Team Members: 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. Introduction

Summary n Introduction – Team, Sponsor, Advisor – Problem/Mission Statement – Background n Concept – Generation – Selection n Customers, Wants, Constraints n Benchmarking – System – Functional n Metrics – Target Values n Concept Development – Test Results, Modifications – Recommendations – Prototype Evaluation n Budget – Construction hours – Engineering Hours – Prototype Cost

Problem Background Delaware Aerospace Academy: Sponsor of past UD senior design projects. Specializes in teaching kids about technology involved in the space program. Hovercrafts: New and exciting technology that has yet to be widely distributed. Interesting tool for teaching scientific principles to children

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

Wants n Educational – Demonstrate Hovercraft Principles to Children n Recreational – Make it fun, Cool Looking n Operational – - Maneuverable - Durable – - Reliable - Transportable – - Reproducible n Economical – - Low Cost

Constraints n Size of door in Spencer Lab (4.5’ by 6.3’) n Allowable Funds (~$2000) n Number of pilots (must be 2) n Operation (must be able to hover)

System Benchmarking n Triflyer - Hovercraft Design n Pegasus - Hovercraft Design n Universal Hovercraft - Hovercraft Construction Kits n Hover Club - Hovercraft Articles n Science Project - Laboratory Experiments

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 price Elibra / Hovertech Magnetic levitation Grainger Industrial Equipment Electric Motors RPM, HP and price Universal Hovercraft Fans for personal hovercrafts Northern Tool and Equipment Co. Gas Motors, price comparison Functional Benchmarking

Metrics & Corresponding Target Values 1) Number of Principles Taught - 3 2) Performance on lab experiment - average score = 80% 3) Height of hovering (Object Clearance) - ~6” 4) Skirt to ground clearance - 1/2” 5) Speed of Vehicle mph 6) Acceleration - 1 mph/s 7) Directions of Horizontal Travel degrees 8) Travel Range - limited by fuel capacity alone 9) Turning Radius - 15 ft 10) Fuel Efficiency/Capacity - 3 1/2 hrs 11) Cost - $ ) Weight lbs.

Concept Generation & Evaluation Against Metrics Education & Recreation 1) Smithsonian Approach: use a video or descriptive poster to explain the principles to the children 2) Amusement Park Approach - just let children operate it and then attempt to explain how it works Operation 1) Means of Lift: 2) Power Supply: 3) Thrust Magnetic Levitation Electric Engine/Fan Fan(s) and Air Cushion Liquid Fuel Human Power Suspension Fuel Cells Rocket Thrust What are the different aspects of our project? Education, Operation, Recreation How can we satisfy our mission statement in various ways?

Concept Generation & Evaluation Against Metrics 1) With regard to Education & Recreation: - Choose Smithsonian Approach: - videos and posters allow for easy explanation 2) With regard to Operation: - Choose a fan/motor lift and thrust system - Magnetic Levitation = too expensive - Suspension System = too bulky, doesn’t demonstrate hovering principles - Human Power for thrust is a viable alternative - Choose Liquid Fuel: - engines are relatively inexpensive n Doesn’t demonstrate appropriate principles Choose: Fans and Air Cushion

Steady-Flow Energy Equation Concept Selection: Mathematical Models (Lift) Bernoulli’s Equation

Concept Selection: Mathematical Models (Lift) From Energy Equation: From Bernoulli’s Equation:

a = 1.5 ft/s 2 (from Metrics) g o = 32.2 ft/s 2 (from Metrics) Thrust Force Required = 60lbs. Concept Selection: Mathematical Models (Lift & Thrust) W = 1000lbs. (from Metrics) Pressure Required = psi l = 10 ft w = 6 ft W = 1000lbs. (from Metrics)

Final Concept Selection 1) Educational Poster (education) a) Discusses uses of Hovercraft as it relates to the Delaware Aerospace Academy b) Discusses Construction Design c) Explains principles of: - Lift - Thrust 2) Laboratory Experiment (education) - Students learn about lift first hand - Hands on approach similar to Smithsonian museum 3) Prototype Hovercraft Demonstration (fun) - Students get to operate a working hovercraft

Hovercraft Specs. Shape: Rectangular (10’ x 6’) - most stable - ease of construction Fan System Lift - 8 hp lift engine - 4 blade 26” diameter fan Thrust hp thrust - 2 blade 34” diameter fan Weight - empty weight of 450 lbs. VIDEO

Lift Test Results

Test Results: Education n Lab: – Experiment and laboratory model brought into classroom and demonstrated to a class n All students were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the lab and interested in the hovercraft n Students demonstrated understanding of principles by discussing them n Students wanted to build their own model “hovercrafts”. Asked how to build one

Modifications n Thrust Fan Replacement n Add collar to Lift Motor Shaft n Apply protective screens prior to delivery n Add ballast to the front of craft

Recommendations n Safety – Eye and Ear protection for pilots and operators – Familiarization of Safety manual – Run only under adult supervision – Perform safety check before and after operation n Maintenance – Familiarization of Operation manual – Check skirt for holes and tears

Budget n Materials (Wood, Hardware) -$ n Lift fan, Skirt, Hub - $ n 8hp Lift Engine -$ n Thrust Fan - $ n 3.5hp Thrust Engine - $ TOTAL: $

Development and Fabrication Time n Engineering Concept Development – 110 hours n Fabrication – 610 hours n Redesign and Modification – 20 hours TOTAL: 740 hours

Projected Production Costs n Total Material Costs: – $ n Estimated Production Hours: – 200 hours – $25/hr n Projected Cost = $ $ = $