1. Final report and briefing
© LM Corporation
Final report

2. Submittal requirements
Each team will make two (2) submittals
A written report - an update from mid term plus a new air vehicle section
Some sections will receive team grades
Overall System (20%)
(7) ABET criteria (10%)
- Others will get individual grades
(2) ConOps (team lead)
(3) Communications (assigned student)
(4) Control station (assigned student)
(5) Payload (assigned student)
(6) Preferred* and alternative air vehicles (50%)
2. A briefing - also graded as team and individual student contributions
* Identify if team or individual grade applies
(% report weighting)
(20% ea)
© LM Corporation
Final report

3. Written report
Describe your team UAV system concept suitable for use in a proposal. Assume that I have released a request for proposal (RFP) and that your team has been selected to write a proposal section that describes your selected baseline concept. The purpose of the write-up is to convince the customer (me) that you have carefully thought through the system design concept issues and that your system concept is viable.
Note – there is no requirement that you stay with the starting system concept described at mid-term. If you have found some problems with the original concept and/or made improvements, describe the changes and the accompanying rationale.
Submit your team report as a MSWord attachment by COB Tuesday, May 6 and bring 2 paper copies with you on Wednesday
For each section assigned to an individual, identify the name of the student responsible (for individual grades)
Remember – the proposal write up must convince me that you (1) understand my requirements, (2) have a good understanding of the issues and (3) have selected the best concept
© LM Corporation
Final report

4. Report outline
1.0 Overall system requirements – In your own words list what the UAV system has to do (individual defined requirements). Include follow-up responses to questions asked as defined requirements. Also list system level derived requirements and rationale.
1.1 Overall system concept – describe your preferred system concept that meets customer requirements. Include numbers of air vehicles, payloads, control stations and communication ADTs and GDTs required. Include graphic if needed.
1.2 Alternate systems concepts – describe any alternative system concepts you considered since mid-term and your rationale for selecting the preferred concept. Include graphics if needed.
2.0 Concept of operations – Describe the complete ConOps. Start at home base and describe what each element does including, numbers, speeds and altitudes, how missions are performed, how payloads and air vehicles are controlled and communicate, how and when they go back to base, etc.. Include graphics if needed
2.1 Alternate ConOps – describe any alternative ConOps considered since mid term, their strengths and weaknesses and your rationale for final selection. Include graphics if needed.
© LM Corporation
Final report

5. Outline (cont’d)
3.0 Communication system requirements – List the communication system requirements identifying which are defined and which are derived.
3.1 Communication system concept – describe the communications system and how it operates (physical and functional description). Include a description of how ranges, weights, power, etc. were derived. Include graphics if needed.
3.2 Alternate communications systems concepts – describe any alternative communications concepts considered since mid term and your rationale for final selection. Include graphics if needed.
4.0 Control station requirements – List the control station requirements identifying which are defined and which are derived.
4.1 Control station concept – describe the control station(s) and how it (they) operate (physical and functional description). Include a description of locations, functions, number and roles of operators, weights, etc. and how they were derived. Graphics if needed.
4.2 Alternate control station concepts – describe alternative control station concepts considered since mid term and your rationale for final selection. Include graphics if needed.
© LM Corporation
Final report

6. Outline (cont’d)
5.0 Payload requirements – List payload requirements identifying which are defined vs. derived.
5.1 Payload concept – describe all payloads and how they operate (physical and functional description). Include a description of how ranges, weights, power, etc were derived. Include graphics if needed
5.2 Alternate payload concepts – describe alternative payloads considered since mid term and your rationale for final selection. Include graphics if needed
6.0 Air vehicle requirements – List air vehicle requirements identifying which are defined vs. derived.
6.1 Preferred air vehicle concept – briefly describe the air vehicle(s) and performance on secondary/primary missions (physical and functional description). Include a scaled PowerPoint drawing and a summary description of key vehicle characteristics (see briefing)
6.2 Alternate air vehicle concepts – briefly describe the alternative air vehicles considered and your rationale for selection of the preferred concept. Include a scaled PowerPoint drawing of each concept considered and summary descriptions of key vehicle characteristics (see briefing)
© LM Corporation
Final report

7. Outline (cont’d)
7.0 ABET criteria – Address each of the following points and document your conclusions. Note that not all of these issues may be relevant to your project, but you should think about them before concluding that they are irrelevant and justify your decision. See ASE261.ABET.ppt for issue details. One paragraph per issue
7.1 Economic Issues
7.2 Environmental Issues
7.3 Sustainability Issues
7.4 Manufacturability Issues
7.5 Ethics Issues
7.6 Political Issues
7.7 Health and Safety Issues
7.8 Social Issues
7.9 Global Impact
© LM Corporation
Final report

8. Briefing
Each team will present a PowerPoint briefing that describes the final overall system concept and details the preferred and alternative air vehicle concepts. The purpose of the briefing is to convince me that:
Your team has carefully worked through the key overall system/ConOps/air vehicle design issues and that the system and preferred air vehicle concept(s) are technically viable and sized for, at a minimum, the most cost effective operational loiter time (25%)
Selection of the preferred vehicle concept was based on quantitative analysis and that the preferred concept, in fact, represents the most cost effective solution using air vehicle/engine/payload procurement cost for 30 days of 24/7 operations as the figure of merit (25%)
(3) Each member of the design team understands the air vehicle parametric design process and that the individual concepts were reasonably optimized (including, at a minimum, doing aspect ratio, wing loading and cruise speed trades vs. procurement cost) and sized consistently (including, at a minimum, against consistent operational loiter, speed and power margin, takeoff performance, climb and/or dash criteria) (50%)
(% grade weighting)
© LM Corporation
Final report

9. Briefing schedule Date : 7 May Location : WRW 312
Penetrating UAV #1
Penetrating UAV #2
Maritime UAV
TUAV #1
Break
TUAV #2
Standoff UAV
UCAV #1
UCAV #2
UCAV #3
UCAV #4
End
If you have schedule conflicts for the final, let Egbert know by the Monday - latest
Questions about briefing or report requirements – by COB Next Friday
© LM Corporation
Final report

10. Briefing content System (team grade) - Defined requirements (list)
- System level derived requirements (list)
- System description
- ConOps description
Key issues and risks
Air Vehicle (team and individual grades)
Defined requirements (list)
Derived requirements (list)
Preferred system concept (team or individual grade)
3-view drawing (reasonably scaled with summary data block*)
Design data*
Mission performance data*
Design trades (minimum = operational loiter time, W0/Sref, AR, Vcr)
Alternate system concepts (individual grades)
Drawing (same as above)
Mission performance*
Design trades (present as requested)
* Description follows
© LM Corporation
Final report

11. Drawing requirements Minimum 3-view drawing requirements
Fuselage length (Lf) and equivalent diameter (De)
Wing span (b)
Engine location (hidden line)
Payload bay location (hidden line)
Landing gear location (hidden line) - see Raymer
Approximate center of gravity location - see Raymer
Minimum drawing data block requirements
Gross weight
Empty weight
Payload weight
Fuel weight
Propulsion type & Hp0 or T0
Wing reference area
Wing aspect ratio
Wing thickness (t/c)
Overall wetted area
Maximum range
Maximum endurance
© LM Corporation
Final report

12. Design data Minimum requirements Weight statement Gross weight
Fuel weight
Wing
Fuselage
Payload weight
Empty weight
Airframe weight
Landing gear weight
Propulsion weight
Systems + avionics weight
Geometry
Sref
Sht
Svt
Swet
Swet-fuse
Swet-nacelle
Design parametrics
Hp0/W0 or T0/W0
W0/Sref
Fuel fraction
Swet/Sref
Swet/b^2
Waf/Sref
Volumes (required)
Fuel
Payload
Landing gear
Systems + avionics
Total volume required
Volume available (total)
© LM Corporation
Final report

13. Performance data Minimum requirements (one chart for each mission)
Operational X nm
Maximum range
Maximum endurance
L/D max
Takeoff ground roll
Takeoff distance over 50’
(see Raymer)
Initial rate of climb
Final rate of climb
Initial cruise altitude
Cruise speed
Initial cruise Cl
Initial Cruise L/D
Initial cruise drag
Initial cruise thrust (uninstalled)
Initial cruise thrust available
Cruise SFC or TSFC
Initial cruise range factor
Operational loiter altitude
Operational loiter speed (EAS)
Operational loiter Cl
Operational loiter SFC or TSFC
Operational loiter thrust available
Initial operational loiter drag
Ingress altitude
Ingress speed
Ingress thrust available
Initial ingress drag
Final cruise Cl
Final cruise L/D
Landing loiter speed
Landing loiter L/D
Landing loiter SFC or TSFC
Overall cruise L/D
Overall cruise range factor
© LM Corporation
Final report

14. Evaluation criteria Report evaluation criteria (shoot for 10 pages)
Understanding of the problem – 25%
Logic and rationale – 25%
Solution viability – 25%
Clarity and conciseness – 25%
Briefing evaluation criteria (maximum 45 minutes )
Understanding of the problem – 20%
Technical quality – 35%
Briefing quality – 20%
Demonstrated knowledge – 25%
© LM Corporation
Final report