Team #1: Brandon Fichera Dave Rabeno Greg Pease Sean Gallagher Sponsor: Dr. Stephanie Wright Delaware Aerospace Academy Advisor: Dr. Michael Keefe Mission Statement: To design a two person hovercraft for the Delaware Aerospace Academy that will demonstrate the scientific principles of a hovercraft, foster teamwork between students, and provide a fun, safe, and educational environment for all students involved.

Summary BackgroundBackground –Approach –Mission Customers Wants and ConstraintsWants and Constraints BenchmarkingBenchmarking –Initial System –Functional Concept GenerationConcept Generation Concept SelectionConcept Selection –Metrics and Target Values Schedule –To Date –Winter & Spring Semester –Budget

Background Delaware Aerospace Academy: Involved in past University of Delaware senior design projects. Specializes in teaching kids about the technology involved in the space program. Hovercrafts: New and exciting technology that has yet to be widely distributed.

Approach Based on customers’ wants, system and functional benchmarking, develop multiple concept ideas to satisfy needs for education, recreation, and operation Compare these different concept ideas against the metrics and combine the ones that individually deal with education, recreation and operation to yield the best complete solution Build, test and iterate this process in order to end up with a hovercraft that maximizes both fun and education

Customers (ranked) DAA »Dr. Stephanie Wright »Robert Bloom (Aerospace Engineer) Students »High School - Bethany Fichera »Junior High School - Eric Rabeno »Middle School - Ted & Elizabeth Pease Teachers »High School - Martin Rabeno »Junior High School - Selina DiCicco Industry »Ron Perkins - Educational Innovations School System »Mark Ellison - Principle High/Jr. High School

Wants (ranked) 1) Demonstrate scientific principles 2) Make it fun 3) Have it look 'cool' (space-like) 4) Maneuverability 5) Transportability 6) Reliability 7) Reproducibility 8) Durability 9) Affordability

Constraints 1) Operation (The hovercraft must hover) 2) Size (Spencer Lab Door 4.5' X 6.3') 3) Allowable Funds ($1600) 4) Number of pilots (must be able to fit two)

Triflyer Triflyer - Hovercraft (best competitor) Pegasus Pegasus - Hovercraft Universal Hovercraft Universal Hovercraft - Hovercraft Kits/Components Hover Club Hover Club - Hovercraft Articles (lift, skirt design) Science Project Science Project - Simple school project Initial Benchmarking

Smithsonian Air & Space Museum: use videos to excite peoples interest Six Flags Amusement Parks: use acceleration and jerk for fun Briggs and Stratton Engines: HP, RPM and Prices Elibra / Hovertech: Magnetic levitation Grainger Industrial Equipment: Electric Motors RPM, HP and Prices Universal Hovercraft: Fans for personal hovercrafts Northern Tool and Equipment Co.: Gas Motors, price comparison Functional Benchmarking

Metrics 1) Number of Principles Taught - 3 2) Understanding of Video - average understanding = 80% 3) Laboratory Understanding - average understanding = 80% 4) Speed of Vehicle - 5 mph  10mph 5) Acceleration - 1 mph/s 6) Planar range - unlimited (limited by fuel capacity alone) 7) Directions of Travel degrees (all horizontal directions) 8) Turning Radius - 15 ft 9) Fuel Efficiency/Capacity continuous hrs 10) Labor Hours of construction hrs 11) Cost - $ ) Length - 9 ft 13) Width - 6 ft 14) Weight lbs. 15) Object Clearance (bottom of platform to ground) - 6” 16) Skirt to ground clearance - 1/2” 17) Number of Colors ) Sound Effects ) Maintenance hours per flight hours - 1/10

Concept Generation: Education and Recreation Smithsonian Approach 1) Smithsonian Approach - show a video explaining the principles used and then utilize some type of hands on technique Amusement Park Approach 2) Amusement Park Approach - more like a ride: let two children operate the hovercraft and describe the science of it during operation  Video: allows for more thorough explanation but might lose kids’ interest if not careful  Amusement Park approach: children may not learn as well but will be less likely to become disinterested

Concept Generation: Operation Types of Lift: Power Supply: Magnetic levitation Electric Fan(s) and air cushion Liquid Fuel Suspension Fuel Cells Maneuverability: Fan System Human powered - push and pull Rocket Thrusters or Jet Engines

Evaluation Lift: Magnetic levitation is too expensive Suspension craft is too large and too expensive Suspension doesn’t demonstrate appropriate principles Power Supply: Fuel cells are too expensive Maneuverability: Rocket Thrusters and Jet Engines are too expensive, not safe Human Power will will not teach thrust as well as fan and speed and acceleration will be too slow for target values

Concepts With Regard to Other Wants Transportable One piece construction Two piece construction Wants that can be achieved equally with any concept: Look ‘Cool’ (Space like) Reliable Durable Affordable Reproducible

Concept Selection: Our Complete Hovercraft Design Video 1) Video -- Explains principles of: --- Lift --- Thrust Laboratory 2) Laboratory -- Students learn about lift and get to build their own miniature hovering device Operation/Demonstration of Hovercraft 3) Operation/Demonstration of Hovercraft -- Students observe and operate hovercraft “putting it all together”

Concept Selection Rectangular Shape: Rectangular (9’ x 6’) –most stable –ease of construction (less labor hours) Fan System Lift: Fan System –low cost –best practice –easy to adjust clearance Bag Skirt Skirt: Bag Skirt –good stability –low cost –ease of construction (less labor hours) Fan System Maneuverability: Fan System –range of motion –speed and acceleration control –best practice Side by Side Pilot Position: Side by Side –allows for a shorter craft (size) One Piece Transportable: One Piece –more durable –ease of construction –fewer parts to maintain (maintenance hours)

Working Model The working model constructed is the same model design that will be used in the laboratory Demonstration of Lift

Schedule: To Date

Schedule for Next Semester

Budget