Project Customer
Prof. Eric Frew
Project Advisors
Prof. Bill Emery
Prof. Kurt Maute
Leah Crumbaker
Jason Farmer
James Gordon
Matt Lenda
Jeffrey Mullen
Scott Tatum
Travis Schafhausen
Kristina Wang
Spring Final Review 1

This presentation will showcase the MADS senior design project.
Mechanical
Mechanical
Objectives
Concept of Operations
Requirements
System Design
Electrical
Software
Electrical
Software
2
Spring Final Review

System Architecture
Fabrication and Integration
Experimental Test Results
Project Management
Project Summary
Spring Final Review 3

Objective:
Integrate a mechanism into an existing
RECUV vehicle that can store and deploy four small sub-vehicles on demand during flight.
Purpose:
• Provide a test platform for cooperative control protocols
• Provide a proof of concept that in-flight deployment of air vehicles and the overall dynamics associated with such an action can be managed, predictable, and reliable.
System
Architecture
4
Interim Review #1

System
Architecture
Spring Final Review
5

System
Architecture
Definition of Success (Qualitative and Quantitative):
• Functionality
• Repeatability
• Verification of theoretical models with experimental data
Definitions
PV = Primary Vehicle
SV = Sub Vehicle
DM = Deployment Mechanism
Project Requirements
• The PV is the SIG Rascal 110
• The system shall carry and deploy 4 SVs in flight
• At least 1 flight-capable SV shall be delivered
System Requirements
• Sub-Vehicle
• Minimum 15 minute endurance
• Minimum speed of 5 m/s
• Shall be controlled by the CUPIC autopilot
• Deployed on-demand (between 50 and 100 meters AGL)
• DM Impact on PV
• Minimum 15 minute PV endurance with deployment system
• PV remains stable with deployment system in any configuration
6
Interim Review #1

1. Primary Vehicle (PV)
• On-board electronics controls deployment through wireless commands from a ground station
• Flown by an RC Pilot
2. Deployment Mechanism (DM)
• Consists of mounting point for the SV and linear actuator for pin-movement release
• Attached to the PV with bracketing system
3. Sub-Vehicle (SV)
• CUPIC Autopilot commands the control surfaces and motor settings autonomously from mission commands given from the ground station
Interim Review #1
System
Architecture
7

System
Architecture
8
Interim Review #1

System
Architecture
Definitions
PV = Primary Vehicle
SV = Sub Vehicle
DM = Deployment Mechanism
Project Requirements
• The PV is the SIG Rascal 110
• The system shall carry and deploy 4 SVs in flight
• At least 1 flight-capable SV shall be delivered
System Requirements
• Sub-Vehicle
• Minimum 15 minute endurance
• Minimum speed of 5 m/s
• Shall be controlled by the CUPIC autopilot
• Deployed on-demand (between 50 and 100 meters AGL)
• DM Impact on PV
• Minimum 15 minute PV endurance with deployment system
• PV remains stable with deployment system in any configuration
9
Spring Final Review

Primary Vehicle
 SIG Rascal 110
 Deploy Altitude (50-
100m)
 V = 15m/s at deployment
 E = 15min
 Max Payload = 4.71kg
 Max Mass = 12.67kg
 Controlled by RC Pilot
 Stability
Sub-Vehicle
 Flight Capable
 Min V = 5m/s
 E = 15min
 Max Mass = 485g
 Max Payload = 0.1 kg
 Stability
Deployment
Mechanism
 Carry 4 SVs for 15 minutes
 Deploy SV on Demand within 3 seconds
 Max Mass = 0.013kg
System
Architecture
CDH
 Stream data at 10 Hz
 Control SV elevons
 Control SV throttle
 Stream potentiometer data from PV at 10 Hz
 Interpret data
System
 Full-System Fit and Functionality
 PV – DM interface
 The system shall not alter from [43 cm, 0 cm, -5 cm] more than of +/- 2 cm in the X, or Z direction
 DM in flight shall not exceed the material limits of the PV structure
 Mount within specified area
 DM – SV interface
 DM shall not decrease the structural integrity of the SV
 Flight environment
 Operate in the temperature range of 0-40 degrees Celsius.
 Shall not operate if winds exceeds 7 m/s
Spring Final Review
10

System Architecture
Fabrication and Integration
Experimental Test Results
Project Management
Project Summary
Spring Final Review 11

• Firgelli PQ-12 attachment method required several design cycles
Initial Design Final Design
Fabrication
And Integration
1 st Design:
• Contour matching bracket
• Set screws restrain and position PQ-12
• PQ-12 not mounted according to manufacturer’s specifications
• Time consuming to manufacture
Final Design:
• Bracket tightened around PQ-12
• PQ-12 mounted at manufacturer’s specifications
• Set screws restrain and position PQ-12
• Easy to manufacture
12
Spring Final Review

• Minor Reinforcement System changes
• Interior brackets – light weight design created
• Angled beams – bent instead of angled cuts and mounting brackets
Fabrication
And Integration
Spring Final Review
13

1) Deployment Mechanisms– finalized 2/3/09 ………….. 20 hours
• 4 SV Brackets
• 4 PV Brackets
• 8 Restraint plates
• 4 Pins
2) Reinforcement Assembly (2 Sets) – finalized 2/6/09… 20 hours
• 4 Interior Brackets
• 4 Exterior Plates
• 2 Threaded Interior Connectors
3) Struts and Connectors – finalized 3/7/09 ………………. 10 hours
• 2 Angled Struts
• 2 Straight Struts
4) PQ-12 Attachment Brackets – finalized 4/3/09 ………. 60 hours
• 4 Brackets
Total Time: 110 Hours
Fabrication
And Integration
14
Spring Final Review

Lessons Learned
Fabrication
And Integration
Spring Final Review
15

SV Assembly
Battery, CUPIC, Motor,
Propeller, Servos, Receiver,
Comparator circuit
DM Assembly
Top of DM body, Sleeves,
Screws, Pin
PV Assembly
CUPIC, Engine, Fuel, Aluminum reinforcements
Fabrication
And Integration
Ground Station
Laptop, RC Transmitter, Xbee
Pro GS
DM-Bracket System
• Attach linear actuators to beams
• Attach DM pin to linear actuator
• Fasten DMs onto end of beams
SV-DM Integration
• Screw bottom DM piece to SV Canopy
• Align and glue SV canopy onto SV
Sensors
• Integrate verification sensors into PV
DM-PV Integration
• Screw beams through PV fuselage and hold in with joints and set screws
Power ON
• Connect all batteries
• Initialize GUI
• Zero/Calibrate Sensors
SV-DM-PV Integration
• Activate linear actuators to push pins through DM mechanism
Full System
• PV, SV, DM, GS
Spring Final Review
16

• Linear Actuators (Test ##.#)
• Measured retract force of each PQ-12 and verified results against manufacturers specifications
• Reinforcement System (Test ##.#)
• Measured structural deflection from estimated flight loading and verified results against a FEM model
• Vibration Testing
• Evaluated deployment mechanism functionality in vibration environment and verified results with flight tests
• Static Deployment (Test ##.#)
• Evaluated full system functionality on ground and verified results against predicted performance models
• Ground Station Test (Test ##.#)
• MICHAEL AND MATT SAY SOMETHING!
Spring Final Review
Fabrication
And Integration
17

Fabrication
And Integration
Spring Final Review
18

Lessons Learned
Fabrication
And Integration
Spring Final Review
19

System Architecture
Fabrication and Integration
Experimental Test Results
Project Management
Project Summary
Spring Final Review 20

• Ground testing performed first
• Flight tests occurred only after successful ground tests
Flight Testing
Ground Testing
Experimental
Testing Results
= Test Completed
JAN
17 25
FEB MAR
1 13 16 18
APR
5 11
MAY
21
Spring Final Review

• Ground testing performed first
• Flight tests occurred only after successful ground tests
Flight Testing
Ground Testing
Experimental
Testing Results
= Test Completed
JAN
17 25
FEB MAR
1 13 16 18
APR
5 11
MAY
22
Spring Final Review

Experimental
Testing Results
Requirement to Verify:
The SV shall have a minimum 15 minute, +/- 1 minute, post-deployment flight endurance.
• Power model of SV created to estimate flight time
• Power resistor was used to measure real-time current
• Comparison between data and model prepared
Spring Final Review
23

Experimental
Testing Results
AES Aircraft Stability Wind Tunnel was used to cool the battery, electronic speed controller, and various power resistors, ensuring that no component will overheat.
3 trials for 3 current draw levels (4A, 6A, 10A)
*Error of voltage reading from 14-bit ADC = ± .0006 V
*Error of current draw reading from .37 Ω resistor with 5% tolerance
Spring Final Review
24

Sub-Vehicle Post-Deployment Endurance
V
B
= 7.4V, C
B
= 2.1Ah
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2 3 4 5 6 7
Motor Current [A]
8 9 10
Current Draw Theoretical Endurance Actual Endurance
4A 31.18 min 47.52 min
6A
10A
20.79 min
12.57 min
29.75 min
15.41 min
Spring Final Review
Experimental
Testing Results
Conclusion
The SV should fly for at least 15 minutes.
25

• Ground testing performed first
• Flight tests occurred only after successful ground tests
Flight Testing
Ground Testing
Experimental
Testing Results
= Test Completed
JAN
17 25
FEB MAR
1 13 16 18
APR
5 11
MAY
26
Spring Final Review

Experimental
Testing Results
Requirement to Verify:
The deployment mechanism shall be able to carry and deploy four SVs in flight.
• Non-destructive load testing on the bracket structure
• Estimated the maximum applied loads
• Power available
• CFD data
• Simulated maximum loading cases
• Compared results to FEM model
27
Spring Final Review

Experimental
Testing Results
Load Approximation
• ASSUME: No gusts or vibrations P excess
Power Required to Fly for Various Conditions

P max

1
Excess Power [W]
2
1000
S

C
D
V

2
10
Infeasible Flight Condition
8
500
6
0
4
-500
2
Feasible Flight Condition
0
-1000
-2
-1500
-4
-2000
-6
-2500 -8
-10
5 10 15
Velocity [m/s]
20 25 30
• Calculating maximum lift along feasible/infeasible intersection from SuperFLY CFD data, maximum lift occurs at AoA = 10 o and V
∞
= 19m/s
• Corresponds to 23.8 N (~5.4lbf) per SV. A total of 95.2N (~21lbf) applied to the structure of the PV
28
Spring Final Review

• Restrained tips of deployment mechanisms
• Applied load (to the fuselage of the aircraft
• Displacement from the bottom of the fuselage measured
• Comparison to COSMOSWorks FEM model was used to verify the results
5
4
3
2
7
6
8
Deflection of Plane Fuselage for Varying Applied Loads
Trial 3
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Experimental Data
Theoretical (Fixed BCs)
Theoretical (Immovable BCs)
6
Applied Load [kg]
7 8 9 10
Spring Final Review
Experimental
Testing Results
29

• Ground testing performed first
• Flight tests occurred only after successful ground tests
Flight Testing
Ground Testing
Experimental
Testing Results
= Test Completed
JAN
17 25
FEB MAR
1 13 16 18
APR
5 11
MAY
30
Spring Final Review

Requirement to Verify:
The SV shall utilize the CUPIC autopilot
Add SV Velocity Req
• The SVs must be able to autonomously track commanded loiter waypoints
• Flight Control Gains trimmed:
• Roll Angle Rate, Roll Angle
• Throttle to Altitude, Vertical Velocity to Elevon
• Commanding:
• Multiple loiter centers, radii, altitudes
• Autonomous landing mode
• “Safe Fall” deployment sequence
Experimental
Testing Results
31
Spring Final Review

CUPIC Autopilot Flight Test
Test Results
Speed Plot
Altitude/Altitude CMD plot
Experimental
Testing Results
Predicted Flight Speed: 10.1 m/s
Average Flight Speed: X +/- X m/s
Spring Final Review
32

CUPIC Autopilot Flight Test
Test Results
39.8445
39.844
39.8435
SV CUPIC GPS Position
CLC,

= +/- 2.0m = +/-2.34e-5 o
RC Invalid
39.843
39.8425
39.842
-105.2145 -105.214 -105.2135 -105.213 -105.2125 -105.212 -105.2115 -105.211
Longitude [deg]
Tracking Error Plot
Experimental
Testing Results
33
Spring Final Review

CUPIC Autopilot Flight Test
Test Results
Safe Fall Plot
- altitude comparison
- speed comparison
Spring Final Review
Experimental
Testing Results
34

• Ground testing performed first
• Flight tests occurred only after successful ground tests
Flight Testing
Ground Testing
Experimental
Testing Results
= Test Completed
JAN
17 25
FEB MAR
1 13 16 18
APR
5 11
MAY
35
Spring Final Review

Ground Station Functionality Test
Requirements to Verify:
The SV shall utilize the CUPIC autopilot
The CUPIC shall stream data at 10Hz
The SVs shall be deployed on-demand
Add PV potentiometer 10Hz req
• Telemetry and Commanding Verification
• Deploy – Deploys SV on-demand and shuts off current flow
• Force Retract/Extend – Retracts/Extends DM pin on demand without current flow control
• Post-processing determines incoming packing rate
Experimental
Testing Results
36
Spring Final Review

Ground Station Functionality Test
Test Results
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
640
PV-DMPIC Pin Deploy and Control Status
Pot 1 [cm],

= 0.05cm
Crit [cm]
Low [cm]
Deploy [DN]
Current [DN]
641 642 643
Time [s]
644 645 646
Spring Final Review
Experimental
Testing Results
37

Ground Station Functionality Test
Test Results
SV Debug Packets
25
20
15
10
5
0 500 1000
Time [s]
PV Debug Packets
1500
30
20
10
0
0 200 400
Expected SV/PV Packet Rate: 10Hz
Average SV Packet Rate: 8.55 Hz
Average PV Packet Rate: 8.23 Hz
600 800
Time [s]
1000 1200 1400 1600
Attributed to lack of processing power on ground station
Spring Final Review
Experimental
Testing Results
38

DM Release On-Demand Static Test
Requirement to Verify:
The SV shall be deployed on-demand from the PV
• Autonomous Sequence
• PV samples potentiometer data and waits for “critical” value
• PV notifies SV of deployment
• SV begins autonomous sequence to stabilize in roll and pitch
• Fault Protection and Deployment Conditionals:
• Deployment Order
• GPS Lock (PV and SV)
• Altitude and Speed of Deployment
Experimental
Testing Results
39
Spring Final Review

DM Release On-Demand Static Test
Test Results
Pin Position, Current Control, and Deploy Status - Flight Test
2
Throttle [DN]
1.8
1.6
SV Deploy [DN]
Pot 4 [cm],

= 0.05cm
Crit [cm]
1.4
Low [cm]
Current [DN]
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
645 650 655 660
Time [s]
665 670
Experimental
Testing Results
40
Spring Final Review

• Ground testing performed first
• Flight tests occurred only after successful ground tests
Flight Testing
Ground Testing
Experimental
Testing Results
= Test Completed
JAN
17 25
FEB MAR
1 13 16 18
APR
5 11
MAY
41
Spring Final Review

Full System Mass
Experimental
Testing Results
Requirement to Verify:
The DS shall not move the CG from [43 cm, 0 cm, -5 cm] with a margin of +/- 2 cm with respect to the nose of the PV Location
• Weigh full system and components to determine CG
• Weigh each possible deployment configuration
• Weigh system at landing gear locations
• Sum moments to determine CG location

Full System Mass
Test Results
X Center of Gravity Locations (cm from nose) Model
Loading
Case
Initial Adjusted Adjusted w/ Fuel
Predicted
CG
Brackets 48.1
45.2
44.4
56.5
SV 4
SV 3,4
SV 2,3,4
SV 1,2,3,4
48.6
49.0
50.6
50.7
47.2
48.2
48.5
48.9
46.1
47.6
47.9
48.3
56.9
57.3
58.8
60.1
Experimental
Testing Results
Total Mass (kg)
Initial Adjusted Adjusted w/ Fuel
7.901
8.94
9.221
8.304
8.608
9.051
9.454
9.409
9.787
10.192
10.624
9.672
10.04
10.452
10.864
• Adjusted CG forward
• Adjusted the placements of sensor batteries
• Added 588g lead weights to the nose of the PV
• Final CG of the PV with brackets met the CG requirement
• Full system CG does not meet CG requirements
• Total empty mass location too far forward to make additional adjustments

• Ground testing performed first
• Flight tests occurred only after successful ground tests
Flight Testing
Ground Testing
Experimental
Testing Results
= Test Completed
JAN
17 25
FEB MAR
1 13 16 18
APR
5 11
MAY
44
Spring Final Review

SV Endurance
Experimental
Testing Results
Requirement to Verify:
The SV shall have a minimum 15 minute, +/- 1 minute, post-deployment flight endurance.
• CUPIC Autopilot samples battery voltage
• Max current draw is limited by internal battery resistance and voltage
• Internal battery resistance and voltage are functions of:
• Temperature: dR/dT < 0, dV/dT > 0
• Charge: dR/dQ < 0, dV/dQ > 0
45
Spring Final Review

SV Endurance
Test Results
Plot of:
Battery Voltage
Relation of battery internal resistance, voltage as a function of temperature/charge
Experimental
Testing Results
Requirement is not met due to cold weather on initial flight days and crashes on the others
Spring Final Review
46

• Ground testing performed first
• Flight tests occurred only after successful ground tests
Flight Testing
Experimental
Testing Results
= Test Completed
Ground Testing
JAN
17 25
FEB MAR
1 13 16 18
APR
5 11
MAY
47
Spring Final Review

Experimental
Testing Results
Requirement to Verify:
The PV shall have a minimum flight endurance of 15 minutes, +/- 1 minute, with the full deployment system attached.
• Flow meter on system measures fuel volume consumed
• Data is extrapolated to calculate maximum endurance
Spring Final Review
48

Experimental
Testing Results
Test Results
PV-DMPIC Flow Meter Data: Remaining Fuel (Engine On Only)
450
400
350
300
250
-100
1.5
0 100 200 300 400
Time [s]
500 600
PV-DMPIC Measured Flow Rate
700
800
1
0.5
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400
Time [s]
500 600 700 800
Average flow rate: 0.4 mL/s +/- 0.012 mL/s
Thrust-Specific Fuel Consumption: ???
Projected endurance: 18.33 minutes +/- 34 seconds
Spring Final Review
49

Requirement to Verify:
PV remains stable with deployment system in any configuration
• Stable aircraft reduces risk of flight-related damages to the system
• Stability derivatives derived through CFD
• EagleTree records comparable parameters to validate model
Experimental
Testing Results
Spring Final Review
50

Model
• Hundreds of several forced oscillation simulations using PowerFLOW (powered by the Lattice Boltzmann Method)
• Iterative process in order to ensure simulations were set-up properly
• From this process, all the cross-coupled and linear stability derivatives estimated
• EG: N
Θ,
X r
, etc…
• Each flight case takes roughly 2 weeks to run
• Due to time constraints, only the full system stability could be simulated
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-80
4
2
0
-2
-4
-4.5
-4 -3.5
-3
Experimental
Testing Results
Poles of Longitudinal Modes
Short-Period
Phugoid
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30
Real Axis
-20
Poles of Lateral Modes
-10
Roll Subsidence
Spiral Divergence
Dutch Roll
-1
0
-0.5
10
0 -2.5
-2
Real Axis
-1.5
51
Spring Final Review

• A 6 DOF aircraft flight model created
• Limitations: Model does not take into account throttle and non-trim conditions
• Comparisons when the throttle was constant and plane at trim were performed
20
Aileron Command* Angular Velocity Comparison Near  = 0**
2
Experimental
Testing Results
0
-20
0 0.5
1 1.5
Time [s]
Elevator Command
2 2.5
0
-2
0 0.5
1 1.5
Time [s]
2 2.5
10
5
0.2
0
0
0 0.5
1 1.5
Time [s]
Rudder Command
2 2.5
-0.2
0 0.5
1 1.5
Time [s]
-0.5
0.5
-1 0
-1.5
0 0.5
1 1.5
Time [s]
2 2.5
-0.5
0 0.5
1 1.5
Time [s]
Experimental Data
Model
* Accuracy of EagleTree logger for the control surfaces unknown.
** http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/ADXRS150.pdf
. Sensitivity Nonlinearity of 0.1% of FS
2
2
2.5
2.5
52
Spring Final Review

17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
0
Airspeed Comparison Near  = 0*
Experimental Data
Model
0.5
1
Time [s]
1.5
2 2.5
Conclusion
• From CFD modeling, the system is slightly unstable in the longitudinal mode
• The CFD-method of modeling was validated!
* Accuracy of EagleTree logger for the airspeed unknown.
Spring Final Review
Experimental
Testing Results
53

DM Release On-Demand Flight Test
Requirement to Verify:
The SV shall be deployed on-demand from the PV
• Autonomous Sequence (In Flight)
• PV samples potentiometer data and waits for “critical” value
• PV notifies SV of deployment
• SV begins autonomous sequence in flight to stabilize in roll and pitch
Experimental
Testing Results
54
Spring Final Review

DM Release On-Demand Flight Test
Test Results
Plot of:
Pot 4 w/ crits
SV deploy/idle bits
Throttle
Experimental
Testing Results
55
Spring Final Review

DM Release On-Demand Flight Test
Test Results
Plot of:
Pot 4 w/ crits
SV deploy/idle bits
Throttle
Experimental
Testing Results
56
Spring Final Review

DM Release On-Demand Flight Test
Test Results
Altitude/Altitude CMD plot
Tracking Error Plot
Experimental
Testing Results
57
Spring Final Review

• Ground testing performed first
• Flight tests occurred only after successful ground tests
Flight Testing
Ground Testing
Experimental
Testing Results
= Test Completed
JAN
17 25
FEB MAR
1 13 16 18
APR
5 11
MAY
58
Spring Final Review

System Architecture
Fabrication and Integration
Experimental Test Results
Project Management
Project Summary
Spring Final Review 59

Project
Management
MADS
Kurt Maute
William Emery
PAB Advisors
Eric Frew
Customer
Travis Schafhausen
Project Manager
Leah Crumbaker
Safety Engineer
Kristina Wang
Webmaster
Scott Tatum
Chief Financial Officer
Leah Crumbaker
Systems Engineer
Aerodynamics
Jeff Mullen
Kristina Wang
Leah
Crumbaker
Avionics/
Electronics
Matthew
Lenda
Jeff Mullen
Travis
Schafhausen
SV Design
Kristina Wang
Matthew
Lenda
Travis
Schafhausen
Mechanics/
Deployment
Scott Tatum
Jason Farmer
Leah
Crumbaker
Structures
Jason Farmer
Scott Tatum
James Gordon
Software
James Gordon
Matthew
Lenda
Jeff Mullen
Fabrication
Jason Farmer
Test
Jeff Mullen
Travis
Schafhausen
60
Spring Final Review

Project
Management
Remaining
Project Management
Sub Vehicle
32%
System Expense Breakdown
Shipping
Ground Station
Primary Vehicle
Misc Items
Deployment Mechanism
6% 3% 6%
22%
6%
5%
20%

• Remaining Budget: $140
• Why we spent more than expected
• Shipping Costs: $285
• Used 30% margin on many misc items
• Unexpected items that were not budgeted: $ 1300
Unexpected Charges
Compact Flash Card
DM Servos
Carbon Fiber Beams
Cost
$50.00
$87.47
$92.30
3 additional Fully outfitted SVs
Li-Po Charger
USB 2 Serial Cable
Micro Servo Cables
DM Battery
DP3T Switch
DM & PIC Boards
Total
$571.68
$130.00
$36.99
$103.62
$36.99
$66.01
$142.59
$1,317.65
Project
Management
Use
For high speed camera
Possible DM (not used)
Original beam idea(not used)
All extra equipment for 3 additional SVs
For charging Li-Po batteries
For DEV board programming
PV DM Electronics
PV DM Electronics
PV DM Electronics
PV DM Electronics

Labor
• ~25 hrs/person/week = ~3000 hrs/semester
• ~$30.00/hr = ~$62,400/year
• ~$180,000 in salaries
Materials
• $4000.00 Course Budget
• $2200.00 Customer Input
• $ Travel Allowance
Overhead
• 200%
• ~$400,000.00
Spring Final Review
Project
Management
63

Project
Management
Spring Final Review
64

Project
Management
Budget
• Watch closely
• Multiple people
• Submission and approval system
• Beware shipping and miscellaneous expenses
Team Dynamics
• Design by committee is difficult
• Quickly break into subsystem teams
• Review by committee
• Keep the design and the feedback impersonal
• Juggling 8 different personalities
Scheduling
• Aggressive test schedule left room for schedule slips later in the semester
• Pilots with flexible schedules
• Plan for weather delays
• Take advantage of schedule slips in one subsystem to advance another.
Outside Resources
• AAM
65
Spring Final Review

System Architecture
Fabrication and Integration
Experimental Test Results
Project Management
Project Summary
Spring Final Review 66

• SIG Rascal 110
• Altitude recorded at SV deployment
• Velocity recorded at SV deployment
• Endurance derived from data
• Stability model verified
• Flight capable
• Velocity requirement met
• Endurance derived from data
• Stability requirement met through autopilot flight
• Carry 4 SVs
• Deploy 4 SVs
• Release on demand
Project
Summary
• Sample data
• Stream data from the SV to GS and PV to GS
• Interpret data
• PV – DM interface
• DM – SV interface
• Full system fit and functional
Interim Review #1
67

Major Issues
Linear Actuators
Real term in MATLAB
Monetary Budget
Project
Summary
Lessons Learned
Do not trust components from venders. Take the risk, take apart and understand the component before interfacing it with the rest of the system. Or reverse engineer the mechanism and make a more reliable one.
Use C-Sharp. MATLAB is not fast enough.
Apply for any funding regardless of the large margin in the original budget. Avoid rush ordering all COTS pieces because any margin will diminish quickly.
68
Interim Review #1

Project
Summary
MADS provides a proof of concept that in-flight deployment of air vehicles and the overall dynamics associated with such an action can be managed, predictable, and reliable. This technology can be further developed and used for different applications:
• Test cooperative communication protocols
• Adapt revised deployment systems for more advanced PVs and SVs for the following:
• Longer data collection times
• Larger areas to cover and characterize
• Dangerous/Difficult situations that require data-collection (i.e. severe weather, wildfire observation)
MADS 2.0: potential Masters project (Fall 2009)
69
Interim Review #1

Project
Summary
Spring Final Review
70

• MADS is complete!
Project
Summary
Spring Final Review
71

Prof. Bill Emery and Prof. Kurt Maute – Our faculty advisors have given useful feedback throughout the design process.
Prof. Dale Lawrence – Dr. Lawrence supervised our wind tunnel testing and allowed us to use his equipment for data collection.
Frank Dilatush – Frank has provided an abundance of useful information regarding RC planes and suggested our final SV choice. He has also offered additional time and resources to our team during the critical design and testing phases of the project.
Eric Frew – Our customer has offered many hours in helping us develop our project goal and requirements.
Georg Pingen – Georg assisted with CFD analysis by offering help with PowerFlow.
David Halko– The designer and manufacturer of SuperFly RC planes has provided additional specifications and information about his products and offered future help with the project.
Trudy Schwartz – Trudy has been a great help in our consideration of electromagnetic deployment during preliminary design. She has guided us in our calculations and component search.
Bill Pisano – Bill has helped a great deal in aiding our understanding of the CUPIC.
Tom Aune - Tom has helped with the selection of PV flight components
PAB – The members of the PAB have provided constructive criticism, feedback, and guidance throughout project definition, development, and design.
72
Spring Final Review

Spring Final Review
73

Experimental
Testing Results
First deployment flight test resulted in failed deployments, and potentiometers damaged.
Problem: Plastic sleeve slipped off metal screw during retraction
Solution: Adhere plastic sleeve to metal using CA glue
Problem: Bent metal contact points for potentiometer, causing no potentiometer reading
Solution: Bend contact points back to original form, avoid applying pressure to parts of the linear actuator
74
Interim Review #1

Test of the pre- and post-repaired linear actuators within and outside of the brackets showed which were pulling to manufacturer’s specified 18 N.
Experimental
Testing Results
Linear Actuator Unrepaired, Old
DM Bracket
1
2 (successful deployment)
3
4 (successful deployment)
6 N
18 N
8 N
18 N
Unrepaired
10 N
18 N
8 N
18 N
Repaired
18 N
18 N
18 N
18 N
Conclusion: Damaged from compression. Problems were repaired, and actuators are able to sustain greater loads.
Repaired, New
DM Bracket
18 N
18 N
16 N
18 N

Full System Mass
Requirement to Verify:
The DS shall not move the CG from [XXX] Location
• Mass of the full system and components to determine CG
• Mass with each possible deployment configuration
• Take mass at landing gear locations
• Sum moments to determine CG location
Experimental
Testing Results

Full System Mass
Test Results
Tables of CG location and total masses
Experimental
Testing Results

Full System Mass
Comparison to Model
Model CG locations and Actual locations and required adjustments
Experimental
Testing Results

February 8, 2009
Experimental
Testing Results
Spring Final Review
79

March 18, 2009
Experimental
Testing Results
Spring Final Review
80

March 18, 2009
Experimental
Testing Results
Spring Final Review
81

Experimental
Testing Results
Spring Final Review
82

Experimental
Testing Results
The PV and DM shall have a minimum flight endurance of 15 minutes.
Specific Fuel Consumption at different RPM values
4
3.5
Engine 1: Prop 16x8
Engine 2: Prop 15x8
Engine 2: Prop 16x8
• At ~ 4660rpm (~30% throttle)
• 1.6010 lb/(hp*hr)
• 0.3480 oz/min
•At ~ 6660rpm (~50% throttle)
• 1.6043 lb/(hp*hr)
• 0.4380 oz/min
•At ~ 7500rpm (~75% throttle)
• 2.3320 lb/(hp*hr)
• 1.5660 oz/min
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500
RPM
Error bars: derived from the accuracy of volume measurements, time and rpm values for horse power.
8000
83
Interim Review #1

Measured Thrust
10
Engine 1
Engine2
5
Experimental
Testing Results
0
-5
-20 0 20 40 60
Percent Throttle
80 100 120
Error bars: derived from standard deviation of load cell test data that was taken during the experiment.
84
Interim Review #1

Theoretical Thrust
12
10
Engine 1, Test 1
Engine 2, Test 1
Engine 2, Test 2
8
6
4
2
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Throttle
Error bars: derived from the accuracy of being able to measure rpm values.
120
Interim Review #1
Experimental
Testing Results
85

Product
Primary Vehicle
Aircraft
Servos/Electronics
Engines
Fuel System
Field Equipment
CUPIC
Subtotal
Deployment Mechanism
Cost ($)
0
0
0
0
0
290
Mountings
Linear Actuator
Electronic Circuits
Subtotal
Project Management
FFR Printing
Credit Card Overhead
Repay Frank for Superfly
Subtotal
#
1
1
1
1
1
1
$290.00
Cost Breakdown
Total ($)Notes Product
0
Sub Vehicle
Airframe
0
0
0
0 Provided Servo/Electonics by
RECUV
Additional/ Spare Parts
CUPIC
Subtotal
290 Ground Station
RC Transmitter
XBee Pro Ground Station
250 1
70 4
360 1
$890.00
250
280
360
62 1
37.04
1
116.95
1
$215.99
62
37.04
116.95
USB to Serial Cable
Subtotal
Misc Items
EagleTree
High Speed Camera Card
Li-Po Charger
Horizon Sensor
Misc Hardware/ Tools
Subtotal
Shipping
Total
Available
Balance/Additional Margin
Cost ($)
50
190
150
290
0
211
36.99
300
50
130
48
450
Project
Management
# Total ($)Notes
5 250
4 760
1 150
1 290
$1,450.00
RECUV 1
1
0
211
1 36.99
$247.99
1
1
1
300
50
130
1 48
1
$978.00
450
$285.00
$3,855.99
$4,000.00
$144.01 3.60%