Senior Design Project

Cirrus Design

AEM 4331

Jon AndersonMike Asp

Kyle BergenEjvin Berry

Cody CandlerJim Forsberg

Mike GavandaAlex Messer

Dan Poniatowski

Agenda

• Introduction– Problem Overview– Requirements and goals– Program Plan

• Wing Trade Study Overview and Results

• Cargo Pod Design Overview and Results

• FMEA and Conclusion

Problem Overview

• Wing Trade Study– Improve wing performance and design high lift

devices that maintain current stall performance.

• Cargo Pod Design– Design a cargo pod for the SR-22 that is able

to carry two golf bags or two pairs of skis.

Wing Trade Study

• Requirements– New wing design shall increase lift by 300

pounds at all flight conditions. – High lift devices shall allow for the same stall

speed as the current wing.

• Goals– No increase in drag– No increase in wing area– No increase in wingspan

Cargo Pod Design

• Requirements– Pod shall not interfere with the safe operation of the SR-22.– Pod shall be designed for optimum user utility. – Pod shall not move the aircraft out of its intended center of

gravity limits.– Pod shall be at least 8 inches from the exhaust.

• Goals– Less than 15% drag increase– Pod is capable of holding two golf bags or two pairs of skis. – Pod is stylish and has good aesthetics

Program Plan

Program Plan Continued

Program Plan Continued

Wing Trade Study

Requirements: •Lift 300 more pounds of payload•Fly at same cruise speed and stall speeds

Results:We were able to provide several solutions based on hand calculations.

Our original approach using CFD failed.

Belly Pod design

Requirements:• 2 sets of skis with equipment• 2 sets of golf clubs (with drivers)• Fishing poles

Results:• Have a design that meets these goals

Alex Messer

FlowWorks Validation90 hrs

Simulation in FlowWorks

Goal:

Reproduce data found from wind tunnel test in FlowWorks

Method:

• Build the same bodies that were tested in the wind tunnel in SolidWorks

• Simulate various ways of building the same object

• Simulate the same angles of attack and airspeeds used in the wind tunnel

• Test different mesh resolutions

• Compare resulting forces

Models

Open Return Tunnel: Closed Return Tunnel:

Pressure differences between models

Varying Reynolds Number

Re = 3.0x105

Re = 3.4x105

Varying Reynolds Number

Re = 4.0x105

Varying Reynolds Number

Varying Mesh Resolution

Varying Mesh Resolution

Varying Mesh Resolution

What can we learn?• FlowWorks does not give realistic lift results• Drag results are reasonable

What can be done?• Numerical approximation• Xfoil• Wind tunnel tests

Conclusions

..cos9.0maxmax LH

ref

flappedlL S

SCC

Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA education series, Blacksburg VA, 2006

Conclusions

Baseline Wing

Derived requirementsCurrent Cl in landing configuration at sea level at 60 knots is 1.98

We want to carry 300 extra pounds, so we need a Cl of 2.16

Must increase Cl by .18.

From Raymer, we can calculate the increase in Cl due to the current high lift system being used on the SR-22.

Derived requirementsFrom the current wing design at 60 knots, we have

From Raymer, using a fowler flap

Therefore,

So we need to design a high lift system that will increase Cl by .83

Fowler flapJonathan Anderson

Hours: 100

•Designed a fowler flap system which produces the required

Fowler flap

Ways to increase Cl•Extend the offset hinge distance•Increase the flap deflection angle•Change the flap shape•Change the flap cove shape•Use a track system instead of an offset hinge

Experiments have shown that increasing the flap deflection angle to 40 degrees will produce the greatest in many different airfoils, (with a chord of .3c to .4c.)

Planes using flaps with 40 degrees deflectionCessna 150, 172, 206, DHC Beaver, OtterPiper Seneca, Cherokee

The shape of the flap cove and the flap itself will also play a role in determining the maximum flap deflection angle and . Much of my time was spent looking for the right shapes in Floworks.

Fowler flap

If we increase offset distance to 16 inches, and flap deflection angle to 36 degrees, we get a c’/c = 1.178.

In increasing the flap deflection angle to 36 degrees, will also increase above 1.3.

It is possible to get at least 1.5 depending on the design. More investigation of these ideas will be shown, but the actual number (1.5) is based on technical reports using Reynolds numbers within 10%.

With these considerations, we can solve for using

We find that

Fowler flap

This requires a flap that is 111.2 inches long• 5.2 inches longer than the current flap•Would impede on aileron

Need to move aileron down by about 5.2 inches. This is possible because there is 18 inches of room for the aileron to move.

Notes:• if the same flap span were to be used, the hinge offset distance below the wing would have to be 19 inches for a deflection of 36 degrees.

•If the current flap—12 inch offset distance, 32 degrees deflection—were to be extended, it would need to be 145 inches long, pushing the aileron all the way to the tip and shrinking it 37% in length.

Fowler flap

Offset hinge length is 16 inchesFlap deflection angle is 36 degreesLength of flap is 111.2 inchesAileron is moved 5.2 inches toward tip

    Some Fowler flap systems               referance Clean Dirty dCl deflectionSlotted 1 1.7 3.4 1.7 35non-slotted 2 1.27 3.17 1.9 30non-slotted 3 1.4 3.4 2 30

3

"Wind tunnel tests of the GA(W)-2 airfoil with 20 aileron, 25 slotted flap, 30 Fowler flap and 10 slot-lip spoiler ", Wentz, W. H., Jr., 1977, NASA, ID#19790001850 

4"wind tunnel tests on model wing with fowler flap and specially developed leading edge slot", Weick and Platt, Langley, 1933, ID#19930084816

5"Lift and Drag  tests of three airfoil models with fowler flaps", Abbott and Turner, Langley, 1941, ID#19930092770 

Figure on right is from reference 1,Reynolds number of 2.2e6

Slotted flap design guidelines• Optimum position of flap leading edge depends

primarily on the shape of the slot, and is best determined by experiment

• In general, moves inward when lip is increased but is generally about .01c forward of lip

• Usually a slot opening on the order of .01c or slightly more is best.

• Best Cl’s are achieved using flaps with a wing shape. Avoid flaps with a blunt leading edge.

from “Theory of wing sections”, Ira H. Abbott and Albert E. von Doenhoff, p. 212-213. Dover Publications, NY, 1959. (reference 4)

Slotted flap design

Two different shapes of slots with different flap shapes. The one on the left is a smooth slot with max cl=2.535, the one on the right has a small lip with max cl=2.57.

For this experiment, Cl clean at the same (or near) angle of attack is about 1.3, and Reynolds number was about 8e6.

Slotted flap design

Slot with a larger lip and with a maximum Cl=2.65.

from “Wind-tunnel investigation of an NACA 23012 airfoil with various arrangements of slotted flaps”, Wenzinger, Carl J; Harris , Thomas A, Langley Research Center, 1939, ID: 19930091739 (reference 5)

Remark:It is possible to get a higher than 1.5, provided a detailed study of the flap cove shape, flap shape, and location are optimized, therefore 1.5 seems like a reasonable value, but experiments must be performed to confirm this.

ConclusionsThe design will produce the required extra lift to carry 300 more pounds

The aileron needs to be moved by about 5 inches

If aileron can’t be moved, then the offset hinge must be 19 inches long•track system seems more practical in this case

Jim ForsbergHours worked: 107

• Designed a Plain Flap with leading edge slats system that achieved the required

• Designed a Fowler Flap with leading edge slats system that achieved the required

Plain Flap and Slat

Fowler and Slat

• Extend chord length, by changing position of slat.• Increase deflection angle (around ) on the Fowler and Plain flap. • Modify the shape of the Flap and Slat

What will be considered to increase

Technical Reports

In these graphs is around 1.4 for .16c

Schwier, W., “Lift increase by blowing out air, tests on airfoil of 12 percent thickness, using various types of flap,” NACA Deutsche Luftfahrtforschung, Forschungsbericht, 1947

From looking at the table and other technical reports it is reasonable to estimate that:

At a 16% chord increase

Technical Reports (continued)

Quinn, John H. Jr., “Tests of the NACA 641A212 airfoil section with a slat, a double slotted flap, and boundary layer control by suction,” NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, VA, 1947

Plain Flap and Slats

Using this relationship:

With and an increase in chord of 16%, our = 5728 in^2

This requires the Flap Span to be 118 in.; 12 in. longer than

the current flap span

Note: slat gets in the way of the transition cuff

Fowler and Slats

Based on Raymer, the optimal for slats is 0.4.

• Looking at technical reports, and interpolating, the slats need to produce around a 12% chord increase to get this

.

• Using the same relationship as before but now having

be 0.18.

This requires the slat span to be 92.6 in. long and the

Fowler Flap to remain at 106 in.

Drawback to having Slats

• Known to create some drag compared to a non-slotted wing at cruise. Thus reducing the cruising speed.

• Heavier and more complex than other leading edge devices (slots).

• Deicing gets more complicated

Conclusion

• Both the designs will produce the required 300 more pounds.

• The Plain Flap and Slat system require to have 12 in. more span than the current span.

Moving the Aileron toward the tip and getting in the

way of the cuff. • The Fowler with Slat system requires no change in span

of the current wing and that the slat span does not interfere with the transition cuff.

Conclusion

Going further:

• Experiment with the Fowler and Slat system, to get a more accurate position for the Slat.

• Continued research in finding a more precise

for the Plain Flap and Slat system.

Michael AspHours Worked 105

I was in charge of designing a flapperon that would meet the design

requirement for CL.

Current Wing Configuration

Best Flapperon Configuration

Mechanical Configuration

Option 1 Option 2

*This would be investigated if we had more time to determine which set-up is more effective

Comparison of Various Flapperon Systems

Table of Flap Spans Needed to Achieve Necessary Lift Coefficient

Degrees of Flap Deflection

Type of Flap 20 deg 25 deg 30 deg 35 deg 40 deg

Plain Flaps268.8 in.

(not possible)

208.1 in. 182.9 in. 167.2 in. 208.1 in.

Fowler Flaps 163.7 in. 163.7 in. 161.5 in. 161.5 in. 159.4 in.

Slotted Plain Flaps

166.4 in. 166.4 in. 166.4 in. 166.4 in. 166.4 in.

Conclusions

The best design will require:

– Removal of Flaps and Ailerons on current wing– Implementation of an integrated (Flaps and Ailerons combined)

Flapperon that has a span of 159.4 in.– Flapperon begins at the 36 in. Indentation from the root chord

already in place with current wing.

Drawbacks

• Adverse Yaw Effect at landing when flaps are deployed and pilot tries to bank plane– Can be overcome by pilot compensation

• Pilot does not deploy flaps part until lined up with runway on final approach

Overall Wing Design Conclusion

The system which requires the least amount of complexity and further investigation is the extended fowler flap.

This requires: • 5 inches more flap span• Longer offset hinge• 4 degrees greater flap deflection• Experimentation in flap shape and flap cove

Cargo Pod Design

Kyle BergenEjvin Berry

Cody CandlerMike Gavanda

Design Concept

• Ejvin Berry

• 96 hours

• Tasks– Initial Aerodynamics Optimization– Quick Prototype Modeling– Final Concept Modeling

Cirrus SR22 Cargo Pod

Cargo Pod Guidelines

With 2 passengers (including pilot), 4 hours of fuel, carry one of the following:

• 2 sets of skis with equipment– Required volume of 12in x 6in x 77 in

• 2 sets of golf clubs (with drivers)– Required volume of 35in x 11in x 50in

• Minimum 8” offset from firewall– Exhaust Clearance

Pod on Fuselage

Clearance Envelope

Bottom View

Attachment View

Front Fairing (2)

Rear Fairing

Conclusions

• Demonstrates – Practicality

• Meets required tasks, loads

– Ease of Operation• Location specific, ease of entry

– Aesthetic Quality– Aerodynamics

Recommendations

• Study feasibility of manufacturing contoured pod surfaces to mesh with fuselage.– Increased capacity – Fit CG envelope better– Aerodynamics Improved

Attachment Methods

Individual Report by Kyle Bergen

80 hours worked

Attachment to Longerons

• Three points of attachment for stability and ease of attachment

• Use longerons as hard points to anchor mounting brackets which extend to belly.

• One piece assembly screwed to belly attachment.

• Bolts secure attachment pieces together from embedded pieces in pod fiberglass

Front Mounting Brackets (Two)

Rear Mounting Bracket (one)

Under belly attachment from bracket to Pod (three)

Embedded in Top of PodSlides into underbelly attachment

Belly Plugs when Pod is not attached

General Analysis

• Cosmos Express in Solid Works was used to diagnose the stresses on parts

• Maximum forces were used with total weight of Pod with load (120 lbs), with 4 G’s applied and safety factor of 1.5. Total force of 720 lbs.

• C.G. of front loaded pod (two golf bags) calculated

• 216 lbs on each front attachment and 288 lbs on rear attachment.

General Analysis Cont.

• Total force in the direction of drag is estimated at 150 lbs. For 50 lbs on each attach point.

• As seen later this is 3.75 times the actual. Means large safety factor.

• All bolts to the longerons and to the pod/belly attachments are ¼ in.

• Screws to the belly bracket attachments are

in.83

Allowable Loads• Allowable Load=(Allowable Stress/Safety Factor)(Area)• For Bolts and Screws of 304 Stainless Steel, Tensile

Strength Yield is used as 31200 psi, a shear strength of half the yield is used, 15600 psi, though online sources show it much higher, I will use a low number.

• Bolts through under belly attachments are in double shear so we see an allowable load of 2297 lbs.

• Screws in Tension see the yield strength of 31200 psi, we see allowable load of 2297 lbs as well. (since in double shear we use twice the area and Yield strength is twice the shear strength we see the same result.)

• These allowable loads are well above what the pod would see.

Stresses in bolts to longerons

• Since there are two bolts into the longerons on each front attachment we take the Total force on each bolt to be 216/2 on the front for a force of 108 lbs. For the rear bracket each bolt sees 72 lbs.

• These bolts have a smaller area so we see an allowable load of 510.5 lbs in shear for each bolt.

• These requirements are met by the 304 Stainless Steel bolts of ¼ inch diameter.

Deformation Picture of front attachment

• Multiplied many times for show• Safety factor of 2.47

Statistics

• Piece was run with both 304 S.S. and Alloy 2018.

• 2018 is chosen because of lower weight and higher yield

• Weight of Piece is .22 lbs

• Max Stress in Piece 18560 psi

• Max Displacement is .005 inches at base.

Deformation Picture of Rear Attachment

• Lowest Factor of Safety in design is 4.82

Statistics

• Piece was run with both 304 S.S. and Alloy 2018.

• 2018 is chosen because of low weight (3 times less) and higher yield

• Weight of piece is 1.4 lbs

• Max Stress in piece is 13880 psi

• Max Displacement is .005 inches

Deformation in Under belly attachment to pod piece

• Safety Factor of 1.95

Statistics

• Piece was run with both 304 S.S. and Alloy 2018.

• 2018 is demonstrated here• Data taken was for 288 lbs, so pieces are not

exclusive to one attach point, three identical pieces.

• Weight of piece is .31 lbs• Max Stress in piece is 1798 psi• Max Displacement in piece is .00005 inches

Displacement of Embedded Pod Piece

• Safety Factor 25.48

Statistics

• The piece was run testing both 304 Stainless and Alloy 2018.

• 2018 is recommended because of its slightly higher yield strength and much less weight

• Weight of piece is .32 lbs

• Max Stress in piece is 1804 psi

• Max displacement is .00005 inches.

Pod Statistics

• We would use a fiber glass pod, with 10 plies. Which would be a thickness of .099 inches.

• To show an example model of deflection• We were not able to accurately run this with fiberglass, this is using

2018 at .1 inches thick, max deflection is .02 inches.

Final Statistics

• Total weight of the attachment method is 3.73 lbs• 304 SS would have worked for all pieces as well, and

even reduced some of the displacement, however, the weight would have been significantly increase.

• 304 SS is used for bolts since that is a primary use of 304 SS.

• Alloy 2018 is chosen because it is a high strength alloy. It is very easily machined and is a tough alloy that can be used for heavy duty structural parts.

Conclusions

• The attachment methods as designed work for the support of the cargo pod.

• Front attachments are placed on the inside of the longerons at 19 inches behind firewall and rear attachment is placed between longerons at 69 inches behind firewall. Inspection of longerons looked to be good placement.

• Would have liked to do further analysis on the Longerons and get more accurate dimensions.

• Wish we would have nailed down a design sooner since a lot of the semester was spent on investigation of workable/do-able pod designs.

• Further work would include optimization of current design pieces and trying different designs.

• I would like to thank my team and Steve Hampton for all the support throughout the project!

Individual Report

• Mike Gavanda

• 70 hours

• Worked on– Ground clearance– Tail strike clearance– Pod access

Solid works attached Pod model

02:03 AM

Clearance

02:04 AM

Solid Works model

02:04 AM

Clearance/ Tail Strike Envelope

Pod wheel Clearance

02:04 AM

Golf Bag

Width 10 in

Height Bag 34 in

Height with clubs 50 in

Average Golf Bag Size

02:04 AM

Golf Bag Clearance

02:04 AM

SkisLength (cm) 173 180

Side cut tip(mm) 130 135

Waist (mm) 96 99

Tail (mm) 124 125

Weight (g for one ski) 1970 2210

http://www.salomonski.com/us/products/XW-Sandstorm-1-1-1-788918.html02:04 AM

Skis and pod

Access

Access Seal

*www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/camloc4002.php**www.trimlok.com/detail.aspx?ID=933

Camloc 4002 Studs*2600 and 2700 series made of steel Shear: 1050 lbs. (ultimate)Tensile strength: 700 lbs. (rated)Rated to 450° F

Example of watertight hatch seal**

Conclusion

• Meets clearance and size goals– Clears fully loaded landing– Clears tail strike– Safe distance from exhaust– Fits a pair of golf bags or 2 pairs of skis

• Easy access

Recommendations

• Find more on how the exhaust affects pod

• See if clearance can be increased for landing and tail strike

• More study of water tight seal on access door

Individual Report

• Cody Candler

• 75 Hours

• Tasks– Location of the center of gravity

• Ensure it meets ground requirements

– Aerodynamics Analysis– Range Optimization

Reference points of the front and back of the cargo pod while attached(Figure 6-1 out of the Cirrus Manual)

C.G. of the aircraft with the pod attached

Sample Loading• Pilot – 200 lbs• Passenger – 200 lbs• Fuel – 486 lbs (full tank)• Cargo Pod – 100 lbs

Center of Gravity Limits

• No Luggage

• Luggage – 25 lbs

• Luggage – 50 lbs

C.G. of pod located at FS 148.0

Moment Limits

Used Component Buildup Method out of Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach by Raymer

Approach used:Find flat-plate skin-friction drag coefficient (Cf)

– Assumed complete turbulent flow

Find the component “form factor” (FF)– estimates the pressure drag due to viscous separation– assumed the pod to be a fuselage

where

– Amax is the maximum cross-sectional area of the pod which is 3.224 ft2

– l is the length of the cargo pod (6.583 ft)

Estimate CD for cargo pod

65.0258.210 144.01log

455.0

MRC f

600

601

3

f

fFF

max/4 A

l

d

lf

CD Estimate cont…

Determine interference effects on the component drag (Q)– Raymer says if the component is mounted less than one diameter away from

the fuselage then the Q factor is 1.3

Find the wetted area (Swet)

– Total exposed surface area

2674.292

4.3~ ftAA

S sidetopwet

Calculate total component drag

Sref of SR-22 wing is 144.9 ft2

Result:CD = 0.002577

ref

wetf

subsonicD S

SQFFCC

0

Extra power needed with pod attached• Use general power required equation

PR = TRV∞

• In steady, unaccelerated flight

TR = Drag (in our case, drag is increased drag from pod)

• For each altitude, I used the cruise performance data from the Cirrus manual – I only used data where engine was operating at 2700 RPM since the engine has a rating of 310

hp at 2700 RPM– This gives a conservative estimation of the additional power needed to travel at the same

velocity with the pod attached as when it isn’t attached

Percen

t Pow

er Increase

Effects on Velocity• Calculate an approximate CD of the SR-22 using the cruise performance data out of the

Cirrus manual

• Add the cargo pod component drag coefficient to the total aircraft drag coefficient

• At 2700 RPM and same power, calculate velocity of aircraft with the pod attached and without the pod attached

Result• 7% decrease in velocity with the pod attached

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Vel

oci

ty (f

t/s)

Altitude (ft)

Velocity w/o Pod

Velocity with Pod Attached

Sample Pressure Distribution on Pod

Sample Pressure Distribution on the pod with a crosswind

Crosswind

Crosswind

Maximum Speed with Cargo Pod Attached

Conditions:•Get to a location as fast as possible•4 hours endurance•81 gallons of usable fuel•Weight: 3400 lbs•Take off from sea-level•No wind

Results w/o Pod:Optimal Cruise Altitude: 12000 ft• Fuel to taxi: 1.5 gal• Fuel to climb: 4.4 gal• Fuel to cruise: 59.8 gal @ 15.4 GPH• 45 min IFR fuel reserve: 9.8 gal• Airspeed: 178 KTAS• Range: 785 nautical miles

Adjusted results for attached cargo pod:• Airspeed: 166.4 KTAS (7% reduction)

• Range: 730 nautical miles• Endurance of 4.3 hours

Maximum Range with Cargo Pod Attached

Conditions:

• Maximum range

• 81 gallons of useable fuel

• Weight: 3400 lbs

• Takeoff from sea level

• No wind

Results w/o Pod:Optimal Cruise Altitude: 14000 ft• Fuel to taxi: 1.5 gal• Fuel to climb: 5.3 gal• Fuel to cruise: 57.8 gal @ 11.3 GPH• 45 min IFR fuel reserve: 9.8 gal• Airspeed: 169 KTAS• Range: 1006 nautical miles

Adjusted results for attached cargo pod:• Airspeed: 143.7 KTAS (7% reduction)

• Range: 935 nautical miles •Endurance of 5.8 hours

Conclusions

• Due to the restriction of the center of gravity of the cargo pod (FS 148.0) a weight of at least 25 lbs must be added to the luggage compartment for the SR-22 to be safe to fly

• A 4 – 8% increase in power is needed to travel at the same speed with the cargo pod attached as it would without the pod attached

• The cargo pod decreases the velocity of the SR-22 by approximately 7% when attached

• The maximum range of the SR-22 with a full tank of fuel and the cargo pod attached is 935 miles

• The customer would need to sacrifice range or use more fuel when operating with the cargo pod attached

Recommendations• Mesh top of pod to the bottom of the fuselage to

reduce the drag area and increase performance– Free up room to move the pod further back on the

fuselage, which would move the C.G. aft and maybe eliminate the need for a requirement of 25 lbs of luggage

• Spend more time studying pressure hot spots– Contour the front of the pod more to further reduce

drag– Revise the back half of the pod to prevent flow

separation and reduce drag

Dan Poniatowski

• Team Lead• 60 hours of work• Accomplishments

– Documented and managed schedule and Gantt Chart– Documented requirements– Facilitated communication between the team and the

sponsors– Coordinated trips to the Cirrus factory in Duluth – Facilitated FMEA and Environmental/Societal Impact

analysis– Produced a Design Summary for both projects

consistent with Cirrus’ method of documentation

Problem Probability Severity Mitigation

High Lift Device Flutter due to failure Low High Pull Parachute.

High Lift Device Flutter due to aerodynamics Medium High

Test for natural frequencies. Avoid frequencies of prop and install dampening.

Cable/Mechanical Failure Low High Pull Parachute.

High Lift Device Extension/Retraction Failure Low Low Install mechanical indicator to inform pilot.

Spin Entry Medium Medium Install warning placards and mandate anti-spin pilot training.

High Lift Device Detachment Low High Design fasteners to release when a partial failure occurs. Pull Parachute.

Icing High Varies Incorporate existing deicing equipment into new design.

Collision Damage Medium Medium Reinforce leading edge. Pull Parachute.

Wing Detachment Low Very High Pull Parachute.

Internal Fuel Leak Low MediumInstall fluid detector and warning device. Instruct pilot to deactivate electronics and land immediately.

External Fuel Leak Low Low Instruct pilot to land immediately.

Lightning Strike Medium Medium Install dissipating mesh in the wing and high lift devices.

Heat Damage Medium Low List warnings in Pilot's Operating Handbook.

Problem Probability Severity Mitigation

Pod hits the ground Medium Low Fasteners designed to shear off and release pod.

Partial Attachment Failure Low High Remaining attach points designed to shear off.

Foreign Object Collision Medium Low Reinforce the nose of the pod.

Front End Overheating High Medium Attach a metal heat sheild to the nose.

High G Failure Medium High Designed to withstand a 3G manuever.

CG Out of Balance Due to Loading High High Warn the pilot in the Pilot's Operating Handbook and install placards.

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

Problem Category Severity Mitigation

High performance wing causes society to distrust general aviation as a result of accidents. Society Low Press releases on the advantages of the new wing design.

Wing performs well enough to edge competitors out of the market. Global Low Sharing of new wing technology.

Complexity of high lift device design deters new pilots. Society Low Simplification of pilot interface.

Problem Category Severity Mitigation

Pod is used for smuggling drugs. Society Low

Pod is used by terrorists to deliver weapons. Society High

Pod is used as a chemical distribution tank. Environment Medium

Additional power required for use of pod consumes more fuel. Environment Very Low Make pod easy to remove when not in use.

Environmental, Societal, and Global Impacts

Wing and Pod Design summaries

Conclusions and Recommendations

• Gantt chart was useful for planning purposes• Wiki was useful for common file sharing• Requirements were recorded in a common

location, a more stringent process would be useful.

• Schedule more time for risk mitigation• Schedule more reviews during the design

process• Be more aggressive in achieving results and

ensuring metrics are being met.