Hovercraft Design

Project 98.01

Delaware Aerospace Academy

Dr. Stephanie Wright (Sponsor)

Design Team
Dave Rabeno (Phone: 456 1687 / Email: rabenod@UDel.Edu) Brandon Michael Fichera (Phone:266-6953 / E-mail: fichera@udel.edu) Benjamin Sean Gallagher (Phone: / Email: seang@UDel.Edu ) Gregory Daniel Pease (Phone: 325-2489 / E-mail: 10427@udel.edu)

This report is a proposal of our Senior Design teams mission to design a two-person hovercraft for the Delaware Aerospace Academy (DAA). The mission of our team is to design this hovercraft so that it will demonstrate the relevant scientific principles and simulate planetary exploration as an educational tool to cadets of the DAA. The DAA has been involved with NCDA and the Senior Design course in the past; sponsoring space related projects for design teams for the past few years. The Delaware Aerospace Academy specializes in teaching children about the technology associated with the space program. Dr. Stephanie Wright, president of the DAA, desires a usable hovercraft for use in DAA sponsored activities. The hovercraft will provide the DAA with an educational tool that can teach students the scientific principles that are related to hovercrafts. Besides being used in junior high and high school demonstrations and DAA sponsored events, the hovercraft will be used in conjunction with the 1997-1998 lunar rover design project. The two will be used to simulate planetary exploration in the DAA's level III tech camps, which are designed for grades 7 9 and will also stimulate childrens interest in the space program. After discussing the problem as a team, with our sponsor, and with our advisor, a consensus was reached about the projects mission. It reads as follows:
To design a two person hovercraft for the Delaware Aerospace Academy that will demonstrate the scientific principles of a hovercraft, increase interest in the space program, and simulate planetary exploration as an educational tool for students in grades 7-9.

In an effort to provide a better product, a list of potential customers and their wants needed to be generated. Brainstorming provided the design group with a list of eight potential customers. These customers each had a list of ideas which they wanted to be included in the

design. These wants were then prioritized, by customer, and recorded in chart fashion. This information is located in Table 1. Table 1: Customers Customers Stephanie Wright Martin Rabeno Selina DeCicco Eric Rabeno Ron Perkins School system High School Student Robert Bloom Organization DAA HS teacher JR High Teacher 8th grade student Educational Inovations Safe Educational Educational Fun Educational Educatonal Fun Aerospace Eng. (DAA) Safe Wants Educational Fun Reliable Transportable Safe Fun Safe Fun Cost Fun Cost Educational Educational

The customers are also arranged in order of importance. Dr. Wright, our sponsor, is listed as our principle customer. Since the first objective of our project is to use the hovercraft to teach, the team decided educators and at least one person who works with educators should be included in the list. Martin Rabeno is a technology teacher and Selina DeCicco is a mathematics teacher, both in the Ellenville Central School District. Mr. Rabeno and Ms. DeCicco are both listed because we believe that the impact of our design will differ between Jr. High School and a High School students and teachers, even though we find their wants are the same. Ron Perkins is salesman at Educational Innovations, which provides laboratory equipment to schools. As Mr. Perkins is a salesman, the cost of production of the craft is of high concern. Since the craft is meant for kids, students of both junior high school and of high school will provide excellent sources of information. The junior high student wants the hovercraft to be fun. We imagine a high school student will more likely want to learn how the craft works. Robert Bloom is an aerospace engineer at DAA. As someone who is familiar with the kind of use our design will

probably endure, Mr. Blooms suggestions will be of great help in making the craft more durable. As a way to determine the overall priority of want, each of the wants in the chart have been assigned numeric values. Any want which was repeated had its numeric values added. The team then listed them, the highest value listed first. Taking theses generalized wants, the team then came up with more design specific criteria and listed them for each want (located in table 2). These wants and constrains will be used to keep the design process attentive to the customer. Table 2: Wants and Constraints Want Safe Constraint All moving parts enclosed Emergency Shut off Teach priciples of Hovercraft Keeps kids interested Related to space Appearance Multiple uses

Educational

Fun Reliable

Transportable Weight Size Cost Allowable funds

Upon receiving this project, the design group spent several days researching hovercraft design. This task was done to find out more about hovercrafts, their components, and theories and ideas concerning levitation so that no effort would be wasted re-inventing the wheel. The team also searched for information regarding educational tools and companies who provide scientific equipment to high schools. The companies and their products are listed in table 3.

Table 3: Benchmarking Company R.Q.R Enterprises R.Q.R Enterprises Hover Club Universal Hovercraft Science Project Hovertech Elibra Rank 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 Kit hovercraft, light, low cost Arcticles explaning principle of Hovercrafts Small to large scale kits available plus common parts such as fans Simple design using common materials levitation using magnets levitaion using magnets Strength Kit hovercraft, capacity needed, overpowered

The strengths of each competitive project are listed. Also, they are ranked in order of importance to us (5 being the most important). Two kits, both by Robert Q. Riley Enterprise, will most likely be very helpful (each kit is given its own line). The Tri-Flyer is a three-seater hovercraft that lifts 800 pounds, has speeds of 75 mph with an 80-hp engine. This is obviously over-designed for what we need but gives us a good staring point for our design concepts. The Pegasus only lifts 100 pounds and uses a 3- hp lawnmower engine. This is a slight underdesign but will also provide valuable design help. Another company, The Hover Club is useful in that it provides many articles explaining the principles behind hovercrafts and will be useful in many phases of the design process. These articles, written with an intent to educate, will also help us to figure out what scientific information is important and will help us to put it into a form that can be easily understood by children. Universal Hovercraft sells hovercrafts well above our price range but also sells engines, propellers, and other parts that will probably be purchased later on in the construction phase of the project. The hovercraft plans that some schoolteachers have used, as a science project is a very simplistic design. The project is designed to give students an understanding of the principles involved in a hovercraft by building a simplistic

device, which involves sitting on a chair attached to a plywood base and a leaf blower. Again, this is under-designed for our purposes but utilizes the same underlying principles. The last two benchmarks, Hovertech and Elibra, have information on levitation by the use of magnets This technology is not very useful for our purposes, as they are expensive and large, but shows other methods of attaining our goals. Therefore, these companies are ranked last. The benchmarking process will continue throughout the concept design stage of our project, as we will always be looking for new ideas and competitors. Another important aspect of this Senior Design Project is available funds. The estimated budget for the hovercraft design is located in Table 3. Table 3: Estimated Budget Power Source Structural Materials Fans Aesthetics Miscellaneous Total $550 $500 $300 $150 + $100 $1600

Our customer has allocated $1600 for this project. However, additional funding may be available provided proper justification is given. The budget is tentatively broken down into five areas: Power Source (consisting of motors, controls and power supply), Structural Materials (consisting of body and frame materials), Fans (means of propulsion), Aesthetics (non-essential additives such as paint, decals, lights etc.) and Miscellaneous items (photocopies, overheads). To ensure that all of the teams deadlines are met, we have constructed a Gantt chart (see Attachment 1). This chart outlines the teams objectives and time devoted to necessary design tasks. This tentative schedule will periodically change as the design process evolves, but is useful in efficiently completing the hovercraft design. The chart begins with customer night. It

continues, in order of date, with all significant tasks through the end of the semester. Each task is broken down into sub-tasks and these may be broken down in to sub-tasks. Attachment 1.

sdrev1.MPP

The design team is currently in the Conceptual Design Phase. As can be seen in the attachment, this process is taking about two weeks and is broken down into four parts: identify customers, identify problem, benchmarking, identify wants & constraints and creation of the schedule. Though each of the sub-tasks are only assigned two weeks, they are really on-going endeavors and will appear in other phases as well. The four tasks (numbered 8,21,34,47) shown as clear diamonds represent tasks which will repeat throughout the semester but are not continuous effort types. Team ground rules are necessary to provide a guide to the team and to stand as a basis to ensure that all members are contributing to the project as equally as possible. The team ground rules as decided by our design team and approved by the NCDA advisors are listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Team Ground Rules 1. Each team member must participate equally in all activities. 2. Each member must complete individual work by the designated time. 3. Mandatory attendance at group meetings. 4. Constructive criticism only (criticize ideas not people). 5. Don't hold back suggestions. 6. Keep communication lines open at all times.

7. Each member should know what the others are working on at any given time. This concludes the proposal. Any Questions or comments should be referred to any of the persons listed on the title sheet listed under the heading Design Team.