View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
VT {newt}
Submitted in Response to the DOE Real World Design Challenge
Submitted by Minnesota’s
HUTCH INNOVATORS
TEAM MEMBER NAMES:
Jordyn Koll, Senior, Abbey Machtemes, Christy King, Senior, Jesse Brooks,
Alex Felber, Junior, Jason Corby, Junior, Andrew Paulsen
Hutchinson High School 1200 Roberts Road SW Hutchinson, MN 55350
March 19, 2010
Mentor/Advisor: Daryl Lundin
1200 Roberts Rd. SW, Hutchinson, MN 55350
587-2151 ext. 5408, daryll@hutch.k12.mn
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In today‟s world of rising fuel costs, aircraft designs need to increase fuel
efficiency to reduce total operating costs. By designing an airplane tail section
2
and wings that can have less drag, weight, and greater lift capabilities fuel
efficiency could be increased. The goal of this challenge is for student teams to
create a wing that corresponds with a tail section that can fly 400 knots at 37,000
feet and balance lift and weight, thrust and drag, and have zero pitching
moments.
Hutch Innovators have put together such a correspondence that has the
most difference between lift and drag that the team has found. This means that
the aircraft should run efficiently while flying 400 knots at 37,000 feet. The team
knows, however, that there are still possible problems with the design and the
team has also thought of some possible solutions to these problems, given more
time and the right tools, the team could have tested these solutions and
incorporated them into the final design.
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION ................................................. 3
PROJECT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CONSTAINTS ...................................... 3
APPROACH .......................................................................................................... 4
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 11
TASK DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 32
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 34
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 35
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION
Creating a tail section and a wing that balance lift and weight, thrust and drag,
and has zero pitching moments is important because the lift and weight must be
balanced so that the aircraft will keep in a steady and level flight. When the lift
and weight are not balanced the aircraft will not be able to fly since the downward
force of weight is larger than the upward force of lift. Likewise, when the thrust
and drag are balanced the aircraft can run more efficiently. When the thrust and
drag are not balanced the pilot must apply a larger amount of engine power to
overcome the drag, this makes the aircraft less fuel-efficient. It is also important
to have minimum pitching moments because uncontrolled pitching causes
surface shock which will induce the aircraft to require more power to run and also
causes additional external noise.
PROJECT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND
CONSTAINTS
For the state challenge the Hutch Innovators took into account many variables
that will affect the efficiency of the final design. Variables the team considered
includes; airfoil designs, supercritical versus laminar airfoils, supercritical/laminar
versus symmetrical airfoils, angle of attack, angle of the vertical stabilizer, angle
of the horizontal stabilizer, and type of tail section (ex: “V”, “X”, etc.) The goal of
testing these constraints is to optimize the efficiency of the aircraft.
Likewise, for the national challenge, the team took into account variables that
would affect the wing design‟s optimization such as; wingspan, taper, angle of
sweep, width, slant, and different airfoils. Different variables effected different
types of results, which the team had to figure out and assess.
4
APPROACH
The Hutch Innovators considered all the possible tail sections that we could
create and narrowed it down to a few selections. The team decided to create a
section that is a hybrid of the “V” and “T” tail sections. This was chosen because
part of this challenge is to be innovative and thus it was decided to test a section
that the team developed. When researching the team noted that both the „V‟ and
„T‟ tail sections are widely used. The team figured that a combination of these
two tail sections would be efficient. The team then needed to test different
airfoils to optimize the tail section. It was determined that a laminar airfoil, which
has its maximum thickness at the middle camber line, should be used for the
horizontal stabilizer. The team knew that the vertical stabilizer must be a
symmetrical airfoil to ensure that the aircraft does not yaw to one side or the
other. The team realizes that the horizontal stabilizer of the tail section could be
extended to span the entire length of the „V‟ part to further stabilize the aircraft
because it is possible that the current design could be structurally unsound due
to possible twisting caused by the horizontal section.
For the second part of the challenge the team brainstormed possible wing
designs and tested them with the different variables such as airfoils and angle of
sweep. The team decided to test three airfoils, all supercritical or laminar, for the
wing design and chose the Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J.
Afterwards the team tested the wingspan and width then moved onto to testing
the taper ratio. Because of the team‟s uniquely designed tail section, Mark Beyer
wrote a special program as part of the Cessna Analysis Program for the team.
This program aided the team in the sizing, taper, and other areas of the plane‟s
design.
THE DESIGN PROCESS
Problem Statement: The problem is to design a tail section and wing optimized for minimum drag when cruising 400 knots at an altitude of 37,000 feet.
Product Design: The Hutch Innovators decided to create a tail section that is a hybrid of the common “V” and “T” tail sections. The corresponding wing was chosen to optimize the entire plane design.
5
Investigation & Research… Question and Answer:
What are common designs for tail sections? o Common designs found are the V, T, X, Y, and H tail sections
How does the team run the needed programs? o Watch training videos
Who should the team have as a mentor? o Mentors chosen are Robert Monson and Matt Orris with Lockheed Martin, Arlyn
DeBruyckere at the Hutchinson High School, and Alan Koll and Michael King at 3M.
How does the team design a tail section in Pro E? o Import coordinates of airfoils and use sweep protrusions to create the tail section.
Which airfoils should the team use? o The team chose five possible airfoils for the horizontal airfoil of the tail piece and nine for
the vertical airfoil of the tail piece. The horizontal are supercritical or laminar and the vertical are symmetrical to prevent yawing. For the wing the team chose three different airfoils to test, one of these is a supercritical airfoil while the other two are laminar airfoils.
What equations does the team need to complete this challenge? o The team mostly used the provided spreadsheets to calculate all the needed
information. The team also used trigonometry to find the angle of attack.
How will the team communicate? o The team decided it was easiest to communicate by email.
How will the team move ideas and designs from computer to computer? o The team decided the easiest and most efficient way to transfer anything from computer
to computer was to use jump drives.
How often will the team meet? o The team decided that meeting in the mornings would be the best time in order to avoid
many after school conflicts. Many team members also had class time with Coach Daryl Lundin to work on the challenge.
© TCNJ & PTC
Stakeholders… Identify the major stakeholders in the design and briefly explain what would satisfy each one. Stakeholder What this person/group looks for in a successful design 1: Designers- the designers of the tail section would have set a new benchmark in flight. 2: Builders- builders would be making a tail section that will sell very well and satisfy many people. 3: Airlines- they would be able to save millions of dollars in fuel, which has become so costly. 4: Travelers- it would satisfy ticket buyers because the plane‟s efficiency would save the air lines money, meaning cheaper tickets. 5: Plane owners- from small plane owners to big, they would all be happy with the performance of this tail section.
Design Brief: The goal of this challenge is to create a tail section of an aircraft that balances drag
and thrust as well as lift and weight while flying 400 knots at 37,000 feet. Constraints used were; the
aircraft must be able to rotate to 12 degrees for takeoff and landing, the center of gravity must be
between 15% and 30% MAC, cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, and a standard atmosphere pressure of
3.0893 lbs/in².
6
Tail: Initial Design Sketches…
7
To be innovative the team chose the hybrid of the typical V and T tailpieces in
favor of the T, V, H, X, and Y tail sections after considering each. The team then
decided to put a supercritical or laminar airfoil on the horizontal “T” stabilizer of
the tail and a symmetrical airfoil on the vertical “V” stabilizer of the tail to prevent
yawing.
Tail: Initial Design Sketches…
Tail: Detail Sketches… Symmetrical Airfoil
Laminar Airfoil
8
Tail: Refine Your Design Sketch…
9
Tail: Refine Your Design Sketch…
The Gull Wing
Wing: Initial Design Sketches…
10
11
Wing: Initial Design Sketches…
Wing: Refine Your Design Sketch…
12
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Engineering Design Notebook Appendix 2: Engineering Journal
Appendix 1:
Engineering Design Notebook For Tail Section
Airfoils
Hutch Innovators opted to test four laminar airfoils and one supercritical airfoil for
the horizontal tail section. The team also chose nine symmetrical airfoils to test
for the vertical portion.
Laminar/Supercritical Airfoils N0011SC (Supercritical)
NLF0115
NLF1015
BACNLF
HSNLF213
The difference between the Laminar Airfoils and the Supercritical Airfoils is that
the Laminar has its maximum thickness in the middle camber line while the
Supercritical has its maximum thickness at the leading edge of the airfoil.
Symmetrical Airfoils AH85L120
FX79L100
FX79L120
FX76100
FX76120
FX77080
LWK80100
LWK80120K25
LWK80150K25
13
This list represents the preliminary airfoils that the team tested to compare the
airfoils ability of lift and drag. The symmetrical airfoil was chosen for the vertical
stabilizer to prevent yawing. Also, the Supercritical and Laminar airfoils were
chosen for the horizontal stabilizer to optimize lift over thrust.
Sizing
The NASA Tail Volume Coefficient spreadsheet was used to aid in selecting the
size of the tail section.
Horizontal Tail Coefficient
14
Vertical Tail Coefficient
Performance
The following charts show the performance of each airfoil in terms of lift and
drag.
Vertical airfoils
AIRFOIL NAME LIFT DRAG DIFFERENCE
AH85L120* 2130.219685 2130.219685 0
FX79L100* 6068.586638 2117.585593 3951.001045
FX79L120* 6109.08267 2131.345268 3977.737402
FX76100* 6175.56036 2142.605647 4032.954713
FX76120* 6142.43301 2149.070423 3993.362587
fx77080* 5547.429339 2101.890097 3445.539242
lwk80100* 6072.941553 2124.394987 3948.546566
lwk80120k25* 6124.88238 2137.237256 3987.645124
lwk80150k25 6450.354054 2158.35955 4291.994504
15
Horizontal airfoils
AIRFOIL NAME LIFT DRAG DIFFERENCE
n0011sc 4139.3099 2497.280105 1642.029795
nlf0115 5370.148809 2191.526409 3478.6224
nlf1015 6177.484413 2140.289791 4037.194622
BACNLF 5165.817583 1985.169649 3180.647934
hsnlf213 5249.651389 1986.186246 3263.466143
16
Compare The Y Axis is the difference between lift and drag on the following charts:
17
Single Solution
The Hutch Innovators chose the airfoils NLF1015 for the horizontal stabilizer and
the LWK80150K25 for the vertical stabilizer because the tests showed that these
airfoils had the most lift while having less drag and thus a bigger difference as
can be seen in the previous charts.
Angle of Attack
The team decided to test the angles of attack of 15, 10, 5, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0.5, 1.5,
1.51, 1.52, 1.55, 1.6, and 1.75 degrees. Both the horizontal and vertical airfoils
were tested at zero degrees. Once the two best airfoils for lift and drag were
evident, the airfoils were then tested at different angles of attack.
Difference Between Lift and Drag for Angle of Attacks
18
LIFT vs. DRAG
Airfoil Testing
First, the team created a baseline run for the airfoil design. Then the team ran
tests to see how much lift and drag were created when the angle of the vertical
stabilizers were changed. The amount of lift and drag created was documented
and then the design was edited to better fit the specifications of the challenge.
This was done for the chosen airfoils.
VERTICAL AIRFOILS:
LWK80150K25
Angle of the ‘V’ section-85º
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 2110.493621 2137.237256 2104.53722 2215.101079
GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 6072.863767 6124.88238 5966.388336 6232.164534
Iterations: 99
Analysis interval: 37
19
LWK80150K25
Angle of the ‘V’ section-60º
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 2138.221621 2163.671765 2135.40259 2241.821537
GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 6279.880371 6270.844953 6079.115265 6363.462356
Iterations: 98
Analysis interval: 36
LWK80150K25
Angle of the ‘V’ section-75º
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 2155.173441 2175.839361 2144.354746 2248.807737
GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 6283.97411 6288.893393 6118.882367 6387.616679
Iterations: 99
Analysis interval: 36
HORIZONTAL AIRFOILS:
NLF1015
Angle of Attack 0°
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 2103.297145 2140.289791 2103.297145 2210.427192
GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 6250.337406 6177.484413 6023.937407 6299.381663
Iterations: 102
Analysis interval: 38
NLF1015
Angle of Attack 3º
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 1933.933188 1980.575583 1927.640697 2085.086793
GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 19710.42908 19762.98113 19562.21617 20010.53121
Iterations: 109
Analysis interval: 41
20
NLF1015
Angle of Attack 4º
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 1588.236108 1663.781862 1588.236108 1735.144729
GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 21175.98862 20808.6956 20417.53287 21175.98862
Iterations: 104
Analysis interval: 42
NLF1015
Angle of Attack 5º
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 1531.583742 1487.789496 1442.721299 1532.718091
GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 22686.89053 22475.96418 21680.17063 23637.05878
Iterations: 322
Analysis interval: 41
NLF1015
Angle of Attack 10º
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 1246.564619 1280.210692 1246.564619 1301.341583
GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 26837.20112 26972.69052 26794.48046 27359.86813
Iterations: 82
Analysis interval: 40
NLF1015
Angle of Attack 15º
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 1496.833988 1621.802017 1496.833988 1812.969887
GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 34599.38863 33431.78235 32313.13464 34599.38863
Iterations: 131
Analysis interval: 39
21
After observing the data, the team found that by repositioning the unbalanced
vertical force closer to zero the unbalanced pitching moment continually
decreased. The team understands that the variables need to change this trend.
Therefore, this design established that the vertical force and the pitching moment
are close to zero.
GS GHOST ISOMETRIC VIEW
Engineering Design Notebook for Wings
Airfoils The team chose three airfoils to test on the wing design. All three of these airfoils are supercritical or laminar airfoils. This type of airfoil was selected to optimize lift over thrust.
Drela AG18
Eppler e214
Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J
The Drela AG18 is supercritical while both the Eppler e214 and Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J are laminar airfoils.
22
Sizing With the help of the NASA Tail Volume Coefficient Spreadsheet and the build gull wing program, the team of properly sized the stabilizers.
Performance
23
Single Solution The Hutch Innovators chose the airfoil BACJ, Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company airfoil J, for the wing because the tests showed that this airfoil had the
most lift while having less drag and thus a bigger difference as can be seen in
the previous chart.
Angle of Attack The team tested three different angles of attack for the combination of the
wings and tail section. These angles are:
1.5˚
1.25˚
0˚ The angle of attack of 1.5˚ and the wing at an angle of 1.5˚ was found to be the best angle of attack for optimization.
Airfoil Testing Out of the three airfoils that the team tested the best airfoil was found to be the Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J. These airfoils were tested with a torque of -15˚. Please note that these airfoils have been scaled down to allow for a shorter testing time. However, they are still proportional to the correct results.
Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J
Sweep: 41.35˚
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [N] 11.83845794 11.83994672 11.67823697 12.73442748
GG Y - Component of Force 1 [N] 66.24736631 66.64866209 65.88021695 68.14508851
Iterations: 111
Analysis interval: 42
Drela AG18
Sweep: 11.49˚
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [N] 27.29387496 28.59489126 27.23667751 29.90467255
GG Y - Component of Force 1 [N] 131.2399539 129.9786367 120.6490056 135.007862
24
Iterations: 78
Analysis interval: 37
Eppler e214
Sweep: 10.6˚
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [N] 27.41520803 27.4970645 27.30544004 27.88791471
GG Y - Component of Force 1 [N] 125.2031459 123.9819 121.1652095 126.8084577
Iterations: 108
Analysis interval: 37
Eppler e214
Sweep: 23.29˚
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [N] 41.8893428 42.72153458 41.74586553 45.24154074
GG Y - Component of Force 1 [N] 168.200553 164.8814298 161.9109772 168.200553
Iterations: 73
Analysis interval: 35
Eppler e214
Sweep: 23.29˚
Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value
GG X - Component of Force 1 [N] 31.08548315 32.42266109 31.08548315 33.03729601
GG Y - Component of Force 1 [N] 122.5399611 118.5612676 110.106126 122.5399611
Iterations: 69
Analysis interval: 35
25
Cessna Analysis Program Data
26
27
28
29
GS GHOST ISOMETRIC VIEW
30
Hutch Innovators Current Design
The Hutch Innovators found that the design the team came up with balanced lift
and drag. The team also successfully cleared runway takeoff distance by 2.7317
inches according to the 12-degree ground plane geometry. All tail component
sizes were analyzed by the NASA tail component size spreadsheet, and found
tail components to be sized properly for the size of the fuselage and wings. The
center of gravity requirement of between 15% and 30% MAC was also met by
this current design. The Cessna Analysis Program found this design‟s MAC
center of gravity to be at 15.77%.
The data below shows the current design:
Area of Wing (486.18 sq.ft)
Takeoff and landing ground clearance (2.7317 inches)
MAC of 15.77%
Lift (26077.3 lbs.)
Drag (3177.7 lbs.)
Thrust (3192.4 lbs.)
Aircraft weight (27108.4lbs.)
Unbalanced vertical force (-725.2 lbs.)
Unbalance pitching moment (191.0 in-lbs.)
Angle of Attack (1.5°)
Appendix 2:
Engineering Journal
October: The Real World Design Challenge was introduced during October.
The team was assembled and began to look at the material available as well as
brainstorm what type of tail section to create.
31
November: During November the team was assigned positions and began to
watch the provided training videos. The team researched tail sections and tail
cones to find common parts that could be modified. Furthermore, the team
researched the needed equations and symbols so that the team could better
understand the uses when the time came that they were needed. The team also
began making practice tail cones in Pro E and running Flo EFD on the validation
model. The team ran into problems exporting coordinates from Pro E.
December: December was a month of frustration for the team. The team spent
the whole month trying to figure out how to export coordinates from Pro E. To
solve this problem the team did their best to research, including contacting all
mentors and posting a question in the PTC.com forums. The team also tried
multiple ways to export the coordinates but to no avail. In addition, a lot of time
was spent trying to understand the software needed; including Flo EFD and
ConTEXT Editor. To use ConTEXT Editor a command prompt was needed,
which is unfortunately blocked on the school computers. Team member, Jordyn,
was able to bring in her laptop on which the command prompt was accessible. In
the long run, however, this issue ended up tying into the first since the
coordinates from Pro E was needed to use ConTEXT Editor.
January: During January the team was finally able to begin testing the airfoils
and tail section designs. A lot of time was spent running tests on the fourteen
airfoils that were chosen, as well as working on the final report. The team came
to a conclusion on the airfoils to used and worked to put them together in a single
tail section.
February: Throughout February the team began to work on the National
Challenge, which is to design a wing that corresponds with the tail section
already created. The team sketched out ideas and began testing different
variables such as airfoils and angle of attack. Also, the team corrected some of
the errors of the tail section to optimize it.
32
March: This month the team tested more variables on their wing design and
finalized it. The team also worked on the final report and finished up the Real
World Design Challenge for 2010.
TASK DESCRIPTION
The Hutch Innovators‟ task in this Real World Design Challenge is to create a tail
section and wing for a commercial aircraft and balance it‟s lift and weight, as well
as thrust and drag to make it more efficient. The team did this by testing different
airfoils in EFD Pro and ConTEXT Editor to narrow it to two airfoils; a symmetrical
one for the vertical stabilizer and a laminar one for the horizontal stabilizer for the
tail section. Likewise, the team tested the three wing airfoils and narrowed it
down to one, then the team moved on to testing other variables. The Cessna
Analysis Program was the team‟s main mode for testing these variables.
Team Roles: The team assembled this year worked extremely well together.
Everyone was supportive of each other‟s work and when there was an issue
team members stepped up to the challenge and worked together to solve
problems. The team worked on the challenge whenever possible, during the
coach‟s class and before and after school.
Jordyn Koll:
Project manager- Jordyn is a senior this year at Hutchinson High School and
plans to attend Iowa State University for aerospace engineering. She utilizes the
core values of „STEM‟, which are science, technology, engineering, and math.
Jordyn was essential to the team. She made sure everyone had a responsibility
and that everyone knew what he or she was supposed to do. She jumped in to
help whenever there was an issue with the programs. Jordyn also made sure the
team was on track to finishing the Real World Design Challenge on time.
33
Abbey Machtemes:
Simulation Engineer- Abbey is also a senior who plans to attend Iowa State
University; she is interesting in aerospace engineering. Abbey learned how to
use Flo EFD very efficiently and she ran all of the tests on our airfoils.
Jason Corby:
Design Coordinator- Jason is a junior this year and he made sure that everyone
knew when we were going to meet and where. Jason watched all the training
videos and made sure everyone knew what to do.
Alex Felber:
System and Test Engineer- Alex is a junior who helped the team make a product
that worked well and efficiently. He has been creating models in Pro E and
helping assist others in Pro E.
Jesse Brooks/Andrew Paulsen:
Project Scientist- These two helped our model become more efficient by using
their knowledge of physics and incorporating it into our design. They also spoke
with our physics mentor to find things such as atmospheric pressure and the
temperature at 37,000 ft. They are both good at science and math.
Project Mathematician- Jesse and Andrew also worked with the Build a Wing
spreadsheet and the RWDC NASA Tail Volume Coefficient spreadsheet.
Christy King:
Project Communicator- Christy, who is also a senior, plans to attend North
Dakota State University next year to major in engineering. Christy recorded
meeting agendas as well as working on the final report. She also recorded how
close the team was to accomplishing the design of the tail section.
34
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Having more time the team could have tested the possibility of extending
the horizontal „T‟ section all the way across the vertical „V‟ section of the tail. It is
possible that the current design could be unsound due to the possible twisting
caused by the horizontal piece. The team realizes that this is a possible problem
and that it is an opportunity for this generation to solve and improve on.
This team learned many new things through this challenge and found that
there are many things yet to learn.
Hutch Innovators learned:
How to do variable section sweep and a swept blends in Pro
Engineer
How to do fluid analysis in Flo EFD
About Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC)
What a stall is (when pressure of lift no longer is greater than or
equal to the weight of the air craft)
What supercritical and laminar airfoils are: supercritical is when the
maximum thickness is in the middle of the camber line and a
laminar airfoil is when the maximum thickness is at the leading
edge of the airfoil
That thrust must be equal to or greater than drag
The temperature and air pressure at 37,000 feet
How to run programs such as Flo EFD, and ConTEXT Editor.
How to export X, Y, Z coordinates to and from Pro E
About the movement of the point of balance
o Moving wings back and forth changes the balance
o Moving the tail section forward allows for a smaller tail for lift
35
Things yet to learn:
The team needs to better understand the analysis program and
how to use it
The team needs to iron out issues with software
How to get the unbalanced pitching moment to zero and at the
same time get the unbalanced vertical force to zero
REFERENCES
The Hutch Innovators utilized their mentors as a reference. The mentors that the
team used are Mr. Robert Monson and Mr. Matt Orris from Lockheed Martin, Mr.
Arlyn DeBruyckere at the Hutchinson High School, as well as Mr. Alan Koll and
Mr. Michael King from 3M. The team used these mentors to help them figure out
how to run software such as Pro E and Flo EFD. The mentors also assisted the
team by helping them when problems came up with the aforementioned software
and by giving tips on how to work as an efficient team.
The mentors were chosen partially by availability and partially for their expertise.
The team utilized the mentors for finding atmospheric pressure and the
temperature at 37,000 feet. Mr. DeBruyckere helped the team find these to be
3.0893lbs/in² for atmospheric pressure and –69.7ºF. The temperature was also
found in the training videos; however, the team did calculate it themselves with
the help of their mentor, Mr. DeBruyckere.
The team utilized Mr. Monson and Mr. Orris when problems came up with Pro E
and Flo EFD as well as when there were terms the team did not understand.
There are a series of emails between the team and these mentors as well as
phone calls since neither mentor were in close proximity.
Mr. Koll and Mr. King are both parents of team members who assisted when the
members were working on the challenge at home. Mr. Koll helped Jordyn learn
how to use the command prompt as well as help teach her Pro E. Mr. King gave
36
Christy tips on how to take meeting minutes and organize files so the team could
work more efficiently together.
Overall the team learned much from their interactions with these mentors. The
ability to reach out to them for help was essential to the team‟s success.
Although he was not a mentor the team would like to especially thank Mark
Beyer for helping with the issues encountered in the Cessna Analysis Program.
The team would also like to thank Mark Fischer and Mentor Graphics for helping
with the issues encountered in Flow.edf.
Recommended