RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Aerodynamics >> RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5 6   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 7/17/2004 5:33:15 PM   
Tall Paul



Posts: 4655
Joined: 6/23/2002
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Status: offline 		The unflyables... Australia and Parks.. golly!
And when the Wichita plane took off, I said to myself, "that plane has a pre-broken wing."... and sure 'nuf... spectacular!

(in reply to natoquick)
       Post #: 51

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 7/17/2004 7:38:44 PM   
natoquick


 

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/24/2004
From: Federal Way, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Well, the Witchita plane was essentially sized up from a foam glider you could get at Wal-Mart. Little to no reinforcement in any part of that aircraft. They pre-qualified, so maybe their wing was weakened during their qualification flight. The other plane that I'm surprised flew, especially for as long as it did, was the Colorado State. Their canard and main wing were at different angles, neither of them being parallel with the ground. Horrible roll and yaw control as well.

I do have to give props to the Aussies for giving us some of their materials to allow us to become flyable again. It's really unfortunate to see a team come that far and not even get off the ground. Great bunch of guys.

(in reply to Tall Paul)
       Post #: 52

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 8/17/2004 1:14:45 AM   
MikeSell



Posts: 801
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Flushing, MI, USA
Status: offline 		After seeing the DVDs I have a better idea of the weather problems at West. When the wind came up suddenly Cedarvilles plane took off in less than half the runway. The following runaway plane was at the mercy of the wind. It really showed how bad it was when the next entry took off and snapped both wings and the tailboom without any high G manuevers.
My son was not all that upset with the weather at west. He felt that some teams were allowed many chances on the last day while theirs were limited. He felt that the venue was much smaller than specified and that contributed to some teams failure. He was far less dissapointed with his results than I was. He Knew that their plane was built too heavily and even at that if he had one piece of hardware that they broke at east they would have lifted the highest payload. (They still lifted the highest gross weight) It sad when your son is more mature than you are!
Natoquick: When viewed at our club, your planes' design was the favorite of the pilots. They commented how substantial and under control it appeared. How much did you get up in payload?

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 53

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 8/17/2004 4:07:11 AM   
natoquick


 

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/24/2004
From: Federal Way, WA, USA
Status: offline 		We officially lifted somewhere around 17.75 pounds, but we did actually lift off with 23, but broke ground a couple feet past the line. If our nose gear didn't have problems, we probably would have gotten that 23 pounds off the ground. That crash during flight testing really hurt us.

Thanks for the compliment. One of our goals is to make a very controllable aircraft. We had the advantage of having a very knowledgable RC pilot on our team, so he could provide us with a lot of empirical knowledge and rules of thumb that otherwise we would have had to scratch hard to get at. Also being a good pilot, he helps us get that weight in the air and back down without too much of an increase in blood pressure.

Can't wait till next year.

(in reply to MikeSell)
       Post #: 54

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 8/21/2004 1:10:24 AM   
NFOOTE


 

Posts: 37
Joined: 7/6/2004
From: Issaquah, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Got your biplane designs done yet? Triplanes? lol GL

Brian
Buy more than 2 props next year!

(in reply to natoquick)
       Post #: 55

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 9/2/2004 8:11:21 PM   
SoarNeck



Posts: 156
Joined: 1/24/2002
From: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Status: offline 		I always thought this competition would be more interesting (and probably safer) if there was some minimum controllability requirement. Something like stating that the model has to be able to perform a loop and a roll, or something of the sort. Our last model was actually pretty aerobatic with its four-servo wing...and would hold inverted flight nicely too.

What would make for a really interesting competition would stating that the model has to be able to sustain inverted flight carrying the qualifying payload (8lbs if memory serves?) I'm allowed to be evil now that I'm no longer able to participate!

(in reply to NFOOTE)
       Post #: 56

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 9/2/2004 10:31:31 PM   
MikeSell



Posts: 801
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Flushing, MI, USA
Status: offline 		I found it almost inconcievable that some of those entrants were allowed to try to fly. Some appeared downright dangerous. Some that looked way too crude flew well though. All in all I found it quite entertaining.
As I now understand it, this competetion is not to research aerodynamic netherworlds. Its not a skunk factory. It is purposely very limited in scope. The competetors are student automotive engineers "SAE" not professional aerospace engineers. Students that may never have built anything before are required to build their brainchild. Much more is learned than who built a better airplane.
This exercise requires working to engineering specifications, brainstorming, research, critical thinking, group dynamics, fund raising, working within a budget, time constraints, deadlines, report writing, field testing and a final buyout. It teaches about the engineering field as well as workplace dynamics. In short this excercise may make a budding engineer out of a student or make them seek another profession.
SoarNeck:
A C5a doesn't do loops and rolls because its not designed to. An extra doesn't carry tons of payload its not designed to. You apparently were looking for a different competetion. To ask these students to make this small aircraft into an RC toy would dilute the engineering lesson. If you want to entertain yourself go fly a funfly at the field or play a video game. This competetion teaches valuable skills that have nothing to do with airplanes.

< Message edited by MikeSell -- 9/2/2004 5:32:36 PM >

(in reply to SoarNeck)
       Post #: 57

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 9/2/2004 11:07:06 PM   
Tall Paul



Posts: 4655
Joined: 6/23/2002
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Mike, you nailed it.
I used the description "micocosom of the design process" when interviewed by the AV Press at one of these events..
The entrants start with a spec, design to it, construct it, and prove their concept, the complete process any manufacturer must go thru in the real world.
It's what makes the whole thing very interesting, seeing the different concepts that try to fit the specs.

(in reply to MikeSell)
       Post #: 58

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 9/24/2004 2:28:10 AM   
MikeSell



Posts: 801
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Flushing, MI, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Johng

Although it's not spelled out in the rules, I have always ruled that once a plane leaves the ground, it's official attempt has started. Even if it just hops up a foot, it's a flight, and you are done. Not calling it that way opens up a can of worms. Once a team is allowed to do this, what's the difference between that and flying a full flight pattern and missing the landing zone? Should that team be allowed to reset and go agaiin, as long as they still are within their time? It's not in the rules, so it can go either way as long as the local officating is consistent.


New rules are out. It is now addressed in the rules. You can lift off and abort and try again as long as it is within your time allotment. Hope to see you this year.

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 59

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 9/24/2004 6:47:25 AM   
natoquick


 

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/24/2004
From: Federal Way, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Well, Gonzaga is well on the way to competing once again. Of course, the fundraisng is presenting challenges, but with two years of proven results, the money will come. We've got a lot of ideas floating around, and are close to hacking out a general design. Time is of the essence, since we will most likely compete in Aero Design East, since West is the same weekend as graduation, and our pilot and a few others (including myself) are graduating (or are at least on track to do so).

One of the most interesting rules I saw was for the Open Class. Any size displacement IC engine is allowed, BUT the plane must not weigh more than 10 pounds. Talk about a design challenge! I also think the micro class is an interesting idea. I find it slightly tempting to just scratch build my own plane (I was thinking something small with a good brushless setup and LiPo's) and see how it does. Of course, I don't have the time to write the report, design and build a plane, and all the other stuff associated with it, but still...

(in reply to MikeSell)
       Post #: 60

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 10/1/2004 7:20:34 PM   
Montague



Posts: 4632
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Laurel, MD,
Status: offline 		Can someone point me to a website with the rules? Mostly out of curiosity.

Also, who do teams normally have for a pilot? Are there any rules about the pilot?

I was recently contacted by a member of a team looking to compete. They hope to have one of the students learn to fly well enough to be the team's pilot. It sounds like most teams have an outside, experienced RC pilot on the sticks? How often would you say that planes are lost or damaged due to pilot error or judgement?


_____________________________

Kirk Montague Adams
RCCA 560

(in reply to natoquick)
       Post #: 61

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 10/1/2004 7:42:58 PM   
Tall Paul



Posts: 4655
Joined: 6/23/2002
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Status: offline 		http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/rules/

(in reply to Montague)
       Post #: 62

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 10/1/2004 8:09:28 PM   
Montague



Posts: 4632
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Laurel, MD,
Status: offline 		Cool, thanks for the link.

That also solved the problem about weither I had to get the potential finanically-limited-student-pilot to join the AMA to fly at my club. If they want to be the team's pilot, they need AMA anyways.

I've heard that many, if not most, teams that start on this competition never actually make it in to the air?

I didn't see anything in the rules about prop sizes or brands or anything. Is there a "standard" prop that everyone uses, or is that part of the design work? Do teams cherry pick engines or do rebuilds in order to max the engine output. I see actually cutting on the engine is illegal, but that still leaves some leeway? How critical to the team is having an "engine guru"?


_____________________________

Kirk Montague Adams
RCCA 560

(in reply to Tall Paul)
       Post #: 63

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 10/1/2004 11:00:27 PM   
MikeSell



Posts: 801
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Flushing, MI, USA
Status: offline 		Yes many of the competetors do not finish planes. Many are just learning time management skills, lack commitment, lack building skills or lose interest. I understand that usually about 2/3 of the competetors at an event leave with an unflyable airplane (crashed). Many do not make it off the ground.

The pilot is one of the biggest assets or detriments to a succesful entry. The normal R/C pilot flys an overpowered tried and tested design built light for maximum performance. They seldom fly straight and level for any extended period of time. This will be an unrefined craft, built by amateurs, under powered that wallows with excessive weight. Last years entry that lifted the highest payload at East and highest gross weight at West was not designed to execute over a 2 degree climb out without stalling.

The competetion is not about the engine. If your engine is found to be altered you will be disqualified. If your engine seems unusually more powerful than others a team can file a protest and require a teardown. Careful break-in, careful needle valve adjustment, glow plug temperature and head shims are about your only options for an engine guru. Most competetors use APC props. My son said he didn't notice anything but APCs at West. Yes prop selection is part of the design problem.

Remember, Lifting the most weight doesn't win the competetion. The design, report, and oral presentation are all components.

(in reply to Montague)
       Post #: 64

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 10/1/2004 11:12:32 PM   
Hatty



Posts: 356
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Status: offline 		Hey is there a website for this contest. This is kind of along the same lines as the airplane that I am building. Its an electric that will hopefully carry TONS of weight. If the plane ends up flying 1/4 as good as it looks, then it will carry me. This is the first plane that I have fully modeled in 3D in AutoCAD. No 2D drawings for me.

(in reply to Tall Paul)