Sparky Aid: Wildfire Disaster Relief Aircraft

Design
Stephan Morales
Arizona State University
 Abstract

We had been tasked with designing an aircraft suited for disaster relief operations. The
disaster of focus was wildfires and throughout the design process, the aircraft had been
mindfully designed with our customer in mind. This technical report of the disaster relief project
details design work done to fully realize the disaster relief aircraft concept. The report addresses
the work done in our customer discovery pertaining to the problem with current solutions, and
also explains the background of the project in relation to wildfire disasters. Furthermore, an
overview of the completed design is given and critical subsystems are explored and their
significance to the overall design is addressed. Finally, a conclusion section reflects on the
design's value to our customer as well as details of future work. The culmination of many weeks
of design work has resulted in a financially viable design that can give great value to our
customer and stakeholders. The features and performance of the disaster relief aircraft meet the
requirements for the project, and offer a competitive solution to the problem associated with
existing aerial firefighting aircraft.

Introduction

The defined problem for this project is; Can we design a better solution for supporting
aircraft in the fight against wildfires? The design needs to be usable for rescue operations
relating to wildfire natural disasters and the design must be able to address important problems
with wildfire containment such as the monitoring and surveillance of the situation. Research
shows that the most effective strategy against wildfires is ground containment by ground crews.
To do this, the ground crews will need valuable intel from the aircraft before deployment and
during containment operations. In addition, the design needs to be able to transport the
firefighting crew as well as deliver preliminary wildfire counter measures before the fire crew hits
the ground to begin ground containment.
The stakeholders for this project would be the U.S. government, the NIFC, and National
Forest Services. Additional stakeholders would also include U.S. citizens and wildlife that live in
wildfire areas. The proposed design is of interest to these stakeholders by the potential impacts
this project can have on; environmental factors such as the wildlife and environments that could
be saved by this solution, the potential humanitarian impact by saving lives of those in these
wildfire zones, and economic impact that may save the NIFC and the U.S. government money
with this cost effective solution. To respond to these natural disasters, the design must be able
to transport rescue personnel, relevant equipment, fire fighting counter measures, and
necessary cargo for rescue operations.

Design Requirements
To successfully complete this project, the design must meet the functional requirements
and well as criteria. The requirements for this design are:
● The design shall have a range greater than 16,000km
● The design shall have a cruise speed greater than 300m/s
● The design shall have storage for medical and emergency supplies (Up to 160lbs)
● The design shall have an endurance greater than five hours.
 ● The design shall be able to transport a firefighting crew of at least 20 people
● The design shall have a rate of climb greater than 100m/s
● The design shall have instrumentation to measure and map properties of the firefront
such as temperature and range
● The design shall be able to deploy firefighting counter measures.
● The design shall be durable enough for the extreme temperature conditions(600F-800F)
● The design shall have an automation component to assist the pilots

Design Criteria
As well as the requirements outlined above, the design has criteria that it must meet:
● Low cost
● Green factor. (How environmentally friendly the design is)
● Safety
● Versatility for different disasters.
● Cargo Capacity

Table 1. Criteria AHP Table

Low Safety Green Versatilit Cargo Total Percentage
Cost Factor y Capacity

Low Cost 1 1/5 5 3 4 13.2 25%

Safety 5 1 7 4 5 22 41%

Green 1/5 1/7 1 1/6 3 4.5 8%

Factor

Versatility 1/3 1/4 6 1 1/4 7.83 15%

Cargo 1/4 1/5 1/3 4 1 5.78 11%

Capacity

53.31 100%
To show the weighting and importance of the criteria, an AHP table was created.

The proposed aircraft design will be used to combat and contain wildfires within a
8,000km radius of the New Orleans base of operations. The proposed design is able to carry
the firefighting crew, carry necessary equipment, deploy firefighting countermeasures, and
monitor the disaster zone with a LIDAR system to gather valuable information about the fire
front. The equipment on board not only includes the firefighters individual equipment but also
any medical supplies or machinery they would need to combat the wildfire once they hit the
ground. In addition, using the LIDAR system, the aircraft is able to survey and relay information
about the firefront to the firefighters on the ground as well as to other personnel aiding in the
containment efforts. With this in mind, the proposed design is uniquely outfitted to respond to
wildfire disasters effectively and decisively no matter the size of the disaster zone.
 Background

One of the most devastating natural disasters facing the United States today is wildfires.
Wildfires not only destroy the environment but can destroy the lives of citizens in affected areas
as well as the lives of the wildlife in the area [3]. The economic cost of managing this disaster is
increasing with no end in sight and grows more and more each fire season [5]. The proposed
aircraft design of this project is an innovative new aircraft that would be used in response to this
natural disaster. The target customer of this design project is the National Interagency Fire
Center. Over the course of a year, the NIFC contracts over 1000 aircrafts to aid in their fire
fighting mission [1]. With rising costs and also rising instances of wildfires, the need for a better
solution is not only exigent but absolutely necessary. Some of the rising costs associated with
wildfire containment stem from the leasing of a variety of aircraft [4]. Most aerial firefighting
aircraft are outfitted with one purpose in mind as most of these existing aircraft were retrofitted
to be used for wildfire management. While aerial solutions are vital to the containment of
wildfires, the majority of the work done to contain these disasters is done on the ground level by
firefighting crews [2]. The proposed users of this design are the NIFC and various firefighting
organizations in the nation as necessary. The payer for the building and maintenance of the
design would be Sparky Aid Designs, and upon completion the design can be leased and
contracted out to the NIFC or to National Forest Services.
While the focus of this aircraft is to respond to wildfire disasters, during the design
process other types of disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes were also considered.
While these disaster scenarios were not included in the final design of this aircraft, due to the
performance and cargo capacity of the current design, it is reasonable to say that with some
retrofitting of this design, that it may well be able to effectively respond to these other disaster
scenarios effectively and efficiently. A key component that contributes to this design's flexibility
for other disaster scenarios is the laser imaging LIDAR system on board that would also be
useful to map the terrain of earthquake and hurricane zones.
The versatility of this design in its range of capabilities and performance captures an
essential gap in the aerial firefighting aircraft market. Most aerial firefighting aircraft in service
today are commercial or military aircraft that have been retroactively outfitted to combat
wildfires. This design was specifically created for the task of aerial firefighting and as a result, is
much more optimized and versatile than other designs that have been retroactively configured
to solve the problem. This creates a rigidity in these existing solutions as they were not initially
designed with this problem in mind. Other current problems with existing solutions include rising
operation costs, and safety issues. In fact, the NIFC terminated contracts with carriers because
of crashes due to safety issues [1]. However, our design differs considerably from existing
solutions not only in its focus for the problem at hand, but also in the consideration of the safety
of the crew and the structural integrity of the aircraft as of the utmost importance in order to
deliver a successful solution.

Design Overview

The aircraft has been designed for the disaster scenario of wildfires within a 8000km
range of the base of operations in New Orleans, LA. This aircraft is outfitted to respond to
wildfire disasters of all sizes within range of the base of operations swiftly and effectively. The
aircraft is expected to fly around 25 missions a year in response to these wildfire disasters. This
type of disaster is the focus of the aircraft precisely because this design is optimized to respond
to wildfires in a precise manner that is not found in current aerial firefighting solutions. The sum
of the features and performance characteristics of the aircraft make this design a valuable and
powerful asset that can be used to combat wildfire disasters.
Located below are figures for the 3d model of the aircraft. The aircraft model has been
captured from the three main orthographic views of the top, side, and front. Various descriptions
of the model will be found below the figure including relative sizing of certain components.

Figure 1. Aircraft 3D Model-Top View

This is the top view of the model. This view shows the two JT-8D-17R engines(in dark grey)
attached to each wing. These engines are attached at the center of the wings and the span size
of the wings is 30meters.
 Figure 2. Aircraft 3D Model-Side View
This is the side view of the model. The length of the fuselage is 14meters.

Figure 3. Aircraft 3D Model-Front View

This is the front view of the model. The size of the fuselage cross sectional area is 11meters
squared.
 The aircraft has multiple features that make the design attractive to our customer and the
stakeholders. One of the most important features of the aircraft is the automated safety system
that was incorporated into the design. One of the immediate dangers an aerial firefighting
aircraft will face during rescue operations is the extreme environmental conditions at the
disaster zone. The temperature of the disaster zone can exceed temperatures as high as
600-800℉ which could potentially affect the safety of the aircraft and its crew. To address this
concern, the automated temperature monitoring system can relay real time temperature
information to the pilots in order to warn them when the temperature of the aircraft is
approaching unsafe levels. In addition to the temperature monitoring system, the aircraft is
outfitted with a state of the art LIDAR system which can be used to gather intelligence by laser
imaging the disaster zone, giving the rescue operation coordinators valuable information about
the firefront that can be used to effectively combat the wildfire. This laser imaging would not only
benefit aerial firefighting efforts by locating points of interest to release countermeasures, but
would also give valuable information to the ground crews about geographical areas that can be
used to the firefighters advantage during containment. Additionally, the aircraft boasts a sizable
fuselage that can carry a whole unit of up to twenty firefighters with all of their necessary gear
and equipment. This fuselage also features a cargo bay that can store medical supplies and
other equipment that the firefighters would need when they touch down on the ground. Finally,
this cargo hold also has fire retardant tanks that can hold up to 2000gallons of countermeasures
that can be used as a preliminary attack on the firefront area that the crew will be deployed to.
The design of this aircraft is not only a better solution for the lack of versatility in
firefighting aircraft, but its versatility also gives value to our customer and stakeholders. The
aircraft not only carries a full firefighting crew of up to twenty firefighters, but also has the
necessary cargo space for ground containment, has deployable countermeasures, and also
boasts a surveillance system to gather information about the firefront. All of these features
combined with the automated safety system and an attention to safety in the design stem from
the needs of the customer and stakeholders. With all of these elements working cohesively in
this design, this aircraft is a powerful and capable option for a complete firefighting aircraft.
To evaluate the financial viability of the design, financial analysis of the aircraft was done
using multiple metrics such as the LTW and the RoI and RoR. Referencing figure [15] we see
the final cost of manufacturing the design based on the OEW is $36,850,000 and the design
sees a yearly benefit of $20,000,000. Using these values, as well as calculating yearly
operational costs, as well as payload and fuel costs, brings the design to an overall lifetime
worth of $57,028,915.56. This LTW brings the design to a RoI value of 55% over the lifespan of
the aircraft. Additionally, the RoR value was calculated and results in a return of 4.31% a year
over the lifespan of the aircraft. With these numbers and values, the design is not only
financially viable, but also a financially profitable investment with a 55% RoI over the lifespan of
10.35 years.
To meet the customers needs as well as the design requirements, some trade offs were
made to maximize the effectiveness of the design. One of the biggest trade offs that was
necessary to complete the design was the engine type. In preliminary configurations, the
engines were dual type AE 2100D2 turboprop engines as I wanted to keep the OEW as low as
possible while also having the necessary range and endurance to run missions. Turboprop
engines in general have a lower weight but less power when compared to their jet engine
counterparts. After many experiments, due to the necessary range, weight of the fuel, and the
weight of the payload, the amount of turboprop engines necessary to fly the aircraft became
four. However this meant that the aircraft consumed fuel at an extraordinary rate and thus would
only barely meet the range requirement of 16,000km. To solve this, I experimented with using jet
engines and found that with two JT-8D-17R jet engines, I was able to meet the range and
endurance requirements with room for error, and also keep the OEW roughly at the same value.
The value of the OEW with the four engine turboprop setup was 140.38kN, while the jet engine
configuration rests at 155.94kN. While the approximately 15kN increase to the OEW translates
to higher production costs, the tradeoff was acceptable because I was able to meet the
customers performance requirements while also having room for error.
An additional trade off that was made during the design process was the trade off
between payload size and the performance of the aircraft. As the payload size increases the
OEW also increases due to the need for larger space. Originally, I wanted the aircraft to be able
to carry 5,000gallons of fire retardant as well as the firefighting crew, the LIDAR system and the
cargo. However, in order to realize that goal, the fire retardant tanks would have needed to be
expanded to account for the larger volume. Not only would this flatly increase the weight of the
payload overall from the weight of the fire retardant, but it would have also required the fuselage
to be increased by four meters from a length of 14meters to 18meters. The increase in the
fuselage drastically raised the OEW in addition to the increase from the extra 3,000gallons of
retardant. To solve this problem, I decided to decrease the amount of fire retardant from
5,000gallons to 2,000gallons. The 2,000gallon capacity not only allowed the size of the fuselage
to decrease to 14meters, but also reduced the weight of the payload significantly. With this trade
off, the aircraft is still able to deliver a medium sized payload of countermeasures while also
fulfilling the necessary performance requirements. Additionally, the reduction in
countermeasures and fuselage size translated to a lower OEW by which would save production
costs and also reduce the drag of the aircraft and allow the aircraft to travel longer distances
and at higher speeds.

Subsystems Overview

Performance
 Figure 4. Aircraft 3D Model-Perspective View
This is the perspective view of the model. The size of the passenger door (the gray square by
the windows) is about: 0.5meters length by 0.9meters height. The four windows (to the left of
the door, in blue) on either side are about 0.2meters length by 0.3meters height.

The performance of the aircraft design was carefully considered throughout the design
process. Based on the requirements of the design, the aircraft had to have a range of at least
16,000km, while also having the necessary speed and endurance to execute rescue operations.
These performance metrics were also weighed against the overall OEW, as a higher OEW
would translate to a higher cost of production for the design. With the final wing design, payload,
fuel weight, and engine selection of the JT-8D-17R jet engine, the aircraft meets all of the
necessary performance metrics. The aircraft has a cruise speed of 597.95meters/second, a rate
of climb of 139.32meters/second, a range of 16,234km, and an endurance of 8.55 hours. All of
these performance metrics not only meet, but exceed the base design requirements while
keeping the OEW as low as possible. With the final configuration of the aircraft, the design has
an overall OEW of 158.46kN.
The tradeoffs discussed previously had a massive effect on the overall performance of
the aircraft. For any performance metric of the aircraft, there are interconnected relationships
between the values of specific attributes of the aircraft. For example, the trade off that was
made with the change of the aircraft’s engines resulted in not only a change to the OEW, but
also a change in the cruise speed, Rate of climb, endurance and range. When the initial switch
was made to the JT-8D-17R jet engine, changes also had to be made to the payload and the
fuel weight in order to meet the necessary performance requirements. Additionally, the trade off
made regarding the size of the counter measure tank made a drastic difference in the
performance of the aircraft. To optimize the change in the tank size, a rework of the wing design,
and engine configuration was necessary to accommodate the change and also continue to meet
the design’s performance requirements. This change alone wildly altered the overall design as
not only was the fuselage changed, but also the payload weight was changed in this tradeoff,
which resulted in an almost complete rework of the design iteration up to that point.

Interior Design

Many mission profiles relating to wildfire disasters were considered during the
development of this design. Each of the profiles revolved around the optimization of the payload
or specific performance metrics of the aircraft. The support and survey profile optimized the
payload of the aircraft with a focus on airdropping supplies into the disaster zone quickly along
with the firefighting crew as well. Another profile that was considered was the deploy and
sustain scenario which reduced the equipment payload in order to accommodate heavy
machinery such as a CAT dozer.
However, with the combat and command profile, the aircraft design was optimized with a
focus on technology and countermeasures. This mission scenario would become the final
mission profile for the completed design. For these missions, the aircraft would be equipped
with a state of the art LIDAR system which could be used to laser image the firefront, and create
an interactive visual model of the disaster area. This model could then be relayed and
communicated to ground crews and other support personnel to direct and coordinate the
containment efforts. At the same time, this aircraft would be optimized to carry large amounts of
countermeasures, such as fire retardant or water that can be deployed strategically and
precisely due to the LIDAR imaging. With this focus on technology and countermeasures, this
aircraft would be designed with versatility in mind. With the combination of crew and cargo
capacity in addition to the technological and countermeasure equipment on board, the design is
fully equipped to respond and contain any wildfire disaster within the range of the base of
operations. The design is an all in one solution that gives great value to the customer by
eliminating the need for multiple specialized aircraft that are not as versatile as this design. An
extensive quantitative overview of the final payload is included in table [5], Appendix section D.
Once all of the design payloads and interiors were completed, a decision matrix was
used to weigh the designs against each other to determine the best design solution. Below is
the decision matrix that was used to select the Combat and Command design as the best
solution.

Table 2. Wildfire Disaster Design Decision Matrix

 The results of the decision matrix show that the Command and combat design scored
the highest out of all the design solutions. While other designs clearly excelled at specific
metrics, overall the Combat and Command design had the best overall score due to its balance
in all of the metrics. The Supply and Survey solution was right behind the Combat and
Command solution by only .14 of a score. The difference in this score was attributed to the
combat and command design not only being more versatile due to the LIDAR system, but also
because of the overall cargo capacity as well. The LIDAR system could have a wide range of
other applications in other disaster scenarios such as hurricanes or earthquakes to get a precise
and real time representation of the disaster area. This imaging could be used by rescue
personnel to make informed decisions to coordinate and direct rescue operations.
 Figure 5. Combat and Command Interior Orthographic Drawing
Orthographic Legend
Magenta: Thermal Imaging
Navy blue: LIDAR system
Black: Instrumentation
Green: Passenger seats
Red: Countermeasure tank
Blue: Medical Supplies
Crimson: parachutes
Yellow: Firefighter equipment
Orange: Ground Equipment
Pink: Emergency Kits
 This profile’s payload includes all of the basic equipment and supply requirements for the
fire fighters, as well as the technological requirements of measurement tools and
instrumentation. However this design is unique because of the LIDAR system that would be
mounted in the aircraft, and also the larger countermeasure capacity. The LIDAR system’s laser
imaging sensors would be mounted externally but would require internal space for the collection
and rendering of the laser imaging.
To effectively design the interior of the aircraft, the human factors of the design were also
considered. The average size and weight of the firefighting crew on board were taken into
consideration when designing the dimensions of the interior. The dimensions of the average
firefighter were also used to estimate the approximate dimensions needed to comfortably
transport these individuals, while also saving enough room for the cargo bay without extending
the fuselage too far past what was absolutely necessary. The optimization of the interior of the
aircraft was a direct result of the design requirements, as well as the human factors that needed
to be considered in order to deliver an effective solution.

Wing Design

To begin designing the wing, an experimental model was needed to test and evaluate
changes in specific variables of the wing design and how those variables relate to the overall
performance of the aircraft. The importance of testing and experimenting with different aspects
of the wings design is of the utmost importance because of the relationship many of the
variables have with each other. The main focus of experimentation was to determine how
specific attributes of the wing design, such as the cord, span and camber of the wing relate to
the overall performance characteristics of lift and drag. The lift and drag coefficients respectfully
are not only related to the aforementioned attributes of the wing, but also inevitably relate to the
larger performance of the aircraft in regards to the range, endurance, cruise speed, and rate of
climb on the aircraft. To further complicate the situation, many of these relationships and the
attributes that influence them, will affect more than one variable at a time. In light of the
complexity of the relationships between these systems, a base understanding of how the cord,
span and camber affect the performance metrics will be a decisive factor in creating a suitable
wing design for the given aircraft. Before any testing was done, I hypothesized that of the three
variables, the cord, the span and the chamber, that the span will be one of the most important
out of the three because of how much the length of the wings will influence the overall lift and
drag coefficients.
To create a predictive model of the wing design, I used two different kinds of modeling
software. The first software used was the Zhukovsky Aerofoil simulator and in this software I
adjusted specific values for attributes such as the cord, the span and the camber in order to
create lift and drag coefficients. After experimentation was completed, I then took the data
gathered from the Zhukovsky simulator and inputted that data into the Aircraft Simulation tool.
This tool allowed me to input data from the previous experiments and see how these changes
affected overall performance characteristics such as the cruise speed, rate of climb, endurance
etc. With the data output from the Airplane Simulation, I got perspective into the performance of
specific designs and how they changed in regard to my aircraft parameters.
 The procedure used in the experimentation involved tests of the base values of the
independent variables of; the cord, span and camber and changes within those values
individually. Thus the dependent variable for the Zhukovsky simulation would be the lift and drag
coefficient. As changes were made to the independent variables over the simulations range, the
corresponding outputs were recorded for analysis. It is important to note that because of how
these independent variables are interconnected that in order to have a clear view of what
exactly was happening when a variable was changed there needed to be a base value for all of
the variables. To solve for this, I decided to keep the default values of all of the variables
(excluding the variable being tested). In the experiments conducted, the base values were as
follows; Cord: 2m, Span: 20m, camber: 0.1, Max thickness ratio: 0.16, and angle of attack: 0°.

Figure 6. Cord Scatter Plot

This figure shows the polynomial relationship between the cord length and the lift and drag
coefficients.
 Figure 7. Span Scatter Plot
This figure shows the exponential relationship between the span length and the lift and drag
coefficients.
 Figure 8. Camber Scatter Plot
This figure shows the linear relationship between the camber length and the lift and drag
coefficients.
 Figure 9. Angle Wing Design

In figure [9] the final wing design that was chosen is displayed. The angle wing design
was chosen for the aircraft because of the performance attributes it possessed. Due to the
16,000km range this aircraft would have to travel in order to effectively operate within the range
of the base of operations, the lift and drag coefficients of the wing design were extremely
important. This angled wing design took the experimental results into consideration, and
resulted in a wing shape that could generate a high amount of lift in relation to the drag. This
would aid the aircraft ability to travel long distances without also negatively affecting the speed
of the aircraft too much.
To design the spar of the wings several factors had to be taken into account such as the
spars shape, the dimensions of the spar, and also the material used for the spar as well. In the
table below, the final wing design and its spar are displayed along with information about
specific attributes of the spar, as well as a plot of its projected deflection. It is important to note
that the spar was calculated with room for error and the design was calculated with a maximum
angle of deflection of 10°. As indicated from my project's overall design criteria putting safety as
the most important criteria for the aircraft, I decided to leave room for adjustment while also
ensuring the structural safety of the aircraft. In addition, the material used for the spar is steel as
steel has the best strength and stiffness given its relative weight and cost. For the design, the
weight of the spar was not as important as its cost and performance, and thereby, I decided to
utilize steel's greater strength and stiffness rather than the lighter weight but more costly
aluminum.
 Table 3. Angle Wing Spar and Deflection

Referencing table [4] We have the projected attributes of the Angle Wing spar as follows; Spar
Shape: I beam, Spar Dimensions: 15m Length x 0.2m Width x 0.2m Height, and finally Spar
Volume: 0.243㎥

Table 4. Spar Decision Matrix

The scoring for each design in the decision matrix was based on each design's calculated cost,
volume, and weight. From the matrix above we see that the Angled wing spar (the I beam
design) scored the best.

To determine which spar design would be the best to move forward with, a decision
matrix was created. In table [4] the results of the decision matrix are displayed. The scoring for
the decision matrix was based on how well each design did in the categories of low cost, low
volume and also low weight. The weight of each criteria was derived from the needs of the
project. The overall decision matrix for the disaster relief project placed low cost as the second
most important criteria. Thus in the spar decision matrix the low cost of each design would be
weighted heavily at 0.5. The volume and weight were set equal to each other as the volume of
the design will greatly influence the cost and weight and as aforementioned earlier, the weight of
the wing is of lower importance at this time. With the configuration of the aircraft’s performance
and engine type, the weight of the wings is not as important as keeping costs low. Thus, the
final spar design that was chosen to move forward with was the angled wing’s I beam design.

Automation Design

The purpose of the automation feature for the wildfire disaster relief aircraft is to keep the
aircraft, its passengers, and its cargo safe. During rescue operations, the aircraft can be
subjected to extremely high temperatures when surveying or deploying aerial countermeasures
to fight wildfires. These temperatures can reach upwards of 600-800°F which would jeopardize
the structural safety of the aircraft and the safety of the humans on board. The automation
feature was designed with the customer in mind as the safety of the overall aircraft design was
weighted very heavily in the criteria. The user or pilots of the aircraft were also considered with
this automation with the goal to give the pilots important and necessary information to keep
them and the firefighting crew on board safe.
This temperature automation was chosen specifically because of the value this could
provide for the design. The extreme conditions that the aircraft will be exposed to during rescue
operations not only pose a risk to those on board the aircraft, but also to the customer and
stakeholders as well. Having this safety automation mitigates the risk of a structural failure
occurring due to temperature levels and can save the customer and stakeholders the human
cost of avoiding an accident as well as the financial cost an accidental could have on these
groups. This temperature monitoring system not only keeps the crew and personnel on board
safe, but can also help protect the investment of the customer and stakeholders.
Many models and figures can be found below that describe the use and function of the
automation system from a variety of standpoints.
 Figure 10. Automation Use Case Diagram
This is the use case diagram for the temperature automation. Potential actors and their
interactions with the system are explored.
 Figure 11. Automation Activity Diagram
This is the activity diagram for the temperature automation system. The large-scale activities
and decisions that are made throughout the system are shown.
 Figure 12. Automation Sequence Diagram
This is the temperature automations sequence diagram. This diagram shows the sequential
order of commands and responses that are generated when the system is used.
 Figure 13. Automation Circuit Diagram
Examples Utilized: The Motor and Temperature sensor example, The LCD game example, The
LED Switch example, and finally the Piezo Starter Circuit example.

The circuit for the automation feature is modeled in figure [13] and shows the necessary
wiring and experimental positioning of each element. Referencing figure [13] we see that the
circuit is controlled by an arduino board. The board is connected to a temperature sensor, a
LCD display, a piezo alarm, a switch, and a rgb LED. The necessary parameters for this
automation to run is the readings from the temperature sensor. The temperature sensor data
informs the rest of the parts of the system and without it, the system would not work as
intended. The temperature sensor would be attached to the bottom of the aircraft and would
read the temperature readings the aircraft is being exposed to. This temperature sensor would
relay its data to the arduino which would then pass it along to the rest of the system starting with
the LCD display. The LCD display would be positioned in the cockpit of the aircraft so the pilots
can view the temperature readings being sent by the temperature sensor. Alongside the
temperature being displayed on the LCD, the pilots can also interact with the switch to activate
the rgb LED. When the switch is turned to the on position, the rgb LED is activated and relays
an additional indicator of the temperature. The LED is instructed to turn green when the
temperature readings from the sensor are below 600°F, and once the temperature exceeds
600°F , the LED then turns red to warn the pilots that the outside temperature is at unsafe
levels. When the outside temperature reaches unsafe levels, the piezo alarm is instructed to
sound an alarm, which gives the pilots another warning that the temperature is at an unsafe
level. With all of these parts of the circuit working together, the goal is to give the pilots another
tool they can use to keep themselves and their passengers safe. The hope is that during intense
rescue operations, the pilots can focus more on flying or deploying countermeasures with this
safety system in place to help keep everyone safe.
After many experiments and simulations, the circuit and code of the automation system
work as intended. The circuit is properly configured and all of the hardware parts work as
expected. The automation code that runs the circuit can be found in figure [17] Appendix section
D and also works as intended. With both components of the automation system working
together, the system successfully monitors and displays the temperature readings on the LCD
display. Depending on the range of the temperature readings, the LED and piezo alarm also
work as intended and can effectively warn the user when the temperature readings are at
unsafe levels. In the case that the temperature levels are below the danger threshold, the
system also prompts the user via LCD and LED that the temperature levels are safe.

Testing and Evaluation

Over the course of the design process many experimental tests were conducted to arrive
at the final design iteration. Most of the experimental testing revolved around the performance
metrics of the aircraft in the Aircraft Simulation tool. Adjusting values such as the engine type,
number of engines, and the lift and drag coefficients etc. had a variety of impacts on the
performance of the aircraft. As many aspects of the aircrafts design were interconnected from a
performance standpoint, rigorous testing was necessary to understand exactly how each of the
aircrafts attributes connected to its overall performance. Relatedly, many tests were conducted
on the wing shape and the spar design of the wing. These subsystems also had a major impact
on the overall performance of the aircraft and using the Zhukovsky Airfoil simulator, experiments
were conducted to understand the relationships between these subsystems and the aircraft
performance. Additional testing included testing of the automation circuit in TinkerCAD as well
as testing the automation code in order to verify that the automation circuit and code both
worked as intended. Finally, in order to test that the design meets some of the project's overall
design requirements, FAT documents were created for multiple requirements in order to verify
that the design fulfills these requirements. Referencing the FAT documents in Appendix B we
see that two documents were created to evaluate if the design fulfilled specific design
requirements.
The first FAT document, the Aircraft Performance Test, uses the Airplane Simulator tool
to verify that the design meets the requirements of; The aircraft must have a cruise speed
greater than 300m/s, The aircraft must have a range greater than 16000km, The aircraft must
have a rate of climb greater than 100m/s, and The aircraft must have an endurance greater than
5 hours. Using aircraft values that are provided by the document, the test has the tester go
through a series of steps to input values into the simulator to verify at the end that the
performance of the aircraft meets all of the requirements. When I completed the FAT procedure
for the performance of the aircraft, the results of the test did indeed verify successfully that the
design met all of the performance requirements.
In addition, the second FAT document, the Automation Code Test, uses tinkerCAD to
verify that the code created for the automation works as intended. The testing document walks
the tester through the steps to run a simulation of the circuit and code by using a copy of the
automation circuit and code that was previously set up. When I conducted the testing
procedure, I was able to successfully verify that the automation code and circuit work as
intended.

Conclusion
 With all of the design features outlined above, I strongly believe that the design before
you today creates a viable and unique solution for our customer. The performance of the aircraft
meets all of the design requirements and would allow for a quick and decisive response to
wildfire disasters in the region. The features of the design offer a highly optimized payload
geared toward combating wildfires while also utilizing innovative technology such as the
temperature monitoring automation and the LIDAR system.The inclusion of this aircraft into the
customers fleet would not only benefit the customer, but also the relevant stakeholders by the
capacity this aircraft has, to make a difference in the fight against wildfires.
This aircraft design solves the problem of aerial firefighting aircraft through many facets.
The sum of all of the attributes of the aircraft make this design a versatile and effective
firefighting aircraft that is equipped to handle any wildfire disaster. The design was developed
with firefighting in mind, unlike the vast majority of current solutions in use which makes this
design perfectly suited for rescue operations. Furthermore, the design took some of the
unfortunate aerial firefighting accidents into consideration and as such, the safety of the design
was of the utmost importance. Finally, as the cost of fighting wildfires continues to rise, this
solution offers an alternative solution that could potentially eliminate the need for existing
solutions that are not as complete in features as this design, saving both the customer and the
stakeholders operation expenses.
Future work for this design will revolve around optimizing individual subsystems to
maximize performance and minimize cost metrics. One such subsystem that could benefit from
revision is the wing structure. The wing spar was designed with the cost of production and the
safety of the spar in mind. As it stands now, the I beam spar design is made out of steel which
makes the design cost effective. The maximum angle of deflection at the time of designing was
no greater than 10 °. However, the maximum angle of deflection to avoid structural failure is
actually 30°. This room for optimization was left on purpose to prioritize the structural integrity of
the spar, but this allows for the opportunity to revise the I beam in order to balance both the
structural integrity and the cost of the spar. Optimizing the spar would not only improve the
performance of the aircraft, but would also lower the production cost of the aircraft, all of which
would benefit the customer.
In addition to the optimizatizing the spar of the aircraft, another aspect that can be
optimized is the temperature monitoring safety system. When the automation code was
designed, my experience and knowledge of the arduino language was limited, but after hard
work I was able to successfully code the circuit to monitor the temperature of the aircraft and
relay that information to the pilots via LCD. This LCD was connected to a rgb LED that would
turn green if the temperature was under 600℉ and red if the temperature surpassed 600℉. This
was also connected to a piezo that would sound an alarm when the temperature was above
600℉. I incorporated a switch to turn on the rgb LED so when the pilots entered the disaster
zone they could focus less on the readings on the LCD and more on the visual of the LED and
the sound of the piezo. I initially wanted the switch to not only control the LED, but the system
as a whole so with the flick of the switch, the whole system could be turned on or off. Now that I
have a better knowledge of the arduino language I believe I can successfully reprogram the
automation circuit so that the system as a whole can be controlled by the switch. This revision to
the code would make the automation system more intuitive, and also save electricity from not
having to be running at all times.
 Reflection

Over the course of this design project I learned a magnitude of skills and knowledge
related to engineering that will carry me to future successes as I continue to study engineering.
By working through this design I learned a great deal about the engineering design process and
how it can be applied to a variety of uses. The engineering design process was something I
really enjoyed learning and practicing and by getting experience with the design process, I know
that I will be able to apply this to future projects and work. This process has embolden me to
continue to work hard to study engineering as I strongly feel that this is a career that I will enjoy
to the fullest. In addition to the design process, I also learned about the engineering mindset
and how when engineers take an entrepreneurial mindset to their work, It can have a real
impact on not just the customer, but also any stakeholders of a project. By designing with the
customer in mind, engineers can create unique and better informed solutions to solve difficult
problems for their customers. This project showed me how to think like an engineer, and in turn,
think of innovative solutions. I am proud of the work that has been done on this design, and I
look forward to gaining more experience with engineering as well as gaining more knowledge on
how to be an engineer.
 Works Cited

[1]"Aircraft | National Interagency Fire Center", Nifc.gov, 2022. [Online]. Available:

https://www.nifc.gov/resources/aircraft. [Accessed: 16- Feb- 2022].

[2]"Firefighters | National Interagency Fire Center", Nifc.gov, 2022. [Online]. Available:

https://www.nifc.gov/resources/firefighters. [Accessed: 16- Feb- 2022].

[3]"Statistics | National Interagency Fire Center", Nifc.gov, 2022. [Online]. Available:

https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics. [Accessed: 17- Feb- 2022].

[4]"Wildland Fire | US Forest Service", US Forest Service, 2022. [Online]. Available:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/fire. [Accessed: 16- Feb- 2022].

[5]"Budget & Performance | US Forest Service", US Forest Service, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/budget-performance. [Accessed: 22- Feb- 2022].
 Appendices

Appendix A: Gantt Chart

Figure 14. Project Gantt Chart

 Appendix B: FAT Testing Procedures

Test Title: Aircraft Performance Test

Scope: To meet the needs of the customer, the wildfire disaster aircraft must have the necessary
performance characteristics to carry out its mission. This test verifies the performance metrics of the
aircraft meet the requirements of; The aircraft must have a cruise speed greater than 300m/s, The
aircraft must have a range greater than 16000km, The aircraft must have a rate of climb greater than
100m/s, and The aircraft must have an endurance greater than 5 hours.
The following requirements are included in this procedure:
1. The aircraft must have a cruise speed greater than 300m/s
2. The aircraft must have a range greater than 16000km
3. The aircraft must have a rate of climb greater than 100m/s
4. The aircraft must have an endurance greater than 5 hours

Name of Tester: Stephan Morales Date of Test: 04/10/22

Prerequisites:
● A computer must be turned on.

● The computer must have access to the internet.

● The computer must have the Aircraft Simulation tool open.

Test Procedure:
Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail

1 On the top left side of the The engine type has been
simulation tool, locate a selected as the JT-8D-17R (Jet)
drop box labeled “engine engine.
type”. Click on the dropbox.
From the dropdown menu
select the option titled
“JT-8D-17R (Jet)”.

2 Below the Engine Type The number of engines changes

dropbox, locate a value box to 2.
labeled “Number of
engines”. Click on the value
box, and enter a “2” into
the box.
3 On the right side of the The Design parameter box has
simulator, locate the been located.
“Design parameters box”.

4 Locate the value box The lift coefficient has been

labeled “Lift Coefficient”. changed to 0.38688.
Enter the value “0.38688”
into the value box.

5 Locate the value box The drag coefficient has been

labeled “drag coefficient”. changed to 0.00716.
Enter the value “0.00716”
into the value box.

6 Locate the value box The payload weight has been

labeled “Payload Weight changed to 180kN.
(kN)”. Enter the value “180”
into the value box.

7 Locate the value box The fuel weight has been

labeled “Fuel Weight (kN)”. changed to 125kN.
Enter the value “125” into
the value box.

8 Locate the value box The cord length has been

labeled “Cord Length (m)”. changed to 3m.
Enter the value “3” into the
value box.

9 Locate the value box The span length has been

labeled “Span (m)”. Enter changed to 30m.
the value “30” into the
value box.

10 Locate the value box The fuselage cross sectional area

labeled “Fuselage Cross has been changed to 11m2.
Sectional Area(m2)”. Enter
the value “11” into the
value box.
 11 Locate the value box The fuselage length has been
labeled “Fuselage changed to 14m.
Length(m)”. Enter the value
“14” into the value box.

12 At the bottom of the VERIFY that the aircraft has a Req#1 PASS
simulation tool, locate the cruise speed greater than The aircraft must
box titled “Aircraft 300m/s. have a cruise speed
Performance”. Locate the greater than
metric labeled “Cruise 300m/s.
Speed(m/s)”.

13 In the box labeled “Aircraft VERIFY that the aircraft has a Req#2 PASS
performance”, locate the range greater than 16000km. The aircraft must
metric labeled have a range
“Range(km)”. greater than
16000km.

14 In the box labeled “Aircraft VERIFY that the aircraft has a Req#3 PASS
performance”, locate the rate of climb greater than The aircraft must
metric labeled “Rate of 100m/s. have a rate of climb
Climb(m/s)”. greater than
100m/s.

15 In the box labeled “Aircraft
performance”, locate the
metric labeled
“Endurance(hrs)”.
VERIFY that the aircraft has an Req#4 PASS
endurance greater than 5 hours. The aircraft must
have an endurance
greater than 5
hours.

Test Title: Automation Code Test

Scope: The wildfire disaster airplane contains an automation component to monitor the temperature of
the aircraft as it is performing rescue operations. This test verifies that the automation circuit LCD
displays the temperature reading of the temperature sensor.
The following requirements are included in this procedure:
1. The automation circuit LCD displays the temperature reading of the temperature sensor.

Name of Tester: Stephan Morales Date of Test: 04/11/22

Prerequisites:
 • A computer must be turned on and have access to the internet.

• In an internet browser, TinkerCAD must be open.

• The Disaster Relief automation circuit in TinkerCAD must be open.

Test Procedure:
Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail

1 On the left side of the The circuit tab opens available

tinkerCAD profile home circuit designs.
page, locate the tab labeled
“circuits” and click on it.

2 Locate the circuit titled A window showing a preview of

“Disaster Relief Circuit”, the Disaster relief circuit is
and click on it. opened.

3 In the new window, Locate The Disaster Relief circuit is

the tab titled “tinker this”, opened.
and click on it.

4 On the circuit page, on the The automation circuit begins its

right side of the workspace, simulation.
locate the “Start
Simulation” button, and
click on it.

5 Locate the LCD display in VERIFY that the automation Req #1 PASS
the circuit. circuit LCD displays the The automation
temperature reading of the circuit LCD displays
temperature sensor the temperature
reading of the
temperature sensor.
 Appendix C: Financial Analysis

Figure 15. Cash Flow Diagram

Figure 16. Financial Analysis Calculations

 Appendix D: Arduino Code

Disaster Relief: Temperature Monitoring Automation Code

/*
LiquidCrystal Library - Hello World

Demonstrates the use a 16x2 LCD display. The LiquidCrystal

library works with all LCD displays that are compatible with the
Hitachi HD44780 driver. There are many of them out there, and you
can usually tell them by the 16-pin interface.

This sketch prints "Hello World!" to the LCD

and shows the time.

The circuit:
* LCD RS pin to digital pin 12
* LCD Enable pin to digital pin 11
* LCD D4 pin to digital pin 5
* LCD D5 pin to digital pin 4
* LCD D6 pin to digital pin 3
* LCD D7 pin to digital pin 2
* LCD R/W pin to ground
* LCD VSS pin to ground
* LCD VCC pin to 5V
* 10K resistor:
* ends to +5V and ground
* wiper to LCD VO pin (pin 3)

Library originally added 18 Apr 2008

by David A. Mellis
library modified 5 Jul 2009
by Limor Fried (http://www.ladyada.net)
example added 9 Jul 2009
by Tom Igoe
modified 22 Nov 2010
by Tom Igoe

This example code is in the public domain.

http://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/LiquidCrystal
*/
// include the library code:
#include <LiquidCrystal.h>

// initialize the library with the numbers of the interface pins

LiquidCrystal lcd(12, 11, 5, 4, 3, 2);

/* // C++ code
//
/*
Pitch follower

Plays a pitch that changes based on a changing

analog input

circuit:
* 8-ohm speaker on digital pin 9
* photoresistor on analog 0 to 5V
* 4.7K resistor on analog 0 to ground

created 21 Jan 2010

modified 31 May 2012 by Tom Igoe, with
suggestion from Michael Flynn

This example code is in the public domain.

http://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/Tone2
*/

/* Reference Code for Converting celsius to fahrenheit

created 16 Nov 2016
by Konstantin Dimitrov
https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/TheGadgetBoy/making-lcd-thermometer-with-arduino-and
-lm35-36-c058f0
*/

int sensorReading = A0; //variable for tempsensor

float reading = 0; //variable for temerature

float voltage = 0; //inting voltage variable
float degreeC = 0; //variable for degrees celsius
float degreeF = 0; //variable for degree F

int RedLED = 10; //variable for RedLED

int GreenLED = 8; //variable for GreenLED
int SwitchPin = 6; //variable for switch
int Switchstate = 0; //variable for the state of the switch

void setup() {
//LCD
// set up the LCD's number of columns and rows:
lcd.begin(16, 2);
// Print a message to the LCD.
lcd.print("Temperature!"); //prints the temerature label on the lcd

//temp to LCD
pinMode(sensorReading, INPUT); //establishing the temperature sensor as an input
Serial.begin(9600);

//TEMP to PIEZO
pinMode(A0, INPUT); //connecting temperature sensor to piezo
Serial.begin(9600);
pinMode(13, OUTPUT); //establishing peizo as an output

//Switch to RGB
pinMode(RedLED, OUTPUT); //establishes RedLED as an output
pinMode(GreenLED, OUTPUT); //establishes GreenLED as an output
pinMode(SwitchPin, INPUT); //establishes the switch as an input

void loop() {
// set the cursor to column 0, line 1
// (note: line 1 is the second row, since counting begins with 0):
lcd.setCursor(0, 1); //setting the print point
lcd.print(degreeF); //prints the degrees fahrenheit to lcd
lcd.print("F"); //prints the fahrenheit F

//Temperature to LCD
//TEMP=DEGREESC
int reading = analogRead(sensorReading); //Creating a value for reading
int voltage = (reading*5)/1024; //Creating a value for voltage
degreeC = ((voltage - 0.5)*100); //converting voltage to degrees celsius
degreeF = ((degreeC* 9 / 5) + 32); //converting Celsius to fahrenheit
// Referenced Konstantin Dimitrov's LCD themometer code to convert C to F
 Serial.println(degreeF); //prints the value of the temperature

// reading the sensor

sensorReading = analogRead(A0); //connecting the sensorreading to analogread of A0
// print the sensor reading so you know its range
Serial.println(sensorReading);
// map the sensor reading to a range for the
// speaker
if(degreeF >= 600){ //If the temperature is above 600F, the piezo sounds
tone(13, 440 * pow(2.0, (constrain(int(map(sensorReading, 0, 1023, 36, 84)), 35, 127) - 57) /
12.0), 1000);
//tone for piezo
delay(10); // Delay
}
else {
digitalWrite(13, LOW); //Turns the Piezo off
}

//Switch to RGB
Switchstate = digitalRead(SwitchPin); //setting up switchstate
if(Switchstate == HIGH) {//if the switch is ON the green and red led are enabled
digitalWrite(GreenLED, HIGH); //GreenLED turns on
digitalWrite(RedLED, HIGH); //RedLED turns on
}
else{ //If switch is OFF the LEDs turn off
digitalWrite(GreenLED, LOW); //GreenLED off
digitalWrite(RedLED, LOW); //RedLED off
}

//RGB Behavior
if(degreeF >= 600){ //if the temperature is greater or equal to 600F
digitalWrite(RedLED, 255); //Red LED turns on
Serial.println("REDLED ON"); //serial print of RedLED on
}
else if(degreeF >500 && degreeF <600) { //if the temperature is approaching 600F
digitalWrite(GreenLED, HIGH); //GreenLED on
digitalWrite(RedLED, HIGH); //RedLED on
Serial.println("YellowRGB"); //Green + Red creates a yellow RGB
}
else{ //If the temperature is below 600F
digitalWrite(GreenLED, HIGH); //Green LED on
Serial.println("GREENLED ON"); //serial print GreenLED on
 }
}
Figure 17. Arduino Automation Code
References Utilized: The LCD game example code, the LED switch example code, the
Temperature Sensor and Motor code, and Konstantin Dimitrov’s code for converting celsius to
fahrenheit.

Appendix D: Final Payload Configuration

Table 5: Combat and Command Payload

Item Quantity Dimensions Weight (lbs)

Passengers 20 2.2ft W x 6ft H 200 each

Plane seats 20 1.5ft W x 2ft L x 4ft H 80 each

Firefighter equipment 20 TBD(est. 1ft W x 1ft L 65 each

(uniform, gear) x 1 ft H

Fire Retardant 2000 Gallons 2000 Gallons(about 12lbs/gallon(about

535 ft³) 24,000lb total)

Medical Supplies 5 3ft W x 3ft L x 3ft H 150 each

(first aid, medication,
splints ect.)

Parachutes 2 3ft W x 3ft L x 1ft H 25 each

Ground equipment 20 1ft W x 4ft L x 1 ft H 10 each

(shovels, gloves,
axes, ect.)

Emergency Kits 20 1ft W x 1ft L x 1.5ft H 10 each

Thermal Imaging 1 1ft W x 1ft L 10

Firefront 1 TBD(est. 1ft W x 1ft TBD(est. 10)

measurement L)
instrumentation

LIDAR System 1 TBD(est. 1ft W x 1ft L 20

x 1ft H)