Tall Paul

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!

natoquick

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.

MikeSell

My Feedback: (2)

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?

natoquick

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.

NFOOTE

Got your biplane designs done yet? Triplanes? lol GL

Brian
Buy more than 2 props next year!

SoarNeck

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!

MikeSell

My Feedback: (2)

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.

Tall Paul

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.

MikeSell

My Feedback: (2)

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.

natoquick

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...

Montague

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?

Tall Paul

http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/rules/

Montague

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"?

MikeSell

My Feedback: (2)

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.

Hatty

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.

Hatty

Apparently I did not see the link above. My fault.

BFoote

Last year not many competed as usual because of the long wing requirements. Many either crashed during competition, never got built, or crashed before competition during qualification trials. Normally out of a standard 35-40 reg class competitors, 5 never show, 5-10 don't qualify and another 5 crash opening round without scoring any points. That leaves 20+ teams that are able to compete.

On engines: You can coble unmodified engine parts together so as to create higher tolerances and create more power, but one is much better off putting that time and money into propeller testing.

Brian
Never had enough time when I was doing it to cobble engine parts together, I know when Akron made their 29.95lb flight under the old rules they were useing a cobbled together engine that produced 25% more power, but that was also when K&B engines were horrible. The new K&B engines fixed those problems and produced more power by 300 RPM or so depending on how u broke it in in comparison to the OS engines and they were lighter... Looked cool too. Oh well.

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

Was that "record" back in 96-97 when the competition was in Dayton? I know there was a record set up there at the time, but the organizer had measured the runway 25 feet too long.


BTW - if you take a look at the new rules, there are now 3 classes. Regular, Open - with an empty weight limit of 12 lbs, and a new micro class. The micro class is scored based on payload fraction - lifting the most with the least. THe scoring method for micro gives a zero to any plane weighing more than 10 lbs, so that is an effective limit on the size in that class.

NFOOTE

As far as the "was" record it was set when the west compitition was held up in Seattle somewhere around the dates you gave. Not sure where my bro got those numbers from for a 25% increase....hmm if he says so, Haha

I'll add my two cents in as for as pilot goes. You are far better off to have your own pilot fly for you. But, with that said it does take a considerable amount of skill to fly these things with any sizable payload. These fly slow and on the verge of stalling and the pilot must be able to 'feel' the plane out so as not to stall. You also have to be able to time when you rotate so that you don't rotate to soon (more drag) and also too late thus crossing the 200 ft mark.

You will also do well to put alot of time into the report. This is half the compitition thus half the over all points.

Nate

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

Hmm, I thought I commented on pilots before, but I don't see it. So here goes.

The best thing is to have an experienced pilot that is part of the team who can fly the plane before (well before) and during the competition. I mean someone who has been flying for years before the competition team formed.

The next best option is probably to find a good pilot at the local site. The drawback being that the pilot will be new to the plane. Another drawback is that sometimes, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, rc'ers will sometimes overstate their own capabilities. Sometimes, guys just barely competent enough to fly a sport plane will step up and volunteer for this. That's what you need to watch for. Speaking for myself, that won't happen at the East competition as long as it is held in Deland. I'm the field marshal, and I only recruit a couple of very well qualified and experienced pilots to take SAE flights.

Maybe the best recipe for disaster is for a team to start designing, and then one of the students - usually the team leader, learns to fly RC in order to fly the competition plane. In other words, this team would have someone fly a heavily loaded unproven prototype as their second (or maybe third) airplane. I've seen it many times, usually with spectacular failure. This choice really seems more driven by pride than anything. Teams would be much better off to pick up a local pilot than to try something like this.

BFoote

I got my information on the 25% boost in power from the Akron advisor, not sure when, either at competition or when we were up in Toronto for the ASME presentation competition. Only reason it worked was because of the garbage K&B engines at the time and some pistons could be over 0.010" different from eachother, or so he claims, but judging by others comments about busted crank rods, pins, and pistons, I don't doubt it.

Brian

NFOOTE

MikeSell, did you get my email reply about SAE?

Brian

MikeSell

My Feedback: (2)

No I didn't get it. I PMed you with my email address.

natoquick

Well, it's time to resurrect this thread. I've got a question for Johng (or for anybody else who might know). What kind of conditions can one expect at the Aero Design East competition? My team will be competing there this year, and would like an idea of wind directions, obstructions, and the like. Also along those lines, I am hoping to bring along one of my parkflyers, and my friend (and team pilot) might want to bring his helicopter. Might the club have an area specifically for helis and/or parkflyers? Thanks a lot!

Demian

Anyone knows the results of SAE Aero Design East 2005?

Some pictures?

thanks!!!

Demian.