1. Concept Design Review Kozak Micro Air Vehicle Project: P07121 01.19.07 Mark Baybutt Electrical Engineering David Blonski Industrial Engineering Team Leader Andrea Wyant Electrical Engineering Geoff Amey Computer Engineering Perry Young Mechanical Engineering Daniel Segar Mechanical Engineering Patrick O’Neil Mechanical Engineering Timothy Nowicki Mechanical Engineering Benjamin Metz Mechanical Engineering Jeffrey Kozak Advisor Mechanical Engineering

2. Agenda Introduction Needs Assessment Concept Generation Analysis Concept Selection Next Steps and Schedule

3. Introduction Background –Fourth MAV senior design team –Third year RIT is participating in MAV Competition Mission –Complete surveillance portion of 2007 International Micro Air Vehicle Competition by improving, but not redesigning, last year’s MAV. Objectives –Rebuild last year’s MAV –Improve last year’s MAV

4. Subsystems Platform Propulsion System Camera Ground Control - Airfoil - Control Surfaces - Undercarriage Mechanical Engineering - Propeller - Motor - RF Receiver - Battery - Servos - Speed Controller Mechanical Engineering Electrical Engineering Computer Engineering - Video Camera - Video Transmitter Computer Engineering - RF Transmitter - Video Receiver Electrical Engineering Computer Engineering Introduction (contd)

5. Needs Assessment Rebuild last year’s MAV Improve flight capabilities –Improve aerodynamics –Decrease roll induced by motor –Increase lift Improve power efficiency –Increase thrust –Decrease power consumption Decrease weight Decrease maximum linear dimension Increase camera capabilities

6. Needs Assessment

7. Concept Generation and Selection Quality Function Deployment Customer Requirements Morphological Analysis Concept Analysis Pugh Analysis Concepts Ranked

8. Needs Assessment – QFD Analysis Part 1

9. Needs Assessment – QFD Analysis Part 2

10. Concept Generation External Search - Benchmark - University of Florida - University of Arizona - Brigham Young University - Thesis - Last year’s team Internal Search - Coursework - Materials - Aeronautics - Electronics - Communication - DPM - Clubs - Aero Club - MAV Club - Co-ops - Boeing - Impact Technology - Brainstorming

11. Concept Generation – Morphological Analysis Stronger Antennae New Controller New Servos Decrease # of Servos New Receivers Angle of Attack Increase Motor RPM Decrease Propeller Size Fewer Batteries Standard Body Timing System Smaller Morphable Wing PodSmaller Scalability Winglets Smaller Tail Thermoset

12. Concept Selection – Pugh Analysis Part 1

13. Concept Selection – Pugh Analysis Part 2

14. Concept Selection – Ranking

15. Next Steps and Schedule Finish rebuilding last year’s MAV…………………01.26.07 Begin test flying last year’s MAV………………….01.26.07 Choose design for new pod………………………..01.26.07 Begin testing adjusted angle of attack……………01.26.07 Complete analysis of motor, prop system –Purchase motor and props for testing……………………01.26.07 –Complete motor prop analysis…………………………….02.09.07 Complete prototype of new pod…………………...02.09.07 Complete specs for new MAV……………………..02.16.07 Firm design for new MAV………………………….02.23.07

16. Concept Selection – Pod design Overview – Last year’s team used a single large piece of carbon fiber to mount electrical components and act as a vertical stabilizer. This large piece of carbon fiber provided to much yaw stability making it difficult to execute flight maneuvers. Exposed surfaces provided for excess drag. Pros – Decrease drag – Decrease weight –Provides for a stable yet maneuverable aircraft Cons – Potentially more difficult to manufacture Constraint – All electrical components must be packaged as close together while allowing for easy access. –All electrical components must be packaged such that the center of gravity stays in front of the aerodynamic center of pressure. Conclusion – Should be implemented as a priority 2 improvement Concept – Based on examination of other team’s MAVs and aerodynamic principles create a smaller mounting surface and a surrounding pod.

17. Concept Selection – Thermosets Overview – Thermosets would eliminate warping of the platform in high heat. Pros – Increased Durability – Resistant to warping Cons –Increased cost of materials –No readily available equipment Constraint – Equipment; Funds Conclusion – The increased durability does not offset the added cost of equipment and materials.

18. Concept Selection – Morphing Wing Overview – Last year’s team experimented with a morphing wing to replace the conventional elevon design Pros – Lighter –Possibly better control Cons – No test data –Would take 5 times longer to make the wing Constraint – Testing data – No data currently exists on the flight dynamics of a morphing wing design Conclusion – The use of a morphing wing would constitute a redesign of the MAV, rather than an improvement over last years design. Therefore, it is out of the scope of this project. Concept – Rather than use elevons, the wing would flex to change the airfoil, causing a controlled turn. Additionally, the wing would be lighter as it would be made from a skeletal structure.

19. Concept Selection – Optimize Propulsion System Overview – Last year’s propulsion system was designed with the previous years’ MAV in mind, which was much larger and heavier than the current year’s. Furthermore, the thrust:weight ratio was based on the propulsion system alone and not inclusive of the platform. Concept – Choose higher RPM motor and smaller prop Pros – Decreases counter-torque Cons – Increased power consumption Constraints – Power consumption, weight, size Conclusion – Top priority

20. Concept Selection – Camera Overview – Last year’s camera was analyzed for improvements Concept – Implement timing feature so camera captures images 10x per second instead of 30x per second Pros – Small – Lightweight – Low power needs – Already purchased – Meets resolution requirements – Mold fitted for current camera – Transmitter works for up to 3 Km Cons – Increased power consumption Constraint – Takes 1 sec. to reboot system Conclusion – Use current camera

21. Concept Selection – Winglets Overview – Possible means of improving stability and aerodynamics Pros – Increased lift – Increased stability – Do not need as large of undercarriage Cons – Increased drag – Increased max linear dimension – Time consuming to build Constraint – Research is mixed; extensive field testing would be needed to determine usefulness of winglets Conclusion – Worthwhile only if substantial time is available for significant field testing.

22. Concept Selection – Angle of Attack Overview – Last year’s team did not adjust angle of attack to improve lift Pros – Increased lift – Very feasible Cons – Increased drag Constraint – Stall angle is approximately 10 degrees; wind tunnel testing is not an option Conclusion – Should be implemented as a priority 1 improvement Concept – Based on XFLR5 analysis, adjust attack angle to between 5 -10 degrees; adjust as needed based on field testing.

23. Concept Selection – Scalability Overview – Last year’s propulsion system was designed for a 9 inch airfoil. The airfoil ended up being 7.5 inches. Pros – Smaller platform can be developed and implemented later in process Cons – Time consuming – Not a high need Constraint – Budget limits number of motors and other items that can be purchased – Time Conclusion – Should be implemented as a priority 3 improvement Concept – Design propulsion system to be modifiable for different size airfoils

24. Concept Selection – Receiver Overview – Possible means to reduce weight, size and power consumption while increase range Pros – Reduced weight from 9.2g to 4.0g – Reduced overall size from (1.2 x 0.8 x 0.5”) to (0.6 x 1.35 x.35“) – Reduced current consumption from 20.41mA to 5.1mA – Speced as having equal to greater range Cons – Decrease channel count from 5 Ch. to 4 Ch. Constraint – Stall angle is approximately 10 degrees; wind tunnel testing is not an option Conclusion – Purchase and implement Berg 4L receiver in current design Concept – Identify all commercially available receivers; compare metrics to receiver implemented last year Berg 4L Receiver Hitec/RCD HFS-05MS

25. Concept Selection – Size 7.5 Inch Planform Size Design Considerations. Airfoil was designed with scalability in mind. Original Size was 9”. –Flew very successfully at original size. –05 Platform Team believed that 7.5” would be the smallest optimal size for a successful design. Flights of 7.5” have not been as successful as the 9” design yet. Smaller size would require smaller and more expensive components, new molds. –Would not be feasible with current budget. Larger size would result in a more stable and conservative design. –Would not be competitive in competition. The airfoil is believed to be the greatest achievement of the 2005 Design Team and with much more areas to improve on, to keep the size 7.5” would be beneficial.