Robert Wolfe Sparky Aid Designs Disaster Relief Project Final Report

‭Disaster Relief Project Final Report‬
‭Robert Wolfe‬
‭Abstract‬
‭The Disaster Relief Project was a project in which a plane was designed to help‬
‭ id disasters in one of several locations. In this case it was wildfires around Rome, Italy. The‬
a
‭final design was a plane specifically meant to help in combating wildfires within ~4500 km of‬
‭Rome. This final design has some improvements over previous designs. For example instead of‬
‭using 2 smaller inefficient low bypass turbofan engines it uses one larger and much more‬
‭efficient high bypass turbofan engine. The final design has about half the range of the Boeing‬
‭787 and is also about half the size. This is another improvement as most similarly sized aircraft‬
‭have a range that is ⅕-⅓ of the range of the Boeing 787. The final design alone, however, costs‬
‭much more than such aircraft. Despite costing more than most similar aircraft it is still financially‬
‭viable with an lifespan of 13 years and an positive ROI of around 253%.‬
‭Introduction‬
‭The problem the Disaster Relief Project hoped to aid in was natural disasters‬
‭ round Rome, Italy. The primary stakeholders would be countries in Europe like Italy that have‬
a
‭lots of forests and are prone to wildfires.‬
‭Requirements‬
‭●‬ ‭The design shall not have a cruise speed that exceeds 310m/s‬
‭●‬ ‭The design shall have a rate of climb that is greater than 2% of the cruise speed‬
‭●‬ ‭The design shall have a water capacity of at least 800 gal‬
‭●‬ ‭The design shall have an autopilot‬
‭●‬ ‭The design shall have a water spraying system‬
‭●‬ ‭The design shall be able to handle a cargo load of at least 200 kN‬
‭●‬ ‭The design shall have a thermal imaging camera‬
‭Criteria‬
‭●‬ ‭The design should have a large cargo and water capacity‬
‭●‬ ‭The design should have a long range‬
‭●‬ ‭The design should have a high top speed‬
‭●‬ ‭The design should be capable of aiding wildfires‬
‭●‬ ‭The design should be adaptable and versatile‬
‭Table 1:AHP table showing the relative importance of all criteria‬

‭Criteria‬ ‭Capacity‬ ‭Range‬ ‭Speed‬ ‭Capability‬ ‭Adaptability‬ ‭Total‬ ‭Weight‬
‭Capacity‬ ‭1‬ ‭3‬ ‭1/4‬ ‭3‬ ‭5‬ ‭12 1/4‬ ‭0.264‬
‭Range‬ ‭1/3‬ ‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭1/7‬ ‭1‬ ‭4 10/21‬ ‭0.097‬
‭Speed‬ ‭4‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭1‬ ‭1/9‬ ‭1‬ ‭6 11/18‬ ‭0.143‬
‭Capability‬ ‭1/3‬ ‭7‬ ‭9‬ ‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭19 1/3‬ ‭0.417‬
‭Adaptability‬ ‭1/5‬ ‭1‬ ‭1‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭1‬ ‭3 7/10‬ ‭0.08‬
‭Total‬ ‭5 13/15‬ ‭12 1/2‬ ‭13 1/4‬ ‭4 95/126‬ ‭10‬ ‭46.371‬

‭The scenarios in which the aircraft is designed to aid in include mapping firefront‬
‭ ctivity, aerial firefighting, and act as a multi-purpose transport. Thus its design reflects this as it‬
a
‭has a large cargo capacity for both solid and liquid cargo. It also has room for passengers.‬
‭Background‬
‭The kinds of missions considered when designing the aircraft varied greatly.‬
‭ iding other kinds of disasters was considered, however, the idea was dismissed. This is‬
A
‭because using the equation below where LR is the lease rate, TU is the time used, and P is‬
‭lease rate per amount of time used I can determine where my time is best spent.‬
‭𝐿𝑅‬
‭𝑃‬ = ‭𝑇𝑈‬ ‭(1)‬
‭Of all of the scenarios available the wildfire scenario had the highest P value‬
‭meaning profits could be maximized throughout the lifespan of the aircraft.‬
‭There were two other aircraft that were compared to the design; the Boeing‬
‭787-9 and the Embraer E Jet ERJ 170. Despite having 2 major competitors there is definitely‬
‭room for the design. This is because the Boeing 787-9 and Embraer E Jet ERJ 170 both‬
‭specialize in transporting people and solid cargo rather than solid cargo, liquid cargo, and‬
‭people. Due to this lack of accommodation for liquid transportation there is still room for a plane‬
‭that has generalized capability. There are also a few other important features unique to the‬
‭design. For example both of the other planes lack thermal imaging cameras. This greatly‬
‭hinders their ability to monitor wildfire progress.‬
‭Design Overview‬
‭The design is far too large for the CAD program used to model it so it is at 1:100‬
‭ cale. The 3D CAD rendering of the the design can be found here‬
s
‭https://www.tinkercad.com/things/lTKGBQTJwxA-disaster-relief-project-plane-1100-scale-model‬
‭?sharecode=RUFyn6RjuE7KSB6EQS2jsaaUz55957IDtF7frfXkNLc‬‭.(Just‬‭a quick note that the‬
‭model may not work. My computer crashed and then when I tried to load the model again it‬
‭crashed tinkercad immediately. Thankfully I already had the 3 view drawings done)‬
‭ igure 1: Top view of design‬
F
‭This is the top view of the design. In this view the placement of the engine is‬
‭clear. You can also see the two doors and the cockpit windows.‬
‭ igure 2: Side view of design‬

F
‭This is the side view of the design. In this view you can now see the landing gear,‬
‭the water hose access panel, the thermal camera, and the height difference between the wings.‬
‭The cockpit windows are about ⅕ of a meter tall and about ½ of a meter long.(Quick side note‬
‭the windows are too small in relation to the plane to just label their dimensions so that's why I‬
‭am telling you here) The thermal camera has roughly the same dimensions as the windows.‬
‭ igure 3: Front view of design‬
F
‭This is the front view of the design. In this view you can now see all 3 wheels and‬
‭the beams supporting them.‬
‭The design was intended to aid in wildfire disaster scenarios around Rome, Italy.‬
I‭n such scenarios it is intended to take a more passive transport role with little active aerial‬
‭firefighting. Surprisingly enough it is projected that, with the exception of the 4 week‬
‭maintenance each year, the design should be constantly aiding in disaster scenarios for its 13‬
‭year lifespan. It is projected that there will be ~45 wildfires in the area each year while the‬
‭design will only have time to respond to 32. It is recommended that if possible multiple copies of‬
‭the design should be produced.‬
‭The design is very versatile and could have other uses if by chance it is not in‬
‭use and not undergoing maintenance. This is because it has a maximum take off weight of‬
‭~1500 kN despite its comparatively small size. The specific attributes of the design and a few‬
‭alternatives are listed below.‬
‭Table 2: Attributes of the design and alternatives‬
‭Final Design‬ ‭Alternative Design 1‬ ‭Alternative Design 2‬
‭Name‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭Embraer E Jet ERJ‬ ‭Boeing 787-9‬

‭170‬
‭# of Engines‬ ‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭2‬
‭Engine Model‬ ‭CF6-80C2‬ ‭CF34-8E‬ ‭Trent 1000‬
‭Range(km)‬ ‭9671.6321km‬ ‭~3334km‬ ‭~15000km‬
‭Endurance(hrs)‬ ‭9.61912hrs‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭N/A‬
‭Cruise Speed(m/s)‬ ‭308.6134m/s‬ ‭247m/s‬ ‭252m/s‬
‭Length(m)‬ ‭30m‬ ‭29.9m‬ ‭62.8m‬
‭Wingspan(m)‬ ‭30m‬ ‭26m‬ ‭60.1m‬
‭Average Chord(m)‬ ‭4m‬ ‭~2.8m‬ ‭~5.4m‬
‭Camber‬ ‭.08‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭N/A‬
‭Angle of Attack(Deg)‬ ‭8*‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭N/A‬
‭Fuselage Width(m)‬ ‭3m‬ ‭3.01m‬ ‭5.77m‬
‭OEW(kN)‬ ‭211.16kN‬ ‭~207kN‬ ‭~1154kN‬
‭Max Fuel‬ ‭200kN‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭N/A‬

‭Capacity(kN)‬
‭Max Take-off‬ ‭1499.16kN‬ ‭353kN‬ ‭2235kN‬

‭Weight(kN)‬
‭Cost(USD(Millions))‬ ‭~$49.11‬ ‭$38.7‬ ‭$264.6‬
‭There are also a few other features which could add value. The full list is shown‬
‭below.‬
‭●‬ ‭Autopilot‬
‭●‬ ‭Access hatch on bottom of plane‬
‭●‬ ‭Winch‬
‭●‬ ‭Thermal imaging camera‬
‭●‬ ‭Winglets‬
‭●‬ ‭Liquid storage‬
‭Financial analysis shows that the design should have an ROI of ~253% and an‬
‭LTW of ~$134 million. The calculations leading to these results can be shown by the equations‬
‭below where‬‭𝐿𝑇𝑊‬‭=LTW($(millions)),‬‭𝑅𝑂𝐼‬‭=ROI(%),‬‭𝐼𝐶‬‭=Initial Cost($(millions)),‬‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐶‬ 𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠‬‭=Present‬
‭Value of Costs($(millions)),‬‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐵‬ 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠‬‭=Present Value of Benefits($(millions)). Inserting values we‬
‭get‬‭𝑅𝑂𝐼‬‭(%)=253.043100472% and‬‭𝐿𝑇𝑊‬‭=$124261816.502million where‬‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐵‬ 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠‬
‭=$214974741.533million,‬‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐶‬ 𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠‬‭=$90712925.0308million, and‬‭𝐼𝐶‬‭=$49.1069767442million.‬
‭𝐿𝑇𝑊‬: ‭124261816‬. ‭502‬ = ‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐵‬ 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠‬: ‭214974741‬. ‭533‬ − ‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐶‬ 𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠‬: ‭90712925‬. ‭0308‬ ‭(2)‬
‭𝐿𝑇𝑊‬:‭124261816‬.‭502‬
‭𝑅𝑂𝐼‬: ‭253‬. ‭043100472‬ = ‭100‬ ‭𝐼𝐶‬:‭49‬.‭1069767442‬
‭(3)‬
‭The full financial analysis can be found in Appendix A. The choice of using‬
‭ utopilot allows for fewer crew and for longer continuous flights. This is because the flight crew‬
a
‭no longer have to constantly watch over the plane. It does, however, this requires a multitude of‬
‭sensors and complex code that otherwise wouldn’t be required which may lead to an increase in‬
‭failures. The choice of only having a single engine was also a difficult decision. This choice has‬
‭some benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and less weight but also has some drawbacks‬
‭such as decreased thrust and fewer placement options.‬
‭Subsystem Descriptions‬
‭Aircraft Performance‬
‭ igure 4: Expanded top view of design‬

F
‭Looking at the tail plane it is now possible to see that the length of each‬
‭horizontal stabilizer is 3.5m and that the width of the whole tail plane is 8m.‬
‭Figure 5: Expanded Side view of design‬

‭ igure 6: Expanded Front view of design‬
F
‭The performance characteristics of the design are listed below.‬
‭Endurance(hrs):9.61912‬
‭Range(km):9671.6321‬
‭ROC(m/s):102.5702‬
‭OEW(kN):211.160‬
‭Max Take-off Weight(kN):1499.16‬
‭Cruise Speed(m/s):308.6134‬
‭Lift Coefficient:1.19136‬
‭Drag Coefficient:0.08957‬
‭There are 2 main reasons why the lift and drag coefficients are so high. This is to‬
‭both keep the plane under the 310m/s speed limit set by requirement 1 and to increase the max‬
‭takeoff weight while still staying above the ROC minimum of 2% of the cruise speed set by‬
‭requirement 2. The 310m/s speed limit set by requirement 1 was also a contributing factor in the‬
‭decision to only have one engine.‬
‭Interior Design‬
‭There were three different payload/mission combinations considered. Two of‬
‭ hich were ruled out using a decision matrix to make an unbiased decision. The final‬
w
‭payload/mission combination was 32 wildfires a year as it perfectly filled the 48 week period in‬
‭which the plane would be available and had the highest gain per amount of time spent. The‬
‭AHP table used to determine criteria importance is shown below.‬
‭Table 3: AHP table used to determine criteria weights‬
‭ igh Total Time‬

H ‭ ow Inactive‬
L ‭Total‬ ‭Weights‬
‭Monetary Value‬ ‭Time‬
‭ igh Total Time‬

H ‭1‬ ‭5‬ ‭6‬ ‭5/6‬
‭Monetary Value‬
‭ ow Inactive‬
L ‭1/5‬ ‭1‬ ‭1 1/5‬ ‭1/6‬
‭Time‬
‭Total‬ ‭1 1/5‬ ‭6‬ ‭7 1/5‬
‭Below is the decision matrix used to arrive at the final choice of payload/mission‬
‭combination 1.‬
‭Table 4: Decision Matrix used to arrive at final payload/mission combination‬
‭ ombinati‬
C ‭ ombinati‬
C ‭ ombinati‬
C ‭ ombinati‬
C ‭ ombinati‬
C ‭ ombinati‬
C
‭on 1‬ ‭on 1‬ ‭on 2‬ ‭on 2‬ ‭on 3‬ ‭on 3‬
‭Rating‬ ‭Values‬ ‭Rating‬ ‭Values‬ ‭Rating‬ ‭Values‬
‭ igh Total‬
H ‭5/6‬ ‭25600000‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭19200000‬ ‭3/4‬ ‭22400000‬
‭Time‬
‭Monetary‬
‭Value‬
‭ ow‬
L ‭1/6‬ ‭0‬ ‭1/6‬ ‭0‬ ‭1/6‬ ‭0‬
‭Inactive‬
‭Time(Lowe‬
‭r=Better)‬
‭Total‬ ‭1(Winner)‬ ‭2/3‬ ‭11/12‬
‭ ayload/Mission Combination 1‬
P
‭Missions‬
‭●‬ ‭32 Wildfires/Year‬
‭Payload‬
‭‬
● ‭2 Adult Men/Women(Crew)(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭20 Adult Men/Women(Fire Fighters)‬
‭●‬ ‭Cable Pulley System(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭300 Gallons of Fire Retardant‬
‭●‬ ‭500 Gallons of Groundwater‬
‭●‬ ‭Water Pump(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭Thermal Imaging Camera(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭Aerial Water Bucket(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭22 Plane Seats(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭2 Drinking Water Jugs(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭2 FIrst Aid Kits(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭2 Fire Extinguishers(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭5 Shovels‬
‭●‬ ‭20 Pairs of Work Gloves‬
‭●‬ ‭20 Portable Oxygen Masks/Tanks‬
‭Payload/Mission Combination 2‬
‭Missions‬
‭‬
● ‭24 Wildfires/Year‬
‭●‬ ‭3 Earthquakes/Year‬
‭Payload‬
‭‬
● ‭2 Adult Men/Women(Crew)(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭10 Packs of Rescue Blankets‬
‭●‬ ‭24 Emergency Relief Tents‬
‭Payload/Mission Combination 3‬
‭Missions‬
‭‬ 2
● ‭ 8 Wildfires/Year‬
‭●‬ ‭3 Tornados/Year‬
‭Payload‬
‭●‬ ‭2 Adult Men/Women(Crew)(Stay With Plane)‬
‭●‬ ‭Anderson Sling‬
‭●‬ ‭4 Large Animal Cages‬
‭●‬ ‭8 Medium Animal Cages‬
‭●‬ ‭16 Small Animal Cages‬
‭Wing Design‬
‭Figure 7: Plot of Lift Coefficient and Drag Coefficient as a function of Angle of Attack‬
‭ igure 8: Plot of Lift Coefficient and Drag Coefficient as a function of Camber‬
F
‭Using this relationship, the one shown in figure 7, and the aircraft simulator it was‬
‭determined that a wing with a chord of 4m, max thickness of 0.07, angle of attack of 8*, and a camber of‬
‭.1 was optimal while keeping under the less than 310 m/s cruise speed requirement.‬
‭To choose the spar design a decision matrix was used. The AHP table used to obtain‬
‭weights is shown below. Criteria 1 is the lift coefficient to drag coefficient ratio, criteria 2 is the spar cost,‬
‭criteria 3 is the spar weight, and criteria 4 is the spar performance.‬
‭Table 5: AHP Table for Spars‬
‭Criteria 1‬ ‭Criteria 2‬ ‭Criteria 3‬ ‭Criteria 4‬ ‭Total‬ ‭Weight‬
‭Criteria 1‬ ‭1‬ ‭4‬ ‭2‬ ‭1‬ ‭8‬ ‭.3636‬
‭Criteria 2‬ ‭1/4‬ ‭1‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭1/4‬ ‭2‬ ‭.0909‬
‭Criteria 3‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭2‬ ‭1‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭4‬ ‭.1818‬
‭Criteria 4‬ ‭1‬ ‭4‬ ‭2‬ ‭1‬ ‭8‬ ‭.3636‬
‭Total‬ ‭2 3/4‬ ‭11‬ ‭5 1/2‬ ‭2 3/4‬ ‭22‬
‭Table 6: Decision Matrix for Spars‬

‭Design 1‬ ‭*Weights‬ ‭Design 2‬ ‭*Weights‬ ‭Design 3‬ ‭*Weights‬
‭Criteria 1‬ ‭2‬ ‭.7273‬ ‭2.1‬ ‭.7636‬ ‭1‬ ‭.3636‬
‭Criteria 2‬ ‭2‬ ‭.1818‬ ‭2‬ ‭.1818‬ ‭2.1‬ ‭.1909‬
‭Criteria 3‬ ‭2‬ ‭.3636‬ ‭2‬ ‭.3636‬ ‭2.1‬ ‭.3818‬

‭Criteria 4‬ ‭2‬ ‭.7273‬ ‭2‬ ‭.7273‬ ‭2.1‬ ‭.7636‬
‭Total‬ ‭2‬ ‭2.0363‬ ‭1.6999‬
‭Figure 9: Final wing design with spar‬

‭Figure 10: Final spar design wing deflection plot‬
‭Automation‬
‭The system chosen for automation was autopilot as it would have the most‬
‭ enefits. Sadly due to time constraints the autopilot does not have collision avoidance and thus‬
b
‭negated some benefits. As little time was remaining the only option was to continue with the‬
‭autopilot despite it no longer being the best option. Below are the UML models for the intended‬
‭autopilot.‬
‭Figure 11: Use Case diagram for autopilot‬
‭Figure 12: Activity diagram for autopilot‬
‭Figure 13: Sequence diagram for autopilot‬
‭To represent the autopilot a tinkercad circuit sim was created which can be seen‬
‭below.‬
‭ igure 14: Circuit sim representation of autopilot‬
F
‭List of components‬
‭●‬ ‭5 Servos(Represent control surfaces)‬
‭●‬ ‭DC Motor(Represents CF6 engine)‬
‭●‬ ‭3 LCDs‬
‭●‬ ‭4 Potentiometers(Represent pitch and roll of a gyroscope as well as GPS location)‬
‭●‬ ‭Ultrasonic Distance Sensor(Represents a barometric altimeter)‬
‭The code can be found in Appendix B. The results of automation were‬
‭satisfactory as the autopilot worked flawlessly with the exception of the collision avoidance.‬
‭Given a parameter that, for example, says that the plane isn’t facing it’s destination it will turn to‬
‭correct itself as it should. It also stabilizes the plane.‬
‭Testing and Evaluation‬

‭The experimental testing completed throughout the 10 week design process was‬
i‭mportant. It included determining the exterior shape, wing shape, wing span, number of‬
‭engines, fuel capacity, and much more. All of this led to the features of the final design.‬
‭Now that the experimental testing is done, we have FAT testing which verifies all‬
‭requirements have been met. The results of the FAT testing are below.‬
‭Requirement 1:Achieved‬
‭ equirement 5:Achieved‬
R
‭The procedures used to achieve these results can be found in Appendix C‬
‭Conclusion/Summary‬
‭The final design is a medium sized plane with well rounded firefighting and‬
t‭ransport capability. The final design solves the initial problems of lack of well rounded aircraft to‬
‭aid in fires and lack of affordable firefighting planes with other capabilities.‬
‭If given more time and resources I would like to add collision avoidance to the‬
‭autopilot, add more automated systems, and find a way to extend the 13 year lifespan.‬
‭I have learned several things from doing this project. A few examples of what I‬
‭have learned are project management, financial analysis skills, definitions of important terms,‬
‭and the difficulties of engineering.‬
‭Works Cited‬
‭N/A. N/A. [PDF].‬
‭https://asuce.instructure.com/courses/5796/files/1132508?wrap=1‬‭(accessed Nov. 26, 2023)‬
‭N/A. N/A. [PDF].‬
‭N/A. N/A. [PDF].‬
‭https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Rising-Cost-Wildfire-Operations.pdf‬‭(accessed Nov.‬
‭24, 2023)‬
‭USDA. N/A. [PDF].‬
‭NIFC. N/A. [Website].‬‭https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm‬‭(accessed Nov. 25,‬
‭2023)‬
‭Appendices‬
‭Appendix A‬
‭Financial Analysis Calculations‬
‭ lane Info‬
P
‭Engines:‬‭𝐸‬: ‭1‬
‭Crew:‬‭𝐶‬: ‭2‬
‭Operational Empty Weight(kN):‬‭𝑂𝐸𝑊‬: ‭211‬. ‭16‬
‭Range(km):‬‭𝑅‬: ‭9671‬. ‭6321‬
‭Endurance(hrs):‬‭𝐸𝑛‬: ‭9‬. ‭61912‬
‭Fuel Capacity(kN):‬‭𝐹𝐶‬: ‭200‬
‭𝑂𝐸𝑊‬
‭Initial Cost($):‬‭𝐼𝐶‬: ‭1000000‬ ‭4‬.‭3‬ = ‭49106976‬. ‭7442‬
‭ ission Info‬
M
‭City:Rome‬
‭Design Focus:Wildfire Aid‬
‭Disasters/Year:Wilfire:45‬
‭Weeks/Occurance:‬‭𝑊𝑂‬: ‭1‬. ‭5‬
‭Disasters Aided/Year(Per plane):‬‭𝑌𝐷𝐴‬: ‭32‬
‭Weeks/Year(Total):‬‭𝑊𝑌‬: ‭𝑊𝑂‬ · ‭𝑌𝐷𝐴‬ = ‭48‬
‭|2000‬−‭𝑅‭|‬ ‬
‭|‬ ‭2000‬−‭𝑅‬ −‭1|‬
‭Ground Time:‬‭𝐺𝑇‬: ‭1‬. ‭5‬ ‭2‬
+ ‭1.‬ ‭5‬ = ‭3‬
‭ 8‬
1
‭Trips/Day:‬‭𝐷𝑇‬: ‭𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑‬( ‭𝐺𝑇‬+‭𝐸𝑛‬
) = ‭1‬
‭ m/Day:‬‭𝐷𝐷𝑇‬: ‭𝑅‬ · ‭𝐷𝑇‬ = ‭9671‬. ‭6321‬
k
‭Fuel(kN)/Day:‬‭𝐷𝐷𝑇‬: ‭𝐹𝐶‬ · ‭𝐷𝑇‬ = ‭200‬
‭km/Year:‬‭𝑌𝐷𝑇‬: ‭48‬(‭7‭𝐷
‬ 𝐷𝑇‬) = ‭3249668‬. ‭3856‬
‭Fuel(kN)/Year:‬‭𝑌𝐹𝑈‬: ‭𝑊𝑌‬(‭7‭𝐷
‬ 𝐹𝑈‬) = ‭76800‬
‭ dditional Information‬
A
‭Lease Rate:‬‭𝐿𝑅‬: ‭800000‬
‭Interest Rate(%):‬‭𝐼𝑅‬: ‭7%‬‭‬‭𝑜𝑟‬‭‬‭0.‬ ‭07‬
‭43500000‬
‭Lifespan(Yrs):‬‭𝐿‬: ‭𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑‬( ‭𝑌𝐷𝑇‬ ) = ‭13‬
‭Fuel Cost($/kN):‬‭54‬. ‭76‬
‭Financial Analysis‬
‭ osts‬
C
‭OMR Costs($/Yr):‬‭𝑂𝑀𝑅‬: ‭350000‬‭𝐸‬ + ‭200000‬‭𝐶‬ = ‭750000‬
‭Payload Costs($/Yr):‬
‭𝑃𝐿𝐶‬: ‭5000‬ + ‭300‬ · ‭2‬ + ‭4000‬ + ‭2500‬ + ‭500‬ + ‭22‬ · ‭320‬ + ‭2‬ · ‭8‬ + ‭2‬ · ‭24‬ + ‭15‬ · ‭5‬ +
‭20‬ · ‭12‬ + ‭20‬ · ‭130‬ = ‭22619‬
‭Fuel Costs($/Yr):‬‭𝑌𝐹𝐶‬: ‭54‬. ‭76‬‭𝑌𝐹𝑈‬ = ‭4205568‬
‭Benefits‬
‭ ecurring Benifits($/Yr):‬‭𝑅𝐵‬: ‭𝐿𝑅‬ · ‭𝑌𝐷𝐴‬ = ‭25600000‬
R
‭Resale Value($):‬‭𝑅𝑆𝑉‬: ‭0.‬ ‭05‬‭𝐼𝐶‬ = ‭2455348‬. ‭83721‬
‭ roject Value‬
P
‭Present Value of Costs($):‬
‭𝐿‬
(‭1‬+‭𝐼𝑅‬) −‭1‬
‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐶‬ 𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠‬: ‭𝐼𝐶‬ + (‭𝑂𝑀𝑅‬ + ‭𝑌𝐹𝐶‬ + ‭𝑃𝐿𝐶‬) ‭𝐿‬ = ‭90712925‬. ‭0308‬
‭𝐼𝑅‬(‭1+
‬ ‭𝐼𝑅‬)
‭𝐿‬
(‭1‬+‭𝐼𝑅‬) −‭1‬ ‭𝑅𝑆𝑉‬
‭Present Value of Benefits($):‬‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐵‬ 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠‬: ‭𝑅𝐵‬ ‭𝐿‬ + ‭𝐿‬ = ‭214974741‬. ‭533‬
‭𝐼𝑅‬(‭1‬+‭𝐼𝑅‬) (‭1‬+‭𝐼𝑅‬)
‭Lifetime Worth($):‬‭𝐿𝑇𝑊‬: ‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐵‬ 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠‬ − ‭𝑃‬‭𝑉‭𝐶‬ 𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠‬ = ‭124261816‬. ‭502‬
‭𝐿𝑇𝑊‬
‭Return on Investment(%):‬‭𝑅𝑂𝐼‬: ‭100‬ ‭𝐼𝐶‬
= ‭253‬. ‭043100472‬
‭Appendix B‬
‭Arduino Code‬
‭This is the arduino code for the autopilot that was included.‬
‭/ C++ code‬
/
//‬
‭
#include <Servo.h>‬
‭
#include <LiquidCrystal_I2C.h>‬
‭
int Speed = 0;‬

‭
int DLongitude = 0;‬

‭
int DLatitude = 0;‬

‭
int PLatitude = 0;‬

‭
int PLongitude = 0;‬

‭
int Time = 0;‬

‭
int Distance = 0;‬

‭
int ETA = 0;‬

‭
int Compass = 0;‬

‭
int Destination = 0;‬

‭
int Change = 0;‬

‭
Servo servo_3;‬
‭
Servo servo_2;‬
‭
Servo servo_1;‬
‭
Servo servo_0;‬
‭
LiquidCrystal_I2C lcd_1(32, 16, 2);‬

‭

‭

‭
‭ong readUltrasonicDistance(int triggerPin, int echoPin)‬

l
{‬
‭
pinMode(triggerPin, OUTPUT); // Clear the trigger‬
‭
digitalWrite(triggerPin, LOW);‬
‭
delayMicroseconds(2);‬
‭
// Sets the trigger pin to HIGH state for 10 microseconds‬
‭
digitalWrite(triggerPin, HIGH);‬
‭
delayMicroseconds(10);‬
‭
digitalWrite(triggerPin, LOW);‬
‭
pinMode(echoPin, INPUT);‬
‭
// Reads the echo pin, and returns the sound wave travel time in microseconds‬
‭
return pulseIn(echoPin, HIGH);‬
‭
}‬
‭
‭oid setup()‬
v
{‬
‭
pinMode(5, OUTPUT);‬
‭
servo_3.attach(3, 500,
‭ 2500);‬
‭ 2500);‬
‭ 2500);‬
‭ 2500);‬
lcd_1.init();‬
‭
lcd_2.init();‬
‭
lcd_3.init();‬
‭
pinMode(A2, INPUT);‬
‭
‭
Serial.begin(9600);‬
‭
‭
‭
‭nalogWrite(5, 0);‬
a
Speed = 0;‬
‭
servo_3.write(90);‬
‭
‭
‭
‭
lcd_1.backlight();‬
‭
‭
‭
lcd_1.print("Altitude(1000Ft)");‬
‭
lcd_2.print("Headings(Deg)");‬
‭
‭cd_2.setCursor(0, 1);‬
l
lcd_2.print("Roll");‬
‭
lcd_2.setCursor(4, 1);‬
‭
lcd_2.print("
‭ Pitch");‬
‭Latitude = random(-90, 90 + 1);‬

D
DLongitude = random(-180, 180 + 1);‬
‭
Compass = random(0, 360 + 1);‬
‭
}‬
‭
‭oid loop()‬
v
{‬
‭
‭
lcd_1.print("
‭ ");‬
‭
lcd_1.print((0.006783 * readUltrasonicDistance(A1, A0) / 12));‬
‭
‭
lcd_2.print(" ");‬
‭
‭
lcd_2.print(abs((map(analogRead(A2), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90)));‬
‭
‭
‭
‭
lcd_2.print(abs((map(analogRead(A3), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90)));‬
‭
‭
if ((map(analogRead(A2), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90) / abs((map(analogRead(A2), 0, 1023,‬
‭
0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
lcd_2.print("-");‬
‭
} else {‬
‭
‭
}‬
‭
‭
if ((map(analogRead(A3), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90) / abs((map(analogRead(A3), 0, 1023,‬
‭
0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
lcd_2.print("-");‬
‭
} else {‬
‭
‭
}‬
‭
if (Speed < 100) {‬

‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Starting Enigne");‬
‭
while (Speed < 100) {‬
‭
‭Speed = 100;‬
‭analogWrite(5, Speed);‬
}‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Engine Active");‬
‭
}‬
‭
if (0.006783 * readUltrasonicDistance(A1, A0) / 12 < 1) {‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
‭cd_3.print("Taking Off");‬
l
while (0.006783 * readUltrasonicDistance(A1, A0) / 12 < 1) {‬
‭
‭Speed = 100;‬
‭servo_0.write(75);‬
}‬
‭
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Takeoff Completed");‬
‭
}‬
‭
if (abs(((map(analogRead(A2), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90))) > 1) {‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Steadying Plane");‬
‭
‭
lcd_3.print("(Roll)");‬
‭
while (abs(((map(analogRead(A2), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90))) > 1) {‬
‭
‭Serial.println(abs(((map(analogRead(A2), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90) /‬
abs((map(analogRead(A2), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90)))));‬
‭
‭if ((map(analogRead(A2), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90) / abs((map(analogRead(A2), 0,‬
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
‭}‬
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) > 0) {‬
‭
‭}‬
‭lcd_1.setCursor(0, 1);‬
‭lcd_1.print(" ");‬
‭lcd_1.print((0.006783 * readUltrasonicDistance(A1, A0) / 12));‬
‭lcd_2.print(abs((map(analogRead(A2), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90)));‬
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
‭lcd_2.print("-");‬
‭} else {‬
‭}‬
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
‭} else {‬
‭}‬
}‬
‭
‭
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Plane Steadied");‬
‭
}‬
‭
if (abs(((map(analogRead(A3), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90))) > 1) {‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Steadying Plane");‬
‭
‭
lcd_3.print("(Pitch)");‬
‭
while (abs(((map(analogRead(A3), 0, 1023, 0, 180) - 90))) > 1) {‬
‭
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
‭} else {‬
‭}‬
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
‭} else {‬
‭}‬
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) > 0) {‬
‭
‭}‬
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
‭}‬
}‬
‭
‭
‭cd_3.clear();‬
l
lcd_3.print("Plane Steadied");‬
‭
}‬
‭
if (Speed < 255) {‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Accelerating");‬
‭
while (Speed < 255) {‬
‭
‭Speed = 255;‬
}‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("At Cruise Speed");‬
‭
}‬
‭
if (Compass != Destination) {‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Turning to");‬
‭
‭
lcd_3.print("Destination");‬
‭
‭hange = ((Destination - Compass) / 20);‬

C
while (Compass != Destination) {‬
‭
‭if (Compass < Destination) {‬
‭Compass -= Change;‬
‭}‬
‭if (Compass > Destination) {‬
‭Compass += Change;‬
‭}‬
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
‭} else {‬
‭}‬
1023, 0, 180) - 90)) < 0) {‬
‭
‭} else {‬
‭}‬
}‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Facing");‬
‭
‭
lcd_3.print("Destination");‬
‭
‭
}‬
‭
if (abs(Distance) > 50) {‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Nearing Destination");‬
‭
}‬
‭
if (random(1, 10000 + 1) == 1) {‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
lcd_3.print("Critical Failure");‬
‭
‭
lcd_3.print("Land Immediately");‬
‭
}‬
‭
lcd_3.clear();‬
‭
delay(500); // Wait for 500 millisecond(s)‬
‭
‭Latitude = map(analogRead(A5), 0, 1023, -90, 90);‬

P
PLongitude = map(analogRead(A4), 0, 1023, -180, 180);‬
‭
Distance = ((DLatitude - PLatitude) / ((DLatitude - PLatitude) + (DLongitude -‬
‭
PLongitude)));‬
‭
ETA = (Distance / ((Speed / 255) * Time));‬
‭
Destination = cos(((DLatitude - PLatitude) / ((DLatitude - PLatitude) / ((DLatitude‬
‭
- PLatitude) + (DLongitude - PLongitude)))));‬
‭
}‬
‭
‭Appendix C‬
‭ AT Procedures‬
F
‭Test Title: Verifying Requirements 1, 2, and 6‬
S‭ cope:‬ ‭This test verifies Requirements 1, 2, and 6 of the Disaster Relief Project‬
‭The following requirements are included in this procedure:‬
‭1.‬ ‭The design shall not have a cruise speed that exceeds 310m/s‬
‭2.‬ ‭The design shall have a rate of climb that is greater than 2% of the cruise speed‬
‭3.‬ ‭The design shall be able to handle a cargo load of at least 200 kN‬
‭Name of Tester‬‭:‬ ‭Date of Test‬‭:‬
‭Prerequisites:‬
‭‬ A
● ‭ browser is open‬
‭●‬ ‭The aircraft simulator located at the url‬
‭https://static.edpl.us/courses/gfa/fse100/html5/airplane-engine-simulator/airplane-engine-simu‬
‭lator.html‬‭is open‬
T‭ est Procedure:‬
‭Step‬ ‭Instructions‬ E‭ xpected Outcome‬ ‭Requirement‬ ‭Pass/Fail‬
‭1‬ ‭On the aircraft simulator‬ ‭Several engine choices will‬
‭find the engine type listed.‬ ‭appear.‬
‭Click on it.‬
‭2‬ ‭Locate the engine called‬ T‭ he engine choices will‬
‭CF6-80C2 (jet) and click on‬ ‭disappear and the selected‬
‭it.‬ ‭engine type will now be‬
‭CF6-80C2 (jet).‬
‭3‬ L‭ ocate the number of‬ ‭The number of engines will‬
‭engines listed. Click on it‬ ‭decrease to 1.‬
‭and change the value to 1.‬
‭4‬ ‭Find the value of the lift‬ T‭ he lift coefficient will decrease‬
‭coefficient and set it to‬ ‭to 1.19146.‬
‭1.19146.‬
‭5‬ ‭Find the drag coefficient‬ T‭ he drag coefficient will‬
‭and set it to .08957.‬ ‭decrease to .08957.‬
‭7‬ ‭Find the chord and set it to‬ ‭The chord will increase to 4.‬
‭4.‬
‭8‬ ‭Find the fuel weight and‬ ‭Fuel weight will increase to 200.‬
‭set it to 200.‬
‭9‬ ‭Find the Payload weight‬ ‭ ayload weight will increase to‬
P
‭and set it to 200.‬ ‭200.‬
‭10‬ ‭Find the fuselage‬ ‭The fuselage cross-sectional‬
‭cross-sectional area and set‬ ‭area should decrease to‬
‭it to 7.068583.‬ ‭7.068583.‬
‭11‬ ‭Find Cruise Speed‬ ‭The cruise speed should be‬ ‭ eq#1‬
R
‭308.6134‬ ‭Cruise Speed=‬
‭12‬ ‭Find Rate of Climb‬ ‭Rate of Climb should be‬ ‭Req#2&3‬
‭102.5702‬ ‭Rate of Climb=‬

Robert Wolfe Sparky Aid Designs Disaster Relief Project Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robert Wolfe Sparky Aid Designs Disaster Relief Project Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‭Disaster Relief Project Final Report‬

‭Table 1:AHP table showing the relative importance of all criteria‬

‭Capacity‬ ‭1‬ ‭3‬ ‭1/4‬ ‭3‬ ‭5‬ ‭12 1/4‬ ‭0.264‬

‭Range‬ ‭1/3‬ ‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭1/7‬ ‭1‬ ‭4 10/21‬ ‭0.097‬

‭Speed‬ ‭4‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭1‬ ‭1/9‬ ‭1‬ ‭6 11/18‬ ‭0.143‬

‭Capability‬ ‭1/3‬ ‭7‬ ‭9‬ ‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭19 1/3‬ ‭0.417‬

‭Adaptability‬ ‭1/5‬ ‭1‬ ‭1‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭1‬ ‭3 7/10‬ ‭0.08‬

‭Total‬ ‭5 13/15‬ ‭12 1/2‬ ‭13 1/4‬ ‭4 95/126‬ ‭10‬ ‭46.371‬

‭ igure 2: Side view of design‬

‭Final Design‬ ‭Alternative Design 1‬ ‭Alternative Design 2‬

‭Name‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭Embraer E Jet ERJ‬ ‭Boeing 787-9‬

‭# of Engines‬ ‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭2‬

‭Engine Model‬ ‭CF6-80C2‬ ‭CF34-8E‬ ‭Trent 1000‬

‭Range(km)‬ ‭9671.6321km‬ ‭~3334km‬ ‭~15000km‬

‭Endurance(hrs)‬ ‭9.61912hrs‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭N/A‬

‭Cruise Speed(m/s)‬ ‭308.6134m/s‬ ‭247m/s‬ ‭252m/s‬

‭Length(m)‬ ‭30m‬ ‭29.9m‬ ‭62.8m‬

‭Wingspan(m)‬ ‭30m‬ ‭26m‬ ‭60.1m‬

‭Average Chord(m)‬ ‭4m‬ ‭~2.8m‬ ‭~5.4m‬

‭Camber‬ ‭.08‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭N/A‬

‭Angle of Attack(Deg)‬ ‭8*‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭N/A‬

‭Fuselage Width(m)‬ ‭3m‬ ‭3.01m‬ ‭5.77m‬

‭OEW(kN)‬ ‭211.16kN‬ ‭~207kN‬ ‭~1154kN‬

‭Max Fuel‬ ‭200kN‬ ‭N/A‬ ‭N/A‬

‭Max Take-off‬ ‭1499.16kN‬ ‭353kN‬ ‭2235kN‬

‭ igure 4: Expanded top view of design‬

‭Figure 5: Expanded Side view of design‬

‭ igh Total Time‬

‭ igh Total Time‬

‭Total‬ ‭1 1/5‬ ‭6‬ ‭7 1/5‬

‭Total‬ ‭1(Winner)‬ ‭2/3‬ ‭11/12‬

‭Criteria 1‬ ‭1‬ ‭4‬ ‭2‬ ‭1‬ ‭8‬ ‭.3636‬

‭Criteria 2‬ ‭1/4‬ ‭1‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭1/4‬ ‭2‬ ‭.0909‬

‭Criteria 3‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭2‬ ‭1‬ ‭1/2‬ ‭4‬ ‭.1818‬

‭Criteria 4‬ ‭1‬ ‭4‬ ‭2‬ ‭1‬ ‭8‬ ‭.3636‬

‭Total‬ ‭2 3/4‬ ‭11‬ ‭5 1/2‬ ‭2 3/4‬ ‭22‬

‭Table 6: Decision Matrix for Spars‬

‭Criteria 1‬ ‭2‬ ‭.7273‬ ‭2.1‬ ‭.7636‬ ‭1‬ ‭.3636‬

‭Criteria 2‬ ‭2‬ ‭.1818‬ ‭2‬ ‭.1818‬ ‭2.1‬ ‭.1909‬

‭Criteria 3‬ ‭2‬ ‭.3636‬ ‭2‬ ‭.3636‬ ‭2.1‬ ‭.3818‬

‭Total‬ ‭2‬ ‭2.0363‬ ‭1.6999‬

‭Figure 9: Final wing design with spar‬

‭Testing and Evaluation‬

int Speed = 0;‬

int DLongitude = 0;‬

int DLatitude = 0;‬

int PLatitude = 0;‬

int PLongitude = 0;‬

int Time = 0;‬

int Distance = 0;‬

int ETA = 0;‬

int Compass = 0;‬

int Destination = 0;‬

int Change = 0;‬

LiquidCrystal_I2C lcd_1(32, 16, 2);‬

LiquidCrystal_I2C lcd_2(33, 16, 2);‬

LiquidCrystal_I2C lcd_3(34, 16, 2);‬

‭ong readUltrasonicDistance(int triggerPin, int echoPin)‬

‭Latitude = random(-90, 90 + 1);‬

if (Speed < 100) {‬

‭hange = ((Destination - Compass) / 20);‬

‭Latitude = map(analogRead(A5), 0, 1023, -90, 90);‬

‭Name of Tester‬‭:‬ ‭Date of Test‬‭:‬