The University of Adelaide School of Mechanical Engineering 859 Design and build of a UAV with morphing configuration MORPHEUS - Final Report Kevin Chan 1132668 Crystal Forrester 1118686 Ian Lomas 1132921 Simon Mitchell 1132439 Carlee Stacey 1132235 Supervisor: Dr. Maziar Arjomandi
340
Embed
859 Design and build of a UAV with morphing con gurationrahauav.com/Library/Unmanned Vehicles/UAV_with... · This report details the design and development of a morphing Unmanned
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The University of AdelaideSchool of Mechanical Engineering
859 Design and build of a UAV with
morphing configuration
MORPHEUS - Final Report
Kevin Chan 1132668
Crystal Forrester 1118686
Ian Lomas 1132921
Simon Mitchell 1132439
Carlee Stacey 1132235
Supervisor:
Dr. Maziar Arjomandi
Executive summary
This report details the design and development of a morphing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV) by a group of five undergraduate engineering students from the School of Mechani-
cal Engineering at the University of Adelaide during 2009. Sharing a common background
in Aerospace Engineering, the students aimed to develop a remotely piloted UAV capable
of morphing between two different configurations. Dubbed ‘The Morpheus Project,’ the
aircraft design was driven towards a multi-mission platform which reduces the need for
performance compromise during different flight phases.
The conceptual design of the airframe was derived using a classical approach, based on an
extensive feasibility study and statistical analysis of the global UAV and morphing tech-
nology industries. Motivated by aerodynamic, structural and manufacturing limitations,
a telescoping wing and tail concept was developed based on a conventional aircraft config-
uration. The aircraft platform features non-tapered outboard wing sections which extend
and retract from a tapered inboard wing section. To control the longitudinal stability
of the aircraft during flight, a telescoping tail boom extends and retracts from the rear
of the fuselage. While this design presents numerous challenges, particularly in terms of
stability and manufacturing, the overall airframe demonstrates an innovative and creative
approach to engineering design.
The aircraft is to be primarily constructed from composite materials to provide struc-
tural strength and rigidity whilst minimising weight. The use of an electric propulsion
system consisting of a brushless motor and lithium-polymer battery technology allowed
for a reduction in aircraft complexity and development time. Stable and sustained flights
were achieved in all possible aircraft configurations, and morphing during flight was also
demonstrated. The aircraft has a theoretical maximum speed of 147km/h in the ex-
tended configuration and 166 km/h in the retracted configuration. The aircraft has also
demonstrated the capability of 700g of payload, and has a theoretical endurance of 36
minutes.
From the beginning, the project objectives were deemed ambitious due to the difficulty in
developing and manufacturing the morphing mechanisms, and the reliance of all project
goals on successful test flights. The resourcefulness of the group provided a strong founda-
tion from which the majority of the primary goals were achieved. Several extended goals
were also specified to provide the group with additional challenges to an already ambitious
project. Theoretical calculations were performed toward the achievement of these goals;
however there was insufficient time available for flight testing. The work undertaken by
the project group provides a solid basis for further development of the Morpheus UAV.
Disclaimer
We, the authors, declare that the material contained within this report is entirely our
own, unless otherwise specified.
Kevin Chan
Date:
Crystal Forrester
Date:
Ian Lomas
Date:
Simon Mitchell
Date:
Carlee Stacey
Date:
Acknowledgements
We, the authors, would like to acknowledge the contributions made by many people
throughout the course of the project; without their support and guidance, the project
would not have been successfully completed. The authors would like to thank the project
supervisor, Dr Maziar Arjomandi, who has provided the group with invaluable guidance
and technical knowledge. Thanks must also go to the Electronics Workshop, and the
technicians at the Mechanical Workshop, particularly Mr Bill Finch and Mr Richard
Pateman, for their consultation and technical expertise.
The authors are sincerely thankful to the main sponsors of the project; Aeronautical En-
gineers Australia and Babcock Integrated Technology Australia. Without their financial
support, the project would not have been possible. The authors would also like to thank
Australian Aerospace Limited, who has provided the group with technical assistance and
in-kind support.
Finally, the authors would like to thank their families and friends for their support over
e214 Moderate -0.068 to -0.161 1.17s2091 Moderate -0.048 to -0.082 1.14s4310 Severe -0.041 to -0.089 1.11s4320 Severe -0.044 to -0.096 1.10sd7032 Moderate -0.044 to -0.099 1.12sg6042 Moderate -0.068 to -0.133 1.21sd7034 Moderate -0.048 to -0.82 1.15NACA 2412 Moderate -0.045 to -0.073 1.06NACA 4412 Moderate -0.078 to -0.125 1.25
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
57 CHAPTER 4. PRELIMINARY AND DETAILED DESIGN
Figure 4.2: Lift to drag ratio of candidate outboard wing airfoils
The sg6042 airfoil provided superior L/D performance at lower angles of attack than the
NACA 4412 as seen in figure 4.2. The NACA 4412, however, was selected instead as the
greater wing lift coefficient of this section allows for reductions in the manufacturing pro-
cess. The NACA 4412 section also has more favourable pitching moment characteristics
and provides superior L/D performance at α > 5◦.
4.1.2 Installed incidence angles
The installed incidence angle of the inboard wing was specified to reduce drag during
cruise in the retracted configuration. For a design weight of 6 kg, cruising at a speed
of 120 km/h at the maximum altitude permitteed by MAAA (122 m), a required lift
coefficient of 0.198 is given by equation 4.1. For a Reynolds number range of 5.4× 105 to
1.2× 106 and A = 3, this corresponds to an angle of attack of 0.33◦.
CL =2W
ρV 2S(4.1)
Initially the outboard wing was positioned at an incidence angle of −3◦ to enable both the
inboard and outboard wings to attain their maximum lift coefficient at the same aircraft
angle of attack. The outboard wing incidence angle, however, was modified to zero to
solve otherwise unresolvable inboard wing tip layout issues. The outboard wing stalls at
αaircraft = 12◦ whilst the inboard wing will stall at αaircraft = 15◦. This will limit the
inboard wing to a maximum lift coefficient of 1.2 without causing stall on the outboard
wing. This result is acceptable as both the inboard and outboard wings still achieve the
required wing lift coefficient of 1.2 within the operational aircraft angle of attack range.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.1. WING DESIGN 58
4.1.3 Wing loading
Aircraft wings experience shear, bending, torsional and axial loads resutling from aero-
dynamic and weight forces. Shear, bending and torsional loads were calculated from a
maximum load factor, wing lift distribution and wing weight distribution. Axial loads
were assumed to be negligible for a small UAV.
Maximum load factor
The maximum load factor was determined from a combination of the following require-
ments:
• CASA UA25.337 requires a limit maneuver load factor of +3.8 and -1.5
• Section 2.4 specifies operation in wind speeds up to 18.5 km/h
The maneuver V-n diagram is defined by the stall curve (Equation 4.2) and the limit
maneuver load factor.
n =CLρSV
2
2W(4.2)
Deviation from the nominal load factor of one, due to gusts, is given by equation 4.3.
Equation 4.4 is the modified gust velocity which accounts for the gust alleviation factor
given by equation 4.5. The mass ratio, given in Equation 4.6, accounts for the influence
of aircraft weight on the effect of the gust.
∆n =ρUV CLα2((W/S)
(4.3)
U = KUde (4.4)
K =µ1.03
6.95 + µ1.03(4.5)
µ =2(W/S)
ρgcCLα(4.6)
The combined maneuver and gust V-n diagram is bound by the VNE for each configuration.
VNE was estimated to be 50% greater than the cruise speed (Raymer 2006). The V-n
diagram was determined for an aircraft weight of 8 kg and a motor power of 1.65 kW.
Increases in the weight of the aircraft will reduce the gust load factor and do not need to
be considered in this section.
Figure 4.3 shows a maximum load factor of n = 3.8 for the retracted wing configuration.
Figure 4.4 shows a maximum load factor of n = 5. The Morpheus UAV, however, is not
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
59 CHAPTER 4. PRELIMINARY AND DETAILED DESIGN
designed to fly at high speeds in the extended configuration and hence it is reasonable to
assume that the UAV would be in the retracted configuration whilst flying at high speed.
Based on this assumption the extended VNE was re-specified as 147km/h, which reduces
the load factor experienced to n = 3.8. This compromise allows for reduced structural
weight whilst still meeting CASA requirements.
Figure 4.3: V-n diagram for the retracted wing configuration
Figure 4.4: V-n diagram for the extended wing configuration
Wing lift and weight distribution
The wing lift distribution was calculated using the Lifting Line Method documented in
Abbott (1959). Schrenk’s lift distribution approximation was considered to be inappror-
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.1. WING DESIGN 60
piate due to the complex geometry and discontinuous geometry of the extended wing
configuration. The section lift coefficient, given in Equation 4.7, is comprised of the
’basic’ and ’additional’ components given in Equations 4.8 and 4.9 respectively. For an
untwisted wing clb = 0. The values of La were tabulated in Abbott (1959) for various
taper and aspect ratios.
cl = clb + CLcla1 (4.7)
clb =εαeSLbcb
(4.8)
cla1 =SLacb
(4.9)
The extended wing configuration was modelled as a single wing with A = 6 and a taper
ratio described by Equations 4.10 and 4.11. The retracted wing configuration was mod-
elled as a single wing with A = 3 and λ = 0.45. The resulting lift distributions are shown
in Figure 4.5.
λ = 0.45 fory
b/2< 0.625 (4.10)
λ = 1.0 fory
b/2≥ 0.625 (4.11)
Figure 4.5: Spanwise lift distribution for both wing configurations
Wing weight was distributed according to chord length as suggested by Raymer (2006).
The discretised wing load distribution was found according to equation 4.12 which includes
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
61 CHAPTER 4. PRELIMINARY AND DETAILED DESIGN
a load factor of 3.8. The discretised lift, wing weight and load distributions for the
extended and retracted configurations are shown in Figures 4.6 and 4.7 respectively.
Pi = n× (Li −Wwing,i) (4.12)
Figure 4.6: Extended wing configuration load distribution
Figure 4.7: Retracted wing configuration load distribution
Wing loads
The net load distribution was used to calculate the shear, bending and torsional loads
on the wings. Spanwise axial loads and drag loads are negligible and have not been
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.1. WING DESIGN 62
considered. The extended load distribution is the critical load case due to the increased
moment arm. Due to time constraints, only this critical load case was analysed.
The wing spars were designed to carry all shear and bending loads. The shear and bending
moment diagrams in Figures 4.8 and 4.9 account for the bracket supports which fix the
wing tongues to the fuselage formers.
Figure 4.8: Wing shear diagram
Figure 4.9: Wing bending moment diagram
The wing torsion was calculated as the moment produced by the lift force around the
shear centre of the foam cross section, where the lift force was placed at the centre of
pressure. The shear centre was assumed to coincide with the centroid of the foam cross
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
63 CHAPTER 4. PRELIMINARY AND DETAILED DESIGN
section. The wing weight acts through the centriod and hence has no contribution to the
moment.
The shear centre varies with halfspan location due to the tapered geometry of the wings
and the untapered geometry of the hollow section. The position of the inboard wing
shear centre was calculated numerically for the root and tip sections and interpolated for
other halfspan locations. The position of the outboard shear centre was also calculated
numerically. The calculated shear centres are constant for all angles of attack.
The variation of the centre of pressure with various parameters was considered using the
JavaFoil package. The centre of pressure was constant with halfspan location, but moved
forwards with an increasing angle of attack. Variation with Reynolds number was also
considered, but was found to be negligible for Reynolds numbers up to 1.2× 106 up to a
stall angle of α = 15◦.
The difference between the shear centre and the centre of pressure was used to calculate
the torque generated at each of the discretised halfspan locations. The torque produced
in the wings was plotted as a function of angle of attack in Figure 4.10. This shows that
maximum wing torque was generated at the stall angle of α = 15◦.
Figure 4.10: Torque as a function of angle of attack
4.1.4 Wing structural layout
The wing structural layout was designed to incorporate the morphing mechanism, struc-
tural members and internal access for maintanence. The wing structure consists of the
outboard wing, wing block, inbound wing and fuselage attachment. Each sub-structure
was designed to include structural members which carried torsional, bending and shear
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.1. WING DESIGN 64
loads.
Internal structure type selection
Built up and foam core structures were considered as two layout solutions which could
meet the structural design requirements. A built up structure uses a framework of spars,
ribs and stringers which enclosed by a skin. Built up structures are more weight efficient,
but are more difficult and costly to manufacture. A foam structure uses a foam core
which is shaped to the required wing geometry. Spars, end ribs or a skin may be added as
reinforcements. A foam structure is heavier, but is simpler to manufacture. The reduced
requirement for precision cut components in a foam core wing should also reduce cost.
A foam core structure was selected for manufacturing simplicity and lower cost. Foam core
structures easily allow for the integration of additional structural or functional components
as these items may be directly bonded to the foam core. This structure type has been used
extensively in previous UAV projets at the University of Adelaide and can be considered
to be a proven option.
Material selection
Materials for the wing structure were selected on the basis of specific strength, manufac-
turability, availability and cost. Additional consideration was required to avoid excessive
use of carbon-fibre which may result in radio frequnecy interference. Table 4.4 lists mate-
rials used and the associated componeets. Components which are specific to the morphing
mechanism are considered in 4.3.
Outboard wing
The outboard wing is required to carry inertial and aerodynamic loads when in the ex-
tended configuration and transfer these loads to the fuselage. The outboard wing is also
required to contain roller strips and a threaded rod sleeve to protect the outboard wing
from roller and threaded rod impact damage.
The outboard wing structural layout is shown in Figure 4.11. The foam core supports the
airfoil shape and locates other components. The foam in reinforced at the root and tip
with plywood ribs which provide further support to structural components and protection
from impact damage. Four 10 x 1.5 mm unidirectional carbon strips provide roller impact
protection as well as acting as carrying bending and shear loads. These strips are located
at positions which correspond to the chordwise position of the rollers. The 12 mm outer
diameter carbon tube acts as a sleeve for the threaded rod and carries outboard wing
bending and shear loads. Three layers of 85 gsm fibreglass in a ±45◦ / 0◦/90◦ / ±45◦
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
Epoxy resin Used with fibreglassUsed to bond the structure together
The fuselage structural layout selected is shown in Figure 4.27. A total of seven 9 mm
thick plywood formers were positioned as required to mount the motor, nose gear, tail
mechanism, leading and trailing wing spars, tail rails and the fairing. The formers main-
tained the fuselage shape and longeron positions, assisted in carrying torsional loads and
served as a mounting point for other structural components. Four 15 mm x 9 mm ply-
wood longerons carry shear and bending loads. The longerons were positioned to create
the largest moment of inertia about both bending axes whilst maintaining sufficient edge
distances for all cutouts required. The longerons and formers contained cutout slots to
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.5. FUSELAGE DESIGN 92
locate the structure and for ease of manufacture. At cutout locations the longeron cross
section was reduced to 7.5 mm x 9 mm. Three layers of 85 gsm fibreglass were selected to
form the fuselage skin. A ply orientation of 0◦/90◦/± 45◦/0◦/90◦ was selected to provide
handling strength. The 0◦/90◦ are capable of carrying local bending loads which may be
applied directly to the skin whilst the ±45◦ layer carries local torsional loads.
Figure 4.27: Fuselage structural layout
Internal access to the fuselage was obtained hatch cutouts in the fuselage skin. Hatches
were located on the lower side of the fuselage in the nose gear and battery bays and
on the upper side of the fuselage between the spar formers. The empennage morphing
mechanism was accessable through a removeable fairing, which allows the tail rails and
the tail boom to be removed from the fuselage.
Landing gear mounting
The landing gear mounting layout is shown in Figure 4.28. The main landing gear are
bolted to a sacrificial plywood plate which is then bolted to a plywood plate mounted
between the leading and trailing spar formers. Nylon bolts were used at each interface
which are designed to shear during a heavy landing. The sacrificial bolts and plywood
plate protects both the main gear and the fuselage structure.
4.5.3 Weight distribution and centre of gravity
The centre of gravity envelope was calculated using the component list given in Table 4.10.
Minor components and electronics have been included with the fuselage structure weight.
The centre of gravity envelope for the Morpheus aircraft is shown in Figure 4.29, where
the tail leading edge location is plotted on the y-axis. The main landing gear position
listed was the result of an iterative process covered in Section 4.5.4.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
93 CHAPTER 4. PRELIMINARY AND DETAILED DESIGN
Figure 4.28: Landing gear mounting layout
Table 4.10: Aircraft weight breakdown summaryComponent Component CG from nose [m] Mass [kg]Motor 0.0315 0.377ESC 0.107 0.125Batteries 0.223 1.295Fuselage structure 0.3743 2.043Payload 0.425 0.5Wings 0.539 2.41Main gear 0.565 0.345Morphing and receiver batteries 0.807 0.226Tail (extended) 1.253 0.654Tail (retracted) 0.853 0.654
Figure 4.29: Centre of gravity envelope. Note that the y-axis is tail position not weight
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.5. FUSELAGE DESIGN 94
4.5.4 Landing gear
The landing gear were designed based upon load bearing and positioning requirements.
Due to project time constraints, the custom design and manufacture of landing gear was
not considered.
Landing gear selection
A steel nose gear, commonly used on similar sized model aircraft, was selected due to a
lack of available alternatives within Australia. Aluminium and composite main landing
gear were considered, with composite gear selected to save weight. The composite gear
shown in Figure 4.30 was selected based on availability and cost. The main landing gear
requirements and the specifications of the selected gear are listed in Table 4.5.4.
Figure 4.30: Selected main landing gear (Pilot-RC Inc. 2009)
Table 4.11: Main landing gear requirements and specifications of the selected gearRequirement Specification
Weight rating Greater than 8 kg 8.1 kgHeight 128-280 mm 195 mmWheel track Greater than or equal to 460 mm 460mmMounting plate width Less than or equal to 160 mm 160 mm
Landing gear positioning
The Morpheus UAV was designed to takeoff in the tail extended configuration as this gives
the greatest elevator control authority. Consequently the landing gear were positioned
only for the tail extended configuration.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
95 CHAPTER 4. PRELIMINARY AND DETAILED DESIGN
The nose landing gear was positioned on the second former in order to utilise the existing
fuselage internal structure. The main landing gear was positioned to meet weight distri-
bution, tipback angle and rollover angle requirements. The position calculation used an
iterative process in which a landing gear position with be assumed, the centre of gravity
calculated and the assumed position assessed against the three positioning criteria.
The main landing gear must carry between 80-90% of the aircraft weight. Insufficient
weight on the main gear will make takeoff rotation difficult, whilst excessive weight on
the main gear will result in poor nose gear ground handling qualities. A tipback angle
in excess of αstall = 15◦ was required to ensure the aircraft does not tipback onto its tail
during rotation. A rollover angle less than 63◦ was required to ensure the aircraft does
not rollover during ground maneuvers.
The main landing gear was positioned 565 mm from the aircraft nose based on the cal-
culations shown in Appendix B. This position met all three requirements for the empty
centre of gravity and the payload centre of gravity. This position is also forward of the
aftmost centre of gravity, ensuring that the aircraft will not tip back if the batteries and
payload are removed.
4.5.5 Fuselage loads
Fuselage loads were calculated for the three critical cases of a maximum speed pull-up
maneuver, a full aileron roll and a static thrust case with the tail fixed. These load cases
were calculated in Appendix C.
Pull-up maneuver
A pull-up maneuver at maximum speed and load factor generates the greatest bending and
shear loads in the fuselage. This calculation assumes that the aircraft is in its retracted
wing, extended tail configuration flying at 165 km/h. The shear and bending moment
diagrams are shown in Figures 4.31(a) and 4.31(b) respectively.
Full aileron roll
A full aileron roll at maximum speed generates the highest torsion in the fuselage. This
analysis assumed the critical case of retracted wings and an extended tail. The maximum
instantaneous torque generated by a full aileron deflected was calculated to be 67.72 Nm,
with the maximum continuous torque being 12.75 Nm. The maximum continuous torque
is provided by a full ruddervator deflection to oppose the aileron rolling moment.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.5. FUSELAGE DESIGN 96
(a) Fuselage shear diagram
(b) Fuselage bending moment diagram
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
97 CHAPTER 4. PRELIMINARY AND DETAILED DESIGN
Static thrust
The maximum static thrust was found to be 82.4 N from the static thrust tests. This
axial load is transmitted through the entire fuselage structure assuming that the aircraft
is held at the tail.
4.5.6 Structural analysis
The structural analysis of the fuselage considered the fuselage internal structure and the
skin seperately. The plywood longerons and landing gear plate were assumed to carry all
shear, bending and axial loads. The skin was assumed to carry all torsional loads. The
carbon-fibre rails will reduce the percentage of the load carried by the plywood longerons
and hence were ignored in this analysis.
Neutral axes and moments of inertia
The fuselage internal structure consisted of five sections with different neutral axes and
moments of inertia. The neutral axis was calculated by finding the centroid of the cross
section. The cross section moment of inertia was calculated from the moment of inertia
of individual components about their individual centrelines and the parallel-axis theorem.
The respective neutral axes and moments of inertia are given in Table 4.12. The neutral
axis was measured from the centreline of the lower longerons.
Table 4.12: Neutral axes and Moment of intertia for various fuselage sectionsFuselage position [m] Neutral axis [m] Moment of inertia [m4]
0 < x < 0.472 0.0365 7.23× 10−7
0.472 < x < 0.486 0.0129 1.24× 10−5
0.486 < x < 0.592 0.0102 3.43× 10−5
0.592 < x < 0.615 0.0129 1.24× 10−5
0.615 < x < 0.824 0.0365 7.23× 10−7
Internal structure shear stress
The location of the maximum shear stress in the fuselage internal structure differs with
fuselage station due to changes in the neutral axis of that cross-section. The maximum
stress at each fuselage station was calculated with Equation 4.39 and is shown in Figure
4.31. Here Q is the first moment of area and b is the material thickness at the point of
interest. The maximum shear stress of 179.5 kPa, including a safety factor of 1.5, occurs
slightly forward of the leading spar former. This is due to the reduced cross section at this
point and the local influence of the wing lift. The ultimate shear stress for plywood is 7.93
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.5. FUSELAGE DESIGN 98
MPa, which gives a reserve factor of 44.2 (Munitions Board Aircraft Committee 1944).
This indicates that the fuselage structure was overdesigned for shear, but will increase
the chances of the structure withstanding a light crash.
τ =V Q
Ib(4.39)
Figure 4.31: Maximum fuselage shear stress
Internal structure bending stress
The maximum bending stress occurs in the upper longerons at all fuselage stations as
these longerons are located the greatest distance from the neutral axis. The bending stress
distribution in the upper longerons was calculated using Equation 4.40 and is shown in
Figure 4.32. The maximum bending stress of 12.5 MPa, including safety factor, occurs
forward of the leading spar former. This is a result of the lower moment of inertia at this
location. The ultimate stress for plywood is 18 MPa, which gives a reserve factor of 1.44
(Munitions Board Aircraft Committee 1944). This indicates the fuselage structure will
be able to withstand flight bending loads.
σ =My
I(4.40)
Internal structure axial stress
The maximum axial stress in the fuselage structure will occur at the fuselage station with
minimum cross-sectional area. Hence the sections foreward and aft of the wing spars
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
99 CHAPTER 4. PRELIMINARY AND DETAILED DESIGN
Figure 4.32: Bending stress in the upper longeron
will experience the maximum axial tensile stress, calculated to be 152.6 kPa. The tensile
stress due to static thrust may be added to the maximum bending stress of 12.5 MPa to
obtain the overall maximum tensile stress. The contribution of the static thrust stress,
however, is negligible compared to the bending stresses and may be absorbed into the
reserve factor.
Skin torsional
The torsional loads in the fuselage were carried by the skin and the internal structure. For
the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that the fibreglass skin carried all torsional
loads and that there are no cutouts in the fuselage. The maximum torsion of 67.72 Nm due
to a full aileron roll was assumed to be uniformly applied to the fuselage skin. The skin was
treated as a closed thin-walled section and the torsional shear stresses calculated using
Equation 4.41, where A is the area enclosed by the section and t is the skin thickness
(Megson 2007). The maximum torsional shear stress was calculated to be 35.93 MPa,
including a safety factor of 2.25, which occured at the nose of the aircraft. The torsional
shear stresses calculated at each of the formers are given in Table 4.13. The torsional
shear stress in the sections inbetween the formers may be interpolated from these results.
τ =T
2At(4.41)
Hatch cutout edges were bonded to formers and longerons to reinforce these edges and
transfer shear flow through these structural members.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.6. FLIGHT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 100
Table 4.13: Torsional shear stress at former locations with a safety factor of 2.25Former Shear stress [MPa]Nose O-ring 38.1Firewall 10Nose gear 6.1Tail motor 5Leading and trailing spar 4.9Rear 6
4.5.7 Fuselage design summary
The structural layout of the fuselage was designed to allow for internal access and to
carry all flight loads, using CASA safety factors, with appropriate reserve factors. The
centre of gravity envelope of the aircraft was calculated and used to position the landing
gear for the normal takeoff configuration. The preliminary componenet layout specified
in this section was flexible and allowed for the movement of the centre of gravity to meet
stability requirements.
4.6 Flight performance analysis
4.6.1 Longitudinal stability analysis
The Morpheus UAV is designed to alter its longitudinal stability by varying its tail posi-
tion. Whilst other components of stability are likely to be affected by the tail morphing,
the calculation of these effects is beyond the scope of the project. The longitudinal sta-
bility of the aircraft was measured by the static margin, defined in Equation 4.42. The
centre of gravity envelope was determined in Section 4.5.3, whilst the neutral point must
be calculated.
SM = xnp − xcg (4.42)
The centre of gravity, neutral point and static margin for each morphed configuration were
calculated as a percentage of the respective mean aerodynamic chord for that configura-
tion. The mean aerodynamic chord for the retracted wing configuration was calculated
for a conventional wing geometry using Equation 4.43. The mean aerodynamic chord for
the extended configuration was calculated as the weighted average of the inboard (i) and
outboard (o) wing mean aerodynamic chords according to Equation 4.44. This method
was selected over the conventional method due to the discontinuous wing geometry and
the different lift-curve slopes of the inboard and outboard wings.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
101 CHAPTER 4. PRELIMINARY AND DETAILED DESIGN
cretracted =
(2
3
)c0
(1 + λ+ λ2
1 + λ
)(4.43)
cextended =ciSiCLα,i + coSoCLα,oSiCLα,i + SoCLα,o
(4.44)
The neutral point was determined from Equation 4.45, which considers contributions
from the wing aerodynamic centre, the fuselage and the empennage. Each of these sta-
bility terms are varied by morphing the wings, tail or both and were considered in detail
individually.
xnp = xac −Cmα,fCLα,w
+ VHCLα,tCLα,w
(1− ∂ε
∂α
)(4.45)
The wing contribution to the neutral point is xac. For the retracted wing configuration
this was calculated as the quarter chord location of the mean aerodynamic chord. For
the extended configuration, however, this was calculated as the weighted average of the
locations of the inboard and outboard wing quarter chord points as shown in Equation
4.46.
cextended =xac,iSiCLα,i + xac,oSoCLα,o
SiCLα,i + SoCLα,o(4.46)
The fuselage contribtionCmα,fCLα,w
was calculation from Equation 4.47. Sf is the maximum
cross sectional area, cf is the fuselage length and df is the equivalent fuselage diameter.
The lf term, the distance between the fuselage centre of pressure and the aircraft centre
of gravity, varies with tail location. The wing CLα varies with wing configuration due to
aspect ratio effects and the difference in CLα for the inboard and outboard wings. CLα
for the extended configuration was calculated as a weight average according to equation
4.48.
Cmα,f = −2Sf lfScf
(1− 1.76
(dfcf
)3/2)
(4.47)
CLα,extended =CLα,iSi + CLα,oSo
Si + So(4.48)
The empennage contribution is the most complex of the neutral point terms. The tail
horizontal volume ratio, given in Equation 4.49 (Brandt, Stiles, Bertin & Whitford 2004),
is affected by both wing and tail configurations, CLα,w is affected by wing configuration
as covered previously, and the downwash derivative, equation 4.50 (Brandt et al. 2004),
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
4.6. FLIGHT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 102
is a function of both tail location and wing configuration.
VH =StltSc
(4.49)
∂ε
∂α=
(21◦CLα,wA0.725
)(cavglh
)0.25(10− 3λ
7
)(1− zh
b
)(4.50)
The calculated static margins for each of the Morpheus UAV tail and wing configurations
are listed in Table 4.14 and shown graphically in Figure 4.33. These show the morphing
the wings and tail both have a significant effect of the longitudinal stability of the aircraft.
Table 8.2: Optimal configurations for a reconaissance mission
3. To achieve roll control through differential span morphing. The net roll
moment produced by the full extension of one wing, with the other retracted, was
calculated to equivalent to a 6.1 degree aileron deflection. This result indicated that
roll control through differential morphing is theoretically feasible for the Morpheus
UAV, but is dependent on the response rate required by the pilot. To determine if
the response rate was sufficient, further flight testing would be required.
8.1.3 Additional achievements
A method of applying the matching diagram sizing method to morphing aircraft was
developed during the conceptual design phase of the project. This method enables a
morphing aircraft to be designed to meet the requirements of multiple met areas whilst
also including the limitations of the morphing method employed.
The Morpheus UAV was successfully certified by a qualified heavy model inspector at
the completion of the first flight test. This required the Morpheus UAV to meet several
MASA requirements to demonstrate that it was a flight worthy aircraft. Previous projects
at the University have not achieved heavy model certification.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
149 CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSION
8.2 Issues and setbacks
Throughout the project many issues arose, which needed to be resolved in order to com-
plete the project. The two main issue of concern were inaccuracies in estimates due to
insufficient experience and problems with the aircraft electronics.
The inexperience of the group in project planning, design and manufacturing resulted
in numerous underestimates in the schedule. Schedule problems began when the design
phase of the aircraft took significantly longer than expected due to the numerous itera-
tions required to ensure that the aircraft and morphing mechanisms could be sucessfully
integrated. The CAD phase of the project also took a significant amount of time due to
the inexperience the group with the schools chosen software, Pro-E. The manufacturing
phase was also more time consuming than expected due to complexities and high toler-
ances of the morphing mechanisms. This required many components to be glued ‘in-situ’,
thus preventing further work on the entire aircraft component for 12-24 hours at a time.
This resulted in a significant delays to the schedule. Despite the delays, sufficient time
to conduct all test flights was available, however the aircraft suffered as severe crashed
during the first test flight. This resulted in a two week delay. This prevented the group
from completing all the required test flights.
Underestimation was also a problem when estimating the weight of the aircraft. Due to
inexperience and unforseen additional components inaccurate estimates for each aircraft
sub-system were made during design, resulting in an aircraft which was greater than
the original design weight, and 1 kg greater that the maximum weight specified in the
technical task. As a result it was necessary to have the aircraft certified as a heavy model
aircraft.
The onboard electronics of the aircraft were responsible for the first two failed test flights.
The skillset of the group did not includeprevious experience with practical electronics. The
group was forced to rely on advice from various aero-modellers, which was often conflicting
and made troubleshooting potential issues difficult. The most likely cause for the first
failed test fight was interference problems between the receiver and transmitter due to
the use of an antenna which was too small. This was used on the aircraft upon advice
from an external third party and was not picked up by the group due to inexperience.
8.3 Future work and recommendations
Although the Morpheus project endeavoured to cover all aspects of the aircraft design,
there were invariably many areas which fell outside the project scope or were not com-
pleted due to time constraints. Possible future work on the Morpheus aircraft includes:
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
8.4. PROJECT SUMMARY 150
1. Conduct further flight tests to more extensively and conclusively determine the
effects of morphing on the Morpheus UAV flight performance. It is recommended
that more accurate and appropriate test equipment is used to perform this analysis.
2. The morphing mechanisms at present are operated by a co-pilot, who must judge
the rates and relative positions of the wings and tail. Although limit switches
are installed, these only ensure that the extended and retracted configurations are
repeatable. A future undergraduate mechatronics project could develop a more
user friendly interface between the co-pilot and the aircraft to allow greater control
during morphing or could automate the morphing process entirely.
3. There are many examples of over design on the Morpheus UAV, particularly in the
outboard wings, tail and fuselage internal structure. By modifying the design of
these components, the aircraft weight could be significantly reduced. It is expected
that had a built up structure been utilised, particularly for the wings, the aircraft
could have been significantly lighter.
4. The actual aerodynamic effects during the morphing process could be fully investi-
gated. This would require the use of a wind tunnel, and possibly CFD (computa-
tional fluid dynamics) analysis.
5. The step between the inboard and outboard wing could also be investigated and
optimised to reduce drag. This would possibly require the use of a wind tunnel or
CFD analysis.
8.4 Project summary
The 2009 Morpheus UAV project has successfully designed, built and flight tested a mor-
phing UAV. The UAV has been demonstrated to be capable of achieving a 60% wing span
increase and a 400 mm change in tail position under flight loads. The theoretical effects
of morphing have been investigated, but further flight tests are required determine the
actual morphing outcomes. The majority of primary goals have been achieved and the
remainder have been demonstrated as being theoretically achievable. Significant progress
has been made towards the completion of flight related extended goals. The 2009 Mor-
pheus UAV project has resulted in a flightworthy, stable aircraft which can be further
developed in subsequent years by future projects.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
Reference List
2009, F. G. 2009, Lockheed Martin and NextGen Aeronautics start fast-morphing UAVtests, turning attention to attack formation, viewed 22 May 2009, <http://www.
flightglobal.com>.
Abbott, I. H. 1959, Theory of Wing Sections, Courier Dover Publications, New York USA.
Aeronautics, N. 2007, NextGen Aeronautics Succesfully Completes First Set of Au-tonomous Flights of DARPA Sponsored MFX-2 Morphing Technology DemonstratorUAV, viewed 22 May 2009, <http://www.nextgenaero.com>.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2007), ‘2007 uav world roundup’,Aerospace America May 2007.
Brandt, S. A., Stiles, R. J., Bertin, J. J. & Whitford, R. 2004, Introduction to Aaero-nautics: A Design Perspective, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,Virginia USA.
Bureau of Meteorology 2009, BOM wind definitions, viewed 24 Feburary 2009.
Sarris, Z. 2001, Survey of UAV Applications in Civil Markets - Technical Universityof Crete, <http://med.ee.nd.edu/MED9/Papers/Aerial_vehicles/med01-164.
pdf>.
Schon, J. (2004), ‘Coefficient of friction and wear of a carbon fiber epoxy matrix compos-ite’, Wear 257, 395–407.
Simons, M. 2002, Model Aircraft Aerodynamics, 4 edn, Special Interest Model Books,Poole UK.
Tech, V. 2004, Virginia Tech Morphing Wing Project, viewed 22 May 2009, <http://
www.me.vt.edu/morphingwing>.
University of Maryland 2008, Aerospace Engineering Theses and Dissertations Collectionhome page, viewed 27 December 2008.
Vehicles, J. U. A. & Targets 2002, Jane’s Information Group, <http://www.janes.com/>.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
219 APPENDIX I. FLIGHT TEST PROCEDURES
6. return to start on runway
7. Taxi
8. Take off (extended configuration)
9. climb - straight line to trim altitude
10. trim (approx)
(a) test pitch response
(b) test roll response
11. cruise velocity
12. When on straightest part of circuit →
(a) Slowly bring Port wing 1/2 in
(b) See response of UAV
13. Trim
14. Turn loop - when on straightest part of circuit →
(a) Slowly bring Port wing 2/3 in
(b) See response of UAV
15. Trim
16. Repeat steps 15 and 16 listening to pilot to change wing extension until the correct
bank angle is achieved.
17. Extend Port wing out
18. One circuit with no aileron control
19. On straightest part of circuit - retract starboard wing to neutralise bank
20. Once neutral bank achieved - extend starboard wing to fully extended configuration
21. land and taxi
22. Thrust motor off
23. Control switches off, place in secure position
24. Thrust motor on
25. set throttle at 65
26. Thrust motor off
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
I.12. F6 - DIFFERENTIAL SPAN ROLL CONTROL TEST 220
I.12.3 Results
Unable to complete due to weather conditions and damage to UAV.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
J. Risk management Plan
Risk Management Plan for
859: Design and build of a UAV with morphing configuration
A University of Adelaide undergraduate project
Prepared by:
Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey
221
222
Introduction:
The purpose of this risk management plan is to identify and manage the risks associated with the
Adelaide University final year undergraduate project 859: Deign and build of a UAV with
morphing configuration, informally dubbed ‘The Morpheus Project’. This plan investigates first the
context of the project, followed by a detailed Risk identification table. Risk reduction strategies
have also been developed to reduce unacceptable risks to an acceptable level.
Context
Internal Influence
The internal factors of influence for The Morpheus Project have been analysed using the SWOT
method. This provides a framework to analyse the project’s structure, financial constraints,
obligations, and to determine their influence upon the project.
Strengths
All five members of the project team are very committed to producing an exceptional project to the
highest standard.
All five team members have worked well together in the past and are familiar with each others
strengths and weaknesses.
One group member has experience building and flying model aircraft.
Weaknesses
The group has no experience working on projects of this scale.
The group has very limited manufacturing experience.
Three group members are overloading to 125% subject load in the first semester.
Opportunities
The group has the opportunity to expand their knowledge in a variety of ways, including academic,
interpersonal, liaising with technicians, manufacturing methods.
The group has the opportunity to prove to themselves, their peers, engineering staff and sponsors
what they are capable of.
The group has the opportunity to obtain good academic results for their final year project.
The group has the opportunity to become aquatinted with and work with members in industry.
Threats
Should the project group not succeed, their honours grade will be affected
Should the UAV not be test flown in sufficient time for inclusion in the major deliverables of the
exhibition and the final report, this will significantly affect the success of the project.
Interpersonal issues would threaten the group and the outcome of the project if it is not quickly
resolved. Due to the size of the project group and the overlap of all tasks, it is important that the
project group can overcome any interpersonal issues.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
223 APPENDIX J. RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Should a group member become unavailable, or unable to contribute to the project for a significant
length of time, this will have a significant impact of the ability of the project group to complete the
project on time.
That the project is too ambitious to complete in the required timeframe.
External
The External factors of influence on the Morpheus Project have been analysed using the PERT
analysis method. This provides a framework to analyse external factors which could impact upon
the project.
Political
Potential political issues resulting from differences of opinion between workshop staff and the
project group, the department or the university, differences of opinion between the academic staff
and the project group, department, or the university.
Economic
Due to the economic crisis, it is possible that it will be more difficult than usual for the project
group to secure industry sponsorship.
Societal
It is important for the group to have a good working relationship with other project groups as this
allows for the exchanging of advice and ideas.
Technologic
The concept selected was deemed to have a technological level sufficiently low that the required
technology should be available to students.
It is possible that some components may be difficult to source due to the unique usage and size of
these components. It is also possible that interfacing components intended for different uses may
become an issue.
Stakeholders
The major stakeholders involved in the Morpheus Project are listed in the table below. Both internal
and external stakeholders are listed, along with the expectations of each stakeholder from their
association with the project, and the opportunities and vulnerabilities to the project from the
stakeholder. This information is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Stakeholders
Stakeholder Stakeholder
Expectations
Opportunities for the
project to be gained
by association
Project vulnerabilities
due to association with
the stakeholder
Internal
Group members
� To achieve a good grade for the project
� Successful completion of the project by
committed group
members
� Should one or more group members not
contribute sufficiently
to the project it is
possible that the project
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
224
will not be completed in
time.
Supervisor
� For students to complete the project
� For the project group to gain advice and
encouragement in
regard to the project
� Should the supervisor not provide sufficient
support and interest to
the project, it is
probable that the project
group will not succeed,
or will overlook aspects
of the design/project
process.
Workshop staff � To be provided with sufficient information
to allow for the
manufacture of required
components
� To have sufficient contact with the group
to ensure that the
manufactured
components are as
required.
� To provide manufacturing and
technical advice
� To provide quality components
�
� Should workshop staff not take an interest in
the project, it is possible
that this could result in
delays in the
manufacturing of the
project, potentially
affecting the ability of
the project to be
completed.
The school of
Mechanical
engineering
� That the school reputation is upheld
� Funding from the school (as provided to
all final year projects)
� The use of the school reputation,
� The use of the school’s staff and
contacts for advice
� That the project will not be taken seriously
by some suppliers due
to the idea that it is just
a ‘student project’
The University
of Adelaide
� That the university reputation is upheld
� The use of the University logo and
reputation
� That the project will not be taken seriously
by some suppliers due
to the idea that it is just
a ‘student project’
External
Sponsors
� To have their support recognised in all
deliverables
� To remain up to date on project progress
� Financing
� Advice
� Contacts within the industry
� Possible damage to the groups reputation
should the project not
succeed, or should the
sponsors be displeased
with the outcome.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
225 APPENDIX J. RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Suppliers
� To provide goods at a cost to the project.
� Possibly to gain further business from
the university or other
students by word of
mouth advertising.
� To supply off the shelf components.
� There may be delays in receiving the goods if
other work is deemed
more important than a
small, once off student
project.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
226
Risk Identification A comprehensive list of risks associated with the Morpheus Project were identified and analysed in
Table 3 to determine the consequences and likelihood of each risk. The categories used to analyse
these risks are as follows:
� CO,SEQUE,CES:
� Catastrophic 5: death or large number of serious injuries, huge cost, >1 month delay,
prevent the achievement of a primary goal
� Major 4: serious injury or extensive injuries, major cost, > 2 week delay, impacts upon
the extent of the completion of a primary goal or prevents the achievement of an extended
goal.
� Moderate 3: medical treatment required, high cost, > 8 day delay, impacts upon the extent
of the completion of an extended goal
� Minor 2: first aid treatment required, some financial impact, > 4 day delay, no impact
upon the project goals
� Insignificant 1: No injuries, low financial impact, <1 day delay, no impact upon the
project goals
� LIKELIHOOD:
� Almost Certain 5: expected to occur in most circumstances or could be expected to occur
for most components
� Likely 4: will probably occur in most circumstances or will probably occur for most
components
� Possible 3: could possibly occur at some time, or could possibly occur for some
components
� Unlikely 2: could occur at some time or could occur for some components
� Rare 1: may occur only in exceptional circumstances, or may occur to only a few
components
By assessing each risk using these categories, Table 2 was used to determine the ‘value’ of the
existing risk level. From this, the acceptability of each risk could be analysed. Table 2: Risk assessment matrix
Likelihood
Consequences
Catastrophic
5
Major
4
Moderate
3
Minor
2
Insignificant
1
Almost certain: 5 10 9 8 7 6
Likely: 4 9 8 7 6 5
Possible: 3 8 7 6 5 4
Unlikely: 2 7 6 5 4 3
Rare: 1 6 5 4 3 2
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
227 APPENDIX J. RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 3: Risk identification and analysis
Ris
k R
efer
ence
The Risk Source and Curent Liklihood Level Impact and Curent Consequence Level
Current control Strategies and
their effectiveness
(A) –Adequate
(M) – Moderate
(I) – Indadequate Cu
rren
t R
isk
Lev
el
Acc
epta
bil
ity
(A/U
)
1 Requirement to
re-design and/or
re-manufacture
components or
assemblies
Design errors which are not discovered prior to
manufacturing
This will probably occur in most circumstances
due to a lack of communication about different
design aspects. It is expected though that some
components will not require any re-design or
remanufacture
Likely (4)
Could result in significant delays if a major
component or assembally problem is
discovered.(possibly > 1 month). This could also
result in significant cost to re-manufacture the
comnents
Catastrophic (5)
Should a minor problem (i.e. Remanufacture of a
single conmonent dueto a fault found early in the
manufacturing phase), this cold still result in >2
week delay if workshop is required to
remanufacture a part. This could also result in
major cost to re-manufacture the comnents
Major (2)
Weekly meetings with the project
supervisor.
With present control strategies, it is
almost certain that some components
will require re-design and re-
manufacture as it is not possible for
all aspects of the design to be
discussed in these meetings, or with
the project supervisor.
Inadequate.
9 U
2 Delays in
manufacturing
whilst waiting
for the
procurement of
off the shelf
components or
components to
be delivered
deliveries
Postage delays, components not in-stock,
suppliers not delivering components on-time,
components not being procured with sufficient
time to arrive before they are required.
This could be expected to occur for some items.
Possible (3)
Could result in minor delays in the scheduale.
Should such delays occur, it is unlikley to impact
significantly upon the scheduale as most
manufacturing tasks ru in parallell. Also, should
this become an issue, alternative suppliers, or
express potage can be used to reduce the delay.
Minor (2)
The appointment of a procurements
and assemblies officer to manage all
the scheduling and procurement of
the long lead time procurements, and
the procurement of critical
components and items not readily
available off the shelf.
Adequate
5 A
3 Test flight
delays due to the
weather
Bad weather resulting in the flight delays
This could possibly occur for some test flights
Possible (3)
Possibly some delays which may impact upon
completion of the extended goals.
Moderate (3)
Scheduling of a back-up test flight
for each test flight.
Adequate
6 A
4 Inability of the
group to work
Unresolved differences or infighting. This could
result from sending too much time in each others
should this occur for a short time, this would
result in some very minor delays as it is still
Each group member desires to do
well. It is therefore up to individuals
6
A
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
228
Ris
k R
efer
ence
The Risk Source and Curent Liklihood Level Impact and Curent Consequence Level
Current control Strategies and
their effectiveness
(A) –Adequate
(M) – Moderate
(I) – Indadequate Cu
rren
t R
isk
Lev
el
Acc
epta
bil
ity
(A/U
)
together company, high levels of stress, insufficient sleep
or other similar reasons
It is reasonable to expect that this will almost
certainly occur for a short period at least once
during the project.
for a short period of time:
Almost certain (5)
for a long period of time:
Rare (1)
possible for group members to work
independently
Insignificant (1)
Should this occur for an extended amount of time,
this could have Major consequences, although
should this occur, strategies could be devised for
independent working
Major (4)
to ensure that hey put aside any
differences to concentrate on the
project.
It is the responsibility of the
Logistics coordinator to coordinate
the group and ensure that such
situations are avoided if possible, and
managed appropriately if they should
arise.
Adequate
5
5 Incapacitation of
a group member
for a significant
amount of time,
or one group
member unable
to complete the
project
This could occur due to personal reasons, or
major injury or illness. This would only occur
under exceptional and unforeseen circumstances.
Rare (1)
This would have a significant effect on the ability
to complete the project, and could possibly affect
the completion of the primary goals.
Catastrophic (5)
It is not possible to control this risk
as it deals with unforeseen
circumstances
6 A
6 A required
manufacturing
method
becoming
unavailable
This could be caused by a workshop machine
breaking down, or a backup of work in the school
workshop.
Possible (3)
This could result in delays in manufacturing,
either waiting for the required method to become
available, or in delays during re-design. This
could also have a high cost impact to outsource
the component.
Moderate (3)
Inbuilt lag time in the project
schedule.
Inadequate
6 A
7 minor damage to
the aircraft
during test
flights
Mechanical failure, electronic failure,
aerodynamic problems, pilot error, acts of god.
Given the past history of Adelaide university
UAV projects, and the complex structure,
mechanisms, and flight requirements of the
aircraft, it is almost certain that the aircraft will
This would result in minor delays in the schedule.
Possibly require the test to be re-conducted
Minor (2)
Inbuilt lag time into the project
schedule
Adequate
4 A
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
229 APPENDIX J. RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Ris
k R
efer
ence
The Risk Source and Curent Liklihood Level Impact and Curent Consequence Level
Current control Strategies and
their effectiveness
(A) –Adequate
(M) – Moderate
(I) – Indadequate Cu
rren
t R
isk
Lev
el
Acc
epta
bil
ity
(A/U
)
sustain some damage.
Minor (2)
8 major damage to
the aircraft
during test
flights
Mechanical failure, electronic failure,
aerodynamic problems, pilot error, acts of god.
Given the past history of Adelaide University
UAV projects, and the complex structure,
mechanisms, and flight requirements of the
aircraft, it is possible that the aircraft will sustain
some major damage.
Possible (3)
This would either result in significant delays and
major costs to re-built, or could impact upon the
completion of the primary goals and/or extended
goals
Major (4)
significant lag time in the project
schedule
Inadequate
7 U
9 complete loss of
the aircraft
during test
flights
Mechanical failure, electronic failure,
aerodynamic problems, pilot error, acts of god.
Given the complex structure and mechanisms,
and flight requirements of the aircraft, it is
unlikely rather than rare that the aircraft will be
completely lost.
Unlikely (2)
This would either result in catastrophic delays
and major costs to re-build. This could impact
upon the completion of the primary goals and/or
extended goals.
Catastrophic (5)
significant lag time in the project
schedule
Inadequate
7 U
10 Aircraft is
overweight
>7kg
Underestimation of component weight during
design, increase of weight due to unaccounted
design changes or repairs.
Weight of paint, glue, bolts etc. exceeding
estimations.
Requirement for increased structure, or different
materials due to simplicity, availability, and the
outcome of structural tests and calculations.
possible (3)
This will affect the aircraft performance, and will
require the aircraft to be certified for flight.
Certification will have some impact upon the
project schedule.
Insignificant (1)
This could either affect the completion of the
endurance goal, or require the purchase of new
batteries. This could either affect the completion
of a primary goal, or have a major cost associated
with it.
Major (4)
Lag time in the schedule to allow for
certification.
A weight budget is to be maintained
by the technical coordinator to
control the aircraft weight during
design and manufacturing.
Adequate
4
7
A
A
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
230
Ris
k R
efer
ence
The Risk Source and Curent Liklihood Level Impact and Curent Consequence Level
Current control Strategies and
their effectiveness
(A) –Adequate
(M) – Moderate
(I) – Indadequate Cu
rren
t R
isk
Lev
el
Acc
epta
bil
ity
(A/U
)
11 Aircraft is
overweight
>>7kg, such that
the ability of the
UAV to fly is
affected
Underestimation of component weight during
design, increase of weight due to unaccounted
design changes or repairs, weight of paint, glue,
bolts etc. exceeding estimations. Requirement for
increased structure, or different materials due to
simplicity, availability, and the outcome of
structural tests and calculations.
Rare (1)
This will affect the aircraft performance, and will
require the aircraft to be certified for flight.
Certification will have some impact upon the
project schedule.
Insignificant (1)
This could either affect the ability of the aircraft
to fly. This would have a significant impact on
the primary and extended
Catastrophic (5)
Lag time in the schedule for
certification.
A weight budget is to be maintained
by the technical coordinator to
control the aircraft weight during
design and manufacturing.
Adequate
2
6
A
A
12 Serious injury to
a group member
Not following correct safety protocol during
dangerous manufacturing or testing operations
Rare (1)
This could result in serious injury, or even death.
Catastrophic (5)
A safety officer has been appointed
by the group to look after safety
protocol, Safe Operating Procedures
etc.
Adequate
6 A
13 Minor injury to a
group member
Lack of proper care during manufacturing or
testing
Almost Certain (5)
The impact of this be minor first aide only
Insignificant (1)
General common sense and advice
from workshop staff and the safety
officer should be adhered to. This is
up to individual group members.
Adequate
6 A
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
231 APPENDIX J. RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Risk Treatment, Monitoring and Reviewing
For risks which are identified as unacceptable, either treatment methods, monitoring or reviews of
the risk should be implemented to bring the risk to an acceptable level. Possible methods to reduce
each unacceptable risk are discussed in this section.
� Risk # 1: Requirement to re-design and/or re-manufacture components or assemblies
This risk is based on the re-design and re-manufacturing required due to errors made during the
design phase. The main risk is associated with the project schedule and budget should these errors
not be discovered until the components involved have been manufactured.
To reduce this risk to an acceptable level, a design review should be implemented prior to the
commencement of manufacturing to ensure that all major errors and most minor errors are
discovered prior to the beginning of manufacturing.
The Technical coordinator shall be responsible for the design review.
This risk mitigation strategy will reduce the severity of the consequences to a level of Minor (2)
The likelihood will remain the same at a level of Likely (4)
This provides a new risk level of 6, and the risk is deemed acceptable.
The effectiveness of this strategy will be determined by the number of design flaws found during
the design review process.
� Risk # 8: Major damage to the aircraft during flight tests
This risk is based on the possibility of major damage to the aircraft sustained during a flight test.
The main risk is associated with the project schedule and budget should major repairs be required.
This could in turn affect the ability of the group to achieve primary and/or secondary goals should
the damage occur before the goals are achieved.
To reduce this risk to an acceptable level, the aircraft should be built to be easily repaired should the
need arise. A quality assurance officer should also be utilised to ensure that the aircraft is
manufactured to the design dimensions and requirements to ensure the highest possibility of
success.
These risk mitigation strategies would be the responsibility of the manufacturing coordinator and
technical coordinator to ensure the ease of repair, and the quality assurance officer to ensure the
quality of the manufacturing.
This risk mitigation strategy will reduce the level of the consequences to a level of Minor (2)
The likelihood will remain the same at a level of Possible (4)
This provides a new risk level of 6, and the risk is deemed acceptable.
The effectiveness of this strategy will be determined by the ease of repairs should they be required.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
232
� Risk # 9:Complete loss of the aircraft during test flights
This risk is based on the possibility of complete loss of the aircraft during a flight test. The main
risk is associated with the possibility that the primary and/or extended goals of the project would
not be met.
To reduce this risk to an acceptable level, the aircraft should be built to be easily re-built should the
need arise. This involves ensuring that spare components are either readily available, or already
manufactured. A quality assurance officer should also be utilised to ensure that the aircraft is
manufactured to the design dimensions and requirements to ensure the highest possibility of
success.
These risk mitigation strategies would be the responsibility of the manufacturing coordinator to
ensure the ease of re-build, and the quality assurance officer to ensure the quality of the
manufacturing.
This risk mitigation strategy will reduce the level of the consequences to a level of Major(4)
The likelihood will remain the same at a level of Unlikely(2)
This provides a new risk level of 6, and the risk is deemed acceptable.
The effectiveness of this strategy will be determined by the time required to re-build should this be
required..
Conclusion There are many several main risks which may affect the ability of the group to successfully
complete the Morpheus project. This risk analysis has shown that the majority of risks are not
significantly high enough to cause major concern in regard to the project outcome. It is possible to
put in place risk reduction strategies to reduce the level of risk associated with the higher level risks.
From the risks considered in this report, it is deemed that if the risk management strategies listed are
implemented, then the risks associated with this project will be reduced to a suitable level.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
K. Meeting minutesThe folowing documents outlined in this appendix are the official meeting minutes taken
during group meeetings with the project supervisor.
233
234
Meeting 1 - 8/12/2008
Meeting 1.1 Monday 8th December 2008
17:30-21:30 Meeting was held in two parts. The first, with Dr Maziar Arjomandi in attendance. The second part was an internal meeting.
Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Rachel Harch, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey
Summary: Project was chosen to be MORPHING AIRCRAFT
Next meeting: With Maziar: Monday 15th Dec, 5:00PM Adelaide Uni
(Also another meeting Monday the 22nd at 5:00PM) Internal meetings: Friday 12th Dec, 5:30PM;
Sunday 14th Dec, 1:30PM
Actions before next meeting: Internal Meeting:
� Project definition
� Research morphing aircraft. o Summarise information. 2-3 lines on each document. For important
document, save/ copy entire document if possible well as summarise. o Need to review have 30-40 documents o Post research on the Google group.
� Consider who you wish to nominate for the positions of Logistics manager and Technical manager.
� Get a logbook (folder) Meeting with Maziar:
� To have chosen topic, and defined the project
� elected logistics and technical managers
� reviewed 30-40 documents
� Prepare a presentation aimed at potential sponsors (approx 10-15 slides). o This will include a general project definition (scope, technical tasks
e.g. size, fly at), as well as a bit of a literature survey.
� Prepare a list of sponsors o Rank them. 2 lists, in-kind sponsorship and cash sponsorship
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
235 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Minutes: PROJECT SELECTION: Ideas discussed (in meeting with Dr. Maziar): � Submarine UAV (POSSIBLE)
o Difficulties: water proofing (manufacturing challenges), testing (logistics), VERY EXPENSIVE (approx $60,000-70,000 needed in sponsorship)
o Positives: Interesting, very engineering focused outcome o Main learning would be of manufacturing techniques,
Admin/management, obtaining sponsorship
� Endurance rotor (REJECTED) o Maziar will not support a rotor aircraft project o Insurance will not support o Very expensive (blades cost $1200 each)
� Varying Anhedral/dihedral (INCORPERATED INTO MORPHING AIRCRAFT)
� Morphing Aircraft (POSSIBLE) o Varying Anhedral/dihedral is a possible part of this project o Could possibly change fuselage length, wing span, horizontal tail span,
possibly could extend the goals to include changing aerofoil shape o Main learning would be aerodynamics and aircraft control o Will achieve if we simply have the wings move during flight. o Estimated cost $10,000. Biggest cost will be the mould.
� Blended Wing (REJECTED) o Would be Similar to fuel cell OR o Low aspect is too simple OR o High aspect is harder, but is mainly a control problem
Potential projects identified: Submarine UAV OR Morphing Aircraft Maziar prefers the Morphing Aircraft idea. Ideas discussed (in internal meeting): � MORPHING AIRCRAFT was chosen. � Vote was 5:1
o FOR: Kevin Chan, , Rachel Harch, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey
o AGAINST: Crystal Forrester o There were no strong objections raised in regard to the Morphing
aircraft project. LOGISTICS AND TECHNICAL MANAGER � The two managers need to get along.
� These positions require approx extra 50% more time than other group members.
� By the end of the year, each person will have a management job.
� Will be chosen at the net internal meeting (Friday 12th of Dec 08)
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
236
� Logistics Manager: o Meeting minutes o Keeps track of contacts such as sponsors, documents o Keeps records of phone calls o Later becomes the financial manager.
� Technical Manager: o Coordinates technical decisions o Makes decisions about technical issues o Would be good to have some manufacturing experience
PROJECT INFOMATION: Contract � There is a contract which we need to sign
� probably not on access Adelaide yet- to be done next year
� Has 2 parts. o A project definition (inc. expected achievements and extended goals.
These cannot be changed unless entire group and supervisor agree). o The second part is submitted at the end of the year, and is based on the
achievement of these goals. Log book � Gets marked.
� Best to use a folder (thick folder) so can just add loose sheets of paper.
� Put everything in there. Including minutes, sketches, calculations, phone calls/e-mails to contacts
� This is like a time record of everything which you do.
� Do NOT include hard copies of everything you have read
� It is OK for it to be messy, but must be useful and readable
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
237 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 2 - 17/12/2008
Meeting 2.1 Wednesday 17th December 2008
17:00 – 19:00
Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Richard Jones, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Rachel Harch, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey
Summary: Main discussion was focused on sponsorship Also discussed was preparing a technical presentation which will identify 3 possible configurations and project definitions.
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 8th Jan, 5:00PM Adelaide Uni
(TO BE CONFIRMED) Internal meetings: Monday 22nd Dec, 5:10PM;
Actions before next meeting: Internal Meeting:
� Vote for the project online so the project can be closed off.
� Skim read the Aircraft design notes Meeting with Maziar:
� Run through of the sponsor presentation o Rachel and Kevin to do o Approx 15 min
� Present sponsorship letter
� Sponsorship list, including contact numbers
� Technical presentation / project definition o Given by Kevin (Tech manager) o 20-25 min o Discuss 3 configuration designs o Need project definition for each of the 3 designs
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
238
Meeting Minutes: Sponsorship Restructure presentation � Project information goes first
o Do not have a who are we slide etc. just list names on the first slide
� Motivation o Benchmarking o More info about why morphing wing; why they are important o Very active in UAV and larger aircraft o Mention names of people who are looking into morphing wing aircraft.
Particularly relate it to big companies � DARPAR � Boeing etc.
� Definition o Project is from scratch o Design… o This could be technical parameters
� Who are we- emphasise the university o School of mech. eng. has history of such projects, successful… o Sell the uni
� What we offer them o Logo on deliverables o Copy of report o Invite to exhibition o Tax write off o Recruitment method
� DO NOT give a clear description of cost. Leave all cost to talking.
� Ask them at the start to ask questions throughout the presentation Approaching the sponsors
� Approach sponsors carefully
� Easiest sponsors are the ones who don’t care what happens to their money.
� We CANNOT give them IP
� Choose companies we approach carefully o Some companies will not let you approach other companies o Big companies want to know who else.
� Go online, look for example of presenting to a company
� Lots of companies select people at exhibition
� Purpose of getting sponsorship is for us to sell our project to people outside university
Suggest we approach:
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
239 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
� Australian Aerospace (maybe $5000?)
� Tales
� ASC
� Nova
� BAE
� Aeronautical engineers Australia
� Qantas
� Model flight (not now, but later. They often give a discount)
� Eccenture Approach people whom we have contacts for first. Other sponsorship information discussed
� Prepare a list o Contact numbers o Tailored letters o Tailor our motivations to the company’s values
Technical presentation � To be given by Kevin (Tech manager)
� 20-25 min
� Discuss 3 configuration designs o Sketches o Explain configuration o Have technical backup; particularly identify technical challenges (i.e.
to morph tail, wings, and fuselage, weight would be an issue.
� Hand sketches supported by rough calculations o Weight o Wing area etc.
� Different types of Morphing
� Need to find 3 configurations
� Remember, usually your firs idea is your best!
� Generate Bill of Material (BOM). o This will be simple now. o This will eventually become a very large spreadsheet o Includes everything. i.e. how many actuators etc.
� Project definition for each configuration. UAV should be 5-7 kg. MUST be under 7 to fly it. Course notes, Rainer and Roskam should help. Morphological Analysis � Investigate, give score, rank
� Solution selection analysis
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
240
Meeting 3 - 8/1/2009
Meeting 3.1 Thursday 8th January 2009
Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Rachel Harch, Ian Lomas, Carlee Stacey
Apologies: Simon Mitchell
Summary: � Content of agenda and minutes � No further actions required to vote for involvement in the morphing UAV
project, except that Kevin needs to contact the coordinator to be added to the list � Sponsorship (letter, presentation, approaching the sponsors
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 21st Jan, 5:00PM Adelaide Uni Internal meetings: Monday 12th Jan, 5:15PM
Tasks before next meeting: Internal Meeting: Meeting with Maziar: Morphological analysis 3 concept designs Investigate propulsion (propeller vs. ducted fan)
Summary of Actions: Tasks to perform completed by Kevin Chan Contact Ben Cazz RE. to be put on the project list ASAP Crystal Forrester
Rachel Harch Ian Lomas Carlee Stacey
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
241 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Minutes:
1. Agenda / minutes: a. Agenda:
� Include in the agenda who will discuss what � Agenda is to be very similar from week o week � Technical agenda, therefore will have more detail
b. minutes: � needs to include a table of actions � summery � time � Should cover ‘who, when, where, what, how’ for all decisions
made. 2. Voting for the project:
� Cannot vote since we have been selected and locked in. � Kevin needs to contact Ben Caz to have his name put on the list of
final year students. � No one else needs to do anything in regard to voting.
3. Sponsorship: a. Letter
� E-mail Maziar a copy of the letter for checking � Cannot use the university logo. See marketing website for relevant
policy. � Include in the letter the information that sponsors will receive a
copy of the report � Letter is OK. � Will usually contact the person to find the correct person to send
the letter/e-mail to. � E-mail is more likely to be what we send- faster etc. but cal them
first. b. Presentation
� Slides: 1. Template:
a. it is OK to use the logo in this instance b. change the ‘UAV Project 2009 to Morphing
UAV 2009 or similar… can put name when we have decided.
2. slide 1 a. Put supervisor below team members
3. slide 2 a. needs a schematic
4. slide 3 a. remove some of the technical information b. perhaps just include the application
5. slide 4 a. Background is a problem. The graduated
background with the white picture does not work.
6. slide 5 a. very texty, but good info.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
242
7. slide 6 a. say what we want to do b. talk about how out of about 40 projects each
year, these UAV projects have been recognised by industry as some of the top projects
c. write what the projects actually were (i.e. not iSOAR
8. slide 7, 8 no comments 9. slide 9
a. need more photos demonstrating Teamwork b. Crystal obtained a copy of these from Maziar
after the meeting. 10. talk more about the seminar-list of external exhibition
juges etc. 11. 12.
� � � Rachel: Remember: you don’t need to repeat the information on the
slide. Forget what is on the slide. You do not need to use the best words as already written on the slide.
� Carlee: careful of fidgeting when presenting. �
c. Other � Crystal will be the main point of contact as she is the only person
with unrestricted phone access over the next few weeks. � Start contacting companies ASAP � When you phone the potential sponsor,
1. we are students looking for… 2. find out who you need to contact 3. contact them 4. e-mail
Restructure presentation 1. Project information goes first
a. Do not have a who are we slide etc. just list names on the first slide 2. Motivation
b. Benchmarking c. More info about why morphing wing; why they are important d. Very active in UAV and larger aircraft e. Mention names of people who are looking into morphing wing aircraft.
Particularly relate it to big companies � DARPAR � Boeing etc.
3. Definition f. Project is from scratch g. Design… h. This could be technical parameters
4. Who are we- emphasise the university i. School of mech. eng. has history of such projects, successful… j. Sell the uni
5. What we offer them
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
243 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
k. Logo @ … l. Copy of report m. Invite to exhibition n. Tax write off o. Recruitment method
6. DO NOT give a clear description of cost. Leave all cost to talking. 7. Ask them at the start to ask questions throughout the presentation
Approaching the sponsors
8. Approach sponsors carefully 9. Easiest sponsors are the ones who don’t care what happens to their money. 10. We CANNOT give them IP 11. Choose companies we approach carefully
p. Some companies will not let you approach other companies q. Big companies want to know who else.
12. Go online, look for example of presenting to a company 13. Lots of companies select people at exhibition 14. Purpose of getting sponsorship is for us to sell our project to people outside
university Suggest we approach:
15. Australian Aerospace (maybe $5000?) 16. Tales 17. ASC 18. Nova 19. BAE 20. Aeronautical engineers Australia 21. Qantas 22. Model flight (not now, but later. They often give a discount) 23. Eccenture
Approach people whom we have contacts for first. Other sponsorship information discussed
24. Prepare a list r. Contact numbers s. Tailored letters t. Tailor our motivations to the company’s values
Technical presentation
25. Given by Kevin (Tech manager) 26. 20-25 min 27. Discuss 3 configuration designs
u. Sketches v. Explain configuration w. Have technical backup; particularly identify technical challenges
(i.e. to morph tail, wings, and fuselage, weight would be an issue. 28. Hand sketches supported by rough calculations
x. Weight y. Wing area etc.
29. Different types of Morphing 30. Need to find 3 configurations
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
244
31. Remember, usually your first idea is your best! 32. Generate Bill of Material (BOM).
z. This will be simple now. aa. This will eventually become a very large spreadsheet bb. Includes everything. i.e. how many actuators etc.
33. Project definition for each configuration. UAV should be 5-7 kg. MUST be under 7 to fly it. Course notes, Rainer and Roskam should help. Morphological Analysis
34. Investigate, give score, rank 35. Solution selection analysis
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
245 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 4 - 21/1/2009
Meeting 4.1 Wednesday 21st January 2009
5:05-6:00PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Rachel Harch, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey
Summary: Item 1: Recommendations regarding possible configurations were made based
on the calculations and the 4 checklists. the checklists need to be combined
Concept design and feasibility study should be done by February Item 2: BOM needs a lot of work Item 3: propeller vs. ducted investigation needs more research tractor propeller recommended Item 4: We need to start contacting companies The presentation is to be given at the next meeting Item 5: we also need to prepare the technical task
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 28th Jan, 5:00PM Adelaide Uni Internal meetings: 24th Jan, 11:00-5:00PM (as much time as you want to be there), Holdfast model aero club
Summary of Tasks Combine the checklists Complete the BOM (reformat and finish) Prepare lots of Concept sketches
1. work in pairs 2. each pair to present their top three 3. minimum of 9 analysed sketches to discuss at the next meeting
Give the sponsorship presentation at the next meeting. Technical specifications
Summary of Actions:
Tasks to perform completed by Kevin Chan ASAP Crystal Forrester
Rachel Harch Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell
Carlee Stacey Contact the school office to ask for access to the project room (S237)
ASAP
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
246
Meeting Minutes:
2. 5:05PM – Morphing Selection: a. Calculations:
� Summarised by Kevin: 1. Wing Area >= Sweep 2. Sweep is still significant 3. Tail area/moment was not used in any calculations
� Resulting recommendations: 1. change area 2. if we can, change sweep 3. tail morphing should be selected using the other
parameters 4. tail is used only to counteract area/sweep
� Maziar’s comments 1. for small scale morphing, should probably look at area 2. sweep
a. impacts roll stability b. efficient for sub and super-sonic c. could look at a system for this d. changing the horizontal area requires similar
effort to changing the moment arm e. changing sweep of a rectangular wing is not
good. b. Innovation Checklist:
� Summarised By Rachel 1. Looked at the components 2. Tail arm seems more innovative 3. Need CG management when not using fuel- this seems
good for this 4. Folding wings are more innovative than telescopic 5. Sweep is not innovative
� Recommendations: 1. tail arm 2. folding wings
� Maziar’s comments 1. we need to compare the effect of a telescopic tail and an
increasing area tail on the drag coefficient 2. decreasing the tail might decrease the drag 3. telescopic tail effects vertical and horizontal surface
effectiveness c. Stability Checklist
� Summarised by Rachel 1. this could have been either very complicated or very
simplified 2. went with the simplified version 3. Tail arm and area are similar 4. sweep gives more stable rolling
� No other comments made d. Controllability checklist
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
247 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
� Summarised by Carlee 1. overlaps a lot with Rachel and Ians checklists 2. has not yet been reviewed
� Recommendations 1. telescopic, tail moment arm adjustment, with or
without sweep depending on the complexity desired � Maziar’s comments
1. need to merge this with stability and manufacturing checklists
e. Manufacturing checklist � Summarised by Ian
1. includes manufacturing, tooling, labour and testing 2. fits in with the BOM
� Recommendations: 1. Tail arm and area are about the same 2. sweep is best wing change 3. telescopic is next best for wing change 4. folding is least preferred
f. Discussion about selection: � Next task is to select � We need to combine the checklists � Next week need to be 80% clear about
1. what the aircraft configuration will be 2. what the aircraft does 3. what it will look like 4. We will finish this by the end of February
� By the end of February, 1. concept design will be done 2. feasibility study will be done
� we will need to limit ourselves on manufacturing, but not just yet
� this week we need to make sketches. 1. produce as many sketches as possible 2. suggested that we work in 3 teams of 2 3. make sure all ideas actually work
a. i.e. shapes which can actually telescope-cylinder, not curve!
� Each pair should identify their top 3 � At the internal meeting we should rate the sketches. � Innovative ideas are good � We need to catch people’s attention on 3 occasions, at the
presentation, the exhibition, and in the report 1. Maziar’s example: cylinder with triangle wings and tail.
No ailerons, this way in one configuration you could have a delta wing aircraft
� For our project, we will need to make lots of aerodynamics calculations, but the first priority is stability and control.
1. We wll need 1-2 students who focus strongly on this. 2. Suggest we look at the text book by Nelson. This is
simple, and Roskam is old and scary text book.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
248
3. Nelson is the text book for aircraft design taught by Con Doolan in the 2nd semester.
3. 5:31PM- BOM: a. Pulse jet report is online b. Testing
� Best wind tunnel Adelaide uni has is the one in the Holden labs � To small � Forget about measuring the lift and drag or any other wind
tunnel testing � Can test by putting the aircraft on the roof of a car, but this is a
project on its own. Talk to Brad Gibson-he tried to do it, but did not have time
c. Number of hours � Was based on ISOAR and tailless and a bit more added � Maziar suggested that we cannot use ISOAR, fuel cell and
pulse jet are more appropriate for us to look at. d. What Maziar suggests we need to do:
� 3 types of components 1. structure
a. wing assembly i. raw materials, labour, tooling, testing
(structural testing included) b. fuselage assembly c. etc.
e. ten we can say how much f. The main point of the BOM at the moment is that we need to
understand the components involved.
4. 5:42PM- Propulsion: a. Ducted vs. propeller
� Summarised by Rachel and Ian 1. PowerPoint presentation prepared 2. Ducted fan recommended
� Suggested by Maziar that more investigation is required into: 1. battery weight (missed from the analysis) 2. ducted should need more batteries 3. should graph Power/weight(thrust load) vs. aircraft
weight 4. consider the rotational speed (safety) ducter~30-40,000
rpm, propeller ~8-10,000 rpm 5. ducted is less availible 6. look into engine controller price. This will make a big
difference 7. for low speed we should not need ducted. 8. we should choose the propeller based on weight 9. prop should be ½ ducted weightings 10. pilot is harder to get for a ducted propulsion system
b. Pusher vs. tractor � Summarised by Simon
1. pusher could cause take off issues as propeller can hit the ground
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
249 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
2. tractor means prop has clean airflow, but fuselage does not
� recommends that tractor is better � no objections were raised
5. 5:52PM- Sponsorship a. Reported on by Carlee b. Letter
� Simon has completed � Still being reviewed � Maziar does not wish to see the letter again
c. Presentation � Rachel has completed � Still being reviewed � Wewill look at this at next weeks meeting.
1. usually 3 members go to a meeting (minimum of 2) 2. 1st person responsible or the general discussion, opens,
introduces, covers finance 3. 2nd person covers the technical stuff 4. 3rd person is an internal auditor- takes not of the
peformance etc. for the purpose of feedback. 5. 1st part if the slides is the technicl suff 6. 2nd hal is about us, and the money etc. 7. should be a 12minute presentation 8. should be presented next week
d. Phone prompts � Ian has completed � Reviewed by Carlee, but not yet by Kevin
e. Contacts � No contacts have yet been contacted. � We need to do that this week.
6. 5:56PM - Next weeks tasks/other business/Close a. Not previously discussed this meeting:
� What to morph 1. see other prototypes to gain an idea of why 2. area is usually changed for altitude 3. tail because they have to for stability 4. sweep for manoeuvrability and speed
� Prepare technical specifications list 1. the project definition will be taken directly from this 2. it should deal with specific numbers 3. we can prepare this for a larger project, but say that as
students we are creating a prototype as the why we are only doing … much.
4. Life impact needs to be included in the definition 5. clearly define the limitations
b. this weeks tasks: � Prepare lots of Concept sketches
1. each pair to present their top three 2. minimum of 9 analysed sketches to discuss at the next
meeting � Technical specifications
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
250
� BOM � Presentation �
7. 6:00PM- Close:
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
251 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 5 - 28/1/2009
Meeting 5.1 Wednesday 28th January 2009
5:05-6:00PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Rachel Harch, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey
Summary: Item 1: the presentation needs to be fixed up
sponsorship contacts need to be made. Item 2: Calculations need to be performed to determine the feasibility of the
concepts. A concept needs to be selected
Item 3: Technical task to be sent to Maziar for checking
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 28th Jan, 5:00PM Adelaide Uni Internal meetings: 24th Jan, 11:00-5:00PM (as much time as you want to be there), Holdfast model aero club
Summary of Tasks Fix sponsorship presentation Finalise sponsorship presentation Perform calculations etc. to determine which is the best concept Send Technical Specifications to Maziar Complete the BOM (reformat and finish)
Summary of Actions:
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Calculations to determine the feasibility of the
concepts
Kevin Chan ASAP Crystal Forrester
Send Technical Specifications to Maziar
Rachel Harch Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell
Carlee Stacey Contact the school office to ask for access to the project room (S237)
ASAP
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
252
Meeting Minutes:
1. 5:05PM – Presentation: a. Feedback on the presenters:
� Crystal: 1. presentation was a bit boring 2. don’t use notes 3. had good eye contact
� Simon: 1. good intonation 2. no fidgeting
� General 1. generally the presentation was higher than average.
b. Slides and setup: � Slide by slide breakdown (number corresponds to the slide)
1. OK 2. needs more info added. Should put focus on morphing
structures. We cannot make an aircraft, so we will make a UAV
3. replace the picture of the P3 with predator or Global hawk, combine speed and manoeuvrability with high altitude
4. the first row is the previous generation of morphing aircraft. These A/C concentrated on sweep. The second row should be the second generation of aircraft. The dates need fixing, the reference dates and names can easily be confused with the dates and names of the aircraft.
5. Boring. Need to remove the first and last point, and just say the 1st point. Need to add in 2-4 pictures of nature as this is the focus of this slide (birds), concentrate on the benefits.
6. the reference for ISOAR is incorrect. The school has run the exhibition for many years for projects. Need to talk more about the school. Conc on the schooll, not the prizes. (aside note, EMCS courses are all open except aerospace, aero is the largest program in the school)
7. Should be more complete after todays meeting. Need to add in more slides to talk about what we want to achieve. We could include the sketches we have done so far.
8. same as or 7 9. talk more about the procedure. i.e. what we need to do
this year (design, build, test, present, report). Discuss how we receive support from the school for our project, however that for a project of the size of ours, we require external support
c. General:
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
253 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
� We need to have a general cost breakdown etc. before we go to talk to them, however we don’t present it, but need to have it to discuss in case it comes up.
� If they ask how much we want, we need to know what our answer is.
� We need to finalise the strategy during our next internal meeting.
� We should be asking for $15-$20,000, if we get $10,000 it should do.
2. 6:35PM Concept: a. Telescopic:
� Rachel and Ian’s concept b. Sliding Sheaths:
� Crystal and Simon’s Idea c. Blackbird:
� Kevin and Carlee’s Idea � Fuselage could be shaped, but we still need roomfor the
payload d. Next week:
� Suggest that we look at what each concept can give us. � Consider:
1. can it generate sufficient lift 2. can it remain longitudinally stable (the blackbird has the
A/C of a rocket. 3. what else can we change/ other things (i.e. blackbird
idea can also be cannon launched, sliding has many different configurations)
� List what we get out of it. (subjective is OK for this, this is one ranking for consideration)
� Determine which ones can satisfy the requirement for flight (we can easily say that the telescopic idea will satisfy this criteria). We need to consider
1. lift 2. longitudinal stability 3. we will need to do some calculations, but not matching
diagrams. a. Simple moment calculation (consider forward
most configuration of the CG. This must balance)
b. Consider the maximum and minimum position of anything.
4. lateral balance a. look at the area b. lok at other aircraft
5. consider for high-speed, low speed, and takeoff configurations. (i.e. for 150km/hr cruise)
6. we can in some considerations use morphing for control � Kevin has been asked to also look into the biplane idea. Biplane
effectively increases the aspect ratio of the wing. � Next week we must be able to say which is the best aircraft
(and it could be a combination of the different ideas.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
254
3. 6:05PM- Technical task: a. Send this to Maziar to review.
4. 6:10PM- Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
255 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 6 - 5/2/2009
Meeting 6.1 Thursday 5th February 2009-02-08
5:10-7:00 PM Chairperson: Crystal Forrester Attendance: Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas Apologies: Carlee Stacey, Simon Mitchell Summary: Meeting covered discussion on sponsorship strategy and progress, and calculations and feasibility of the three concept designs. Next Meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 10th February 5:00-6:00 pm Allocation meeting: Wednesday 10th February 6:00 – 7:00pm Internal Meetings: Friday 7th February 5:15 – 7:00pm Summary of Tasks:
1. Concept feasibility a. Calculations b. Research if required c. Written paper of rejected concept.
2. Sponsorship a. Letters (due by Saturday night) b. One company presentation meeting by Wednesday 10th February
Summary of Actions:
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Further calculations on concepts Wednesday Sponsorship letters with contacts to Carlee Saturday night sponsorship letters to companies and arrange
presentation ASAP
Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester
Ian Lomas Send sponsorship presentation to Maziar ASAP Simon Mitchell
Carlee Stacey
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
256
Meeting Minutes: 1. 5:10 Meeting Started
2. Sponsorship:
a. Presentation: • TO BE EMAILED TO MAZIAR FOR REVIEW • Discussed changes that had been made:
• Made changes as discussed last meeting • Inserted 3 slides for the current concepts • Changed the aircraft comparison slide to a Global Hawk and changed the data to
a discussion on the different attributes
b. Sponsorship Strategy: • NEED AT LEAST ONE PRESENTATION TO BE MADE BY NEXT
WENDESDAY • ASC started - suggested that they won’t sponsor the project
- Maziar said to look into their $2000 sponsorship from last year - Need to show them that they need to support MORPHEUS if they
want good engineers. • Crystal is not working at the moment and can be a second speaker for a presentation • Ian finishes work at 2:30 on Fridays so can help with a presentation • As soon as the company contact is found, give them the letter and arrange a meeting
ASAP.
3. Concept Calculations and Feasibility: a. Kevin and Carlee’s Concept (Rocket cruise concept):
• Moving the tail with the wing doesn’t work – tail moves back as wing moves forward, therefore use solid fuselage with T-tail that slides over the top
• In swept back configuration at 90kph cruise the CL=0.4 at 3 degree angle (flat plate) for W = 8kg
• Beyond 50 degrees sweep the UAV becomes unstable (via scissor graph) • “Scissor Graph” = plot AC and CG position with Sweep => traditionally used to
calculate the area of the horizontal tail • Don’t know what happens between 80->90 degrees sweep • BENEFITS
• High speed configuration, launch from torpedo or tall launcher, short takeoff distance, high manoeuvrability and high ceiling.
• MAZIAR • This design fail for now. • Suggested using a hinge and rotation mechanism for the wings (i.e. move root
forward as sweep backwards) – similar to the Bell X-5 – modern aircraft not use this as they have a high wing load (e.g. F1-11) and don’t want the wing inside the fuselage
• Use table of weights in the Aircraft Design II lecture notes – last lecture. • AC not at 25% MAC. • Should assume AC = 30% fuselage and 25% wing. • Has Ian’s span changes but also has maximum change in AR.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
257 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
• TO DO • Calculate roll rate - refer to flight control textbook by Arthur Nelson • Need to fix the wings and try calculations again, look at fuselage which is
mainly flat plate, look at Clark airfoil (1 surface) • Calculate/ prove all “Benefits”
b. Ian’s Concept (Standard Configuration Area and Tail Arm morphing concept): • Will definitely flu – has plenty of lift • Minimum cruise is 90kph • Stall Speed: small area configuration Vst = 50 kph
Large area Configuration Vst = 20 kph • Control Surface area is acceptable although there may be a problem with actuation • Possibly will not need to move the tail – check double span = double distance • BENEFITS
• Shorter takeoff and landing distance, higher ceiling • MAZIAR
• Need better calculations for position of tail - Do equation of moment around the CG.
• Look at Aspect Ratio => higher when expanded therefore lower induced drag. • Calculate/ prove all “Benefits” • Look at the frequency response of linear actuators and see if they can be used as
ailerons. i.e. use movement for roll control. • Calculate how much area change is required for control (see Roskam II and
Aircraft Design notes)
c. Crystal and Simon’s Concept (Delta-wing sweep and tail morphing concept): • Approximately half the wing consists of the sliding plate sweep mechanism. • Mechanism area assumed to be a flat plate with ½ CL of airfoil (rest of the wing) • Calculated for both square and triangular wings as unsure how the triangular section
will affect the results. • For CL= 1.2 at take off the takeoff speed needs to be 60kph • For cruise speed of 90kph the CL = 0.9 for triangle wing and 0.72 for square wing.
This is very high. • MAZIAR
• CL,cr is very high • The entire wing section containing the sweep mechanism (for the entire chord
length) produces minimal lift as you can’t have an airfoil shape. • It is not possible to do the delta wing configuration without wind tunnel testing
as there is a double airfoil shape due to the wing then tail sections. Problems also arise due to very small spacing between wing and tail – cannot calculate this properly.
• Fix calculations with new area data • Recalculate the tail position (balance around CG) • This concept not work -> wrap up the concept with a 2->3 page report on why it
doesn’t work.
4. Technical Task:
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
258
a. To be discussed at next meeting.
5. Other discussions: a. Team member change (Rachel change projects)
• Shouldn’t have lost a day – having only 5 people will not greatly affect the project • Technical Coordinator and Logistics Coordinator were both re-elected
Logistics: Carlee Stacey Technical: Kevin Chan • We need to be more open with each other and let each other know of any problems
that are arising. b. Technical Coordinator
• Should work 20% more than other members – this will not give any higher marks at the end of the year.
• Need to be very tolerable of other’s opinions • Should expect to be arguing with team members more than other people
6. 6:10 Meeting Close 7. Debrief and arrange allocation meeting 6:10 – 7:00
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
259 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 7 - 11/12/2009
Meeting 7.1 Wednesday 11th February 2009
5:05-6:00PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan (arrived at 5:40), Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey(arrived at 5:10)
Summary: Item 1: We need to contact more potential sponsors. Item 2: Calculations need to be performed to determine the feasibility of the
concepts. A concept needs to be selected
Item 3: Technical task to be sent to Maziar for checking
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 18th Feb, 5:00PM Adelaide Uni Internal meetings: Monday 16th Feb, 11:00-5:00PM Adelaide Uni
Summary of Tasks Find more sponsors Fix up Calculations done this week. Finalise calculations to consider ruling out the rocket/plane idea Consider forward sweeping Determine the configuration for each phase of flight for the telescopic idea (inc. AR, area, matching diagrams)
Summary of Actions:
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Research potential Sponsors Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester
Rachel Harch Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell
Carlee Stacey
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
260
Meeting Minutes:
1. 5:___PM – Sponsorship: a. Australian Aerospace:
� Ian has given Tony Bernardo the letter � They seem more interested in in-kind support � Want to talk to us in March. � Want a cost breakdown to see what their money would be
going to � We do not really have much use for in-kind support. This can
generally be gained directly from the as we need it. b. QANTAS:
� We should see the uni website/ the Adelaidian for contacts in QANTAS (in regard to the deal Adelaide uni did with QANTAS last year
� c. ASC
� Letter submitted, but very doubtful that we will get any money. d. Eccenture
� Crystal will start this weekend e. Thales
� The ‘Big Boss’ is coming to SA on Friday, Simon will talk to him then
f. TRY MORE COMPANIES � At least 20-30 (try small companies as well) � Avionics � Electronics:
2. 5:15PM Concept: a. Telescopic:
� Research � Calculations
1. generally confirmed the research, a. Finding the proper AR is usually an optimisation
problem i. see the lecture notes
2. range calculation disagreed a. for electric motor, constant fuel weight b. simplifies the equation c. changes stepwise e.g.
i. 1 cell = 1 hour ii. 2 cell= 2 hour… iii. As the range increases, L/D changes
(due to weight change of more batteries required)
3. Polar drag a. Simplified calculations may not cover
everything. 4. Takeoff and Landing
a. Takeoff requires Increased area for inc. lift b. Landing requires inc lift & inc drag
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
261 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
c. For landing, AR is not good because of the wing load.
5. Cruise a. Low area for inc. manoeuvrability and speed.
� Need to do a sensitivity analysis � Need to look at A/C control � No ailerons/flaps gives no coefficient of lift change which can
affect the takeoff and landing b. Sliding Sheaths:
� Is still being written up (finalising the rejection of the idea) c. Rocket plane:
� It works in a Canard configuration. 1. Canard configuration is unstable 2. Maziar has not seen a stable Aircraft with canard
configuration 3. AC needs to be trimmable for all phases of flight. AC
and CG, elevators 4. If we look at canard configuration, it must be tested in a
wind tunnel. 5. Look at the
a. S-37 Berkut ( spelling of this name may not be correct!) (this has forward sweep with a canard
b. Variez c. Velocity
� Works if we load up the nose 1. this is not practical as it is difficult to nose up (i.e. for
takeoff) � Look at morphing the wing forward � Difference between rockets and aircraft is that a rocket used
electronics for stability, aircraft does not d. e. Next week:
� Put 80% effort into the telescopic idea. � Need to look into what else we can do with the telescopic idea. � Look at what other ideas can be used in combination with the
telescopic idea. Use the telescopic idea as a basis, and build on it. � � Determine the configuration for each phase of flight
1. wing area 2. aspect ratio 3. matching diagrams 4. (we should have a strange matching diagrams since our
aircraft shape is changing) 5. look at roll rate 6. need to have a good sketch (would be good to have it in
CAD). We need a 3-View and Isometric drawing � Document the Rocket design � Look into forward sweeping for rocket design
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
262
3. 6:05PM- Technical task: � Need to look up the standard requirements � Need to be specific � Look at CASA 101
1. This has the required safety factors. � look at the other projects � This is what is given to the customer � Write what will help deliver the product we are after � The specifications should not be too limiting � i.e. ‘the aircraft should provide power for the payload and the
platform’, OR ‘there should be 2 isolated power sources, one each for the payload and the platform’
� limit the temperature 1. above 40˚C you need special electronics (inc. cost) 2. above 60˚C cannot use composites
� Simon is to be the ‘bad guy’ at the meeting 1. Question everything
� Consider do we want the a/c to be built in modules for airfield repairs?
� Number of hours of flight before maintenance is required? � All info should come from the technical task � Find pilots standards (re. weight) � Reference where everything came from � Payload weight
1. Try a camera(inc. battery) 0.5 kg – 0.3kg total weight for this.
4. 6:00PM- Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
263 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 8 - 18/2/2009
Meeting 8.1 Wednesday 18th February 2009
5:05-6:10PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey,
Summary: Item 1: Sponsorship. We need to contact more sponsors Item 2: more calculations need to be performed as well as matching diagrams,
and a 5-view sketch Item 3: Technical task is to be progressed
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 4th March, 5:00PM Adelaide Uni Internal meetings: Wednesday 25th Feb, 5:00-6:00PM Adelaide Uni
Summary of Tasks Find more sponsors Calculations. Feasibility study Technical task
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 8.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester
Rachel Harch Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell
Carlee Stacey
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
264
Meeting Minutes:
1. 5:05 PM – Sponsorship: a. Thales
� Simon is feeling less confident about getting sponsorship from Thales
� Thales apparently prefer reimbursement rather than just giving out money.
1. this is fine as long as we have an official letter sent to Maziar stating this. i.e. ‘Thales will sponsor the Adelaide uni final year project morphing UAV group up to a cost of $____’
b. NOVA Aerospace � Crystal has contacted Nickelov.
c. Eccenture � Crystal is talking with HR to find out who to talk to.
d. BAE � Simon has e-mailed Ian Touey. He should be back on the 23rd
Febuaryb, and Simon will talk to him in person not long after that at the AIAA meeting.
e. Babcock � Ian has contacted them � They seem interested
f. QANTAS: � Ian � Need to find another contact. We cannot get in touch with the
contact we currently have. g. Australian Aerospace:
� Ian � No progress to note
h. ASC � No progress.
i. TRY MORE COMPANIES � NEED to contact Aeronautical Engineers Australia. � NEED to look for even more companies again.
2. 5:15PM Concept: a. We have been calculating the static margin incorrectly.
� We need to have a clear understanding of the static margin, what it is, and how to calculate it.
� Also the meaning of neutral point and aerodynamic centre b. Sweeping:
� Need to re-look into it once we are calculating the static margin correctly.
� Should look at using a canard and a tail. We need to consider the angles of attack and the elevators (consider the change required for change in trim
� We need to finalise this concept. � For old static margin calculations;
1. Have found a way to make it work.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
265 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
2. Possible with tail 2/3 way down body, and wing root at 850 mm.
3. other possibility to consider is using a tail and a canard � look at the Clark aerofoil for the fuselage
c. Telescopic: � Determined this week:
1. the aircraft can take off, fly around etc. 2. we need numbers
a. get these from the TS and the stat analysis � We want a sensitivity analysis.
1. i.e. by changing this, we get double, half, etc of the …. (altitude, lift, drag, stall speed etc.) compared with the other design
2. we need to produce comparative matching diagrams. a. show on same diagram what we get in
i. configuration 1, ii. configuration 2 iii. a normal aircraft
3. the actual matching diagrams will be done later. We are still looking at the feasibility of the aircraft at the moment. We will do actual matching diagrams later.
4. We just want to know what happens if we change the span by X amount
a. see aero 1 notes (flight profile, altitude vs. Velocity)
b. Velocity vs altitude (with constant load factor (n) line and corner speed
5. We need the 2 configurations to give 2 different areas, which exceed the area given by the ‘normal’ aircraft.
a. Need to consider: i. the performance parameters
ii. the load factor iii. weight (morphing is heavier than
normal) iv. Compare with a non-morphing aircraft v. Show what we can get from this aircraft
� Non-conventional roll control. 1. rotating wing:
a. usually connected by a spar b. not applicable to a large scale aircraft
i. it should be scalable c. look into this perhaps for trim only
i. not sure if this is used for large scale aircraft or not.
d. This would result in a single point of contact. Single points of contact are very expensive on a large scale aircraft.
� Telescopic control 1. deflecting the aileron changes the CL, rolling the
aircraft
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
266
2. need to determine for a normal roll rate how much the change in CL is, and then determine how much change in area (and hence length) is required,
3. Determine the actuation speed required for similar control to a normal aircraft.
� We need to construct a 5-view drawing 1. this should be done with a CAD package (we will need
to select a program to use) a. when choosing compare the draft program in
Catia and pro-E (uni no longer has a solid edge licence)
b. we need to establish a good base c. talk to ex-students to figure out which is better d. CEASAR was very successful in their drawings
(pro-E) e. Not much difference in programs, depends on
our level of expertise. f. One of us will have to focus on the drawings g. Fuel cell also had good drawings (solid edge)
� We need to consider the technology involved in manufacturing the wings and fuselage
3. technical task a. needs to be progressed
4. 6:10PM- Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
267 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 9 - 4/3/2009
Meeting 9.1 Wednesday 4th March 2009
3:10 - 4:05PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey,
Summary: Item 1: Sponsorship. Updates Item 2: Technical Task Item 3: Other Business Consider conferences Look at paperwork requirements Gant Chat Item 4: FEA/CFD To be further discussed at the next meeting Item 5: Concepts FLYING BODY IDEA WAS REJECTED TELESCOPING WINGS IDEA WAS SELECTED
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 11th March, 5:00PM Adelaide Uni Internal meetings: Monday 9th March, 10:00-11:30AM Adelaide Uni
Summary of Tasks Continue with sponsorship Sensitivity Analysis Matching diagrams 5-view Technical task Gant chart Paperwork for project (see my uni) SELECT A DRAWING MANAGER
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 8.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Kevin Chan Finalise flying body concept Crystal Forrester
Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell
Carlee Stacey Gant Chart Find forms on MyUni which require completion
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
268
Meeting Minutes:
1. 3:10PM – Sponsorship: At our next internal meeting, we need to further discuss the good and the bad of the presentation. Especially the bad so we can improve. a. Babcock
� Presented to them on Monday � They are not an aerospace company, so they will not sponsor us
a lot, but the indication was that they would sponsor us some money � General indication was that it was a good presentation � They would like to have seen a brochure � We should prepare a brochure and send it to them.
b. BAE � Have been given a contact in Melbourne � Simon chasing this up
c. Australian Aerospace: � Trying to arrange a time
d. Aeronautical Engineers Australia � Waiting for a call. � The person we need to speak to is away until the end of next
week. � Maziar has suggested that we should contacting Mat Mulner
(crystal knows who he is), and ask for a time to go and talk to them. e. Thales
� Have sent Simon an e-mail saying that they have not forgotten us, but that they require more time.
� Simon is feeling less confident about getting sponsorship from Thales. He is receiving the e-mails they are sending between themselves to discuss possibly sponsoring us (since they are ‘replying to all’. It does not look promising.
f. Boeing � We have been reaching dead ends.
g. NOVA Aerospace � No Progress.
h. QANTAS: � No progress
i. ASC � REJECTED.
j. Eccenture � REJECTED.
k. TRY MORE COMPANIES � NEED to contact Aeronautical Engineers Australia. � NEED to look for even more companies again.
2. 3:20PM – Technical Task a. Revision progress
� We have made significant changes. � This is still to be sent to Simon � Once Simon has reviewed, and the draft has been further
modified, this is to be sent to Maziar
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
269 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
� This needs to be sent to Maziar before the weekend if we wish it to be reviewed before the next meeting.
� b. Included regulations
� We have used CASA 101. Not many regulations actually apply to aircraft of the size we intend to build.
� Talk to Todd Sandercock (other UAV project). He is a pilot and should know what documentation applies.
� FAR23 61kt max stall speed �
3. 3:25 - Concept: a. Statistical Analysis
� Stall speed � T/O distance � Look at models and try to define a mission
1. We want two objectives since we are morphing 2. Use this to obtain numbers from the statistical analysis
� Can look at previous years UAV’s to give us an idea. b.
4. 3:30 - Other Business a. Conferences
� AAEE conference is in Adelaide this year (therefore cheap for us)
1. Students often present papers 2. They want academics involved in the papers though 3. This is NOT part of project, but an external thing we
can do. (‘ this does count somehow, but it does not contribute to our marks’)
4. The best combination for writing paper is 3 people (1 is supervisor), but could have 2 or 4 (we would probably have to work in teams)
5. Conference is about education 6. Topics should be relevant to project, but we should
actually have to do some extra work. 7. Paper is easy to write, and there is lots of time 8. Maziar believe that our group on average can find the
time to do this! 9. This could help us out in regard to job applications 10. Possible ideas include things such as:
a. The importance of the decision making process in the engineering environment
b. Teaching the next generation communication c. Importance of communication in project based
learning d. Statistical analysis of something is always good.
(Ben and Brad presented this type of info. They wrote a simple questionnaire and got everyone to answer it)
e. What information do we like most (and what do we want to know about (possible questionnaire
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
270
about which university values are most important to students
f. Last year they focused on Quality Control g. We have lots of time to consider this. h. Check out the AAEE website
� AIAA student Conference 1. There is not enough quality at this conference 2. If we wish to, we can consider submitting something to
this conference. 3. We need to find out the dates. 4. Simon receives e-mails about this. As of yet, nothing
has been organised. b.
5. 3:40 - concepts a. We need to choose a concept to go on with. We need to progress. Also we
need to know what we are doing so we can come up with a project for our CFD and FEA courses.
� Although we will do CFD and FEA, we will not rely on these numbers. They will only really give us pretty pictures. They will be used only to further support our Hand Calculations
b. Flying Body: � Stable between 0-80degree sweep. 80% confident it will remain
stable for the rest � Method of calculations and assumptions was discussed
1. Model body as wings and wings as strakes 2. We can achieve stability without moving the tail. 3. Issue: strake<<<<less dominant that the wing. This is
not really true in our design. � CONCERNS
1. Manufacturing 2. All calculations required are unknown. There is not a lot
of information out there in regard to equations for flying bodies
3. Without the use of a wind tunnel and CFD we are not sure if it will actually fly
c. IDEA SELECTED: � We will go with the TELESCOPIC WINGS idea � Flying Body Idea has been REJECTED
1. The idea is interesting 2. Usually the stability of tailless aircraft is a function of
shape, and an ‘s’ shaped wing is required. This is the same for a wingless aircraft.
3. It can be calculated, but what we determine will be different to the actual shape that we build. This therefore requires wind tunnel testing in order to find out the effects of the shape that we actually built.
4. One small mistake could result in catastrophic failure 5. The idea is therefore not feasible
d. Telescoping �
6. 3:50 - Other Business
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
271 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
a. We need to produce a Gant Chart � 1.5 months before we start manufacturing � Beginning of the mid-semester break we need to start
manufacturing the UAV � Mid semester break- finalise all the design and manufacturing � Mid-year break – completely complete the product � End of mid-year break we need to start testing � Nothing but writing to be done after the mid-semester break (all
testing to be completed) b. Look at MyUni for the various forms which need filling out
� SPPA (student participation ___ agreement) (3 copies, very important)
� Project definition c.
7. 3:55 - Progressing the concept (Telescoping) a. Roll methods:
� We can get differential roll � Double wing area and get equivalent of 12.5˚ aileron deflection � Calculations are wrong.
b. Before the next meeting e need to: � Complete the matching diagram for both configurations � Aerofoil selection � Propulsion selection (including the propeller) � Sort out the roll rates � Lots of sensitivity analysis
1. Determine the sensitivity of EVERYTHING. Look into everything in the A/C design notes, and then more.
2. We what to know the sensitivity of all aspects toward morphing.
� 5-view drawing IN A CAD PACKAGE c. WE NEED A DRAWING MANAGER
� They should establish a good filing system now, to save time later
� Once this is done, 1-2 people will sit and help the drawing manager to make the components
d. BOM e. Start looking into the detailed design of components
8. 4:03 - CFD/FEA a. We will not trust this for the project. b. Everything is to be doubled up with hand calculations c. Design of the spar d. Cannot use FEA on any composite structure. It is too hard, and we will not
achieve usable results. e. Could look at adding bush resin to the spar ( method used to bolt things to
composites) f. We will discuss this more at the next meeting. g. Abstract for FEA project is due next Friday.
9. 4:05 - Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
272
Meeting 10 - 10/3/2009
Meeting 10.1 Wednesday 10th March 2009
3:00-4:15PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey,
Summary: Item 1: Sponsorship. We need to contact more sponsors Item 2: more calculations need to be performed as well as matching diagrams,
and a 5-view sketch Item 3: Technical task is to be progressed
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 18th March, 3:00PM Adelaide Uni Internal meetings: Wednesday 10th March, 4:15-6:00PM Adelaide Uni
Tuesday 17th March, 10:00-11:00AM Adelaide Uni
Summary of Tasks � Sponsorship � Matching diagrams � Sensitivity analysis � Performance calculations � Drawings (using CAD package) 5- view requested, expected to complete a 4-
view due to time constraints arising from the Avalon trip � Technical task (to be completed) � The required forms are to be signed � Gantt chart draft to be completed � Table of values to be generated (as used in existing calculations) (low priority) � Decision matrix used in the propulsion selection to be e-mailed to Maziar � Generation of ideas for morphing mechanisms
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 10.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell Carlee Stacey get forms to everyone to sign
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
273 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Minutes:
1. 3:00 PM – Sponsorship: The only thing we cannot advertise at the exhibition is alcohol. a. Avalon:
� Usually big companies prefer everything o go through the university
� Concentrate on smaller companies � Sponsorship is a tax deduction for local companies only.
b. Aeronautical engineers Australia � Got Matt Maloney’s phone number
c. Boeing � No further progress
d. BAE � Want a business plan � Usually this is how much a project will earn. We are students
and therefore this is not so relevant to us � Prepare and send to them instead a grant application. � BAE does not have much money at the moment. � Leave this for a couple of weeks, see ho we go, and if we still
need money, we can ten try and chase them. e. Red Bull
� Tell them how many people and how many times their logo will be shown
� Mention that Hungary Jacks sponsored pulsejet last year � In 2006 iSOAR spoke to red bull. They were given cans of red
bull f. Australian Aerospace:
� No response yet from Tony Bernardo g. s
� Simon is feeling less confident about getting sponsorship from Thales
� Thales apparently prefers reimbursement rather than just giving out money.
1. This is fine as long as we have an official letter sent to Maziar stating this. i.e. ‘Thales will sponsor the Adelaide uni final year project morphing UAV group up to a cost of $____’
h. NOVA Aerospace � Rejection.
i. Babcock � Ian will follow up
j. QANTAS: � No Response.
k. Virgin � 2-3 weeks we should know.
l. Tiger � We should contact
m. AIAA � We should contact.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
274
2. Forms to be filled out: a. These must be completed and signed before the next meeting
� SSPP � 1-5 form
1. Fill out all 5’s. If we think something is not a five, bring it up at the next meeting.
� Contract 1. 2 parts 2. these are important for marking 3. The moderator uses this to determine their grade. 4. Maziar and the moderator then have to sit down and
agree to a mark. 5. The moderator knows nothing about our project except
for parts a and b. 6. be careful in pat a to ensure that we can show that we
have achieved these goals when we have to complete part B
7. Give numbers, but ensure they are achievable. 8. in the project specifications
a. do not talk in respect to budget with actual numbers
b. include a small gantt chart (timetable of deliverables
9. technical specifications are under the goals 3. 3:20 progress on the concept
a. Statistical analysis � Run into a problem with the turn rate.
1. Check FAR 23, JAR 23 for lateral and roll controllability etc.
2. Far 23 is a very tight standards, FAR25 is more general. 3. we can assume we are building an aircraft similar to a
far23 aircraft 4. Also check Roskam 6 (half of this book is basically an
explanation of FAR 23. � Look at FAR 23 for the takeoff length
b. Matching Diagram � We have been getting weird numbers � MUST COMPLETE the matching diagrams � Want to then get the flight envelope � Need 2 people to work on these � Code the matching diagram, and then change the numbers
c. Sensitivity Analysis � Ian got numbers
1. takeoff 2. not sure what to do with these numbers 3. it is a way of checking numbers 4. should look at he sensitivity of takeoff etc. to the energy 5. look at the sensitivity of both configurations 6. Should tell us what ____ should be if we want ______.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
275 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
7. just get derivative d. 5-view drawings
� Should have been done. e. Calculations
� Wing span is not a good parameter to use. � Instead should consider the % increase/decrease for all the
values. � We need to get a table of our values, and then determine what
happens to all of them. � CD is wrong. � Roll rate is strange, inc rate with inc span (moment), but also
inc. stability � Need to look at the turn rate � We now have the minimum speed from the ceiling calculations � These calculations are still very elementary. � Need to consider tail parameters. This is generally to d o with
drag equations. 1. see Raimer
� We still have a very elementary analysis. f. Differential telescoping for roll control
� We need to double 1 wing to gain an equivalent change to a 25% deflection of the ailerons.
� Go to Java foil and check the calculations that way.
4. Progress to date – why have things not been done � If Carlee could not find anyone else to do these drawings,
Kevin should do them. � We should not say we are going to do something if we cannot
get it done � We should find a way to get things done. � Drawings and detail design should be done in parallel. � If we need a value, phone Kevin, and he should be able to give
you a value, or make it up. � We need to see a result. � We need to use an engineering, not research approach. We
should go ahead even with best guess numbers instead of waiting for the exact numbers. As an engineer, we need to use more of a trial an error method
� We need to look more at the quantity rather than quality �
5. Other Tasks a. We need to look into morphing methods. (tail and wing)
� E.g. what about if we have a hole in the wing, i.e. extend out the tip and don’t fill in the space
b. We need to be able to justify what we are doing, which method we are choosing.
c. Think innovatively 6. 4:15PM- Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
276
Meeting 11 - 18/3/2009
Meeting 11.1 Wednesday 18th March 2009
3:00-4:10PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey,
Summary: Item 1: Sponsorship Item 2: Item 3:
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 25th March, 3:00PM 2nd floor meeting room Internal meetings: Wednesday18th March, 5:00-6:00PM 4th year project room Thursday 19th March, 4:00-4:45PM 4th year project room Tuesday24th March, 9:0 – 11:00 Rumours Café
Summary of Tasks � To Be done TODAY
o Sign SPPA forms (X3 each) o Fix contract and e-mail to Maziar
� Fix the contract. It is due on Friday (2 copies, one to office, one to Maziar) � Continue with sponsorship tasks � Sponsorship presentation to Aeronautical Engineers Australia (Crystal, Ian,
Carlee), 1:00 PM Monday the 22rd of March � Talk to Red Bull re. sponsorship 11:00 AM Tuesday the 23rd March (Rumours
café) � Continue with the drawings � We should have lots of different concepts by next week � Look in the use of the existing plugs for the aircraft fuselage � Elect a test manager
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 11.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Sign SPPA forms
Fix and sign contract Elect a test manager
Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester
CAD models
Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell
Carlee Stacey
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
277 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Minutes: 1. 3:05 PM – Sponsorship:
The reimbursement is online on my uni. If we spend any money, we need to fill this out in order to be reimbursed.
� Generally we will not be reimbursed for printing costs, petrol, meals for potential sponsors unless there is sufficient money left over in the budget at the end of the project.
� We should fill out these forms for immediate reimbursement for larger, more expensive items, and sites brought directly for the project
� We should keep a list of items other than for this, and reimbursement will be determined depending on the budget at the end of the project.
� It is the policy of the head of school that dinner is not something which we will get reimbursed for. If we do get money out of the company, then we will probably be able to claim the money back.
b. Babcock � We have been promised $1000 � Ian has e-mailed Rae Taylor re. sending an invoice �
c. Aeronautical Engineers Australia � We have a meeting on Monday at 1:00PM
d. Avalon: � Australian Aviation
1. we are very hopeful of sponsorship � Mincham
1. maybe in-kind only 2. they could be useful if we need to make a plug for the
fuselage. These can be very expensive ($5000-$6000) � DMO via Lockheed
1. we should follow this up 2. unlikely to get anywhere. DMO is a big company 3. good to get the name of the university and our project
out there. � American representatives
1. were very interested in our idea 2. we should follow these up a well. US$ are great with the
exchange rate at t he moment! � CAE
1. representative at Avalon Seemed very interested and gave us the contact details for ______.
2. Crystal, Ina and Simon took the CAE representative out to dinner on Monday the 16th o march to Café Piatto’s
3. seems promising as a potential sponsor. 4. They missed out on the opportunity to sponsor a
Melbourne university project, and were too late for the Adelaide uni careers fair
5. they are very interested in being more involved with students
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
278
6. Maziar commented that taking a potential sponsor out to dinner was good idea.
7. They would like a business plan �
2. Forms to be filled out: a. SPPA
� We need 3 copies of this � We cannot just photocopy the forms since we cannot photocopy
a signature b. Expectations form
� Submitted c. Contract
� Return to later in the meeting 3. Decision Matrix
� Was sent to Maziar � We only have a matrix for the Propulsion selection � Pusher tractor matrix- will be written up after feedback is
received on the propulsion selection matrix � Decision on combustion vs. electric
1. we nee a decision matrix for the preliminary report 2. in the final report, this will just be a paragraph
4. Drawing � Pictures of the 3D model were shown � According to Maziar, it is ugly � Crystal is still doing the drawings. � The aircraft does not have an aerofoil for the wings yet � Crystal has only completed about 1/3 of the tutorials for Pro-E � This is a first impression only � Maziar would like to have seen a more advanced drawing � We need to present a 5-view with lateral and longitudinal
cutaways next week � We need to push harder with the drawings to get them done � Maziar was confused by the tail shown on the model, it does
not really demonstrate the morphing capabilities � The aircraft in the model was done on the concept which we ha
been assuming � The fuselage will need a plug in order to be constucted. These
are very expensive ($5000-$6000). The school currently has 2 plugs, one for iSOAR, and 1 for fuel cell. We could possibly use one of these plugs, or part of one of these lugs.
� For next week, Maziar would like to see: 1. Drawing showing the details inside the aircraft 2. these should e a laterally and longitudinally cut view 3. the drawings should sow mechanisms and the landing
gear 4. Crystal needs to start working with someone on the
drawings 5. 2-3 people should spend the whole week n drawings.
We should be able to show lots of different concepts. a. These can be done by hand if w are still learning
the CAD software.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
279 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
b. Maziar would like to se big progress at the next meeting.
5. 3:40 Contract a. The revised version needs to be sent to Maziar tonight b. Section 1
� This is an introduction. We do not need to include n aim c. Section 2
� This should be a table of deliverables � We should not mention the budget. Our project is not about
getting the sponsorship � This should be a list of the deliverables as outlined by the
school (deliverables and the dates d. Section 3
� This is what should be done by the end of the project. � These should be more specific
1. can carry a 0g payload 2. can loiter for 30 minutes 3. can cruise in line of sight 4. can takeoff and land normally 5. can morph in the sky with a 180% span increase
e. Section 4 � Extension goals � To measure the performance parameters in different
configuration whilst in the sky � To theoretically optimise the morphing configurations
6. Gantt Chart a. Generally on the right track
� Need to remove the university breaks 1. These were only included to assist in planning the Gantt
chart � The Gantt chart has main parts, Technical and admin
1. Technical includes tests, CAD, design, concept phases etc.
2. the technical components need similar breakdown a. i.e. testing, design and manufacturing should all
include a sub section ‘wing design/test/manufacturing’
b. this week, we need to go back and fix the Gantt chart c. The Gantt chart is very important in internal meetings. It should remind us
about what we should be doing, and prevent us from focusing on one task for too long.
7. Matching diagrams and sensitivity analysis etc. a. Matching diagrams
� We can make our aircraft smaller than 7kgs. This would make the aircraft easier to build we could look at a 5kg aircraft, and ake it for 4.5kg
� By next week we need to have a firm value for the weight, wing area, aircraft length and power.
� We need to know all the dimensions so we can give them to crystal for drawing.
b. Sensitivity analysis
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
280
� The sensitivity analysis is working better � 1km→30km range � 1kg→3kg � Since we are using batteries, this should result in a stepwise
function � This code is still being developed � Still need Takeoff range and endurance � We should ignore the sensitivity analysis this week.
8. Morphing concepts/Drawings � We need to prepare lots of configuration sketches and
drawings. � Be imaginative � Look at how to morph, and at the mechanisms � Crystal’s main focus is on learning the software and including
the internal components. 9. Tasks
a. Main tasks this week are: � The matching diagrams, to obtain final decisions on the
numbers previously mentioned � Lots of concepts sketches � 50% of time →drawing � 30% of time →matching diagrams � 20% of time →everything else � Kevin and crystal and Ian to consult with carlee re. Gantt chart
to determine what needs to be done by the end of the mid semester holidays in order to get the manufacturing drawings done.
� Test manager needs to be assigned this week. 1. need to start determining how many test and when 2. this can be anyone but Kevin and Ian
a. not Kevin since the test and technical manager should argue
b. not Ian since manufacturing and testing roles should occur simultaneously
3. one other manager position still to be determined. (Safety officer)
� The Gantt chart needs to be discussed and presented next week. 10. Other
� We can use transmitters and a few actuators from previous years projects.
� If an item is not part of the aircraft, then we can use it � The BOM will be looked at again next week.
11. 4:05PM- Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
281 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 12 - 25/3/2009
Meeting 12.1 Wednesday 25th March 2009
3:05-4:10PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey,
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 1st April, 3:00-4:00PM 2nd floor meeting room Internal meetings: Wednesday 25th March, 4:00-5:00PM 2nd floor meeting room Tuesday 31st March, 10:00-11:0AM 4th year project room Tuesday24th March, 9:0 – 11:00 Rumours Café
Summary of Tasks � Continue with sponsorship � Review and continue with the matching diagrams � Talk with the workshop in regard to the fuselage plug, moulds etc. � Sketches of the aircraft to determine the configuration � Select an aerofoil � Determine which concept we are going to go with � Choose a motor and a propeller � Determine a test procedure for the motor
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 11.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester test plan for the motor Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell Carlee Stacey find out about CPM
determine if the Gantt chart needs to be handed in.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
282
Meeting Minutes: 1. 3:05 PM – Sponsorship:
a. AEA � Met with them on Monday
b. Babcock � $1000 – should receive at end of the month
c. Magazine � Still following up
d. CAE � Met last week � Wants a business plan
2. Matching Diagrams: � Done
1. Sized for 6kg and 7kg 2. Includes battery weight when the statistics are given 3. 6kg⇒1.1kW engine, wingspan → 0.6m2 4. ⇒We=4.5kg, no batteries 5. 10 cells for batteries ⇒7.5kW
� Needs to be reviewed � Big issues, results are questionable
1. the numbers for cruise are to big � We need to get the aircraft to work for Takeoff, land, stall are 3
most important to get it to the sky � The data from the matching diagrams needs to be presented in a
better way. � We have now got the span etc. � Put the matching diagram away � Check the calculation performance parameters and compare. � V-n diagram (since in extended; can withstand less loading) � H-V diagram (altitude vs. velocity (should have two different
profiles)) � Also looked at conventional aircraft to compare
1. hold of on this at the moment. 2. look at the weight this week. 3. want to look at the structure more 4. check CD0 for home built aircraft
3. CPM/Gantt chart a. Find out what the critical path method is. Look into it.
� Carlee needs to know what is critical at the moment and make sure these things get done
� At meetings Carlee needs to raise which tasks are most important (i.e. which tasks are critical to the completion of the project)
� Find out how the Gantt chart needs to be handed up. If it is to the supervisor, Maziar says this is not necessary.
4. 4:40 Manufacturing a. Ian needs to talk to Billy (workshop) re. plugs, moulds etc.
� We could temporarily modify the mould 1. ask how
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
283 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
� is there another method than using a mold � need to investigate other ways
1. molds are tie consuming and we cannot make them ourselves
5. Drawing: a. Aesthetics
� We need to make the fuselage look prettier. � We now have dimensions therefore we need to determine
possible layouts of the aircraft. 1. we should sit together and sketch the aircraft
a. where is the landing gear? b. Show everything on the aircraft c. Look at internal structures d. Need a cut off view of the tail boom etc.
6. Aerofoil selection � Need to select an aerofoil. � Go for a thicker chord (~16%)
1. This is easier to manufacture � Look at 3 curves
1. Clα 2. Cl Cd 3. Cmα
7. Mechanism/Wing Concepts: a. Gear and pinion
� Not enough space in the wing b. Pulley
� Not very reliable c. Rotating screw
� Will require guides for the outer wing section � We should follow this up.
d. External sheath � for the external sheath concept, the ailerons limit the design. � We need to look into different alternatives fro roll control
1. possibly movement of the wing tips (rotating them up and down)
2. possibly use slats instead of ailerons � We need to re-look at differential span roll control
e. Taper idea � Good idea too
f. Considerations in our decision matrix: � Manufacturability � assembly
8. Other Items: a. Ordering a motor and propeller
� A 1.5kW motor should be sufficient (base this on 8kg) b. Crystal was elected to be the test manager.
� We wish to test the motor in 2 weeks time. 9. 4:05 PM - Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
284
Meeting 13 - 1/4/2009
Meeting 13.1 Wednesday 1st April 2009
3:10-4:10PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey,
Summary: Item 1: project description – write a 1 page project description Item 2: Sponsorship – no need to worry. Continue looking. Item 3: Existing part for use – can get batteries and actuators Item 4: design development - need to reconsider. Go back and look at other
concepts. - single boom V- tail was selected for the tail
- forget re-using the iSOAR plug, just design what we want, and go from there - we need 2 fuselage layouts – one for each concept - NEXT WEEK we will be only discussing the sketches
Item 5: Safety officer role /testing Item 6: Close
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 8th April, 3:00-4:00PM 2nd floor meeting room Internal meetings: Thursday 9th April, 4:00-5:00PM EM, level 3 Sunday 12th April, 10:00-we are finished, Crystal’s house Tuesday24th March, TBD
Summary of Tasks � 1 page project description to be posted on Maziars website. No immediate hurry. � Sponsorship � Consider another idea. If this is completed by Monday, talk it over with Maziar. � Purchase and test the motor
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 11.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester test plan for the motor
find out what needs to happen to the test rig to use it/get it working.
Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell Talk to Ian McNair re safety requirements Carlee Stacey Define a purchasing process.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
285 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Minutes: 1. 3:05 PM – Project Description
a. Concern was raised by the workshop staff that we did not have a description of our project online
� Maziar says not to worry about this. It is not important � Maziar has his own website where he posts details of his
projects. � We need to send him a 1 page description of our project to be
posted on his website. � When we have finished our project, this will then be replaced
with the outcome � This is of no immediate concern. But something we should do
when we get time! � The target audience is the general public. � Just in word format
2. 3:15 PM - Sponsorship: a. The group expressed concern regarding the lack of sponsorship we seem
to be going to get. � Maziar said not to worry about this. It is not the most important
of part of the project. � We can keep trying to get sponsorship until about August, but
we will not spend as much time on it. b. CAE
� Rejected our application � Their reason was that they could not afford the money this year. � Maziar said that this is ok. The school will accept a promise of
money to be paid next year. c. AIAA
� Simon looking into has been given a new contact. � Not very hopeful
d. QANTAS, BAE – still being looked into e. Magazine – crystal still looking into f. DMO
� Has crystal’s business card. They will phone her when they have more time.
g. AEA – Carlee is going to call them to follow up. h. Aus Aero – meeting with them on Monday i. DSTO –
� They have been kinder this year. They have given money to one of the other groups.
� In ’07 and ’08 they were very keen on looing into morphing technology.
� We should phone them first to see if it is worth sending the e-mail.
3. Existing parts which we can use: a. We will not need to buy batteries as we can use these from previous
projects b. We do not need to buy actuators since we already have these left over from
previous projects. c. We will need a motor, speed controller, propeller, raw materials
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
286
d. PROCESS FOR PURCHASING PARTS � Carlee is responsible for the budget � Carlee is to define a process fir purchasing. � The process for purchasing parts is that it needs to go through
Kevin (technical manager) to approve, and Carlee (financial approval).
� Maziar should receive all purchase orders through Carlee. 4. 3:25 – Design development:
a. Final Wing Design � 3 different concepts looked at. The chosen concept was uses
internal telescoping without taper. � External sliding sheath (not chosen)
1. tape ration >1 . therefore wing loading is greater on the tip
2. we can have a solid internal section 3. This concept maintains roll control better than the other
concepts as the ailerons move out with the wing. This also increases wing loading.
� Tapered design 1. taper ratio < 1 but not by much ( basically negligible). 2. the effects of taper are negligible at reducing the drag
since the ratio is so small. To reduce the taper ration, the area of the extended section will also be reduced. Although our goal is to increase the span, the main point of morphing the wing is to change the wing area. Therefore there is no point in extending a very narrow wing section.
3. this will be more expensive to manufacture as each rib is a different shape and needs to be loaded into the CNC machine separately. Also, if we require spares, this will be a problem.
4. the tapered idea was ruled out as the taper gained is not worth the other problems associated with this design.
� Sketch of the internal telescoping: 1. Sketch not to scale 2. 300mm chord, composite structures, built up structure 3. this allows for 15mm of structure 4. Maziar made the comment that we should have had a
sketch like this 1 month ago. 5. Maziar does not like this concept
a. It will be difficult to make the inner section b. The ribs cannot take any torsion loads c. The inboard section needs to be very stiff d. The idea is too complex e. We cannot have 700mm of wing section without
support, the external section must sit on the internal section.
f. The concept is limited since we cannot apply a taper ration.
g. The ailerons are inboard => not in a good position
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
287 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
h. Maziar expects we will have manufacturing problems due to the tolerances we require.
i. The aileron actuators being in the fuselage is not good.
� External sheath design has similar problems 1. Foam wings might be better. 2. The 5-10 cm solid tip would solve the problem of the
aileron actuators. For the external sheath. 3. Maziar has suggested that we do not bother
investigating this further � Maziar suggested that we go back and look at our old concepts.
1. in particular, the folding wing concept a. in this design, the pieces are independent, and
we would not have problems with the aileron b. We could also manufacture using a foam core.
2. If we have a concept by Monday, drop by Maziar’s office and discuss it with him. (9:00 Monday would be good!)
3. The concept needs to be developed to the point that the current concept has been developed.
b. Final Tail Design � Considered first Boom tail , twin boom tail, fuselage mounted
tail. 1. A single boom tail was selected to reduce weight and
drag. a. Maziar wished to know if we had considered
interference drag and ?form? drag 2. Maziar agreed that a single boom tail would be OK.
� The next choice was which type of tail. Many we considered. 1. decision matrix resulted in a conventional tail being
selected. 2. inverted V – required longer landing gear 3. V-tail, rudders are an issue
a. Don’t need a rudder, therefore the V-tail will work. If we wanted a rudder, we could just use a mixer to get the same effect.
b. This will change the decision matrix outcome from a conventional tail to a V-tail
c. A V-tail is ‘sexier’ than a conventional tail. 4. The decision made was to go with a single boom, V-tail
aircraft. c. Fuselage design
� We will need 2, one for our current idea, and one for our new concept.
� d. NEXT WEEK we will be only discussing the sketches.
5. Safety Officer Role/ Testing a. Main rolls:
� To prepare the safety documents 1. risk assessments 2. SOP
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
288
� Once we have all the safety documents signed, then the school assumes the responsibility for safety
b. When we run a test, there are 3 main people involved; the test officer, safety officer, and manufacturing (whoever was involved in the design/selection of the thing being tested)
� The safety and test officer both need to prepare a test checklist. � Simon as the safety officer gives the final OK to go ahead
c. The school safety officer is Ian Macnair. � His office is in the workshop near Richards � Simon should go and talk to him to find out what needs to be
done. d. We should be testing the motor next week.
� Buy motor, get reimbursed � The school has the batteries, so purchase a motor which goes
with the batteries. 1. batteries we have are normal Li-Po batteries. 2. the batteries are currently in the electronics workshop
a. to see them , go and talk to Phil or Sylvio b. guess is 14.0 Volts
� Crystal need to come up with a test for the motor 1. thrust 2. look for the test stand.
a. It needs to be fixed. It is missing a part. 6. 4:10 PM - Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
289 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 14 - 8/4/2009
Meeting 14.1 Wednesday 8th April 2009
3:00-4:10PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey,
Summary: Item 1: Propulsion System Item 2: Sponsorship Item 3: BOM development Item 4: Preliminary report Item 5: Drawings Item 7: Calculations Item 8: Design Item 9: Tasks after this week Item 10: Tasks for this week. Item 11: Close
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 15th April, 3:00-4:00PM 2nd floor meeting room Internal meetings: Tuesday 14th April, 10:00-5:00PM Study room
* technical meetings will occur over Easter. To be organised depending on availability. KEVIN to organise.
Summary of Tasks � Purchase and test the propulsion system � Sponsorship � Consider another idea. If this is completed by Monday, talk it over with Maziar. � Purchase and test the motor
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 11.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester test plan for the motor
find out what needs to happen to the test rig to use it/get it working.
Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell Talk to Ian McNair re safety requirements Carlee Stacey
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
290
Meeting Minutes: 1. 3:15 PM – propulsion system:
a. We need to purchase the Propulsion system. � Motor � Speed controller � At least 2 propellers � (one climb and one cruise). Plastic propellers are cheap. � MOUNTING-
1. sometimes the engines come with a different mounting depending on weather they re pusher or puller
2. we do not need to necessarily buy this now, but we do need to get the dimension, weight etc.
� When we get the motor, try to also get a graph of the thrust curve for comparison.
2. Sponsorship. a. DSTO
� We should be more active in following up the DSTO b. CAE
� Simon to chase this up c. We should no consider companies not related to aerospace engineering.
� We could even put an environmental twist onto our project for the purpose of sponsorship applications
3. BOM development: a. Later we will add a reference to a drawing number b. Everything with a drawing number needs to be in here
4. Preliminary Report: � Need to start looking into the structure of the report � Draft report is more of a detailed plan, not the whole report � Usually the 0 days between the draft and the actual report being
due are spent entirely on the prelim report. � The actual report is approximately 120 pages
b. Detailed Plan � Our detailed plan should be approximately 30-35 pages. � Should include the chapters, sub chapters, and one bullet point
sentence describing each paragraph. We should also include the number of pages required
� We should start writing up the pieces of the report related to what we are working on.
c. The report should not be written in book format. It should include only what is relevant to the project. i.e. it is not telling a story.
d. At the end of the holidays, we should start with a shorter version again. We should have basically a content list if the chapters to be sent to Maziar
e. If we send in the draft early, we will get it back early. � It usually takes 2-4 days to mark.
5. Drawings: a. We NEED to get these done b. Maziar can give us an example if we would like
� Co-axial had < 200 drawing sheets last year 6. Calculations:
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
291 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
a. Structural calculations need to be done. b. ANSYS is very popular
� This gives lots of pretty pictures. � We do not have the understanding to do this properly though. � We will rely on hand calculations � We could be disadvantaged if we do not use ANSYS. These
pictures always look good. c. Structural Calculations:
� We will need to find some books on hand calculations of composites.
� Michael Niu 1. Has 3 books. (structural calculations, composite
materials and manufacturing, and _____) 2. Maziar thinks we need the green book.
� Megson 1. Aircraft structural calculations for aerospace
engineering ( or something like this) 2. this book has 5-6 examples for composites 3. we need to look at the load calculations 4. composite structural calculations
� Lift distribution is the first thing that we need to look at. 1. Need to determine the shear, bending moment and
torsion due to lift. 2. then calculate the stress on the structures 3. consider all loads 4. can start with Raymer and Roskam 5. we need a V-n diagram for the aircraft
� Carry out the structural calculations in the following order: 1. V-n diagram 2. Load distribution on the wing (shear, bending and
torsion) 3. Simple structural calculations on everything.
a. We can do local calculations and calculation on load bearing structures
� We do not need to consider: 1. vibration 2. dynamic loading 3. fatigue
� Need to consider accessibility of the mechanism � Consider that the load bearing sections are separated from the
skin � We need to look into materials. Wood or aluminium. � We cannot use composites as we cannot cut composites.
7. Design: a. We need final decisions on the mechanism at the next meeting. b. We need to bring a structural design
8. Next tasks- week after this one. a. Next week we will chose the aerofoil
� This is to do with cruise speed for a large aircraft � For a small aircraft we look for laminar flow, then look at the
other properties
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
292
� Usually during to the manufacturing method, the aerofoil is not the same as is selected.
1. Because of this, we cannot select an aerofoil which has a strongly defined curve on the bottom.
2. We need to select a simple aerofoil. 3. Look at the book ‘theory of wing section’ by Abbott
� Kevin has previously looked into aerofoils 1. Selected for the previous design a S4233 Sigel aerofoil 2. Selected it for its CL, thickness and pitch. 3. Maziar asked what it’s post stall characteristics were
� When looking at aerofoils, Maziar has suggested that we will need to find 3, and then choose.
1. We should be careful, as some aerofoils are more efficient with a flap. This is not good for us.
2. We need to consider post stall characteristics. a. This is very important. b. We do not want a stall curve with a fast drop off.
This makes it more difficult to recover the aircraft.
c. We need to look at the Cmax and the Cα d. We need to look at the sensitivity of the aerofoil
characteristics to the angle of the trailing edge. (We cannot achieve an exact trailing edge angle).
e. We can then select our aerofoil f. We will need 2 aerofoils. One for the main
section and one for the extending section. b. Look into manufacturing
9. FOR THIS WEEK: a. We need to have a VERY detailed drawing
� It can be either CAD or hand drawn � Simon is to be the ‘bad guy’ and criticise the design.
1. We should be able to answer all his questions. � We need to consider possible options for the design. � Start considering the structure.
1. Loads usually take the shortest path to transfer their loads.
2. We need to be careful when considering moving and sliding components.
a. There should always be at least 2 points in contact
b. It must sit at 2 points 3. The sections should be load bearing for their entire
length. 4. The aileron needs to be attached to a hard section. 5. The structure required should dictate the wing shape,
not the aerofoil. 6. The installation of the aerofoil will also help to dictate
the shape of the wing. 7. We need to use the load bearing points to transfer the
loads.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
293 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 15 - 15/4/2009
Meeting 15.1 Wednesday 15th April 2009
3:00-4:00PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell
Summary: Item 1: Sponsorship Item 3: Motor Testing Item 4: Drawings and structure Item 5: Tail Design Item 6: Close
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 22nd April, 3:00-4:00PM 2nd floor meeting room
Summary of Tasks
•••• SM and CS to complete test procedure and safety protocols for this test •••• SM to define a procurement procedure to be adhered to for each procurement •••• Todd might know of the whereabouts of a receiver for the motor testing. IL to
contact Todd. •••• We need to do a full aircraft sketch to ensure that there are no problems •••• MA would like us to work out how many bearings will be needed and what the
forces through them will be •••• We need to calculate if cutting a hole in the inboard wing foam in order to add in
an auxiliary rib is worthwhile. •••• We need to cut the foam by next week to practise with the hot-wire. We don’t
need to use the correct template; we can use any one we find. SM to work out safety for this, and IL to work out procedure.
•••• Design and draw the tail blocks properly and present them to Maz
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 11.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by Everyone o We need to do a full aircraft sketch to
ensure that there are no problems o We need to cut the foam by next week to
practise with the hot-wire. We don’t need to use the correct template; we can use any one we find. SM to work out safety for this, and IL to work out procedure.
Anyone o MA would like us to work out how many bearings will be needed and what the forces through them will be
o We need to calculate if cutting a hole in the inboard wing foam in order to add in an
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
294
auxiliary rib is worthwhile. o Design and draw the tail blocks properly
and present them to Maz Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester Ian Lomas o Todd might know of the whereabouts of a
receiver for the motor testing. IL to contact Todd.
Simon Mitchell o SM and CS to complete test procedure and safety protocols for this test
Carlee Stacey o SM and CS to complete test procedure and safety protocols for this test
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
295 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Minutes: 1. Sponsorship
a. SM – No luck with CAE, they are “in no position to commit funds for the next financial year”
b. CS – Unable to contact AEA, our contact took a long Easter holiday and was out of the office
c. IL – Tony from AA wants our materials list and drawings, as well as a schedule. They seem to have given us a verbal promise for in-kind support, with nothing written down.
d. CF – Crystal left a message with DSTO, still unable to contact. 2. Motor testing
a. SM - Purchase order for motor, ESC, and two propellers has been submitted to the value of $538.00 excluding GST. Mech Eng office recommends a 2-3 day turnaround on the purchase order being dealt with.
b. IL – Has computed a thrust curve, MA showed no real objections (IL used McCormack text book)
� Maz suggests using online tools to help with the thrust calculations but the report needs to have the proper calculation procedure. Propeller selection will be an “important chapter in the report”
c. SM and CS to complete test procedure and safety protocols for this test
d. SM to define a procurement procedure to be adhered to for each procurement
e. MA – suggests we probably don’t need a folding prop on our final aircraft, but this is a problem best left to deal with later.
f. CF – to contact electronic workshop to organise the load cell and the data logger. The thrust to amperage relationship is what we are trying to obtain from this test.
g. MA – suggests we should use the receiver from the co-axial project (originally used on the airship). Todd might know of its whereabouts. IL to contact Todd.
3. Drawings and structure a. Drawings of the wing layout, tail layout, mechanism, and rib and spar
design were shown to MA b. Kev described the roller concepts (ball bearings etc) to MA c. We need to do a full aircraft sketch to ensure that there are no
problems d. MA suggests that the ball bearings could be very expensive but they have
good alignment characteristics e. MA advises, “Attaching Al to Al is easy, but attaching something else to
Al is quite hard”. f. SM provided graphs of load distribution due to bending, MA showed no
major objections. MA doesn’t recommend using a tapered spar due to machining costs.
g. MA recommends getting the wing design and structure correct now, as weight issues will result if these issues aren’t dealt with.
h. MA would like us to work out how many bearings will be needed and what the forces through them will be
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
296
i. Maz suggests that we only need supports at the tip and a little bit in from the tip, and not load bearing rollers further in.
j. We may need to embed a hard strip on the surface (or just under) of the outboard wing section to contact with the rollers. This may not be able to be made out of composites due to the tolerance required (and composites are mainly hand made by students).
k. He suggests using Aluminium or plywood. Plywood is better but it can’t be used on the surface due to poor surface finish. If bearings are being used, we can’t use plywood and we should use Aluminium, but if we aren’t using bearings (for example a rubber wheel), we can embed the plywood strip under a composite surface.
l. In normal construction, the spars don’t normally have a free end in the foam; they have an end cap on each end. We can use the ply discussed about as spars but we must join the ply on the top and the ply on the bottom together. This is normally done by cutting foam out in the middle, joining the two, and replacing the foam. We need to calculate if this is worthwhile.
m. For the inboard spar design, we don’t need as many ribs as we currently have if we use a monocoque structure. This will also cut back on the spars required and provide us with more room for the aerofoil. Spars can run above and below the wing section (like giant stringers) instead of right through the middle.
n. Maz wants to cut the entire structure from foam (in two or three pieces which are then glued together) and add a few ribs to the foam section (3 ribs?)
o. MA – we can manufacture by creating the foam sections, cutting in grooves for the spars, adding ribs at the joins of the foam sections, glueing the foam sections together, and maybe cutting away foam to add another rib if necessary.
p. MA – composites can be applied directly to the foam and don’t need a medium in between.
q. MA – suggests attaching the rollers directly to the ribs or spars r. We need to cut the foam by next week to practise with the hot-wire.
We don’t need to use the correct template; we can use any one we find. SM to work out safety for this, and IL to work out procedure. We don’t need to purchase the foam, “it’s cheap”, and we need to ask Bill in the workshop.
s. MA – “Cutting something [with a hot-wire] that is 100mm across is easy, 300mm is much harder.”
t. MA wants us to stop all calculations and report writing and focus on the 1:1 drawing
u. When designing the rollers, we need to ensure that the rollers we’d like are available and need to make a physical check that they are appropriate and as expected.
v. MA suggests that we are two weeks behind schedule 4. Tail design
a. Maziar is happy with using the three carbon rods in a triangle arrangement for the tail sliding mechanism, however he is a little concerned about how the carbon rods are to be joined.
b. MA – “Triangle is more draggy than cylinder, so thank about this” c. KC can justify the joining of the triangle well and MA is happy with this.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
297 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
d. MA suggests using an ellipsoid shape instead of a triangle. e. MA – We may be able to get away with using carbon strips instead of
carbon tubes, and they are easier to work with. f. MA thinks we need a little more support internally for the tail, but he
thinks the concept is good. g. MA requests that we design and draw these tail blocks properly and
present them to him h. MA also says that we should leave the tail for now and finish the other
drawings first i. We may need to taper the end of the mechanism off to reduce drag.
5. 4:00 PM - Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
298
Meeting 16 - 22/4/2009
Meeting 16.1 Wednesday 22nd April 2009
3:00-4:05PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey,
Summary: Item 1: Aircraft design –1-1 scale drawing –some suggestions made for improvement –some issues with the design pointed out Item 2: Sponsorship –Continue looking and following up.. Item 3: Aerofoil Selection –NACA 2416 was selected for the inboard wing
–NACA 4412 was selected for the outboard wing
Item 4: Propulsion Test –we can use the Jet propulsion Lab Item 5: Close
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 29th April, 3:00-4:00PM 2nd floor meeting room Internal meetings: Monday 27th April, 10:00AM-LATE, FYP study room
Summary of Tasks � Fix the design, as recommended. � Sponsorship � Purchase and test the motor
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 11.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester Ian Lomas Simon Mitchell Carlee Stacey Contact AEA re. sponsorship
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
a. General discussion in regard to possible improvements and potential problems with the deign.
� Attachment of the wings to the fuselage 1. We could possibly use a tongue in the fuselage, instead
of into the wing 2. this way the tongue is part of the wing and is inserted
into the fuselage where it is attached with screws. 3. we could alternatively have a metal/wooden c-section
along the length of the fuselage which sticks into the rib.
4. we only require 2 points of connection between the fuselage and the wing. This is all most light planes have, so it should be fine for us If we use anymore, ten all the load is taken by only 2 anyway (result of tolerances etc.)
� Tail attachment. 1. the tail structural members need to be connected to the
boom. 2. possibly look at PVC pipe connections.
� Maziar says to go an make it! �
b. Screw Thread: � Before we look into alternatives etc. we need to design the
thread (i.e. determine what we would like it to be) , and then look into alternatives.
� Design and calculate the pitch, height of thread etc. �
2. Sponsorship a. Magazine
� Rejected b. DSTO
� Crystal Talked to Simon Henbest on the phone � They are not sure about their financial situation � They have been sent the business plan � It did not sound very promising � Maziar says that Simon is quite high up in the organisation, and
new to the position. c. AEA
� Carlee has still been unable o contact Mick Kaesler. � Maziar has suggested that if we have not been able to get an
answer by next week that we should phon their financial manager. Maziar has her phone number from fuel cell last year.
d. Australian Aerospace. � Ian has been in contact with Tony. � Tony has talked to Holbright engineering on our behalf and
Holbright has indicated that they will see what they can do to help if we contact them
1. Holbright only do machining.
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
300
2. might be worth finding out what they do. It is possible we might be able to get them to make us a plug for the fuselage.
3. 3. Aerofoil Selection
a. Inboard wing � Seilig S8037 (16% thickness) OR NACA 2416 (very similar)
1. this has a greater lift coefficient, and less pitch moment 2. Both are used in model aircraft, therefore both are
laminar � NACA2416 was selected
1. easier to make, very similar to S8037, can use a similar aerofoil on the inside.
b. Outboard Wing � NACA 4412 and SG6042 were considered � NACA 4412 was selected � Since the aileron is inboard, we do not need to be greatly
concerned with tip stall 4. Propulsion Test
a. Yes, we can use the Jet propulsion lab. 5. 4:05 PM - Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
301 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
Meeting 18 - 6/5/2009
Meeting 14.1 Wednesday 6th May 2009
3:00-4:10PM Attendance: Maziar Arjomandi, Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas, Simon Mitchell, Carlee Stacey,
Next meeting: With Maziar: Wednesday 13th May, 3:00-4:00PM 2nd floor meeting room
Internal meetings: To be arranged as required
Summary of Tasks � Report � Finish CAD � Get fuselage plug manufactured � Get motor test completed
Summary of Actions: For a comprehensive outline of tasks, see meeting 18.2 (allocation)
Tasks to perform completed by everyone Kevin Chan Crystal Forrester Ian Lomas find out how, and when we can get the plug
manufactured for the fuselage arrange a meeting with Airspeed
Simon Mitchell Carlee Stacey
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
302
Meeting Minutes: 1. 3:00 PM – Sponsorship
a. DSTO � We have heard from them � Need to follow this up � CF to phone around 9:00 AM tomorrow
b. AEA � We need to get E-mail confirmation of sponsorship. We need to
send this through to Maziar so we can get the school to send an invoice to AEA.
c. Redbull � We can get cans of Redbull, no money.
d. Airspeed � We need to go and talk to them once we have the
manufacturing drawings � We need to make the plug � Put them in the prelim report � By this time next meeting, MA would like us to have met with
airspeed. 1. We need to take the drawings of the fuselage 2. We should also talk with Bill to find out an idea of the
time required to get the plug made. 3. At the next meeting, Ian should present to us about how
the fuselage will be manufactured. 2. Testing
a. We have got the motor b. Electrical workshop has set up circuit c. We are still waiting on one part of the circuit. We are waiting for a student
to return the part. d. We wont be using a computer, but rather will be reading from a multimeter e. Expect this test to have been done by next week f. We need to make some corrections to improve the safety g. When the other group wishes to use the test stand next week, they will be
directed to us. We should not return the stand to the workshop, . we should go with the group to the workshop and swap .
� T h. The person to speak to in regard to the testing Beau… i. We need to look into the threaded rod test for the mechanism.
� We are considering using the thrust rig � Get a rough idea from calculations first � Test using the real rod eventually.
3. 3:15 - Procurements a. Parts from model flight:
� These should have come in � Model flight have not yet been in voiced � We need to go and see Wendy or Yvette � Next time, we need to record the number on the in voice, and
then we can check with the office if it has been payed. b. We needed to buy sone safety equipment for the test
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
303 APPENDIX K. MEETING MINUTES
� Next time we need to check with Maziar to find out if we already have the parts availible. From previous projects.
c. We are looking a getting the tail boom in from New Zealand. d. We now have a procurements proceedure e. We need to get the threaded rod lathed to be coupled to the motor for the
test. f. Need a drawing to do this.
4. Design: a. Landing gear:
� Position and angle 1. KC calculated to be 21° 2. MA says this does not have to be 21°. It should be about
16°. 21° is too much as the maximum angle of attack is ___°.
3. MA says that tip back should be close to the angle of attack. We should start with the angle of attack. If the angle of attack is 12°, then we should make the tip back angle 14 °or 15°.
4. we do not need to consider the landing gear just yet. b. Wing block design
� We have changed the step down section so that it is no longer there.
c. Fuselage � We have another 1-1 Drawing � Nose is very forward � Batteries are actually smaller � To find the CG
1. include the Aircraft actual size. Also include the moment of inertia
a. this is not so good for gusts. 2. need to consider the CG envelope.
� first need to find the minimum tail arm, then play with the layout. Then increase the nose if necessary.
� Try to change the tail to move the motor forward toward the nose.
� We need to make the fuselage as compressed as possible � Can make holes in the frame with no problems (i.e. O shaped
frames) and just increase the thickness of the ply. 8mm ply is just as good as steel.
� We may have a problem with attaching � We need to make the aircraft shorter � Find CG in the 2 configurations, play with the aft CG to find
the stability margin, then get the static margin. � Move the tail forward to reduce the stability � Something strange is happening with the CG �
d. The tail deflection must be less than 6mm. 5. Drawings:
a. Ian needs to prioritise the manufacturing drawings 1. Ribs
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
304
a. Need templates for cutting foam 2. wing
a. need ribs, b. template c. spar d. rollers e.
6. Report a. We start the report with the literature review and the technical task b. We need to start with the introduction c. Significance section:
� Why morphing � This it the chance to sell the project
d. Aims and project specification � Tech task should finish this section. Put in as is, but with some
modifications. e. Concept vs detail design:
� Stability 1. envelope is concept 2. phase 2 which we do not do is detail
� everything for the first sketch is concept design � structural calculation is detail. � Analysis of design is detail design
7. 4:00 PM - Close
Date: October 30, 2009 Chan, Forrester, Lomas, Mitchell, Stacey
L.
Gantt
Chart
sT
he
follow
ing
Gan
ttch
art
isth
efinal
gantt
char
tpro
duce
dfo
rth
eM
orpheu
spro
ject
.
305
M. LabourTable M.1 shows the labour contributions toward the project by each group member over
the course of the project.
Table M.1: Labour contributions by each group member
TOTAL 2032.05 1850.77 1776.25 1673.75 1708.53 9041.35
306
N. Documents used in obtaining
sponsorshipThe first document included in this appendix is an example of a letter sent to all poten-
tial sponsors, requesting a face-to-face meeting. The second document is a copy of the
brochure produced by the group for distribution during meetings with potential sponsors.
Mr. Mick Kaesler Carlee Stacey Assistant Engineering Manager-Adelaide MORPHEUS Project Team Aeronautical Engineers Australia School of Mechanical Engineering 8 Douglas Drive The University of Adelaide Mawson Lakes, S.A. 5095 Adelaide, S.A. 5005 Phone: 0400 714 400 Email: [email protected]
18 March 2009 Dear Mr Mick Kaesler, I am writing on behalf of the University of Adelaide MORPHEUS final year Aerospace Engineering project team to give you some information regarding our project prior to our scheduled meeting this Monday the 23rd of March. The primary purpose of this meeting is to present to you the possibility of Aeronautical Engineers Australia sponsoring the MORPHEUS project. As part of the final year of Aerospace Engineering, it is a requirement for students to complete a major engineering project. These projects allow the students to gain practical experience in all aspects of the engineering process, from concept generation through to manufacturing and testing. The MORPHEUS project involves the design and build of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) with a morphing configuration. We are currently in the final stages of the concept selection phase of this project, and are beginning the detailed design phase. The selected concept involves increasing the wing area by morphing the wing span, as well as morphing the tail by changing its position to maintain a balanced aircraft in all configurations. The final design will result in a multi-mission platform which reduces the need for performance compromise during different flight phases. Aeronautical Engineers Australia is an Australian company heavily involved in the aircraft industry here in Australia. As such, we would like to present you with the opportunity to sponsor our project. We are very enthusiastic to gain your company’s support, as Aeronautical Engineers Australia has an excellent reputation within industry for supporting engineering. As a sponsor, Aeronautical Engineers Australia would receive invitations to the project seminars and exhibition, be recognised in all deliverable tasks including the final report, project seminars and the project exhibition, and your logo will be displayed on our UAV. This will give Aeronautical Engineers Australia the opportunity to assist in the education of future engineers, whilst gaining exposure to students, academics and the wider engineering community. Please contact us with any questions that you may have. We look forward to discussing the MORPHEUS project with you in person on Monday. Yours sincerely, Carlee Stacey On behalf of Kevin Chan, Crystal Forrester, Ian Lomas and Simon Mitchell
307
308
Kevin ChanKevin ChanKevin ChanKevin Chan 0416 339 183