Aircraft Design to Allow for the Safe and Efficient Transport of

Disaster Relief Supplies, Victims and Injured Personnel to or

From Hurricane and Earthquake Disaster Zones.

By:

J. Mills

Prepared For:

Sparky Aid Designs

April 3, 2021

Earned Admissions Program

Arizona State University

Phoenix, Arizona

Abstract

1
1) The aircraft shall have a range greater than 1000km.
2) The aircraft shall have a cruise speed of less than 310m/s.
3) The aircraft shall be of a fixed wing design.
4) The aircraft shall incorporate automation to aid in rescue, awareness, notification,
maintenance and survivors.
5) The aircraft shall operate for less than 18 hours per day.
6) The aircraft shall have a rate of climb (ROC) greater than 2% of cruise speed if hovering
capabilities are not incorporated.
7) The aircraft shall have a rate of climb (ROC) greater than cruise speed if hovering
capabilities are incorporated.
8) The aircraft shall be replaced after 43.5 million km of flight time.
9) The aircraft shall be designed, owned and maintained by Sparky Aid Designs.
10) The aircraft shall have the ability to transport either cargo and/or personnel.
11) The aircraft shall have necessary space and safety apparatus for the flight crew such as the
proper high altitude oxygen supply, parachutes, secure seating, reliable tethers for cargo
area personnel and reliable inter-aircraft communication.
12) The aircraft shall have a yearly interest rate of 7%.
13) The aircraft shall add in an additional $200 per km of starting height for each flight if gliders
are used.
14) The aircraft design shall account for an operation, maintenance, and repair (OMR) budget of
$350,000 per engine, per year as well as $200,000 per year for pilot and other flight support
crew fees.

Criteria that was added by the customer to the design were as follows:

1) Removable seats & litters.

• This will allow the aircraft to be used for both the transportation of materials and personnel
to and from a disaster site.
2) Drop ramp to load and unload cargo. •
• This will allow easier access to the cargo area for larger payloads such as wheeled/
tracked vehicles or pallets.
3) Include a low-altitude parachute-extraction system (LAPES). • This will maximize the areas
that the aircraft can service
• May eliminate the need for an airstrip [4]
• May reduce the cargo drop altitude to as low as 5 ft [4][5]
4) > 45,359 kg of payload capacity.
• Will maximize amount of needed supplies delivered on each run.
• Will decrease overall fuel consumption by reducing the number of necessary flights (i.e.
lower the overall operating cost).
• Will help to ensure more lives are saved.
5) < 2000m airstrip necessary to land and takeoff.
• Will allow for access to areas that may not have the space or resources to build and
maintain a larger airstrip.

Table 15.1 below shows the AHP table that was created to weight the importance of the
5 criteria. Because the stakeholder’s interest were paramount in the design of the aircraft, each
criteria was carefully weighed as to how it could most effectively meet the customers mission
goals.

2
 Table 15.1- Disaster Relief Aircraft Analytical Hierarchy Process Table (AHP)

AHP SCALE

1 - Equal importance (Specific criteria from the column is equal in importance to the criteria in
the row to which it is being compared.)

3 - Moderate importance (Specific criteria from column is moderately more important than the
criteria in the row to which it is being compared.)

5 - Strong importance (Specific criteria from the column has strong importance over the criteria
in the row, to which it is being compared.)

7 - Very Strong importance (Specific criteria from the column has very strong importance over
the criteria in the row, to which it is being compared.)

9 - Extreme importance (Specific criteria from the column is absolutely preferred over the criteria
in the row, to which it is being compared.)

This aircraft was designed with the intention to service victims in hurricane and
earthquake disaster zones. It was able to do so by being designed for transportation of either
cargo, injured victims or personnel or non-injured victims. Each classification or cargo had its
own unique features that make the aircraft specifically well suited to provide aid to those who
would remain on the ground, those that need to be relocated to a safer location or those
needing a medical facility for treatment.

Background
Current and recent relief efforts have proven that the most significant issues faced in
disaster response in the Asia-Pacific region is the communication and unity of those entities that

4
 Figure 15.1 - Side view of proposed preliminary aircraft design.

Figure 15.1 shows the side view of the exterior of the aircraft. The wing structure is
centered over the fuselage and the engines are centered over the wing. The total length of the
aircraft is 23.62m while the cargo hold is 15.24m.

41m

3.5m

3.66m

Figure 15.2 - Side view of proposed preliminary aircraft design.

Figure 15.2 shows the forward view of the aircraft. In this view, the wings and engines
are seen with the wings supporting one JT-8D-17R jet engine each. It should be noted
that the wings do not taper on the ends - representative of a simple wing design that will
facilitate accurate testing within the simulator. The wing span is 41m, the fuselage is 3.66m and
the vertical stabilizer is 3.5m high.

5
 7m

3m

Figure 15.3 - Top view of proposed preliminary aircraft design.

Figure 15.3 shows the top view of the aircraft and another view of the placement of the
wings over the middle of the aircraft. The horizontal stabilizer is 7m wide, tip-to-tip and the wing
chord is 3m.

• Initial cost: $52,902,932.91

- 227.219 (OEW) / 4.3 x $1,000,000 + $34,945 (initial cost of non-injured victim evac
package) + $26,360 (initial cost of injured victim evac package) = $52,902,932.91
• Loan payment: $5,259,218.20

6
 - $52,902,932.91(initial cost) x 0.07(rate) (1+0.07(rate))18(YOS) / (1+0.07(rate))18 (YOS) -1=
$5,259,218.20
• Life span (YOS): 18years
- 43,500,000 (maximum lifetime distance in km) / 2,419,400 (total yearly km of aircraft
travel) = 17.98
• LTW: -$40,750,165.58
- $237,925,456.36 (present value of all benefits) - $278,675,621.94 (present value of all
costs) = -$40,750,165.58
• ROI: -77%
- $40,750165.58 (LTW) / $52,902,932.91 (initial cost) = -0.77
A more detailed breakdown of the financial analysis and the associated calculations can be
found in Appendix D.

The aircraft incorporates an easy to use, low-altitude parachute-extraction system -

automated deployment system (LAPES-ADS) that will allow the loadmaster and/or pilots to
safely and effectively jettison the payload at the appropriate altitude and airspeed. The art of
dropping supplies at low altitudes and speeds is inherently a dangerous and tedious operation
that requires execution at the precise time, speed and elevation. Incorporating this automation
feature into the aircraft design helps to ensure that the desperately needed supplies being
delivered to a disaster zone will be done so with minimal damage to the cargo while also
ensuring the safety of the aircraft and crew.

There were two main trade-offs I was forced to face in the design process of this aircraft.
The first was the use of an automated system that would allow the cargo to be dropped at the
correct time versus an automation system that would monitor injured patient-victim vitals and
report back to the on-board medical attendants if there was an issue of concern that needed
immediate attention. The latter option would have benefited both the medical attendants and the
victims by assuring the highest level of care and attention was delivered to the those who
needed it, a feature that could preserve life. However, because the aircraft is designed with the
idea of cargo transport as its chief mission, the former option was chosen. It was also reasoned
that the cargo automation system, known as the LAPES-ADS, would give added assurance of
the cargo being delivered safer and more accurately. The second trade-off faced was the size of
the aircraft itself. I knew that I wanted the aircraft to have the capability of transporting both
injured and non-injured victims and in order to do so, the aircraft would need to land. A smaller
aircraft would have the capability of accessing more remote places as it does not require as
large of an airstrip to touch down, but would also be much more limited in the number of victims
it would be able to evacuate at one time. Due to the expense of operating an aircraft of any size
and the elevated exigency of victim evacuation, I felt that a larger aircraft would allow immediate
care to be delivered more quickly to the people in need while also keeping costs and risks
lower. Although a larger airstrip would be required, the plane would be capable of transporting a
much larger number of victims. As a result of this rationale, I opted to design a larger aircraft.

Aircraft Subsystems

Aircraft Performance
In addition to the two major trade offs described in the design overview, I was faced with
another that would specifically effect the aircraft performance. This was the amount of fuel the
aircraft would be able to carry. Obviously I wanted the aircraft to be able to carry as much fuel
as possible but I ultimately decided to reduce the weight of fuel from 140kN to 130kN in order to
lighten the gross aircraft weight but more importantly, to shorten the endurance and range so
that I could ultimately increase the amount of full-range cargo trips the aircraft could make in an
18 hour period. Instead of only being able to make 2 cargo runs at 3180km and I was then able

Figure 15.4 - CAD drawing of aircraft exterior.

Interior Design
The aircraft was requested to have the ability to transport three classifications of
payloads, all of which can and will be used to respond to both hurricanes and earthquakes. Both
scenarios will require that emergency relief cargo be delivered to the site and both injured and
non-injured victims be evacuated. As described previously, the three classifications of payload is
the transportation and delivery of cargo to a disaster site, easily accessible, open seating for
non-injured victims (including children) and the ability to evacuate injured victims on stackable
litters. Each payload classification or mission scenario is equipped with seating for the flight
crew and/or medical personnel.

Table 15.2 below is the decision matrix that was used to determine which of the three mission
options was most useful and practical. The cargo transport design was determined to be the top
priority according to the decision matrix. This conclusion was derived from the results of the
following rational:

8
- All three designs, though engineered to not require the use of tools to install or remove,
always posses a chance of needing them in the event of a malfunction or failure. As a result,
each design was given a rating according to their complexity and resultant likelihood of
needing tools.

- Each design idea was intended to use the in-deck, quick release floor tracks designed into
the fuselage floor, and as a result, were all given a rating of “9”.

- Each design has a certain level of dependency on an airstrip in order to load or unload its
payload. The first two designs are completely dependent on an airstrip to land while the cargo
transport design does not require an airstrip for the majority of supply drops, as it utilizes a
low-altitude parachute-extraction system. As a result, the cargo transport system received a
rating of “7” while the ambulatory and passenger designs received a rating of “1”.

- The maximum payload advantage is a measurement of the designs ability to use the most of
the available payload capacity while accomplishing its mission. The more payload loaded, the
more efficient the flight. This is not, of course, a measurement of effect that each payload
may play in the overall disaster relief scenario, but rather is a measure of the monetary and
energy efficiency of the trip. Each design received a score based on its overall payload
weight.

- Lastly, and most importantly, each design was graded according to the effect the deliverable
payload will have on the overall relief effort. Though extraction of the injured from a disaster
site is hugely important and will likely save lives, transporting trained response personnel to a
site and delivering life saving supplies for 100 helpless victims will have a greater impact on
overall relief. Due to this, the passenger and cargo transport designs received equal ratings
of “8” while the ambulatory design received a rating of “5”.

Table 15.2 - Decision Matrix for interior design features.

Design Type #2 Design Type #3

Design Type #1
Non-injured Victim Injured Victim
Ambulatory Transport
Transport Transport

CRITERIA WEIGHT Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score

Does not require

special equipment/
0.07 3 0.21 3 0.21 2 0.14
tools to setup/
utilize

Quick release floor

0.08 9 0.72 9 0.72 9 0.72
tracks

Airstrip not
0.25 1 0.25 1 0.25 7 1.75
required to deliver

Maximum payload
0.28 3 0.84 4 1.12 8 2.24
advantage

Maximum lives
0.32 5 1.6 8 2.56 8 2.56
effected

TOTAL 3.62 4.86 7.41

9
Decision Matrix Scale

• 1 - Design meets criteria minimally or does not meet criteria whatsoever.

• 5 - Design meets criteria with average acceptability.
• 10 - Design meets criteria well or even exceeds expectation.

Cargo Transport

Figure 15.5 - Top and side views of aircraft loaded for a disaster relief cargo delivery.

The aircraft was equipped with a low altitude-parachute extraction system that would
allow for the delivery of supples without the aircraft needing to land. The aircraft had the
capability of hauling up to 101kN lbs of supplies on various sized Type V - Heavy Duty, Extruded
Aluminum Airdrop Platforms [13]. These platforms can support up to 42k lbs each and allows
the cargo to be dropped at low speeds and altitudes. Some payload items may require an
airstrip in order to land and unload more fragile material, however most payloads will not. The
aircraft was also equipped with an in-floor rail guide system that will both secure the load during
flight and guide the cargo out of the aircraft during air drop operations. Additionally, the rear of
the aircraft was equipped with a large drop ramp to be used to load/unload supplies, and could
serve as an exit point through which the cargo could be jettisoned during flight. Each load is
secured to its platform with high strength, Dynemma® webbing and high-strength, stainless
steel shackles. Two flight seats were provided in the cargo hold for a loadmaster and crew chief
as indicated in figure 15.5. A complete list of all the cargo items and associated values are
included in table 15.ae.1 of Appendix E.

Non-injured Victim Evacuation

Figure 15.6 shows the aircraft equipped with removable passenger seating that allows
for the transport of relief personnel to and from a disaster site, or for the extraction of refugees.
The aircraft will seat a total of 95 passengers and 6 aircrew personnel. The seats are
assembled from 2 different sections of seating: 3 per section in the middle row, and 4 per
section along the side rows. These sections can be removed as needed to allow for room to
transport supplies in conjunction with passengers. Recent Asian gender and age demographic

10


Figure 15.6 - Top and side views of aircraft loaded for non-injured victim evacuation.

Injured Victim Evacuation (Ambulatory)

Figure 15.7 - Top and side views of aircraft loaded for injured victim evacuation.

11


23
y = -2.2341x + 23.413
L/D (Lift to drag Ratio)

22.9

22.8

22.7

22.6
0 0.073 0.145 0.218 0.29
Max Thickness to Chord Ratio

Figure 15.8 - Relationship between max thickness to chord ratio and lift:drag ratio (L/D)

24
y = 2.197E-6x6 - 0.0002x5 + 0.0103x4 - 0.2292x3 + 2.9337x2 - 21.939x + 90.366
L/D - lift to drag ratio

18

12

0
0 3.75 7.5 11.25 15
Angle of Attack (Degrees)

Figure 15.9 - Relationship between angle of attack and lift:drag ratio (L/D)

12
 22.9
y = 1018.6x3 - 357.28x2 + 24.15x + 22.393
L/D - lift to drag ratio
22.725

22.55

22.375

22.2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Camber

Figure 15.10 - Relationship between camber and lift:drag ratio (L/D)

Figure 15.11 - Wing design cross section with i-beam spar and wing deflection chart.

13
 Automation Feature

The automation feature included in the aircraft design is known as low-altitude

parachute-extraction system - automated deployment system (LAPES-ADS) that will allow the
loadmaster and/or pilots to safely and effectively jettison the aircraft payload at the appropriate
altitude and airspeed. This will allow a level of assurance to the stakeholders that the cargo
needed will be delivered safely and effectively, thereby maximizing the use and effect for those
stakeholders.

This system, once enabled by the the pilots or loadmaster through the activation of the
“System Enable” switch, continually monitors altitude and airspeed by means of analog inputs
from an altimeter and air speed indicator. The position of the cargo ramp is a digital input into
the system through a cargo ramp position switch. Once conditions for deployment are met
(cargo bay open, airspeed below 145 knots and altitude below 3 meters), a “GO” light will be
illuminated. If the altitude and airspeed conditions are not met or the cargo bay ramp is not
open, the system will indicate such by illuminating a “NO-GO” light and prohibit deployment of
the load by disabling the “Drop” switch. When the “GO” light is illuminated, the pilot or the
loadmaster will initiate the drop sequence by pressing the “Drop” switch. Once the drop
sequence is initiated, the “drogue parachutes” (the small parachute that is first deployed out of

LAPES-ADS
Enabled if Cargo Door is not
open, Altitude is too high or
Airspeed is too fast. Damage LAPSE-ADS
System Enable
Componenets
Cargo
Verify Cargo Door
<<Extension>>
Open
<<Extension>>

<<Extension>> "No-Go" Drop Light

<<Extension>>
LoadMaster
Cargo Loaders
Enabled if Cargo
Door is open, Altitude
is slow, airspeed is Cargo delieved
slow and enable Undamagd
switch has been Verify Altitude
activated.

Disiaster relief personnel

Drop Cargo
<<Extension>> Cargo delivered as
safe as possible
<<Extension>>
Pilots
<<Extension>>
<<Extension>> <<Extension>>

"Go" Drop Light

<<Extension>> Disiaster relief victims

<<Extension>>
Verify Airspeed

Cargo Parachute Cargo lock release

<<Inclusion>>
deployment

Repair

<<Extension>> <<Extension>>
<<Inclusion>>
<<Extension>>

Parachutes Properly
Packed

Malfunction Light
Maintenance Personell
<<Extension>>
Cargo Release
Override
Regular Maintenance

Figure 15.12 - Use case diagram for the LAPES-ADS system

14


LAPES-ADS Cargo Door "Go" Drop "No-Go" Drogue Cargo

Air Speed Malfunction
Control Altimeter Open Light Drop Light Parachute Locks
Indicator Light
Pilots or Loadmaster Module Switch Indicator Indicator Deployed Release

" Enable" switch engaged

Alternative Altitude < 3m

Cargo door open
[All inputs within range]
Airspeed < 145 knots
" GO" light illuminated

Drop switch enable

" Drop" switch engaged
Drogue chute deployed

Cargo locks released

Droque chute failed to deploy

Cargo locks failed to release

Malfunction Light Illuminated

" NO-GO" light illuminated

Altitude > 3m
[Else]
Cargo door closed

Airspeed > 145 knots

" NO-GO" light on

" Override" switch engaged
“NO GO” Light illuminated

Drogue chute deployed

Cargo locks released

Droque shoot failed to deploy

Cargo locks failed to release

" Malfunction" light illuminated

“Malfunction” light illuminated

" Enable" switch disengaged

Figure 15.13 - Sequence diagram showing the sequential flow of events within the LAPES-ADS
15
 As seen in figure 15.13, the LAPES-ADS control module is activated by an input signal
from the “System Enable” switch. The control module will be continually receiving input signals
of altitude, airspeed, and the cargo door position as long as the “Enable” switch is engaged.
When the control module receives inputs that indicate that the cargo bay is open, airspeed is
below 145 knots, and the altitude is below 3 meters, the control module will send a signal to turn
on the “GO” light and the “GO” light will return a signal to enable the “DROP” switch. The pilot or
the loadmaster will then initiate the drop sequence by pressing the “Drop” switch. Once the
control module receives an input signal from the “Drop” switch, the drop sequence is initiated.
The control module will send a signal to deploy the drogue ‘chutes and release the cargo locks.
The drogue ‘chutes and the cargo locks will return a signal back to the LAPES-ADS Control
Module indicating if the release was successful or failed. If the control module receives back a
failure signal, it with then disable the “GO” light, as well as command the ‘chute deployment and
lock release functions to cease by removing their output on signal from the control module. It will
then command the “Malfunction” and “NO-GO” lights on.

If the input signals to the control module indicate airspeed above 145 knots, altitude
above 3 meters, and/or the cargo bay door closed, the control module will command the “NO-
GO” light to illuminate while also ignoring any user input from the “Drop” switch.

If the control module detects an“Override” switch input at anytime, regardless of altitude,
speed, or cargo door inputs, the control module will send an “on” signal to the drogue ‘chutes as
well as the cargo locks. The ‘chute releases and cargo locks will again report back to the control
module if an error occurs. The control module will then cease the ‘chute deployment and cargo
lock release signals. The control module with then disable the “GO” light, as well as command
the ‘chute deployment and lock release functions to cease. It will then command on the
“Malfunction” and “NO-GO” lights.

Figure 15.14 shows the activity diagram where in the flow of events is clearly laid out.
The flow of events is complete and changes based off of the decisions that the system or user
makes.

Due to the limitations of sensor selection from TinkerCad, a few of the sensors that are
used in figure 15.15 were selected to best mimic the actual sensors that would be used. These
sensors were selected because their output values (input values to the controller) are sufficient
enough to provide the necessary information for proper controller response. The actual altimeter
and airspeed indicators would convert their readings into a resistance measurement for an input
into the controller and as a result, are represented in the diagram and code as potentiometers.
The inputs for these are mapped to represent a variable that is reflective of the aircrafts
maximum ceiling (35,000’) and airspeed (319 knots) with a little extra added for safety. For the
altimeter, the resistance range of the potentiometer is set to 40Ω, which is reflective of
barometric pressure, and mapped wherein 0Ω would be indicate 14.7psi (stoichiometric
pressure/sea level) and 40Ω would represent 2.7psi or 40k’. The air speed indicator is mapped
similarly. The actual air speed indicator converts its output value (read as an input value to the
controller) to a resistive value as well. Resultantly, the resistance value of the potentiometer is
set to 400Ω wherein 0Ω would equate to a 0 knots and 400Ω would be equal to 400 knots.

In actuality, the cargo door switch would be a micro switch, but in figure 11.1 it is
represented by a slide switch. The deploy and override are pushbuttons that send a high signal
to the controller when depressed.

The first two outputs for the system are the two servos that deploy the roque parachute
and release the cargo locks. These are commanded on by the controller, are rotated 180°and

16
 "Enable"
switch
engaged

Altitude Reduce speed,

< 3m, Cargo door "NO-GO" light "Drop" button "Override" altitude and/or
open, Airspeed <145 No Switch No
knots?
illumnated not enabled open cargo
engaged door

Yes

"GO" light
illuminated
Yes

"Drop" switch
enabled

"Drop" switch
engaged

Drogue 'chute
deployed and
cargo locks
released

Droque 'chute Malfunction

deployemnt
Drogue 'chute and "NO-GO"
deployed, cargo locks No disabled, cargo Abort mission
released?
lock release lights
disabled illuminated
Yes

"Enable"
switch
disengaged

Figure 15.14 - Activity diagram for the LAPES-ADS.

are held in that position for 60 seconds before the controller removes the on signal, allowing the
servos to return to their original position of 0°.

The remaining outputs are the “GO” light, the “NO-GO” light and the “Malfunction” light.
The function of these lights was described previously in this text.

The aircraft automation design met the expectations of its design concept and operated
as expected. An in-depth look at the text coding can be found in Fiqure 15.ac.1 of Appendix C.

Testing and Evaluation

Experimental testing of the aircraft and its subsystems included using the various wing
simulators available in the course as well as the Arduino microcontroller testing that was
performed in TinkerCad. The Zhukovsky wing simulator tested the wing performance
characteristics based on the shape of the aerofoil cross section. Through this testing I was able
to establish a good lift to drag coefficient based of inputs such as angle of attack, span,
maximum thickness to chord ratio and camber. The second wing simulator allowed for the
addition of a spar to the wing and then tested the maximum deflection of the wing while under

17
 Droque ‘chute release
Deploy switch

Cargo locks release

Cargo locks Override switch
failed to deploy
switch
Cargo door open switch

Airspeed resistive input

Altimeter resistive input

NO GO light

GO light

Malfunction Light

Drogue ‘chute fail to deploy switch

Figure 15.15 - Arduino schematic for the LAPES-ADS system.

in-flight load. The third important testing done was in TinkerCad and tested the operation of
the automation system by simulating the coded outputs based on the inputs to the the Arduino
controller. I found the TinkerCad simulator to be the most interesting and fruitful in testing the
design of a subsystem as the options and results were limitless. Unlike the aerofoil and
deflection simulators that limited the type and range of variables, and by extension, limited the
outputs of the test, the options within TinkerCad were much more broad and the results of the
inputs seemed to be more expansive. The complete FAT procedures can be found in Appendix
B. B

By being able to test the wings and automation feature I was able to test the
operational performance of each and adjust them to meet not only the requirements of the
project but also dial those performance characteristics in to allow the aircraft to operate at
maximum efficiency. Through this process, I learned a great deal about how wings behave and
also how even minor mistakes or adjustments in coding can have profound effect on the
operation of an automated feature.

18


19
 References

[1] “Innovation and new technologies,” Connecting Business Initiative, n.d. [Online]. Available:
https://www.connectingbusiness.org/about. [Accessed: Feb. 18, 2021]

[2] “Dato Lim Jock Hoi assumes office as new Secretary-General of ASEAN - ASEAN: ONE
VISION ONE IDENTITY ONE COMMUNITY,” ASEAN, 05-Jan-2018. [Online]. Available: https://
asean.org/dato-lim-jock-hoi-assumes-office-as-new-secretary-general-of-asean/. [Accessed: 13-
Apr-2021].

[3] “The ASEAN Secretariat: Basic Mandate, Functions and Composition - ASEAN: ONE
VISION ONE IDENTITY ONE COMMUNITY,” ASEAN, 24-May-2012. [Online]. Available: https://
asean.org/?static_post=asean-secretariat-basic-documents-asean-secretariat-basic-mandate-2.
[Accessed: 04-Apr-2021].

[4] “Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES),” GlobalSecurity.org, [Online]. Available:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/lapes.htm. [Accessed: Feb. 18,
2021]

[5] M. Peeler, Lt. Col. “Part Two: The Aerial Resupply of Khe Sanh,” Altus Air Force Base,
[Online]. Available: https://www.altus.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/620003/part-two-the-
aerial-resupply-of-khe-sanh/. [Accessed: Feb. 19, 2021]

[6] “Roundtable on challenges to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in the Asia-Pacific,”
reliefweb, Jul. 23, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/roundtable-
challenges-humanitarian-assistance-and-disaster-relief-asia-pacific. [Accessed: Feb. 18, 2021]

[7] Nchaeiva, “When a rapid response saves lives,” European Civil Protection and Humanitarian
Aid Operations - European Commission, 22-Jan-2021. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/
echo/blog/when-rapid-response-saves-lives_en. [Accessed: 13-Apr-2021].

[8] “Rapid disaster response,” Aviation Benefits Beyond Borders. [Online]. Available: https://
aviationbenefits.org/social-development/rapid-disaster-response/. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2021].

[9] “Challenges of Post-Disaster Recovery in Rural Areas,” Louisiana's Response to Extreme

Weather. Extreme Weather and Society., 13-Nov-2019. [Online]. Available: https://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-27205-0_11. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2021].

[10] C. E. Schlumberger, “ Air transportation – the critical infrastructure when disaster strikes,”
16-May-2015. [Online]. Available: https://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/air-transportation-critical-
infrastructure-when-disaster-strikes. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2021].

[11] K. Jordan, “The Disaster Survivor’s Hierarchy of Needs: What Every Disaster Mental Health
Worker Should Know,” counseling.org. [Online]. Available: https://www.counseling.org/docs/
default-source/vistas/the-disaster-survivor.pdf?sfvrsn=e2db432c_6. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2021].

[12] L. O. Gavião, A. P. Sant'Anna, G. B. A. Lima, P. A. de Almada Garcia, S. Kostin and B.

Asrilhant, "Selecting a Cargo Aircraft for Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Operations by
Multicriteria Decision Aid Methods," in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 67,
no. 3, pp. 631-640, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2019.2956356. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2021].

[13] ”Type V Air Drop Platform,” Caldwell Aerial Systems, LLC. n.d. [Online]. Accessible at:
https://capewellaerialsystems.com/product/type-v-air-drop-platform/. [Accessed Feb. 25, 2021].

References

[14] “Asian Demographics,” Wordometers. 2020. [Online]. Accessible at: https://

www.worldometers.info/demographics/demographics-of-asia/. [Accessed Feb. 25, 2021].

Appendix A - Gantt Chart

Table 15.aa.1: Gantt chart for Disaster Relief Aircraft Design Project

DISASTER RELIEF PROJECT

FEBURUARY March April
DURATION
WEEK TASKS START END WEEK 6 WEEK 7 WEEK 8 WEEK 9 WEEK 10 WEEK 11 WEEK 12 WEEK 13 WEEK 14 WEEK 15
(DAYS)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ePortfolio Skills Reflection: Project

2/16 2/22 7
Management

Gannt Chart 2/16 2/22 70

Project Memo: Project Definition- Peer

2/16 2/20 5
Review
6 Project Memo: Project Definition- Peer
2/20 2/22 3
Assessment

Project Memo: Project Definition-

2/20 2/22 3
Graded

Content Mastery - Week 6 2/22 2/22 1

Project Memo: Aircraft Purpose and Interior

2/23 3/1 7
Design - Peer Review

Project Memo: Aircraft Purpose and Interior

2/23 3/1 3
Design - Peer Assessment
7
Project Memo: Project Definition- Peer
2/23 3/1 3
Review - Graded

Content Mastery - Week 7 3/1 3/1 1

Project Memo: Wing Shape - Peer Review 3/2 3/6 5

Project Memo: Wing Shape - Peer

3/6 3/8 3
Assessment
8
Project Memo: Wing Shape - Graded 3/6 3/8 3

Content Mastery - Week 8 3/8 3/8 1

Project Memo: Wing Structure - Peer

3/9 3/13 5
Review

Project Memo: Wing Structure - Peer

3
9 Assessment

Project Memo: Wing Structure - Graded 3/13 3/15 3

Content Mastery - Week 9 3/15 3/15 1

ePortfolio Skills Reflection: UML Modeling 3/16 3/22 7

UML Automation Models - Peer Review 3/16 3/20 5

UML Automation Models - Peer

10 Assessment
3/20 3/22 2

UML Automation Models - Graded 3/20 3/22 2

Content Mastery - Week 10 3/22 3/22 1

ePortfolio Skills Reflection: Arduino

3/23 3/29 7
Programming

Project Memo : Automation Code -

3/23 3/27 5
Peer Review

11 Project Memo : Automation Code -

3/27 3/29 2
Peer Assessment

Project Memo : Automation Code -

3/27 3/29 2
Graded

Content Mastery - Week 11 3/29 3/29 1

Project Memo: Final Design Description &

3/30 4/3 5
Drawing - Peer Review

Project Memo: Final Design Description &

4/3 4/5 2
Drawing - Peer Assessment
12
Project Memo: Final Design Description &
4/3 4/5 2
Drawing - Graded

Content Mastery - Week 12 4/6 4/5 1

ePortfolio Skills Reflection: FAT Procedures 4/6 4/12 7

13 Content Mastery - Week 13 4/12 4/12 1

14 Content Mastery - Week 14 4/13 4/19 7

Disaster Relief Final Report 2/16 4/26 70

15 ePortfolio Project Reflection: Disaster Relief 4/20 4/26 7

ePortfolio: Final Reflection 4/20 4/26 7
Appendix B - FAT Procedures

Verification of Aircraft Range, Cruise Speed and Rate of Climb

Scope: This test verifies that with the parameters of the aircraft plugged into the the aircraft-engine-
simulator, the tester can verify that the aircraft design has a range greater that 1000km, the cruise speed
is less than 310 m/s and that the rate of climb is greater than 2% of the cruise speed.

The following requirements are included in this procedure:

1. The aircraft has a range of 1000km or greater.

2. The aircraft has a cruise speed less than 310 m/s.

3. The aircraft has a rate of climb (ROC) greater than 2% of the cruise speed.

Name of Tester: Jesse Mills Date of Test: April 11, 2021

Prerequisites:

• Computer is on, and user is logged into ASU’s Earned Admissions Program, “FSE100 Introduction
to Engineering: Imagine. Design. Engineer!”
• Tester is on the “FSE100 Introduction to Engineering: Imagine. Design. Engineer!” Home screen.

Test Procedure:

Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail

1 From the “FSE100 A list of each week’s course
Introduction to content will be seen.
Engineering: Imagine.
Design. Engineer!” Home Pass

Screen, click on the

“Course” tab listed second
from the left, across the top
of the screen.
2 Scroll down and click on A screen will display with a
“Airplane Simulator/Basics video window and two tabs
of Aircraft Design” under across the top between the “< Pass

the “Week 6 - Disaster Previous” and “ Next >” buttons.

Relief Project Introduction”
heading.
3 Click the “Next >” button.
A screen will display titled “A
Guide to Using the Airplane
Pass
Simulator” with the actual
aircraft simulator below it.
Appendix B - FAT Procedures

4 In the right column of the The Outputs of the simulator

simulator type the will be listed in the bottom box
following information:
of the simulator.

-Lift Coefficient: 0.93519 -Cruise Speed (m/s)

-Drag Coefficient: 0.04076 -Rate of climb (m/s)

-Payload Weight (kN): 110 -Take-off Weight (KN)

-Fuel Weight (kN): 140 -Range (km)

Req. #1

-Chord Length (m): 3 -Endurance (hrs)

-Span (m): 41 -OEW (kN)

Req. #1

Aircraft Range: 3180

-Fuselage Cross-sectional
.03 km

Area (m2): 10.51 VERIFY the Range Output of the PASS

-Fuselage Length: 23.622 simulator:

Req #2:

-Glider Starting Altitude Req #2

(km): 0
Range is greater than 1000km.

Aircraft cruise
PASS

speed: 303.18 m/s

In the left column select VERIFY the aircraft cruise speed:

the following information:

Req #3

Req #3

Cruise Speed is less than 310

-Engine Type: YT700/T6E
m/s
PASS
Aircraft ROC: 74.35
-Number of engines: 2
m/s
VERIFY Rate of climb of the
aircraft:

Rate of climb is greater than 2%

of of cruise speed.

Appendix B - FAT Procedures

Verification of Aircraft Fixed Wing Design and Cargo/Personnel

Transport

Scope: This test verifies that the aircraft was designed with a fixed wing and has the ability
transport both cargo and personnel.

The following requirements are included in this procedure:

1. The aircraft shall be of a fixed wing design.

2. The aircraft shall have the ability to transport cargo and/or personnel.

Name of Tester: Jesse Mills Date of Test: April 11, 2021

Prerequisites:

• Have access to the PDF version of “Aircraft Design to Allow for the Safe and Efficient
Transport of Disaster Relief Supplies, Victims and Injured Personnel to or From
Hurricane and Earthquake Disaster Zones” technical report.

Test Procedure:

Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail

1 Open the PDF version of The technical report title page PASS
“Aircraft Design to Allow will appear.
for the Safe and Efficient
Transport of Disaster Relief
Supplies, Victims and
Injured Personnel to or
From Hurricane and
Earthquake Disaster
Zones.” technical report.
2 Scroll down to pages 6/35 Three aircraft perspective CAD Req #1
Req. #1

& 7/35. drawings will be shown from

different angles.
Aircraft wing PASS
design: Fixed
VERIFY the design type of the
aircraft wings:

The aircraft shall be of a fixed

wing design.
Appendix B - FAT Procedures

3 Continue to scroll down to Three mission specific interior Req. #2

Req. #2

pages 11/35 & 12/35. design drawings will be

displayed showing two load Aircraft mission PASS
classifications for personnel types: Cargo and
transport (injured and non- personnel.
injured) and one for cargo
transport.

VERIFY the included cargo and

personnel design classifications
presented:

The aircraft shall have the

ability to transport cargo and/
or personnel.
Appendix C - Arduino Code

Arduino Code

Below, figure 15.ac.1 represents the programming code used to control the LAPES-ADS.

/*

Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System -

Automated Deployment System (LAPSE-ADS)

*/

#include <Servo.h> //Include servos

int droqueAndcargoRelease = 0; // Initialize droque and cargo release variable

int overrideAnddeploy = 0; //Initialize override and deploy button variable

int altimeterInput = 0; //Initialize altimeter variable

int cargoDooropen = 0; //Initialize cargo door input variable

int airspeed = 0; //Initialize airspeed variable

int failTodeploy = 0; //Initialize failure variable

Servo servo_9; //Pin 09 dedicated to servos

void setup()

pinMode(11, OUTPUT); // Pin 11 declared as an output

pinMode(3, INPUT); // Pin 03 declared as an input

pinMode(A0, INPUT); //Analog pin A0 declared as an input

pinMode(A1, INPUT); //Analog pin A1 declared as an input

pinMode(7, OUTPUT); //Pin 07 declared as an output

pinMode(4, INPUT); //Pin 04 declared as an input

servo_9.attach(9, 500, 2500); //Servos attached to pin 9

pinMode(12, INPUT); //Pin 12 declared as an input

pinMode(5, OUTPUT); //Pin 05 declared as an output

void loop()

// "GO" Light and "NO-GO" Light enable / Deploy Enable

digitalWrite(11, LOW); // PIN 11 will have an output of LOW

cargoDooropen = digitalRead(3); // The cargo door open input will be on digital pin 3

altimeterInput = analogRead(A0); // The altimeter input will be received on analog pin A0

altimeterInput = map(altimeterInput, 0, 1023, 0, 35000); // The altimeter input was mapped to

//change the input from 0-1023 to 0-35000 to be reflective the aircrafts max ceiling
//height.

airspeed = analogRead(A1); // The airspeed input will be received on analog pin A1

airspeed = map(airspeed, 0, 1023, 0, 400); //Airspeed input changed from 0-1023 to 0-400 as
//indicated in week 10 memo.

if (cargoDooropen == HIGH && (altimeterInput <= 9.84 && airspeed <= 145)) // “Deploy
//enable.” (allows the cargo deploy button to be pushed.

// "GO" light on and deploy enable sequence

digitalWrite(11, HIGH); //Pin 11 is a high output when the above conditions are met

digitalWrite(7, LOW); //Pin 7 is a low output when the above conditions are met

} else {

// "NO-GO" Light on

digitalWrite(11, LOW); //Pin 11 output shall be low under all other conditions

digitalWrite(7, HIGH); //Pin 7 output shall be low under all other conditions

Appendix C - Arduino Code

// Droque shoot release and cargo lock release sequence

overrideAnddeploy = digitalRead(4); //The override and deploy button input shall be read on
//pin 4

droqueAndcargoRelease = 0; //The output to the servo motors shall begin at 0˚

// Deploy droque ‘chute sequence

if (overrideAnddeploy == HIGH) { //If pin 4 (overrideAnddeploy input is read as High….

servo_9.write(179); //command the servo motors to rotate to 179˚

delay(60000); // Hold the servos at 179˚ for 60000 m/s (60 seconds)

// Release cargo locks sequence

if (overrideAnddeploy == LOW) { //If pin 4 input is low and the 60 second timer has expired…
servo_9.write(0); // …pin 9 output is returned to low and the servos will return to 0˚

// Fail to Deploy Sequence

failTodeploy = digitalRead(12); // Pin 12 is designated as the failed to deploy input signal from
// the cargo lock and droque ‘chute failure switches

// Malfunction Light on sequence

if (failTodeploy == HIGH) { // If a high signal is read on pin 12….

digitalWrite(5, HIGH); // …pin 5 output shall be set to high, turning the malfunction light on

// Malfunction light off sequence

if (failTodeploy == LOW) { //If a low input signal is read on pin 12…

digitalWrite(5, LOW); // …pin 5 digital output shall be set at Low, turning the malfunction light
// off

Figure 15.ac.1 - Arduino text code for the LAPES-ADS

Appendix D - Financial Analysis

Base Values
Table 15.ad.1 lists the base values used to prepare the financial analysis of the aircraft as well
as the final calculations. Any calculations used to acquire the base value or any necessary
notes are listed in the column labeled “Notes”.

Table 15.ad.1- Base values and information of aircraft

Value Notes

Number of engines 2

Operation empty weight (OEW) 227.219 Aircraft weight minus fuel & cargo
(kN)

Range (km) 2970.37 Maximum Range of the aircraft in kilometers

Endurance (hrs) 2.99 Time in hours to travel maximum range of

aircraft

Fuel Capacity (kN) 130 Maximum fuel capacity of aircraft

Aircraft market location Beijing, China Home base location of aircraft

Number of hurricanes 2 Estimated number of hurricane responses per

responses per year year

Number of weeks per year 12 (6) weeks will be devoted to evacuations

devoted to hurricane response (6) weeks will be devoted to cargo deliveries

Yearly lease income for $4,000,000.00 2 (number of hurricane responses per year) *
hurricane response $2,000,000 (hurricane lease rate)

Number of earthquakes 9 Estimated number of earthquake responses

responses per year per year

Number of weeks per year 36 (18) weeks will be devoted to evacuations

devoted to earthquake response (18) weeks will be devoted to cargo deliveries

Yearly lease income for $12,600,000.00 9 (number of earthquake responses per year)
earthquake response * $1,400,000 (hurricane lease rate)

Total distance traveled per year 2,419,200 Yearly distance of cargo runs + yearly
(km) distance of evacuation runs (values obtained
from tables 15.ad.2 and 15.ad.3)

Lifespan / YOS 18 Years of service - Number of years the the

aircraft can be in service considering that the
aircraft has a maximum service life of 43.5M
km.

- 43,500,000 / 2,419,200 (total distance

traveled per year) = 17.98

Initial cost of aircraft $52,902,932.91 OEW / 4.3 x $1,000,000 + $34,945 (initial cost
of non-injured victim evac package) +
$26,360 (initial cost of injured victim evac
package)
Appendix D - Financial Analysis

Value Notes

OMR $900,000.00 Operation, maintenance & repair costs per

year

- $700,000 (2 engines x $350,000 p/) +

$200,000 (pilot & other flight crew costs) =
$900,000

Rate 7% Yearly

Total yearly lease for disasters $16,600,000.00 $4,000,000 (yearly lease for hurricanes) +
$12,600,000 (yearly lease for earthquakes)

(values obtained from tables 15.ad.2 and

15.ad.3)

End of life scrap value $2,645,146.65 $52,902,932.91 (initial cost) * 5%

Total yearly fuel costs $5,828,917.20 $3,400,201.68 (yearly cargo delivery fuel
costs) + $2,428,715.52 (yearly evacuation fuel
costs) (values obtained from tables 15.ad.2
and 15.ad.3)

Total yearly cargo costs $15,715,733.20 $15,377,065.20 (Yearly cargo costs) +

$338,668.00 (yearly injured & non-injured
evacuation reoccurring cost) (values obtained
from tables 15.ad.2 and 15.ad.3)

Present value of all costs $278,675,621.94 $52,902,932.91 (initial cost) + ($900,000

(OMR) + $5,828,917.20 (yearly total fuel cost)
+ $15,715,733.20 (yearly total cargo costs)) *
((1 + .07 (interest rate)^18 (YOS)-1) / (.07
(rate)*(1+.07(rate))^18 (YOS))

Present value of all benefits
$237,925,456.36 (($16,600,000.00 (total yearly lease income) *
((1+.07(rate))^18(YOS))/
(.07(rate)*(1+.07(rate))^18(YOS))+
($2,645,146.65(scrap value)/
(1+.07(rate))^18(YOS)))

Lifetime worth (LTW) -$40,750,165.58 $237,925,456.36 (present value of all benefits)

- $278,675,621.94 (present value of all costs)

ROI -77.03% -$40,750,165.58 (LTW) / $52,902,932.91

(initial cost)

Cargo Mission Calculations

Table 15.ad.2 lists the daily, weekly and yearly values of cargo delivery missions. A day is
defined as a maximum of 18 hours that the aircraft is in operation out of a 24 hour period. A
year, as it pertains to the operation of the aircraft, is defined as 48 weeks wherein the the
Appendix D - Financial Analysis

remaining 4 weeks are reserved for scheduled maintenance.Of those 48 weeks, the aircraft will
be used for 24 weeks to respond with cargo deliveries in both hurricane and earthquake
scenarios combined.

Table 15.ad.2- Values of cargo missions performed daily, weekly and yearly.

Cargo Mission Values

Daily (18 hrs) Weekly (7 days) Yearly (24 weeks)

# of trips 3 21 504

Distance traveled (km) 8,400 58,800 1,411,200

Fuel consumption (kN) 369.6 2,587.2 62,092.8

Fuel cost ($) 20,239.30 141,675.07 3,400,201.68

Cargo cost ($) 91,530.15 640,711.05 15,377,065.2

Individual cargo mission values and calculations

• Average maximum round trip distance: 2800km (w/ ~170km reserve)
• Total round trip time (airtime + ground time): 5.82hrs
- Trip time: 2.99 (endurance) / 2970.37 (range) = 0.0010066 (hours of airtime per km)
- 2800 (round trip distance) x 0.0010066hrs = 2.82 hrs
- 2.82hrs (round trip time) + 3hrs (mandatory ground time per long distance round trip) =
5.82 hrs

Daily cargo delivery missions calculations

• Maximum number of trips per day: 3
- 18 (maximum allowable airtime) / 5.82 (total round trip time) = 3.092
• Total daily distance traveled: 8,400km
- 2800 (distance per trip) x 3 (max daily trips) = 8,400
• Total daily fuel consumption: 369.6kN
- 2970.37 (range) / 130 (fuel capacity) = 0.044 (km traveled p/ kN of fuel)
- 0.044 (km traveled p/ kN of fuel) x 8,400 (daily distance traveled) = 369.6
• Total daily fuel cost: $20,239.30
- 369.6 (daily fuel consumption) x $54.76 (cost of fuel per kN) = $20,239.30

Weekly cargo delivery missions calculations

• Total number of trips per week: 21
- 3 (max # of trips p/ day) x 7 = 21
• Total weekly distance traveled: 58,800km
- 8,400km (daily distance) x 7 = 58,800
• Total weekly fuel consumption: 2,587.2kN
- 369.6 (daily fuel consumption) x 7 = 2,587.2
• Total weekly fuel cost: $141,675.07
- 20,239.3 (daily fuel cost) x 7 = 141,675.07

Yearly cargo delivery missions calculations

Total trips per year: 504

Appendix D - Financial Analysis

- 21 (total trips per week) x 24 (total weeks of hurricane and earthquake cargo
deliveries) = 504
Total yearly distance traveled: 1,411,200km

- 58,800 (weekly distance traveled) x 24 (total weeks of hurricane and earthquake cargo
deliveries) = 1,411,200
Total yearly fuel consumption: 62,092.8kN

- 2,587.2 (weekly fuel consumption) x 24 (total weeks of hurricane and earthquake

cargo deliveries) =62,092.8
Total yearly fuel cost: $3,400,201.68

- $141,675.07 (weekly fuel cost) x 24 (total weeks of hurricane and earthquake cargo
deliveries) = $3,400,201.68

Evacuation Mission Calculations

Table 15.ad.3 lists the daily, weekly and yearly values of evacuation missions. A day is defined
as a maximum of 18 hours that the aircraft is in operation out of a 24 hour period. A year, as it
pertains to the operation of the aircraft, is defined as 48 weeks wherein the the remaining 4
weeks are reserved for scheduled maintenance. Of those 48 weeks, the aircraft will be used for
24 weeks for evacuation missions between earthquakes and hurricanes combined.

Because there are two subcategories of evacuation missions (Injured and non-injured victim
evacuation) and the value of the supplies needed for each are different, the cost value of each
type of evacuation is listed separately. Additionally, the majority of the supplies needed for an
evacuation mission are not expendable, such as they are in a cargo delivery mission. For
instance, the cost of aircraft seating is not a recurring cost as the reusable seats are removed
and replaced by reusable litters when the evacuation mission demand shifts from non-injured
victims to injured. As a result, the costs of each mission type is further broken down into
expendable and non-expendable items in order to be calculated into the initial cost of the
aircraft versus the recurring costs of each mission. For calculation purposes, it is further
assumed that of the evacuation missions carried out per day, two will be for injured victim
evacuations and 4 will be devoted for non-injured victim evacuations.

Table 15.ad.2- Values of evacuation missions performed daily, weekly and yearly.

Evacuation Mission Values

Daily (18 hrs) Weekly (7 days) Yearly (24 weeks)

# of trips 6 42 1,008

Distance traveled (km) 6,000 42,000 1,008,000

Fuel consumption (kN) 264 1848 44,352

Fuel cost ($) 14,456.64 101,196.48 2,428,715.52

Injured & non-injured victim

evacuation reoccurring costs 2,016.00 14,112.00 338,668.00
($)

Non-injured victim evacuation

34,945.00
intial cost ($)
Appendix D - Financial Analysis

Evacuation Mission Values

Daily (18 hrs) Weekly (7 days) Yearly (24 weeks)

Injured victim evacuation

26,360.00
supplies initial cost ($)

Individual evacuation mission values and calculations

• Average maximum round trip distance: 1000km
• Reoccurring cost for non-injured evacuation mission: $264.00
- Value derived from table 15.x: Non-injured Passenger Transport and Supplies -
Quantities, Weights, and Dimensions
• Reoccurring cost of injured victim evacuation mission: $480.00
- Value derived from table 15.x: Injured Passenger Transport and Supplies - Quantities,
Weights, and Dimensions
• Total round trip time (airtime + ground time): 4.01 hrs
- Trip time: 2.99 (endurance) / 2970.37 (range) = 0.0010066 (hours of airtime per km)
- 1000 (round trip distance) x 0.0010066hrs = 1.01 hrs
- 2.02 hrs (round trip airtime x 2) + 3hrs (mandatory ground time per long distance
round trip) = 5.02 hrs

Daily calculations
• Maximum number of trips per day: 6
- 18 (maximum allowable airtime) / 5.02 (total round trip time) = 3.56
- 3 (3.56 rounded down to 3) x 2 (# of roundtrips per fueling) = 6
• Total daily distance traveled: 6,000km
- 1,000 (distance per trip) x 6 (max daily trips) = 6,000
• Total daily fuel consumption: 264kN
- 2970.37 (range) / 130 (fuel capacity) = 0.044 (km traveled p/ kN of fuel)
- 0.044 (km traveled p/ kN of fuel) x 6,000 (daily distance traveled) = 264
• Total daily fuel cost: $14,456.64
- 264 (daily fuel consumption) x $54.76 (cost of fuel per kN) = $14,456.64

Weekly calculations
Total number of trips per week: 42

- 6 (max # of trips p/ day) x 7 = 42

Total weekly distance traveled: 42,000km

- 6,000km (daily distance) x 7 = 42,000

Total weekly fuel consumption: 1,848kN

- 264 (daily fuel consumption) x 7 = 1,848

Total weekly fuel cost: $101,196.48

- 14,456.64 (daily fuel cost) x 7 = 101,196.48

Yearly calculations
Total trips per year: 1,008

- 42 (total trips per week) x 24 (total weeks of hurricane and earthquake cargo
deliveries) = 1008
Total yearly distance traveled: 1,008,000km

- 42,000 (weekly distance traveled) x 24 (total weeks of hurricane and earthquake cargo
deliveries) = 1,008,000
Appendix D - Financial Analysis

Total yearly fuel consumption: 44,352kN

- 1,848 (weekly fuel consumption) x 24 (total weeks of hurricane and earthquake

cargo deliveries) = 44,352
Total yearly fuel cost: $2,428,715.52

- $101,196.48 (weekly fuel cost) x 24 (total weeks of hurricane and earthquake cargo
deliveries) = $2,428,715.52
Appendix E - Cargo and Evacuation Payload Breakdown

Table 15.ae.1: Cargo Transport Material Supplies: Quantities, Weights, and Dimensions
Total QTY
Delivered to
support 100 ppl Total Weight Cost Per
CARGO ITEM Qty per each Weight (lbs) Height (inches) Width (inches) Length (inches) for 15 days (lbs) ($) Total Cost ($) Notes

MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES

FOOD / WATER BUNDLE 576 900 48 48 48 3 2700 4176 12528 576 meals / 576 1 L
water bottles

ADDITIONAL WATER 1 45 24 12 12 20 900 8 160 5 gal Jug

TARPS (Fire retardant) 1 11.5 3 19.5 24 30 345 24 720 Fire retardant

COT (Special Needs) 1 29 13 26 35 32 928 50 1600

COT (Regular) 1 21.87 11.5 26 33.5 68 1487.16 30 2040

BUG SPRAY 12, 6oz. Cans 6.06 12 6.5 8 9 54.54 60 540

BLANKET, FOIL 12 1.5 12 12 12 9 13.5 10 90 2 blankets per

PERSONAL HYGIENE KIT 15 19.79 7.5 15 20 50 989.5 120 6000 1 per, every 2 days

INFANT/TODDLER KIT 1 505.63 29.5 40 48 2 1011.26 525 1050 Each kit will support 25
infants/toddlers for 8
days

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS KIT 1 10 18 12 12 100 1000 100 10000

EMERGENCY RELIEF TENT 1 86 12 12 36 20 1720 350 7000 Houses 5 persons ea.

PARACHUTES 1 25 12 36 36 5 125 150 750 For cargo extraction or

drop

PLANE SEATS 1 80 48 18 24 2 160 320 640 Industrial, Belted for

human use

MEDICAL SUPPLIES

HUMAN REMAINS POUCH 6 35.8 9 19 19 3 107.4 45 135

COOLER (Locking)(60 qt) 1 35 19.81 18.125 36.6 8 280 320 2560 Prestocked with
(For pharmaceuticals) medication & perishable
hospital supplies. *Only
delivered when medical
staff are on-sight

TRIAGE BAG 1 25 18 12 18 5 125 120 600 For treating life

threatening
injuries.*Only
delivered when
medical staff are on-
sight
FIRST AID KIT 1 3 6 12 12 10 30 24 240 10 person kit for
common, non-life
threatening injuries.

EEG MACHINE 1 220 45.25 24 32.5 5 1100 4975 24875 To monitor EEG
signals of patients

BUILDING MATERIALS

LUMBER (2”X4”X12”) 100 1066 1.5 3.5 144 5 5330 255.60 1278

NAILS-8D (Box ea) 1 30 8 8 8 4 120 89.55 358.2

PLYWOOD (4’X8’) 1 40.61 48 0.7 96 20 812.2 28 560

HAMMER 1 3 1 5 16 10 30 6 60

CHAINSAW (Stihl MS-660 Rescue) 1 18 12 8.5 52 5 90 1189.99 5949.95

HAND SAW 1 2 6 0.75 30 10 20 6 60

RESCUE SUPPLIES

TOW STRAP (Bundled) 1 1 6 4 216 8 8 12 96

AXE 1 6 1 1 36 4 24 15 60

PORTABLE THERMAL 1 3.2 4.8 4.8 10.9 4 12.8 2500 10000

IMAGING CAMERA

SHOVEL 1 8 4 12 48 10 80 15 150 Spade shovel

WORK GLOVES 1 0.5 1 5 6 10 5 12 120 Tear Resistant,

Waterproof work gloves

WHEELBARROW 1 20 36 36 48 3 60 80 240

PORTABLE EMERGENCY 1 5 12 6 8 5 25 130 650

OXYGEN MASK & TANK

EMERGENCY 1 5 6 24 72 10 50 42 420
EVACUATION STRECHER

TOTAL CARGO WEIGHT: 19,743.36 TOTAL $91,530.15

CARGO
COST:
Appendix E - Cargo and Evacuation Payload Breakdown

Table 15.ae.2 - Non-injured Passenger Transport and Supplies - Quantities, Weights, and Dimensions
Total QTY
Delivered to
support 100 ppl
CARGO ITEM Qty per each Weight (lbs) Height (inches) Width (inches) Length (inches) for 15 days Total Weight (lbs) Cost Per ($) Total Cost ($) Notes

ADULT MALE Includes (27) adults,

1 200 72 30 18 40 8000 N/A N/A (3) attendants, and
(10) elderly males

ADULT FEMALE Includes (27) adults,

1 150 72 24 18 40 6000 N/A N/A (3) attendants, and
(10) elderly males

CHILDREN 1 60 48 12 10 21 1260 N/A N/A

PLANE SEATS Industrial, Belted for

1 80 48 18 24 101 8080 320 32320
human use

CHILD CAR SEAT Adjustable, convertible

1 18 24 18 18 21 378 125 2625 safety seat for infants to
toddlers

FIRST AID KIT 10 person kit for

1 30 6 12 12 11 330 24 264 common, non-life
threatening injuries.

TOTAL CARGO WEIGHT: 24,048 TOTAL CARGO COST: $35,209.00

NON-INJURED VICTIM EVACUATION REOCCURRING COSTS: $264.00

NON-INJURED VICTIM EVACUATION INITIAL COST: $34,945.00

Table 15.ae.3 - Injured Passenger Transport and Supplies - Quantities, Weights, and Dimensions
Total QTY
Delivered to
support 100 ppl
CARGO ITEM Qty per each Weight (lbs) Height (inches) Width (inches) Length (inches) for 15 days Total Weight (lbs) Cost Per ($) Total Cost ($) Notes

ADULT MALE Includes (15) patients,

1 200 72 30 18 27 5400 N/A N/A (6) attendants, and (3)
elderly males

ADULT FEMALE Includes (15) patients

1 150 72 24 18 19 2850 N/A N/A
and (4) elderly
females
CHILDREN 1 60 48 12 10 8 480 N/A N/A

LITTER Aircraft grade, stackable,

1 100 25 22 90 48 4800 300 14400 compact litters with (2)
securing straps

PLANE SEATS Industrial, Belted for

1 80 48 18 24 6 480 320 1920
human use

TRIAGE BAG For treating life

threatening
injuries.*Only delivered
1 25 18 12 18 3 75 120 360
when medical staff are
on-sight,. Stored in
medical cabinet

FIRST AID KIT 10 person kit for

1 3 6 12 12 5 15 24 120 common, non-life
threatening injuries.

EEG MACHINE To monitor EEG

1 220 45.25 24 32.5 2 440 4975 9950 signals of patients,
stored in medical
cabinet
COMPACT IV Stored in medical
1 6 24 6 1 3 18 30 90
POLE cabinet.

TOTAL CARGO WEIGHT: 14,558 TOTAL CARGO COST: $26,840.00

INJURED VICTIM EVACUATION REOCCURRING COSTS: $480.00

INJURED VICTIM EVACUATION INITIAL COST: $26,360.00