mae 151 group 72 final design report

1

Group 72: Analysis and Design Final Report

Prepared by:

Katie Leong

Daniella Lopez

Jesus Zepeda

Lute Chen

Andre Barkhodaee

Daniella Lopez (CAD &

Project Manager)

Jesus Zepeda

(Design &

Manufacturing)

Lute Chen

(Research &

Connections)

Katie Leong

(Documentation &

Tasks)

Winter 2015 MAE 151 Speedboat to Tugboat Design Challenge

Andre Barkhodaee

(Research &

Design)

2

Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.0 Constraints and Specifications ................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 Concept Generation ................................................................................................................................ 5

Summary of Rough Concepts .................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Down-selection Process .......................................................................................................................... 8

4.0 Design Choice .......................................................................................................................................... 8

BOTE Calculations ................................................................................................................................... 10

5.0 Construction .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Electric Connections Schematic ............................................................................................................. 14

6.0 Testing and Redesign ............................................................................................................................ 15

Overall Results: ....................................................................................................................................... 16

7.0 Design Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 17

8.0 Responsibilities and Contributions ....................................................................................................... 18

9.0 Operating Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 23

10.0 Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 24

Video Link: ............................................................................................................................................... 24

Testing Matrices ...................................................................................................................................... 24

Propeller Designs Testing & Speed Trials: ............................................................................................... 26

Weekly Tasks ........................................................................................................................................... 28

Component Drawings ............................................................................................................................. 30

List of Figures Figure 1. Needs Table .................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Specifications Table Highest Importance = 5 ................................................................................. 3

Figure 3. Needs Metric Matrix ...................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 4. Preliminary Brainstorming ............................................................................................................ 5

Figure 5. Preliminary Brainstorming ............................................................................................................ 8

Figure 6. Bill of Materials ............................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 7. Final Design Statistics .................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 8. Boat Chassis ................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 9. Speedboat Configuration ............................................................................................................. 17

Figure 10. Tugboat Configuration ............................................................................................................... 17

Figure 11. New Prop for Tugboat Configuration ......................................................................................... 17

3

1.0 Constraints and Specifications Our group decided that the customer for the interchangeable speedboat/tugboat would be the

same age group (14+) as specified on the box. The manufactured parts would have easy application and

not pose any additional safety concerns. As a part of the potential customer pool, we compiled our

opinions and asked for others’ input to establish our customer needs. Through our joint opinions and

research of Double-Horse Speedboat customer reviews, we found that the largest emphasis for

modifications was: better battery life, durability/lifespan, safety, and stability. Our needs specifications

and metrics are defined below.

Figure 1. Needs Table

*Highest Importance = 3

Metric

#

Needs

#

Metric Importance

level

Unit Estimate

1 1 Abide by Budget of $10 4 U.S $ 10

2 2,3 Resist Receiver Signal Errors 3

3 2,3,9 Rudder Turning Capacity 2 º 60

4

5,7 Resist Servo, Motor, and Battery

Overheating

3

ºC 27

5 5 Lower Voltage Losses (Battery Life) 3 V/min 1/30

6 9,10 Part Materials 4 GPa varies

7 2,4,5,8 Adjust Boat Weight and CG 3 g 340.19

8 5,7,9 Eliminate Water Leakage 5 Oz 1

9 5,8 Increase Thrust (Pulling Capacity) 5 N; g 2.826,

1.124

10 5,8 Lower Drag Force 4 N

11 5,8 No Corrosion 3 Defects

per unit

3

12 6,9,10 Resist Two-Phase Fluid Interaction 4

13 7,9 Easy Part Interchangeability 4

Figure 2. Specifications Table Highest Importance = 5

# Need Importance

1 Cost 2

2 Stable 2

3 Maneuverable 1

4 Portable 1

5 Efficiency 3

7 Safety 3

8 Tugging Ability 3

9 Quality 2

10 Durability 2

6 Ease of Use 2

4

Figure 3. Needs Metric Matrix

Our goal was to have an interchangeable design from a speedboat to a tugboat by easily switching some parts from the stock boat. The additional inexpensive parts made would increase the speed of the stock boat and allow it to pull a heavier load. Key objectives include: increasing thrust by removing two phase fluid that the propeller interacts with (allowing only water to be propelled and not air), and reducing stall characteristics by increasing number of blades and slowing down initial thrust force.

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

#Need

1 Cost x

2 Stable x x x

3 Maneuverable x x

4 Portable x

5 Efficiency x x x x x x x

7 Safety x x x

8 Tugging Ability x x x x

9 Quality x x x x x

10 Durability x x

Metr

ic

Ea

sy P

art

Inte

rch

an

gea

bil

ity

Va

ry

Bo

at

Weig

ht

an

d

Cen

ter o

f G

ra

vit

y

Eli

min

ate

Wa

ter L

ea

ka

ge

Increa

se T

hru

st (

Pu

llin

g

Ca

pa

cit

y)

Lo

wer D

ra

g F

orce

No

Co

rro

sio

n

x

Resi

st T

wo

-Ph

ase

Flu

id

Inte

ra

cti

on

6

Ab

ide b

y B

ud

get

$1

0

Resi

st R

eceiv

er S

ign

al

Erro

rs

Reli

ab

le R

ud

der T

urn

ing

ca

pa

cit

y

Resi

st S

erv

o,

Mo

tor,

an

d

Ba

ttery

Ov

erh

ea

tin

g

Lo

wer V

olt

ag

e L

oss

es

(In

crea

se B

att

ery

Lif

e)

Str

on

g P

art

Ma

teria

l

Ch

oic

es

Ease of Use

5

2.0 Concept Generation When making design decisions, we first brainstormed different possibilities based upon

techniques and characteristics of current tugboats. We exercised a modified version of the 6-3-5

brainstorming technique in which each one of our group members generated 3 concepts for the tugboat

modification all within a 5 minute time span. We exercised this activity twice and noticed that a lot of

our member’s ideas overlapped and thus modified the 6-3-5 technique to a smaller 2-3-5 method. As a

result of this activity, we compiled a table with generalized brainstormed ideas (see Figure 4). Each

generalized idea was then scrutinized for its applicability and its effectiveness. The analysis was

conducted using the basic fundamentals like Bernoulli’s equation and Newton’s Laws of motion.

Figure 4. Preliminary Brainstorming

Summary of Rough Concepts Design Concept 1: Two Propellers (Props) with Nozzles

1- Gear box attached to original motor shaft

2- Bevel gears attach original shaft to new

outer propeller shafts

3- Nozzle (dashed lines)

4- Gear to propeller shaft

5- Shaft between bevel gear and new

propeller shaft

Initial Design Brainstorm of Ideas:

Bigger Propeller

2 propellers of same size on a linkage to the copper rod

Reduce play in prop rod

Semi-submergible

Resistor/Fuse (to slow down motor)

Change CG to front

Gear on propeller

Movable mass

Gain changes

Water seal on top/component protection

Modify blade angle to lower the pitch and increase the blade area to have a higher thrust

Water weight/rejection (watertight compartment)

Remove Servo

Coolant lines along components that give off heat (using water from ext.)

Include linkage to lower elevation of propeller (maximum water contact)

6

The two-propeller configuration above will: 1) decrease RPM of the props, increasing torque

and reduce speed, 2) increase torque via nozzle, and 3) allow for bigger diameter prop

(increases the torque).

Design Concept 2: 4 Blades Decreased Pitch Propeller

A larger diameter prop will increase the mass flow rate and thus, thrust. Higher number of blades also

increases thrust by having more surface area in contact with the water. Pitch is defined as the number

signifying the linear motion per revolution. Decreased pitch would mean less travel per revolution and

as a result, decrease speed and increase thrust.

Design Concept 3: Semi- Submersible

1- Waterline

2- Lead weight in front of receiver

3- Lead weights on sides of boat

7

The semi-submersible design would allow for increased stability by decreasing the roll moment of the

boat and lowering the center of gravity. The pitching moment of the boat would decrease, optimizing

the thrust line under the loading environment. Lastly, the propeller would always be submersed in

water, eliminating the two-phase fluid interaction exhibited in the current speedboat. Interaction

exhibited in the current speedboat is broken down within the calculations section (pg. 11)

Design Concept 4: Converging Duct

1- Converging

duct

2- Linkage to

lower propeller

The center of gravity will be pushed forward to counter-act the pitching moment induced by the load by

the intake of water; this will help keep our thrust line parallel to the force being exerted onto the

attachment point. The converging duct will also accelerate the flow, which will reduce the thrust load on

the motor and reduce overheating. The propeller will also be shifted down via linkages which will allow

for a bigger diameter propeller used for increased thrust. This design could utilize water flow within the

inside of the existing boat that could also serve other purposes in modifications (possible engine cooling,

lowered center of gravity).

Design Concept 5: Two Phase Fluid Prevention Cover

1- Two phase prevention cover

This design proved to be the most feasible in preliminary down-selection for fulfilling our customer

needs-metric matrix. Although the semi-submersible aforementioned is perceived to eliminate the two

phase fluid interaction with the propeller, a cover overhanging on top of the propeller will ensure that

only the 1 phase fluid (water) interacts with the propeller and thus maximize thrust. The cover would

also act as a quarter nozzle to further accelerate the flow.

8

3.0 Down-selection Process After research, testing, and analysis we decided to use a Pugh chart to see the positives and

negatives of our design possibilities more vividly. The modification idea that had the most positive

attributes would result in the highest positive number and would be ranked the highest. Anything lower

would be discarded and no longer considered in our design. In our case the 2-Phase interaction

preventative cover ranked the highest, but instead of discarding all other modifications, we decided to

also keep the 4-blade propeller to help when the boat was changed to a tugboat. Since most of the 4-

blade propellers attributes were neutral we did not think it would be bad idea to have both.

Figure 5. Preliminary Brainstorming

4.0 Design Choice

1 2 3 4 5

Main Factors: Semi-Submersible 4-Blade Propeller Horizontal Dual Propellers Converging Duct

2-Phase Interaction

Preventive Cover

Manufactuarability - + - + +

Cost - + + - +

Power/ Thrust + + + + +

Speed - - - 0 0

Weight (heavier) 0 0 + + +

Safety - + + + +

Battery - 0 - - 0

Drag - 0 0 + 0

Water damage - 0 0 - +

Total + 1 4 4 5 6

Total 0 1 4 2 1 3

Total - 7 1 3 3 0

Overall Total -6 3 1 2 6

Rank 5 2 4 3 1

Continue? No Yes No No Yes

Modification Ideas

Our design for the speedboat was to use

the stock boat propeller, but add on our

preventative cover to increase its speed.

Our design for the tugboat required us to

change the stock propeller to a four-blade

propeller and add the cover.

9

Below is a list of the modeled parts and their drawing number which references to all the part drawings

in the appendix (Component Drawings).

Drawing No. Part Name

7009-00 Servo Brace

7009-01 Frequency Receiver

7009-03 Motor

7009-04 Battery

7009-05 Top Cover

7009-06 Propeller-0

7009-07a Servo Body

7009-07b Servo Top

7009-10 Boat Hull

7009-11 Rudder with Brace

7009-12 Propeller Shaft

7009-15 Battery

7009-21 Rudder Support Shafts

7009-26 Motor Brace

7009-29 Shaft Holder

Modifications Part Name

7009-A Propeller-5

7009-B Prop Cover

Back of the envelope calculations were done on the design choices previously introduced. The

calculations are presented below.

Additional safety features were not required because of the established customer market comprised of

ages 14 and up. The customer should be able to alter and handle the boat without any problems,

assuming no misuse of the boat and its intended purpose. As for environmental issues, the boat is

mainly made up of plastics and reusable electronic components and is thus recyclable.

10

BOTE Calculations Static Boat Thrust Test

Inclined Plane:

Thrust Test:

Ft = Force tension

Fn = Normal Force

f = friction

Fg = force gravity

M = mass

µ of mass M was calculated by inclining the table at one in and noting the displacement in y as soon as

mass began to overcome static friction and slide down inclined table.

11

FBD: Pressure Differential Propeller

𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 𝐹𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 𝐴(∆𝑃)

𝐹𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡

𝐴= 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃0

*Force of thrust is related to the mass and acceleration of the fluid that crosses the propeller stream.

𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑𝑎

𝐴= 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃0

*Since M(air) is less than M(water) it is important to eliminate suction of air from the environment for

maximum thrust.

∆𝑃 =1

2𝜌(𝑉𝑒

2 − 𝑉02)

𝐹𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 =1

2𝜌 𝐴 (𝑉𝑒

2 − 𝑉02)

Bigger Diameter will increase the thrust. Thrust is also dependent on the density of the fluid; with the cover on, air, which is 1000 times less dense than water, will not enter the upstream fluid that the propeller does work on and thus increases the thrust.

12

Converging Duct

�̇� = 𝜌𝑉𝐴

�̇�1 = 𝜌𝑉1𝐴1 = �̇�2 = 𝜌𝑉2𝐴2

𝐴1 > 𝐴2 𝑠𝑜 𝑉2 > 𝑉1

The following YouTube link shows the air passing the propeller cross-section particularly during

maximum throttle. In order to maximize pulling force for tug applications, some sort of duct or cover

must be devised to prevent air from getting into the stream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryb-n4D5J_4&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryb-n4D5J_4&feature=youtu.be

13

5.0 Construction

Figure 6. Bill of Materials

*Chinese Wholesale values translated and values converted from tabao.com

Part Name Part # Source Qty. Price Estimate Chinese Wholesale

Double Horse K-Marine 7009 RC Boat Parts Receiver7009 -1 banggood 1 $10.96 $4.48

Antenna (screw-in metal) 7009 -2 shuangma 1 $5.00 $0.80

Motor 7009-03 7009-3 banggood 1 $8.00 $3.20

Battery Pack 7.2V 7009 -4 shuangma 1 $9.00 $4.00

K-Marine Top Cover 7009 -5 shuangma 1 $7.00 $1.28

Replacement Propellor 7009 -6 banggood 1 $2.74 $1.12

Servo 7009 -7 shuangma 1 $9.00 $4.00

Remote Controller 40mhz 7009 -8 shuangma 1 $13.00 $5.60

9V Battery (controller) 7009 -9 1 $3.00 $0.48

Boat Hull (full) 7009-10 alieexpress 1 $8.70 $2.88

Rudder 7009 -11 heli-parts 1 $2.50 $1.12

Drive-Shaft (Spindle) 7009 -12 heli-parts 1 $7.50 $2.40

Brass Lopper Tube 7009 -13 alieexpress 1 $3.85 $2.40

Boat Rack/Stand 7009 -14 alieexpress 1 $6.49 $0.80

Battery Holder 7009 -15 alieexpress 1 $5.60

Phillips Screw

7009 -16 McMasterCarr 17

316 Steel 1/4" # 2

Estimate:

$0.056/screw

Total: $0.95 $0.95

Phillips Screw, Small

7009 -17

1 Couldn't find, same

as above. Total:

$0.05 $0.05

Phillips Screw (long)

7009 -18

2 Couldn't find, same

as above. Total:

$0.11 $0.11

Locking Nut 7009 -19 1 N/A N/A

Rudder Steering Rod 7009 -20 1 N/A N/A

Rudder Support 7009 -21 2 N/A N/A

Rubber Grommet 7009 -22 1 N/A N/A

Rudder Brace 7009 -23 1 N/A N/A

Drive- Shaft Clamp 7009 -24 1 N/A N/A

Motor Clamp 7009 -25 1 N/A N/A

Antenna Support

7009 -26 1

Can replace with

straw

Can replace with

straw

Top Cover Latch 7009 -27 1 N/A N/A

$103.45 $35.67

14

Electric Connections Schematic

15

6.0 Testing and Redesign

Many tests were tried. The most

important tests were speed tests and

pulling load tests. During speed tests we

made sure to have a measured length of

water for the boat to run on and we timed

how long the boat took to finish. We tried

to keep it at full thrust every time. For the

load test we made a rectangular barge

with a hook close to the water line and

connected it to the boat using string that

would stay hooked with the latch. We

added weight to the barge progressively

to see how much it could pull. We then

fixed a load so we could test the boats

time it took to pull the load across a fixed

length.

Other tests we tried were a CG test with a

table and our own version of the static

test.

During our test, one person was usually in

charge of writing down all the data

possible while others were in charge of

steering the boat, charging battery and

the set-up of the test.

16

Overall Results:

Figure 7. Final Design Statistics

These are the main results of our final designs that can be compared to the original stock boat. Other

tests of variations of the boat can be referenced in the appendix (Testing Matrices). The final design cost

was $4.00 to manufacture the propeller and propeller cover.

After trying to build the converging duct, we realized that the construction of the converging duct would

not be effective because of the limitations presented by the interior components of the boat. The frame

and structural supports of the boat would need to be modified reducing the structural rigidity of the

overall hull (Figure 7). In addition, the boat would need to be re-sealed with silicon or some other sort of

water resistant that could develop other future failures. Even with the top red half of the hull removed

the internal components are tightly packed. Due to the lack of experience and tooling of high precision

machining, we eliminated this method and proceeded to move the center of gravity of the boat to

improve the thrust vector direction. After several load tests, we confirmed that our boat improved in

thrust slightly but would not count as a significant improvement that would justify the cost. We

continued to construct several variations of propellers with 3 and 4 blades with varying pitch. We found

that the 4 blade propeller with a pitch value of 10 increased the pulling load by 15% and did not cause

our motor to stall. We continued to try to improve our pulling load by adding a cover that would

eliminate the two phase fluid interaction with the propeller. This further increased our pulling load to an

overall 34% improvement from the stock boat.

Figure 8. Boat Chassis

17

7.0 Design Recommendations Based on our tests, the two-phase prevention cover coupled with the new 4 blade propeller

with a 10cm pitch satisfied both our design goal and the customers need metric matrix. The

interchangeable propellers allow for a fast and user friendly boat that can transform from a

tugboat to a speedboat. As a tugboat, the new propeller and cover was able to increase our

max pulling load significantly whereas the cover on its own with the stock propeller (speedboat

configuration), slightly increased the speed of the boat. See figures below for models.

Figure 9. Speedboat Configuration

Figure 10. Tugboat Configuration

Figure 11. New Prop for Tugboat Configuration

18

8.0 Responsibilities and Contributions

Jesus

My immediate responsibility was manufacturing and design. Although my title gave me those

responsibilities, I helped my team members with their respective assigned responsibilities as

well. In terms of manufacturing, I was in charge of attaining all the tooling, materials and

constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing the boat. In terms of design, with the help of

my team’s brainstorming, I evaluated our designs and decided which general designs the team

should pursue.

Everyone on the team contributed in some way to the manufacturing of the boat. However, I

(along with Andre) provided all the tooling and materials for the redesign of the boat. Our initial

task was to deconstruct the boat to CAD every component of the stock boat; I was in charge of

the deconstruction. From there I photographed, weighed every component of the boat and

drew a rough schematic of the electronics as my team dimensioned the parts for computer

modeling purposes. Once the goal of the deconstruction was met, I reconstructed the boat and

ensured its functionality. I configured the boat for every design choice we deemed feasible.

To narrow down our design choices, I initially built a loading test table to experiment with

center of gravity change. I also did all the modeling for the propeller designs followed by their

3-D printing, post-3-D printing processing, mounting and testing. I researched gearing and

linkages for one of the design choices but concluded that the required manufactured parts

would exceed our budget and 3D printed parts (ie. Gears) would slip and gear meshing would

break the parts. Andre and I did all the BOTE calculations for various designs to further help

with the down selection process. I, along with Dani, did all the testing for every modification

made to the boat; followed by a redesign, remanufacturing and testing phase after each

iteration.

I helped with the reporting and documentation of my contributions for both the midterm and

final reports. I developed our logo and team name as well as the rough sketches of our designs

(by hand and computer). I conducted research on propellers, tugboat configuration, CG change

and fluid mechanics.

19

Daniella

My initial responsibility was to create a 3D model of the boat and all of its components using

SolidWorks. Any additional modifications made to the boat would also be modeled. Because I

would not be able to accurately dimension the boat until the time of decomposition, I helped

the group with other tasks in the meantime. I began with the group’s determination of Team

Ethics and Gantt chart so the group could give their opinion of how they wanted the team to

function. I made sure to read all the documents posted by Professor Dunn-Rankin to make sure

the team wasn’t doing extra work, going on a tangent, or not doing the necessary.

I would suggest meeting dates so that we could brainstorm as a group and discuss our findings

or test the boat. I attended every meeting and tried to keep it as productive as possible. When

we tested the boat I took photos and wrote down the data, making sure to take notes of our

observations for future reference. So that everyone could write their work down during our

meetings and individually, we created a weekly progress report spreadsheet that I would print

every morning with Jesus at CAMP.

When the week of decomposition was reached, I dimensioned the components of the boat, and

created the models on SolidWorks. I tried to keep them detailed with color and accurate. I also

created an assembly of the models. As Jesus mentioned, I helped with the modifications of the

boat and testing them to compare it to our old boat. We were able to use the student printers

here at UCI to create the modifications.

Lastly, I helped with the reporting and documentation of my contributions for both the

midterm and final reports. Parts of the midterm report that I did include: cover, customer

needs, matrix, definitions, specifications, model snapshots of the boat. Lute and Jesus helped

create the one-minute presentation slide. As for the final report, parts that I contributed to

include: design choice, construction, testing and redesign, and provided all CAD snapshots and

drawings in the appendix.

20

Katie

My job title description is documentation and task organization. As with everyone else,

the overall boat project was a group effort in which we contributed to each other’s work where

applicable.

My individual responsibilities were based around helping to determine tasks according

to each person’s role and expertise from personal background and project research.

Furthermore, with the help of Dani and Jesus, we organized the weekly memos. I was also in

charge of organization of our google drive folders and documents, tracking our initial testing

matrices, and editing, organization, and compilation of the midterm and final reports. In

addition to my job responsibilities I constructed our wooden testing barge for tugging tests that

we conducted in conjunction with determining design feasibility.

Contributions overall to group effort included: attending majority of group meetings,

conducting some research for possible use of a fuse and CG changes, organizing and adding to

group brainstorm of design ideas, testing of the stock boat and some design performances

(changing of weight and tugging capability), sketching the rough initial wiring schematic, and

helping with deconstruction and inventory (weighing and documenting parts).

Specific documentation contributions were:

Midterm documentation:

- Bill of Materials

- Gantt chart

- Cost Analysis

- Testing Matrices

- Decomposition

- Overall compilation and editing

Final Report:

- Overall Formatting

- Cover Page

- Needs Table

- Specifications Table / Write-up

- Needs-Metric Matrix edited

- Compilation/Edit of Rough Design Concepts

- Bill of Materials

- Contribution

- Edits to content

- Appendix Components

21

Lute

I am responsible for the electronic components. I analyzed the initial wiring diagram with other

members when we deconstructed and opened the Electrical Speed Controller/receiver box. I

finished the final electric diagram which is attached in the appendices. The electrical

component was hard to be modified since ESC was not connected with Arduino. However, I

further did the research on methods of increasing the torque of DC brush motor. The simplest

and way was to put a magnet around the motor to change its magnetic field therefore

increasing its RPM and torque. Nevertheless, the testing result showed that there was no

significant improvement. We end up not using the magnet.

I also took the advantage of being able to directly communicate with the manufacturers as a

mandarin speaker. Servo and motor specifications were acquired from them. Additionally, I did

the bill of materials research from Taobao.com to get a reasonable cost of each components of

the boat. It resulted in a significant cost drop compared to America wholesale website.

My main contributions included researching and drawing electrical parts, communicating with

the manufacturer, performing boat tests and analyzing the boat with other members, doing

initial power delivery calculation, researching on boat stability and drag.

22

Andre Barkhodaee

Throughout the ten-week engineering project my main task encompassed providing design

ideas and testing their performances. Most of which was done in close proximity of Jesus

Zepada. During the research gathering stage, I provided numerous modification alternatives

that were recorded and later presented to Vinicius for feedback. By disassembling the boat, I

gained a strong understanding of the boats overall construction and performance. This

knowledge benefited streamlining any brainstorming that the team or myself would record as a

possible modification. Then the down selection stage would occur after a thorough

understanding was attained researching and developing calculations to provide relevance and

results for the modifications.

After documenting the calculations of the modifications I recorded videos of the static loaded

boat in full throttle position. By slowing the speed of the video and freeze-framing it, I could

visually understand the phenomena occurring with the boat particularly the propulsion aspects.

This event led to my design theory of reducing the amount of air passage into the propeller

stream to fulfill a 1 phases (water) propulsion system.

Alongside the brainstorming of modifications, overall group activities would take place in which

all team members that were present provided help. Some of these activities included

measuring the boats velocity, load testing the stock boat in the Camino pool with water bottles,

and some other group tasks throughout the quarter. Also, some of the documentation for the

midterm power point and project binder was developed by all of us working together prior to

the due date. Other documents that I produced included the Bill of Materials and photography

and videos.

23

9.0 Operating Procedure Our goal was to create an interchangeable configuration such that the user had the option to

operate the boat as a tugboat or speedboat. All of this was accomplished by the change of one

parameter: the propeller.

In order to attain the maximum performance out of the boat, either within the tugboat or

speedboat configurations, we must use a two-phase fluid prevention cover. This cover is

permanently mounted to the drive shaft encasing and comes over the propeller and rudder-

assembly. This cover, as the name suggests, stops air, which is 1000 times less dense than

water, from mixing with the upstream flow the propeller encounters.

If the user wishes to experience maximum speed, the user should opt for the original,

unmodified propeller. If the user wants to use the boat as a tugboat, then they should use a 4-

blade propeller with a pitch value of 10 cm and a 1 inch diameter. The change of propellers only

requires a set of plyers; to change the propeller, the user must first remove the nut at the end

of the drive shaft, followed by the unscrewing of the already mounted propeller; finally, the

user must then screw the propeller that meets their boat performance desires and tightly

screwing the nut back onto the drive shaft.

If the boat is being used in proximity with other boats that use similar receivers, the user must

be certain the controller frequencies are not matched; if not, the boat might not obey the

user’s controller inputs. A safety feature is installed in the boat that only allows the boat to

function only if the boat’s sensor is in contact with water. However, the user may choose to

disable this feature if they want to by simply removing the wire that is connected to this sensor

(screw under the servo).

In order to operate the boat to its maximum potential and ensure its integrity, the user should

1) monitor the battery voltage drop periodically so as to not get stranded in the middle of a

body of water 2) not run the boat at maximum throttle for extensive periods of time as it will

cause the motor to overheat and stall (especially for the tugboat configuration under loaded

conditions) 3) frequently do float bys to see if the rudder is calibrated to the user’s desired

input (if not, there is a knobb that will adjust the neutral position of the rudder), 4) after using

the boat, make sure to open the cover to let the motor and battery cool down, 5) not do sharp

turns under the speed boat configuration as it may cause the boat to capsize and may endure

irrefutable water damage and 6) abide by all established guidelines where the boat is being

used.

24

10.0 Appendices

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyEb0kpNMLE&feature=youtu.be

Testing Matrices

Measurements: Observations: Methodology:

Max Velocity

(Estimated in

booklet): 5 m/s) 3.34 m/s V= distance/time

Water Disturbance

Drag = 1/2 Cd * density *V 2̂ *area;

Cd = 2Fd/rho*V 2̂*SA

Force Exerted by

Boat Thrust=kx (spring scale)

Weight

Boat (no batt.): 9.4 oz

Boat (w/ batt.): 12.0 oz

Battery Pack: 2.6 oz

Balance Changes Rudder favors the left causing misdirection

Center of Gravity

Original center of

gravity

4.5" from back (w/o

battery)

Front of hull lifts as there is more water

disturbance at higher speeds; [need weight to

balance]

4.25" from back (with

battery)

Stability

Easily hydroplanes when performing steep turn at

high speed [probably advisable not to run too

quickly]

Reliability

Battery reads voltages higher than specs

Turning Radius:

-Forward

Left Right

~3' - 4' ~3'

Rudder favors left even when controller direction is

straight

-Backwards

Clockwise (Left)

Counter-Clockwise

(Right)

1' 1' -1' 1/2

Much slower/lower performance while operating

backwards

Measurements/Calculation Results:

Boat Observations/Notes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyEb0kpNMLE&feature=youtu.be

25

Trial Weight of Water Added Weight of Water + Chassis

Resulting Weight (if components

included) Notes:

1 9.7oz. = 276g 13.6oz. = 376g 21.7oz. = 616.2g Empty Chassis: 3.9oz = 110g

2 15.8oz. = 438g 19.7oz. = 548g 27.8oz. = 778.2g Complete Boat: 12oz = 340.19g

3

23oz. = 630g

(Progressively sank) 26.9oz. =740g 35oz. = 970.2g

Weighed empty chassis with

water to test sinking without

damaging inner components

Time Elapsed Voltage Notes:

0 7.05

*Started charging with battery at 7.05V after the

load testing (and after interrupted responses)

32 8.2

67 8.34

77 8.37

*Note: Battery was not warm at all when charging,

but i stopped charging after 77min since it was not

dead and there is no indicator for full charge.

Time Time Driven (min) Voltage Performance

4:22 0 8.45 High

4:25 2 8.12 High

4:33 5 7.86 High

4:40 5 7.82 Moderate

4:47 7 7.68 Med-High

Time Driven (min) Voltage of batt. Load (lbs) Length (string) [in] Able to pull?

0 7.75 3.5 24in No

2.5 24in

No; (Last trial - boat died for ~ 7

s)

12 7.3 2 24in Yes

1 8in Yes

22 6.26 2 8in Yes

Notes:

Maximum Load 38.025 fl oz. 1124.533 grams 1.1245 kg

Load Test 1

Battery Charging Test

Battery Performance Test

Weight Modification Test

26

Propeller Designs Testing & Speed Trials:

Battery:

7.2 V Ni-Mh battery

700mAh

Remote Battery: 9V

Dimensions of Hull: 13.5” x 3.5” x 3” with rudder 11.5" length without rudder

Motor Specs (from

manufacturer &

translated) 370 motor

Rated Voltage: 7.2V

No-Load Speed:

30300±10% rpm

No-Load Current: 1.1A

max

Locked Rotor Current:

60.0A

Rated Torque: 104.7±15g-

cm

Locked Rotor Torque:

900±120g-cm

Rated Speed:

26800±10%rpm

Rated Current: 8.0A max

Servo Specs (from

manufacturer &

translated) Working Voltage: 4.8V

Speed: 0.12s/60˚

Torsion: 0.7kg-cm

General Boat Specifications:

Propellor Design Testing 3/8/15

PROPELLER #5 (Red) MODIFICATION NOTES Adjustments

Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n) Rudder made too much variation

1 39-40ft 8.02 22.14 1.762 0.537 y stalled 3sec in Servo disconnected



*4 39-40ft 7.62 21.1 1.848 0.563 y no stall Servo disconnected

5 39-40ft 7.68 39.35 0.991 0.302 y stalled 12sec for 10sec Servo disconnected


*Battery Warm (wait 5 min) see pic of prop deformation

NEW PROPELLER WITH MAGNET as OFFSET WEIGHT

Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n)

1 39-40ft 7.65 22.33 1.747 0.532 y stalled after 4sec (warm batt) Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point

2 39-40ft 7.56 33.71 1.157 0.353 y stalled after 4sec for 10sec (warm batt/motor) Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point

3 39-40ft 7.48 25.63 1.522 0.464 y stalled after 2sec Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point

Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n) RUDDER ADJUSTMENT (3/16 in less than OG)

4 39-40ft 7.38 30.75 1.268 0.387 y stalled 6sec in (warm batt) Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point

7.25 CHARGE BATTERY

5 39-40ft 8.28 24.12 1.617 0.493 y stalled after 5sec Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point

RUDDER ADJUSTMENT (2/16 in less than OG)

6 39-40ft 7.98 x x x Major Stall Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point

27

NEW PROPELLER and TAPE ACROSS (no weight change)

Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n) NOTES Adjustments

1 39-40 ft 7.87 23.17 1.683 0.513 y stalled after 4sec Servo off -Straight rudder

2 39-40 ft 7.7 42.61 0.915 0.279 y Major stall after 6 sec (12sec) Servo off -Straight rudder

3 39-40 ft 7.58 26.16 1.491 0.454 y stalled after 2 sec More tape near rudder

4 39-40 ft 7.38 29.07 1.342 0.409 y stalled after 2 sec (Batt open) More tape near rudder

ORIGINAL PROPELLER w/ TAPE

Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n) NOTES Adjustments

1 39-40 ft 7.24 24.3 1.605 0.489 y Stalled twice No Servo Much Faster (sorry jesus)

2 39-40 ft 8.2 4.92 7.927 2.416 y No stall

3 39-40 ft 8.04 4.03 9.677 2.950 y No stall

4 39-40 ft 7.9 4.07 9.582 2.921 y No Stall

5 39-40 ft 7.87 4.36 8.945 2.726 y No Stall Awesome performance for speed

6 w/load 7.48 Average 9.033 2.753

MAX LOAD TESTING

Trilas Mod Approx Max load (lb) Barge? Oz ---- > Pounds ---- > Additional Weight Battery (V) NOTES

1 yes x 8.23 warm batt

yes 4.266 0.267 2 magnets 7.93

yes 7.831 0.489 2 magnets + Container w/ Pellets 7.59

yes 10.036 0.627 2 magnets + Tape+ container+Pellets 7.46

yes 39.536 2.471 " " + Entire Pellet box 7.33

yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.24

7.12 CHARGE

2 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 8.27 Less efficient

3 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.82 causes friction

4 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.6 Less efficient

5 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.49 More efficient

6 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.42 More efficient Original Prop + Tape

new prop+tape+more tape

Original Prop

new prop + magnet

new prop + 2magnet

new prop

MAX LOAD SPEED TRIALS

PROPELLER 0 (2 blade) and TAPE to Represent the Cover Notes

Trials Battery (v) Track (ft) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throttle? Load (oz) Start from Barge at the end of the arc End with tip of boat

1 7.91 17.5 28.25 0.619 0.189 y 6lb 0.3oz Stalled after 5 sec

2 7.45 17.5 y Stalled after 3 sec/ Andre stopped testing -_-

3 7.5 17.5 50 0.350 0.107 y 6lb 0.3oz stalled after 3sec/ warm batt

PROPELLER 5 (4 blade) and TAPE to represent the cover Notes

Trials Battery (v) Track (ft) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throttle? Load (oz)

1 8 17.5 41.98 0.417 0.127 y 6lb 0.3 oz No stall / moves side to side a bit

2 7.72 17.5 38.81 0.451 0.137 y 6lb 0.3 oz No stall"choppy"

3 17.5 Battery Extremely Hot / Motor Extremley Hot

4 17.5 ̂117F / ̂125F

5 17.5

PROPELLER 4 (Four Blade) and TAPE to Represent the Cover Notes

Trials Battery (v) Track (ft) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throttle?

Total Load (oz)

[no barge] Start with boat under arc. Barge = 21.3oz

1 8.2 20 50.19 0.398 0.121 y 6lb 0.3 oz Stall after 30sec

2 7.56 20 more than a minute y 6lb 0.3 oz stall after 6sec

Speed Trials 3/14/15SPEED TRIALS

PROPELLER 0 and TAPE to Represent the Cover Notes Adjustments


1 8.03 39 4.3 9.070 2.764 Stalled at the very end

2 7.75 39 8.01 4.869 1.484 Stalled after 2sec

3 39

4 39

5 39

PROPELLER 5 (4 blade) and TAPE to represent the cover Notes Adjustments


1 8.18 39 Stalled after 4 and reversed.

2 8.15 39 29.17 1.337 0.408 Stalled after 3sec

3 7.63 17.5 24 0.729 0.222 Stalled after3sec

4 39

5 39

PROPELLER 4 and TAPE to Represent the Cover Notes Adjustments

Trials Battery (v) Track (ft) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throttle? Servo off

1 8.24 39-40ft 22.43 1.739 0.530 y Batter moves around becasue broken case Tape down Battery

2 8 39-40ft 30 1.300 0.396 y Stall after 20 sec

3 7.81 39-40ft 23.42 1.665 0.508 n (1/2) Half Throttle

4 7.59 39-40ft 25.3 1.542 0.470 y Stall after 6 sec

5 7.44 39-40ft 27.86 1.418 0.432 n (1/2) half Throttle Batter Warm

28

WEIGHTS

(oz) (lb) (kg)

Original Prop 0.035 0.002 0.001

lead pellets 0.262 0.016 0.007

lead pellets 0.264 0.017 0.007

Magnet (1) 2.133 0.133 0.060

Barge 21.3 1.331 0.604

Plastic container 0.323 0.020 0.009

Plastic container with pellets3.565 0.223 0.101

Tape container and pellets 5.77 0.361 0.164

Sand bag1 26.5 1.656 0.751

Sang bag2 25.5 1.594 0.723

Full Pellet box 29.5 1.844 0.836

Tape 2.205 0.138 0.063

Weekly Tasks Week 2

Date Task Description Person in Charge

Completed

1/15/2015 Group Responsibilities Determined

Dani: CAD Design Jesus/Andre: Manufacture/Design Lute: Electronics

Katie: Documentation

Group 1/18/2015

1/15/2015 Documentation Strategy Folder/Templates Organized Katie IP

1/15/2015 Gant Chart Draft Gant Chart Group Group Draft Started

1/15/2015 Code of Ethics Determination of Team Ethics Dani + group 1/16/2015

1/18/2015-1/19/2015

Speed Boat Testing (1) Velocity Test, Dimensioning, Battery Usage Tests, Turning Radius, Kinks

Group 1/19/2015

1/20/2015 Bill of Materials Parts list with cost estimates Katie 1/21/2015

1/15/2015 Research RC tug boat design Continued research. Most have double encased props with 3 or more blades.

Jesus IP

Week 3

Date Started Task Description Person in Charge

Completed

1/22/2015 Cad/ Drawings of Boat Started making drawings and Cad mostly of interior components

Dani IP

1/25/2015 Load Tests Attached water bottles to the back to approximate current load limit; found

max load to be 1-2lbs

Group 1/25/2015

1/25/2015 Design Brainstorming/Research

Modifications Suggestions compiled; details need to be worked out

Group IP

1/22/2015 Contacted Manufacturer Discussed motor and servo specs with manufacturer

Lute 2/3/2015

Week 4


Completed

29

1/27/2015 Battery Charging Test Measured voltage while the battery recharged

Dani 1/27/2015

1/22/2015 Cad/ Drawings of Boat Continuing making drawings and Cad mostly of interior components

Dani IP

1/31/2015 Disassembled Boat Removed/weighed every part of boat and inspected interior of frequency box

Group 1/31/2015

2/1/2015 Started BOTE Calculation Estimates

Group

2/1/2015 Started Connections Determination/Schematic

Assessed connections in boat, drew rough diagram, compiled visio schematic

Katie/Jesus 2/3/2015

Week 5


Completed

2/4/2015 2 Design calculations Thrust estimate and free body diagram center of gravity

Jesus 2/4/2015

2/8/2015 Center of Gravity Test Placed table on boat and placed loads to change point of CG

Group

2/9/2015 Start Binder Project Components

Set up google drive to have a powerpoint and folder system

Group

2/9/2015 Metrics Needs Chose the Needs of a customer Jesus

2/9/2015 Start Powerpoint Presentation Midterm

Labeled each slide Dani

2/9/2015 Thrust Test Used the tank for buoyancy test and force test

Andre

Week 6-7


Completed

2/10/2015 Project Definition Section of Midterm

cover, customer needs, matrix, definitions, specifications

Dani 2/11/2015

2/10/2015 Performance Section of Midterm

Static and Dynamic Testing results Katie 2/11/2015

2/11/2015 Research Information Drag Force and Boat Stability Lute 2/11/2015

2/11/2015 Design Summary of concepts Jesus 2/11/2015

2/11/2015 Research Information Thrust, Propulsion Research, BOM, .ppt reconciliation

André 2/11/2015

2/11/2015 Design Cost analysis, BOM, and decomposition Katie 2/11/2015

2/11/2015 Design CAD Drawings Dani 2/11/2015

2/17/2015 Design Propeller André

2/19/2015 Model Drawings Using solidworks to provide measurements for each part

Dani IP

2/20/2015 Filling out Def/Spec. Templates

Redefine goal/ edit Katie IP

2/25/2015 BOM edits Cost analysis research Katie IP

2/24/2015 Streamline Design Implementations

Consider materials and machinery necessary to perform mods

André

2/21/2015 Design Motor modification research Lute

Week 8


Completed

3/1/2015 BOM Update New Cost Analysis Lute/Katie 3/2/2015

2/28/2015 Propeller Design CAD Jesus 3/1/2015

3/1/2015 Research Compilation Propeller Design Rationale Jesus 3/1/2015

3/1/2015 Barge Manufacture of a barge for testing Katie 3/1/2015

30

3/1/2015 Servo/Motor Research Methods of preventing stalling of the motor

Dani 3/2/2015

3/2/2013 Started Converging duct modification

Determining feasibility/methods André IP

Week 9


Completed

3/3/2015 Visit RapidTech Attempt to print propeller Jesus, Dani, Andre

3/3/2015

3/3/2015 Screwed Hook on Barge Katie 3/3/2015

3/4/2015 3D-Printing New Propellers Paid and printed the propeller Jesus, Dani 3/4/2015

Week 10


Completed

3/8/2015 Max load / Speed Testing Used the made track behind EG Jesus, Dani, Lute, Katie

3/8/2015

3/11/2015 3D -Printing Cover Paid and printed the cover Jesus, Dani 3/11/2015

3/12/2015 Organize Documents for final Binder

Made folders for better organizing Jesus 3/12/2015

Week 11


Completed

3/15/2015 Alter cover Printed new cover Jesus 3/15/2015

3/15/2015 One-minute Final Presentation Finished the Slide Jesus, Dani, Lute

3/15/2015

3/15/2015 Discuss What tests will be done on Monday

Listed variation of test needed for the final

Jesus, Dani, Katie

3/15/2015

3/17/2015 All CAD and Drawings PDF versions of Drawings Dani 3/20/2015

3/17/2015 Final Report Organization/Start

Started organized word doc Katie 3/19/2015

3/18/2015 Final Report Contributions Worked on the report separately Group 3/20/2015

Component Drawings

.06

.31

.13

R.06 116.87°

R.06

1.38

.88

.25

.05

R.06

.13

.06

.13

R.13

.63 .13

.03

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

Servo brace

SHEET 1 OF 1

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 2:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-00A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL

APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THISDRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLEWITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS PROHIBITED.

5 4 3 2 1

.75

.13

1.06

.50

1.63

2.31

.06


Reciever

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009- 01A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

1.00

.25

1.25 .25


Motor

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-03A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

R.29

.38

.38

1.75

.38

.47

.95

.48


Battery

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 3:2 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

7009-04ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

7.00

1.25

.88

.10

R.23 x2

2.24

.25

.20 .20

Entire part shelled from the bottom


Top cover

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-05A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

.21

.15

.56

.50 .54

.26

.13

.26

.04

1.12

.38

.09 .25

Max Thickness1/16"


Propeller

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 2:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-06A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

R.11

.06 .08

R.28

R.10

.31 .41

.08

.26

.50

.09

.03 .90

.62

.06

.12

1.00

.65

.11

Servo

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 2:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

7009-07ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

R.09

97.82°

.21

R.13

.11

.06

.06 .10

.04 All holes have same spacing

.06

.41

.02 .03 R.03

.13 .25

.19 .29


Top of Servo

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 4:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-07A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

12.07 7.40

1.97

.08 1.09

5.91

3.54

R.94

.20 X2

TRUE R.10

TRUE R.10

.20

2.01

.28 .20 X3

.75

59.58°


7009-10 Hull

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 1:4 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-10A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

.63

.25

2.06

.44

67.74°

R.13 .12

.13

.69

.15

R.06

R.09 .13

30.51°

.13

.13 .04

.04


Rudder withBrace

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-11A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

.12

6.02


Prop ShaftSHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

R.25

.35 .63

R.15 .94

.13

1.38

R.15

.20

.13

.31

.26

1.00

.50

.69

2.00

.63

.38

.07

.06

.69


Battery Holder

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

7009-15ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

.13

.11

.88


Rudder Support

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 4:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-21A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

R.69

R.49

.04

.28

.55

.47

.28

1.97

.39x4

1.02

.10

1.23

1.80

2.28


Motor Brace

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-26A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

.05

.40

1.00

.33

.01

.27

Pitch: 15cm


Propeller-5 Blade

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 2:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-AA

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

R1.95 .10

R.20

.20

.07

.08

R.05

.50

1.20

1.12

.15

.60

1.00

2.42


Prop Cover

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.7009-28A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

.88

.19 .13 R.16

.13 .06

R.12

.44

.19

R.10

.31


shaft holder

SHEET 1 OF 1


SCALE: 4:1 WEIGHT:

REVDWG. NO.

ASIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL



APPLICATION

USED ONNEXT ASSY


5 4 3 2 1

mae 151 group 72 final design report

Documents

design choice

design recommendations

design final report

testing matrices

weekly tasks

electric connections

summary of rough concepts

overall results