Glider design
The blue prints for our airplane came from a computer program called Aery 32. We entered different values for things like the fuselage length, stabilizer span, and vertical tail height.
If one piece of the information we entered was altered, then multiple other values would have to change as well in order for the plane to fly. The computer software calculates this for us rather than presenting us with the possibility of miscalculation by hand.
To actually build the glider, there are certain skills that my team and I had to have. First, we had to be able to read the blueprints and identify which piece was which. We also had to correctly measure each piece, then wait patiently for the glue to dry once we assembled the pieces. In addition, our team had to troubleshoot unforeseen problems. For example, in our original design, there was a total of 5 g weight on the nose of the plane. Based on tested results, we actually used 8.6 g.
Conclusion questions
. Conclusion Questions
- Explain which glider or aircraft term were difficult to understand and the correct definition. Aft - at, near, or towards the tail of an aircraft
- Explain any challenges if someone else were to construct your design using the AERY print. Most people may not be able to read the blueprints and may not understand the vocabulary on the design sheets.
- Explain any challenges faced using the AERY software and how you overcame those challenges. Our technology was sometimes slow and inefficient, so we had to be very patient when it came to computer lagging. Our results on the builder could drastically change by changing one input, therefore we had to be cautious to not select a high value on just one input.
- Explain difficulties faced with this second design challenge compared with the first challenge. Some of the required specifications for the dimensions on the second activity were smaller than the first.
- Explain how these constraints impacted your glider design compared to the first. The first glider had a larger range of input values to work with, but our second design ended up being more efficient (had a higher Aery number).
- Funding for a new project is always limited in some way. How does the proposal process ensure that the idea being proposed will satisfy the project requirements?
- Projects fail not due to a lack of solid designs but instead due to other issues. Describe these issues and explain how the proposal process ensures that the design with the highest likelihood of success can be selected. Common issues, such as funding, time, manpower (on large scale operations), and prototype damage can set back or even terminate a project.
- Describe the most persuasive elements of your proposal. Our design was ranked the second best in the class, and had its own unique design.
- Explain why someone would have either a positive or negative impression after reading through your proposal for the first time. Our design plans are easy to read and our plane flew pretty well on most occasions. This being said, I believe that a positive impression would be obtained by the first-time reader.
- Was the glider as stable as you expected? Why or why not might this be so? Our vertical stabilizer dried at an angle, and while we attempted to redistribute the weight with putty, the plane still wasn't completely straight on all trials.
- What techniques did you use to “trim” the glider for straight and gently descending flight? We sanded the edges with sand paper.
- How many test flights were required to get the glider trimmed for long distance, straight-line flight? Was this expected? Why or why not? It took 3 test flights to get a nice, straight flight, but after that our plane more often than not moved to one side. This was expected because our vertical stabilizer wasn't accurate.
- Explain the strengths and weaknesses of a competitive trial as a method to identify an optimal design. By comparing our plane to other groups, we were able to obtain new ideas that helped troubleshoot problems and also gave us a drive to do better and keep working even when we thought our plane had failed.
- Explain differences between your glider’s performance through flight-testing that was unexpected based on the AERY software predicted flight characteristic. The software estimated constantly accurate flights, which didn't happen due to things like the incorrect vertical stabilizer and how we threw the plane.
- Based on the entire flight test data, from every group, explain conclusion that you can make about optimal glider designs for long distance flight. Building planes from blueprints is harder than expected because after you measure everything and assemble all the pieces, there is still a chance that something could be out of place. The important thing about engineering the gliders is that when problems arise, we go back to the lab and fix them instead of crying about it.