Hovercraft Design
Project 98.01
Delaware Aerospace Academy
Dr. Stephanie Wright
(Sponsor)
Design Team
Dave Rabeno (Phone: 456 – 1687 / Email: rabenod@UDel.Edu)
Brandon Michael Fichera (Phone:266-6953 / E-mail: fichera@udel.edu)
Benjamin Sean Gallagher (Phone:
/ Email: seang@UDel.Edu )
Gregory Daniel Pease (Phone: 325-2489 / E-mail: 10427@udel.edu)
This report is a proposal of our Senior Design team’s mission to design a two-person
hovercraft for the Delaware Aerospace Academy (DAA). The mission of our team is to design
this hovercraft so that it will demonstrate the relevant scientific principles and simulate planetary
exploration as an educational tool to cadets of the DAA.
The DAA has been involved with NCDA and the Senior Design course in the past;
sponsoring space related projects for design teams for the past few years. The Delaware
Aerospace Academy specializes in teaching children about the technology associated with the
space program.
Dr. Stephanie Wright, president of the DAA, desires a usable hovercraft for use in DAA
sponsored activities. The hovercraft will provide the DAA with an educational tool that can teach
students the scientific principles that are related to hovercrafts. Besides being used in junior high
and high school demonstrations and DAA sponsored events, the hovercraft will be used in
conjunction with the 1997-1998 lunar rover design project. The two will be used to simulate
planetary exploration in the DAA's level III tech camps, which are designed for grades 7 – 9 and
will also stimulate children’s interest in the space program.
After discussing the problem as a team, with our sponsor, and with our advisor, a
consensus was reached about the project’s mission. It reads as follows:
To design a two person hovercraft for the Delaware Aerospace Academy that will
demonstrate the scientific principles of a hovercraft, increase interest in the space
program, and simulate planetary exploration as an educational tool for students in grades
7-9.
In an effort to provide a better product, a list of potential customers and their wants
needed to be generated. Brainstorming provided the design group with a list of eight potential
customers. These customers each had a list of ideas which they wanted to be included in the
design. These wants were then prioritized, by customer, and recorded in chart fashion. This
information is located in Table 1.
Table 1: Customers
Customers
Stephanie Wright
Martin Rabeno
Selina DeCicco
Eric Rabeno
Ron Perkins
School system
High School Student
Robert Bloom
Organization
DAA
HS teacher
JR High Teacher
8th grade student
Educational Inovations
Safe
Educational
Educational
Fun
Educational
Educatonal
Fun
Aerospace Eng. (DAA) Safe
Wants
Educational Fun Reliable Transportable
Safe
Fun
Safe
Fun
Cost
Fun
Cost
Educational
Educational
The customers are also arranged in order of importance. Dr. Wright, our sponsor, is listed
as our principle customer. Since the first objective of our project is to use the hovercraft to teach,
the team decided educators and at least one person who works with educators should be included
in the list. Martin Rabeno is a technology teacher and Selina DeCicco is a mathematics teacher,
both in the Ellenville Central School District. Mr. Rabeno and Ms. DeCicco are both listed
because we believe that the impact of our design will differ between Jr. High School and a High
School students and teachers, even though we find their wants are the same. Ron Perkins is
salesman at Educational Innovations, which provides laboratory equipment to schools. As Mr.
Perkins is a salesman, the cost of production of the craft is of high concern. Since the craft is
meant for kids, students of both junior high school and of high school will provide excellent
sources of information. The junior high student wants the hovercraft to be fun. We imagine a
high school student will more likely want to learn how the craft works. Robert Bloom is an
aerospace engineer at DAA. As someone who is familiar with the kind of use our design will
probably endure, Mr. Bloom’s suggestions will be of great help in making the craft more
durable.
As a way to determine the overall priority of want, each of the wants in the chart have
been assigned numeric values. Any want which was repeated had its numeric values added. The
team then listed them, the highest value listed first. Taking theses generalized wants, the team
then came up with more design specific criteria and listed them for each want (located in table
2). These wants and constrains will be used to keep the design process attentive to the customer.
Table 2: Wants and Constraints
Want
Safe
Constraint
All moving parts enclosed
Emergency Shut off
Educational
Teach priciples of Hovercraft
Keeps kids interested
Related to space
Fun
Appearance
Reliable
Multiple uses
Transportable Weight
Size
Cost
Allowable funds
Upon receiving this project, the design group spent several days researching hovercraft
design. This task was done to find out more about hovercrafts, their components, and theories
and ideas concerning levitation so that no effort would be wasted “re-inventing the wheel’. The
team also searched for information regarding educational tools and companies who provide
scientific equipment to high schools. The companies and their products are listed in table 3.
Table 3: Benchmarking
Company
Rank
Strength
R.Q.R Enterprises
5
Kit hovercraft, capacity needed, overpowered
R.Q.R Enterprises
4
Kit hovercraft, light, low cost
Hover Club
3
Arcticles explaning principle of Hovercrafts
Universal Hovercraft
3
Small to large scale kits available plus common parts such as fans
Science Project
2
Simple design using common materials
Hovertech
1
levitation using magnets
Elibra
1
levitaion using magnets
The strengths of each competitive project are listed. Also, they are ranked in order of
importance to us (5 being the most important). Two kits, both by Robert Q. Riley Enterprise, will
most likely be very helpful (each kit is given its own line). The “Tri-Flyer” is a three-seater
hovercraft that lifts 800 pounds, has speeds of 75 mph with an 80-hp engine. This is obviously
over-designed for what we need but gives us a good staring point for our design concepts. The
“Pegasus” only lifts 100 pounds and uses a 3-½ hp lawnmower engine. This is a slight underdesign but will also provide valuable design help. Another company, The Hover Club is useful in
that it provides many articles explaining the principles behind hovercrafts and will be useful in
many phases of the design process. These articles, written with an intent to educate, will also
help us to figure out what scientific information is important and will help us to put it into a form
that can be easily understood by children. Universal Hovercraft sells hovercrafts well above our
price range but also sells engines, propellers, and other parts that will probably be purchased
later on in the construction phase of the project. The hovercraft plans that some schoolteachers
have used, as a science project is a very simplistic design. The project is designed to give
students an understanding of the principles involved in a hovercraft by building a simplistic
device, which involves sitting on a chair attached to a plywood base and a leaf blower. Again,
this is under-designed for our purposes but utilizes the same underlying principles. The last two
benchmarks, Hovertech and Elibra, have information on levitation by the use of magnets This
technology is not very useful for our purposes, as they are expensive and large, but shows other
methods of attaining our goals. Therefore, these companies are ranked last. The benchmarking
process will continue throughout the concept design stage of our project, as we will always be
looking for new ideas and competitors.
Another important aspect of this Senior Design Project is available funds. The estimated
budget for the hovercraft design is located in Table 3.
Table 3: Estimated Budget
Power Source
Structural Materials
Fans
Aesthetics
Miscellaneous
Total
$550
$500
$300
$150
+ $100
$1600
Our customer has allocated $1600 for this project. However, additional funding may be
available provided proper justification is given. The budget is tentatively broken down into five
areas: Power Source (consisting of motors, controls and power supply), Structural Materials
(consisting of body and frame materials), Fans (means of propulsion), Aesthetics (non-essential
additives such as paint, decals, lights etc.) and Miscellaneous items (photocopies, overheads).
To ensure that all of the team’s deadlines are met, we have constructed a Gantt chart (see
Attachment 1). This chart outlines the team’s objectives and time devoted to necessary design
tasks. This tentative schedule will periodically change as the design process evolves, but is
useful in efficiently completing the hovercraft design. The chart begins with customer night. It
continues, in order of date, with all significant tasks through the end of the semester. Each task is
broken down into sub-tasks and these may be broken down in to sub-tasks.
Attachment 1.
The design team is currently in the Conceptual Design Phase. As can be seen in the
attachment, this process is taking about two weeks and is broken down into four parts: identify
customers, identify problem, benchmarking, identify wants & constraints and creation of the
schedule. Though each of the sub-tasks are only assigned two weeks, they are really on-going
endeavors and will appear in other phases as well. The four tasks (numbered 8,21,34,47) shown
as clear diamonds represent tasks which will repeat throughout the semester but are not
‘continuous’ effort types.
Team ground rules are necessary to provide a guide to the team and to stand as a basis to
ensure that all members are contributing to the project as equally as possible. The team ground
rules as decided by our design team and approved by the NCDA advisors are listed in Table 4.
Table 4: Team Ground Rules
1. Each team member must participate equally in all activities.
2. Each member must complete individual work by the designated time.
3. Mandatory attendance at group meetings.
4. Constructive criticism only (criticize ideas not people).
5. Don't hold back suggestions.
6. Keep communication lines open at all times.
7. Each member should know what the others are working on at any given time.
This concludes the proposal. Any Questions or comments should be referred to any of the
persons listed on the title sheet listed under the heading Design Team.