The 2016 Textron Aviation/Raytheon Missile Systems/AIAA Design/Build/Fly Competition Flyoff was held at Cessna East Field in Wichita, KS on the weekend of April 15-17, 2016. This was the 20th anniversary year since the original competition was held at Ragged Island, MD, in 1997. A total of 145 entries were received, and a new requirement was implemented to write a proposal for review. 137 proposals were submitted and 93 teams were selected for the next phase. 80 teams submitted written reports to be judged, and 69 teams attended the flyoff (25 international). Over 625 students, faculty, and guests were present. The Missions this year simulated a Distributed Manufacturing system, where the students were required to design two aircraft:  The Production Aircraft, which carried a payload of a 32oz bottle of Gatorade.  The Manufacturing Support Aircraft, which is designed to carry the Production Airplane internally. The Mission Score was the product of the three Flight Scores, and a Bonus mission was added with a timed assembly of the Production Airplane. As in the past, the Final Score is the product of the Mission Score and written Report Score, divided by airplane RAC (airplane and battery weights). More details can be found at the competition website: http://www.aiaadbf.org The mission requirements this year were very challenging, and furthermore strong winds prevailed for the first two days and it rained much of the third day. Still, there were 217 flight attempts, of which 83 resulted in a valid flight score. 38 teams had successful flight scores and 12 teams completed all three flight missions. The quality of the teams, readiness to compete, and execution of the flights was outstanding. First place went to San Jose State University with a score of 1300.64, second place to Georgia Tech University at 801.32 and third to University of California Irvine at 610.49. A full listing of the results is shown below. The best paper award, sponsored by the Design Engineering TC for the highest report score, went to Georgia Tech University with a score of 97.00. We owe our thanks for the success of the DBF competition to the efforts of many volunteers from Textron Aviation, Raytheon Missile Systems, and the AIAA sponsoring technical committees (Applied Aerodynamics, Aircraft Design, Flight Test, and Design Engineering). These volunteers collectively set the rules for the contest, publicize the event, gather entries, judge the written reports, and organize the flyoff. Thanks also go to the Corporate Sponsors: Textron Aviation, Raytheon Missile Systems, and the AIAA Foundation for their financial and logistical support. Special thanks to Textron Aviation for hosting the flyoff this year. The growth of the DBF since it was initiated has been phenomenal, and the Organizing Committee is committed to make this educational opportunity available to as many students as possible. Finally, this flyoff marks the final year of my tenure on the DBF Organizing Committee. I am grateful for this opportunity to have served you - the students - and the Aerospace Community at large. David Levy For the DBF Organizing Committee 2016 AIAA Design/Build/Fly Competition Final Results TEAM MISSION SCORES 2016 RANK Report RAC Queue # Name MF1 MF2 PF1 Bonus Total DBF Score 1 30 San Jose State University 86.33 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 1.19 1300.64 2 1 Georgia Institute of Technology 97.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 8.00 0.97 801.32 3 14 University of California, Irvine 91.17 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 2.69 610.49 4 3 Virginia Tech 95.25 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 5.17 331.86 5 21 University of Oklahoma 89.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 16.00 4.60 309.51 6 34 Oregon State University 85.67 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 5.73 269.13 7 15 FH JOANNEUM 91.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 8.39 195.16 8 19 Cornell University 89.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 16.00 8.55 166.50 9 58 Hebei U. of Science & Technology 72.33 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 0.49 118.77 10 12 Università di Roma "La Sapienza" 92.33 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 0.65 113.15 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 11 40 84.50 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 14.33 106.17 University - Daytona Beach Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 12 44 83.83 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 15.56 97.01 University-Prescott 13 10 The University of Texas at Austin 92.33 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 18.46 90.05 14 26 Arizona State University 88.33 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 23.20 68.52 California Polytechnic State 15 7 94.00 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 1.34 55.95 University, San Luis Obispo 16 4 University of Southern California 94.75 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 1.49 50.94 17 18 TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY 89.33 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 2.13 33.53 18 9 University of Strathclyde 93.43 2.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 16.00 51.66 28.94 19 17 Colorado School of Mines 89.67 2.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 8.00 27.70 25.89 20 29 Massachusetts Institute of Tech 86.97 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 5.11 13.61 21 23 University of Glasgow 88.67 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 5.46 12.98 22 65 University of Central Florida 67.25 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 6.05 8.89 University of California, Los 23 67 65.00 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 8.06 6.45 Angeles The Hong Kong University of 24 22 88.83 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 11.19 6.35 Science and Technology 25 35 University of Washington 85.33 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 13.17 5.18 26 37 Istanbul Technical University 85.30 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 13.61 5.01 27 13 University of California San Diego 92.00 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 14.96 4.92 University of Tennessee, 28 24 88.67 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 19.96 3.55 Knoxville 29 33 University of Notre Dame 86.00 2.00 4.00 0.10 0.00 0.80 30.69 2.24 University of Ljubljana, Faculty of 30 43 84.33 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.94 1.79 Mechanical Engineering 31 8 Wichita State University 93.67 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 1.15 1.63 32 39 National University of Singapore 84.67 2.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.20 21.28 0.80 33 5 Universtiy of Colorado Boulder 94.50 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 11.89 0.16 34 62 The Pennsylvania State University 67.33 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 8.52 0.16 35 27 Saint Louis University 87.00 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 25.46 0.07 UNIVERSIDAD DE SAN 36 28 87.00 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 26.77 0.06 BUENAVENTURA BOGOTA University of Maryland, College 37 16 90.67 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 36.84 0.05 Park Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of 38 46 Engineering Sciences and 82.93 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 36.30 0.05 Technology 2016 AIAA Design/Build/Fly Competition Final Results (Continued) TEAM MISSION SCORES 2016 RANK Report RAC Queue # Name MF1 MF2 PF1 Bonus Total DBF Score 39 2 Veermata Jijabai Tech Institute 95.50 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rashtreeeya Vidyalaya College Of 40 6 94.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Engineering The State University of New York 41 11 92.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 at Buffalo 42 20 Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana 89.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 43 32 Khalifa University 86.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 n 44 36 Rice University 85.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 o i 45 41 University of Mass Lowell 84.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 tc e Columbia University in the City of p 46 42 84.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 s New York n I 47 45 Concordia University 82.93 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 h c 48 49 University of South Carolina 82.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 e T 49 50 Uludag University 80.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 d 50 52 University of Arkansas 78.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 e s 51 55 University of South Alabama 76.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 s a P 52 59 PES University 70.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 53 63 Cairo University 67.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 54 66 Colorado State University 66.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 55 72 University of California, Merced 60.40 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 56 73 Sakarya University 59.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 57 76 Brno University of Technology 57.83 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 77 ATATÜRK UNIVERSITY 57.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 38 Florida Institute of Technology 85.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 60 47 North Dakota State University 82.63 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 61 48 Worcester Polytechnic Institute 82.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 f 62 56 Marmara University 74.67 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 fo y 63 64 DHA SUFFA UNIVERSITY 67.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 l F 64 69 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 62.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 t A California State University, Long 65 75 58.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Beach 66 78 University of Wisconsin-Madison 55.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 67 25 University of Florida 88.67 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 68 31 University of California, Berkeley 86.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 69 51 Karabuk University 78.67 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 70 53 Rose-Hulman Inst. of Technology 78.17 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 71 54 Purdue University 78.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 t r o 72 57 Trine University 74.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 p College of Aeronautical e 73 60 69.67 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 R Engineering, NUST d e 74 61 University Of Alaska Fairbanks 69.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 t t 75 68 Stanford University 63.33 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 im 76 70 Johns Hopkins University 61.60 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 b u 77 71 Wentworth Inst. of Technology 61.25 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 S 78 74 SRM UNIVERSITY 58.75 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 79 American University of Sharjah 53.67 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 The Hong Kong Polytechnic 80 80 32.50 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 University First Place Winner: San Jose State University. Second Place Winner: Georgia Tech University. Third Place Winner: University of California at Irvine. Table of Contents  1.0 Executive Summary 02  2.0 Management Summary 03  2.1 Team Structure 03  2.2 Milestone Chart 04  3.0 Conceptual Design 05  3.1 Mission Summary and Scoring Analysis 05  3.2 Design 08  3.3 Configuration Selection 08  4.0 Preliminary Design 15  4.1 Design and Analysis Methodology 15  4.2 Design Trades 18  4.3 Mission Model 22  4.4 Airfoil Selection 23  4.5 Stability and Control 24  4.6 Estimated Mission Performance 29  5.0 Detail Design 31  5.1 Dimensions 31  5.2 Structural Characteristics 32  5.3 System and Sub­System Design 34  5.4 Weight and Balance 36  5.5 Mission Performance 38  5.6 Drawing Package 39  6.0 Manufacturing Plan 48  6.1 Materials Selection Process 48  6.2 Manufacturing 49  7.0 Testing Plan 51  7.1 Tests Conducted 51  8.0 Performance Results 57  References 59  1 1.0 Executive Summary  Team Cronus from San Jose State University is currently designing a set of aircraft for the purpose of  winning the 2015/2016 AIAA DBF competition. The design process has yielded concepts focused on  minimal rated aircraft cost (RAC) and marginally acceptable, though mission capable, flight performance for  the expected conditions.  This year’s DBF competition requires two aircraft to satisfy the mission guidelines. The first aircraft is the  Manufacturing Support (MS) Aircraft that will be used in Missions 1 and 2. The second aircraft is the  Production (PR) Aircraft, which will be used in Missions 2 and 3. For the first mission, the MS Aircraft will  be flying three laps within five minutes with no payload. For the second mission, the MS Aircraft must fly  with the components of the PR Aircraft as its payload. An equal number of laps to the number of  components of the PR Aircraft must be flown. Components of the PR Aircraft are defined as the number of  moveable pieces to make the PR Aircraft “flight ready” from its transportation configuration. After the first  two missions are completed, the PR Aircraft will fly three laps within five minutes with a 32 oz Gatorade  bottle as the payload and then complete a bonus mission where it must be assembled from its  transportation configuration to its flight configuration in under two minutes.  The general competition mission requirements for both aircraft specify a maximum takeoff distance of 100  ft and the ability to complete 3 laps, with appropriate mission loads, in 5 minutes. Each lap takes the  airplane around a 1,000 ft racetrack course with a 360 degree opposite turn downwind. These requirements,  along with expected environmental conditions result in a target cruise speed of 70 ft/sec and a stall speeds  not to exceed 35 ft/sec for both airplanes. Our Team has estimated that a ground speed of approximately  30 feet per second is required to complete the three laps in five minutes. This allows the aircraft to fly with  a 40 feet per second headwind (common at the competition location) and still complete the mission within  the time required. The last performance target our team aims to achieve is a take­off distance of 80  feet,which includes a factor of safety of 20%.  The Rated Aircraft Cost (RAC) is a function built from the product of airplane weight, battery weight, and  number of subassemblies for the PR Aircraft plus empty weight times battery weight for the MS Aircraft.  Studies involving potential tradeoffs of MS Aircraft mass for PR Aircraft subassemblies favored a carrier  airplane that could fit the production airplane in a one piece, flight ready condition. The configuration  selected for the aircraft is shown in the loading sketches included in Figure 1.0.1.  2 Figure 1.0.1:​ Loading of PR Aircraft in MS Aircraft  Due to the the battery weight being in the score’s denominator, minimizing the battery weight is necessary  in order to maximize the team's score. However, this is a big risk due to the possibility of under powering  the aircraft.  To verify our design, each aircraft was tested using the 2015 ­ 2016 DBF mission standards. Table 1.0.1  tabulates the flight tested performance characteristics for each designated mission. Table 1.0.2 ​​tabulates  our current calculated RAC value.  Table 1.0.1:​ Tested Performance Characteristics  Mission Performance Characteristics  Parameter  Mission 1  Mission 2  Mission 3  Takeoff Distance (ft)  24  37  72  Cruise Speed (ft/s)  70.1  68.9  85.1  Time to Complete Course (s)  195 (3 Laps)  85 (1 Lap)  165 (3 Laps)  Empty Weight (lb)  1.813  1.813  0.988  Table 1.0.2:​ RAC Breakdown  Components  EW​ (lbs)  Et​ (lbs)  N​   EW​ (lbs)  Wt​ (lbs)  RAC  1​ Bat1​ Components 2​ Bat2​ Value  0.988  0.375  1  1.813  0.375  1.05  2.0 Management Summary  The team was founded by 6 seniors, working in conjunction with their aircraft design class to optimize the  design. In order to comply with DBF regulations and to involve the younger student body, underclassmen  were recruited to satisfy the 1/3 minimum rule. This resulted in the total membership increasing to 10  members.  2.1 Team Structure  Team Cronus is composed of 9 active members, including 6 seniors and 3 underclassmen. The general  structure of the Team involves a Faculty Advisor, Team Lead, Manager, Computer Aided Design (CAD)  Lead, Recorder, Spokesperson and Treasurer. The Team Lead is responsible for consulting with the  advisor as well as working with the Team Manager to delegate tasks and ensure timely completion. The  Team Manager was also responsible for delegating tasks to the underclassman and coordinating the other  3 senior members to mentor them during given tasks. Refer to Figure 2.1.1 ​​for a diagram of the Team  organization.      Figure 2.1.1​: Group Organization Chart    2.2 Milestone Chart  The Team’s goal is to design and manufacture two aircraft to compete in the 2015/2016 DBF competition in  approximately seven months. In order to accomplish this goal, the following milestone chart was created  and followed closely.      4