineering SAE Aero Design® Brazil Competition Senior Design Project Presentation Team 6: PanthAir Cargo Andres Cardenas, Arjav Patel and Nestor Paz Academic Advisor: Dr. George S. Dulikravich

2. TEAM OBJECTIVES  Enter the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aero Design Competition held in Brazil in October 2014  This objective was modified due to the team not being able to register for the event  To design, build and fly a radio controlled airplane capable of competing in the SAE Aero Design Brazil Competition

3.  The team wanted to design an airplane worthy of competing against the best in the world  Representing FIU at an international level  Leaving a legacy behind for future students to follow  Create an Aerospace Engineering Club  Promote interest in Aerospace Engineering Motivation

4. GLOBAL LEARNING COMPONENTS  Global Awareness  Global Perspective  Global Engagement

5.  Awareness Items  Impact of our Research on a Global Scale  Environmental Awareness  Ethical Awareness  Interaction and exchange of ideas on an international level  Being mindful to respect the intent of the competition rules Global Awareness

6.  Other materials:  Recyclable:  -Wood: Decking, wood studs, mulch  -Aluminum: Melted and reused  -Steel: Melted and reused  Non Recyclable  -Carbon Fiber: Not used in our project Environmental Impact

7.  SAE Aero Design Brazil Rules  ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)  ANSI (American National Standards Institute)  FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)  AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) Standards Used

8. PROBLEM STATEMENT  The Competition and categories  Micro  Regular  Advanced  We will be competing in the Regular Class

9. PROBLEM STATEMENT Airplane Requirements  Maximum Gross Weight of 44 lb or 20 kg  Cargo Bay  Minimum of 293 in 3 or 4800 cm 3  Six faces orthogonal to each other  Access door is part of airplane  Wood specimen insertion check  Payload must not structurally support cargo bay

10. PROBLEM STATEMENT Aircraft Size Requirements  Total projection of plan view cannot exceed 1200 in 2 or 0.775 m 2 Reference: SAE Brazil Aero Design Rules this box is intended to cover up the sae brasil chart which cannot be easily seen

11. PROBLEM STATEMENT Performance Requirements  Takeoff and landing distances  61m or 200 ft for takeoff  122m or 400 ft for landing  Time requirement for takeoff  3 minutes  Replacement of payload  120 seconds Reference: SAE Brazil Aero Design Rules

12. PROBLEM STATEMENT Engine/Propeller Combinations  Allowed engines:  K&B 0.61 RC/ABC  O.S. 0.61 FX  O.S. 0.55 AX  Magnum XLS-61A  Allowed propellers:  No metal propellers

13. Design Concepts- Airfoils Wortmann FX 63-137 Eppler 423 Airfoil Selig 1223 Airfoil Optimized Airfoil - PERFORMANCE - STRENGTH - MANUFACTURABILITY

14. Advantage  Minimal additional projected area Design concepts Design Concept: A  Laterally Configured Cargo Bay  High Wing  Tricycle Landing Gear  Conventional Tail Disadvantage  High frontal surface area obstructing thrust (Not to scale)

15. Design Concept: B  Cargo Bay in the Wing  Distributed Payload  High Wing Design concepts Advantages  No additional projected area Disadvantages  Too much wing displacement when subjected to loads  Heavy weight (Not to scale)

16. Simulation Tests of Concept B  In -flight 5 g simulation  26.6mm displacement  Aircraft dropped from 1 meter simulating a “hard landing”  25.3 mm displacement Design concepts

17. Advantage  Wing displacement not an issue  Lighter weight Disadvantages  Added small projected area of fuselage Design Concept: C  Conventional Cargo Bay in the Fuselage  High Wing  Conventional Tail (Not to scale)

18. Final Prototype  Boom tail changed to a conventional tail  Forward swept wings  No Winglets  Removable wing to access Payload  Tricycle landing gear

19. Aircraft Sizing Classical aerodynamics principles, values and calculations were used to size the aircraft including:  Aspect ratios (7.6 for the wing)  Taper ratios (.45 for the wing)  Mean Aerodynamic Chords (MAC)  Tail Volume Coefficients (.5 from a range of.3 to.7)  Flight control surface size requirements  Center of gravity of aircraft  Lift to Drag Ratio Estimations  12.4 using statistical methods  25.6 using wing coefficient of lift and a coefficient of drag for the entire aircraft (at Re=300,000)  The ratio for just the wing alone was 61.7 (at Re=300,000)

20. Aircraft Manufacturing

21. Weight and Balance Testing

22.  Magnum 61 XLS was chosen  Research suggested the 13x4 propeller for optimum performance Propulsion System SAE Aero Design 2013 Design Report. Michigan: U of Michigan

23.  Tests show 13x4 propeller gave maximum static thrust as well as max RPM Test Validation

24.  Used very thick steel nose landing gear 3/16” diameter  Main landing gear was Aluminum 6061-T6 1/8” thickness Landing Gear

25. Timeline and work breakdown

26.  Actual Costs: Cost Analysis Engine/fuel tank$179.56 Electrical$216.87 Glue$50.39 Misc$151.46 Materials$279.68 Nuts and Bolts$86.17 Landing Gear$158.45 Total:$1,122.58

27. Theoretical Performance

28. Actual Testing Results Theoretical Performance results DateModifications Being Tested Payload [pounds] Remarks 27-Jul-14Maiden Flight0Successful Flight 2-Aug-14wing struts added7.6Successful Flight 23-Aug-14none9.8Successful Flight 23-Aug-1413x4 propeller12Aircraft rolled too far after landing 30-Aug-14softer tires12Successful flight, but longer take off distance 30-Aug-14softer tires13.5Successful flight, but longer take off distance 30-Aug-14return to hard tires14.2Successful flight, but longer roll after landing 9-Sep-14added brakes15.7Successful Flight 9-Sep-1413x6 propeller18.5Brake failure resulted in rolling off runway 16-Nov-14 13x4 propeller and removed brakes20.1 Takeoff and landing was made at slower speed and higher AOA. Successful flight

29. Performance Comparison  Panthair Cargo successfully carried 20.1 pounds or 9.16 kg of payload during testing  Potential top 10 finish had the team been given the opportunity to compete in Brazil (Reference SAE Brasil Aero Design) (Current US Champion) (5 th place US)

30. Our Pilot Kishan Kalpoe  FIU Engineering Student  Very talented and experienced RC aircraft pilot  Has devoted his time to attend our team meetings and to offer very helpful ideas Thanks Kishan!

31. Actual Performance

32. Aerospace Engineering Club

33. Special Recognition Mr. Richard Zicarelli: design and manufacture of brake system components Dr. Andres Tremante and Dr. Brian Reding: Facilitated radio controller and payload carrier Dr. Norman Munroe for his generous support of the Aerospace Engineering Club Dr. George Dulikravich for his outstanding project support Thank you!

34. Questions?