The 2014 Cessna Aircraft Company/Raytheon Missile Systems/AIAA Design/Build/Fly Competition

235 Pages·2015·13.91 MB·English

The 2014 Cessna Aircraft Company/Raytheon Missile Systems/AIAA Design/Build/Fly Competition Flyoff was
held at Cessna East Field in Wichita, KS on the weekend of April 11-13, 2014. This was the 18th year the
competition was held. Of the 100 entries this year, a total of 80 teams submitted written reports to be judged.
And 71 teams attended the flyoff (19 international). All the teams that attended completed the technical
inspection. Approximately 700 students, faculty, and guests were present.

The theme for this year was a “Back Country Rough Field Bush Plane”:

 Taxi Mission simulated rough field operations using corrugated roofing panels
 Flight mission 1 was a ferry flight scored on the number of laps which could be flown in 4 minutes
 Flight mission 2 was a maximum load mission with team-chosen number of cargo blocks for three laps
 Flight mission 3 was an emergency medical mission carrying two simulated patients and attendants on
a timed three-lap flight.

The Mission Score was the sum of the three Flight Scores, and factored by the Taxi Score (1 if completed, 0.2
if not). As usual, the Final Score is the product of the Mission Score and written Report Score, divided by
airplane RAC (empty weight). More details can be found at the competition website: http://www.aiaadbf.org

Despite strong winds for most of the weekend and a 1-hour suspension on Sunday for a passing thunderstorm,
the flyoff set new records. There were 209 flight attempts, of which 105 resulted in a valid flight score. 49
teams had successful flight scores and 61 completed the taxi mission. 20 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 University of Southern California with a score of 407.24, second place to University of
California Irvine at 352.86 and third to San Jose State University at 326.37. 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
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo with a score of 98.70.

We owe our thanks for the success of the DBF competition to the efforts of many volunteers from Cessna
Aircraft, the 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: Cessna Aircraft, Raytheon Missile Systems, and the AIAA
Foundation for their financial support. Special thanks to Cessna Aircraft for hosting the flyoff this year.

Finally, this event would not be nearly as successful without the hard work and enthusiasm from all the
students and advisors. If it weren’t for you, we wouldn’t keep doing it.

David Levy
For the DBF Governing Committee
CAL POLY
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

2013-2014 AIAA Design/Build/Fly Report
AIAADesign/Build/Fly 2013/2014
Contents
1 ExecutiveSummary 3
1.1 DesignSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 MissionRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 SystemPerformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 ManagementSummary 4
2.1 TeamOrganization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 HierarchicalChart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Milestone/GanttChart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 ConceptualDesign 6
3.1 MissionRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1 MissionandScoringSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2 ScoringSensitivitiesAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3 DesignConstraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 MissiontoDesignRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 SolutionsConsidered,SelectionProcess,andResults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1 InitialConcepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2 HighWingConventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.3 LowWingConventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.4 LandingGearConfigurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.5 TailConfigurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.6 PayloadConfigurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.7 SelectionValidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4 PreliminaryDesign 15
4.1 DesignMethodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.1 IterativeDesignProcess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.2 RapidPrototyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2 SizingandTradeStudies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.1 TailSizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 MissionModel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.1 ModelAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.2 SystemUncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4 AircraftCharacteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4.1 AirfoilSelection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4.2 DragBuildUp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4.3 StabilityandControl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4.4 StructuralDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.4.5 PropulsionDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.5 PreliminaryMissionPerformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5 DetailDesign 33
CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity,SanLuisObispo 1
AIAADesign/Build/Fly 2013/2014
5.1 DimensionsandParameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2 StructuralCharacteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3 SubsystemsDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.3.1 ServoSelection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.3.2 ElectronicSpeedControllerSelection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.3.3 ReceiverSelection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4 WeightandBalance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.5 PerformanceParameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.5.1 FlightPerformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.5.2 MissionPerformance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.6 DrawingPackage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6 ManufacturingPlanandProcesses 47
6.1 ManufacturingProcessandTechniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1.1 BalsaBuild-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1.2 Composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1.3 Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.2 WingConstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.3 BackboneConstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.4 FuselageConstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.5 MilestoneChart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7 TestingPlan 49
7.1 TestingSchedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.2 FlightTesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.3 TaxiTesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.4 TestsPerformed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.4.1 WingStructuralTesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.4.2 BackboneStructuralTesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.4.3 PropulsionTesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.4.4 OtherComponentTesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8 PerformanceResults 55
8.1 SubsystemPerformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1.1 PropulsionSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1.2 Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.1.3 Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2 AircraftFlightPerformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity,SanLuisObispo 2
AIAADesign/Build/Fly 2013/2014
1 Executive Summary
This report details the design process used by California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo to
compete in the 2013/2014 AIAA Design/Build/Fly competition. The goal of the competition was to design
an aircraft that best meets the mission requirements and maximizes the scoring equations. This year’s
competition required a light, fast aircraft capable of carrying six inch cubes and two 9x4x2 inch blocks
accompanied by two 4x2x6 inch blocks simulating a medical evacuation. The final design was created
throughextensiveanalysis,testing,andhardworkbyacompletelyvolunteerstudentteamatCalPoly.
1.1 Design Summary
The goal of the design process was to create the highest possible scoring aircraft while satisfying all of
the requirements. Due to many different performance parameters greatly affecting each other, the most
importantfactorsneededtobeidentified. Toisolatethemostimportantparameters,asensitivitiesanalysis
was performed on the total score equation. This analysis revealed that empty takeoff weight and speed
were the two most important factors, weight being about twice as important as speed. As a result, most
designdecisionsweredrivenbyweightminimization,andaweightincreaseforspeedwasonlyacceptable
ifthepercentspeedgainwastwicethepercentweightgain.
1.2 Mission Requirements
There are a total of four missions that must be completed in the competition. While empty weight was the
most important scoring factor in the competition, the aircraft must not sacrifice its ability to complete each
of the missions with a competitive score. It was very important to determine how each mission will impact
theoveralldesignoftheaircraftandthefinalscorethatcanbeachieved.
Mission1isaspeedmissionthattestshowmanylapstheaircraftcancompleteinafourminutetimelimit.
This mission is entirely about airspeed; however, the sensitivities analysis revealed that weight should be
sacrificedforspeedonlyifthepayoffissignificant.
The second mission tests the ability of the aircraft to carry large, heavy cargo. The aircraft must complete
threelapswithaninternalpayload. Thelargepayloadsizeinthismissionwasoneofthedrivingfactorsfor
the fuselage size. In this mission, each team is given a choice of how much cargo to carry. The payload
weightrequirementofMission3wasalargefactorindetermininghowmuchcargotheaircraftwouldcarry
forthismission.
Thethirdmissionisatimedmissionwithaninternalpayload. Theaircraftmustcarryaspecifiedpayloadfor
threelapsasquicklyaspossible. Thismission’srequirementsalongwiththeshorttakeoffconstraintdrove
manyofthedesignchoicesfortheaircraft. Theweightoftheaircraftonthismissionandthespeedscoring
criteriawerethemainfactorsforthepropulsionsystemdesign. Thepayloadsizewasalargedeterminant
forthesizeandshapeofthefuselageaswell.
Finally, the aircraft will go through a taxi test to assess its handling ability on rough ground surfaces. The
taxi mission has a five minute time limit and the same internal payload as Mission 3. Due to the scoring
criteria for this mission, the aircraft does not need to complete this mission particularly fast or well, it only
needs to complete it. Consequently, all design choices for this mission were chosen to have the smallest
CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity,SanLuisObispo 3
AIAADesign/Build/Fly 2013/2014
possible impact on the score of other missions. This mission primarily affected the design of the landing
gear.
1.3 System Performance
The final design was a 2.3 pound low-wing, conventional aircraft capable of carrying two six inch cargo
blocks. It has a maximum velocity of 60 feet per second, a takeoff distance of 39 feet fully loaded, and it
can complete four full laps in four minutes. Carrying the Mission 3 payload, the plane is expected to finish
threelapsinthreeminutes. Theteambelievesthattheaircraft’sbalancebetweenlightweightconstruction
andspeedwillbehighlycompetitiveinthisyear’scompetition.
2 Management Summary
At the beginning of the 2013/2014 school year, the club gained quite a few new members, freshmen in
particular. The new members complemented the return of a healthy number of experienced members.
Throughout the year, close to 20 people played a role in the team, with about 10 of those being first time
club members. The club benefited from the enthusiasm and wealth of fresh ideas from the new members
to supplement the many years of experience from the older members. Though the focus was always on
competing in the competition, the second priority was always helping newer members gain experience to
continuetheclub’ssuccessintothefuture.
2.1 Team Organization
Tofulfillthegoalofgivingnewermembersasmuchexperienceaspossible,theteamstructurewassome-
whatfluidfortheyoungermembers. Generally,oldermemberssplitupandleadthedesigneffortindifferent
disciplines,whiletherestoftheteamwasallowedtopickwhichdisciplinetheywereinterestedin,orswitch
between groups as they saw fit. This allowed everyone to be exposed to each aspect of the design pro-
cess. During both the conceptual and detail design phases, the club was divided into sub-groups with the
following foci: aerodynamics, structures/CAD, propulsion, controls, manufacturing, and report writing. In
theearlierstages,themanufacturingteamwasalsoresponsiblefortestinganddesignvalidation. Asenior
memberledeachsub-groupandreportedtooneofthetwoco-leads.
2.2 Hierarchical Chart
Theteamtriedveryhardtokeeptheclubexperiencecasual. However, structurewasneededforaccount-
ability and communication. The team used a simple hierarchical structure to establish organization and
leadershipamongtheteam. ThisstructurecanbeseeninFigure2.1. Manymemberscontributedtomulti-
plegroupsandoccasionallytwogroupsworkedtogetheroncertaindesignaspects. Figure2.1alsoshows
membersunderthegroupsinwhichtheymadethelargestcontributions.
CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity,SanLuisObispo 4
AIAADesign/Build/Fly 2013/2014
Figure2.1TeamOrganization
2.3 Milestone/Gantt Chart
Duetotheharddeadlinesforthereportandcompetition,itwasextremelyimportanttostayonareasonable
schedule throughout the course of the year. To reduce the amount of last minute work, an aggressive
schedule was set at the beginning of the year. A Gantt chart detailing both major and specific goals and
deadlineswascreatedtobefollowedascanbeseeninFigure2.2. Thoughthedeadlinessetinternallyby
theclubarefluid,theywereexpectedtobemetwithquality,finishedwork. Thedivisionoflaborandinflux
ofmembersallowedtheteamtostayontrackthroughoutthemajorityoftheyear.
Projected
Actual
Figure2.2GanttChartincludingprojectedandactualtimelines.
CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity,SanLuisObispo 5
AIAADesign/Build/Fly 2013/2014
3 Conceptual Design
Theconceptualdesignphasewasusedtofullyunderstandtherulesandtoselectasingledesignconfigu-
rationthatwouldmaximizethetotalscoringequation. Asensitivitiesanalysiswasperformedonthescoring
equations,whichshowedthatemptyweightwasthemostimportantfactorofthedesign,followedbyspeed.
Using the results of the sensitives analysis to weigh various performance characteristics, a qualitative and
quantitative survey of general configurations was performed and a general configuration was selected. To
ensuretheresultingdesignwasfeasible,aproofofconceptprototypewasbuiltandflighttested.
3.1 Mission Requirements
The2013/2014Design/Build/Flycompetitionconsistsofthreeflightmissionsandonegroundmission. Each
ofthemissionscoresaredeterminedbydifferentparametersandcontributetotheoverallcompetitionscore.
3.1.1 MissionandScoringSummary
The total competition score is shown in Equation 1 where WRS is the written report score, TS is the taxi
score, M isthescorefromtheith mission, andRAC istheheaviestemptyweightoftheplaneaftereach
i
mission.
TS(M +M +M )
TotalScore=WRS∗ 1 2 2 (1)
RAC
FlightLap
All three flight missions require either flying a certain number of laps or flying as many laps as possible in
agivenamountoftime. ThestandardflightlapisshowninFigure3.1withasafeoperatingaltitudeof100
feet.
100'
Figure3.1StandardFlightLap
Eachlaprequiresthefollowinginordertobeconsideredsuccessful:
CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity,SanLuisObispo 6
AIAADesign/Build/Fly 2013/2014
1. Rollingtakeoffinlessthan40feet
2. Climbtosafealtitude
3. U-turn500feetupwindofstart
4. 1000footdownwindlegwitha360degreeturnawayfromtherunway
5. 180degreeturnfromdownwindtoupwind
6. 500footupwindlegpastthestartline
7. SuccessfulLandingaftercompletionofalllapsortimelimit
Whetherornotthelandingissuccessfulwillbedeterminedbythecompetitionjudgesbasedontheamount
ofsignificantdamageincurreduponlanding.
FerryFlight
Mission1isaferryflightmissionwithoutapayload. Itconsistsofafourminutetimedflightwherethetimeis
startedassoonasthethrottleisadvanced. Alapiscountedastheaircraftpassesoverthestart/finishline.
A lap that is unfinished when the time limit is reached will not be counted. After the time limit is reached,
the aircraft must land successfully to receive a score for the mission. The scoring criteria for Mission 1 is
giveninEquation2.
N
M1=2∗ Laps (2)
N
Laps,max
MaximumLoadMission
Mission 2 is a cargo flight mission with no time limit. It consists of a three lap flight with cargo stored
internally. Thecargoconsistsofsixinchwoodencubesprovidedbythecompetitionofficials. Eachcubewill
weighonepoundandwillhaveitscenterofgravitynearthecentroid. Theteamislefttodecidethenumber
ofcubescarriedascargo. Uponcompletionofallthreelaps,theplanemustcompleteasuccessfullanding
toreceiveascore. ThescoringcriteriaforMission2isgiveninEquation3.
N
M2=4∗ Cargo (3)
N
Cargo,max
EmergencyMedicalMission
Mission 3 is a timed cargo flight mission with a specified cargo. It consists of a three lap flight with cargo
stored internally. The cargo consists of four wooden blocks provided by the competition officials. The
blockswilleachweigh0.5poundsandhavetheircenterofgravitynearthegeometriccenter. Thecargois
represented by two patient blocks that are 9x4x2 inches and two attendant blocks that are 6x2x4 inches.
Thepatientblocksmustlayhorizontallyandtheattendantblocksmuststandvertically. Theattendantswill
stand along the sides of the patients during flight and must be separated from each other by two inches.
Additionally, the patients must be separated by two inches side to side and each patient must have two
inchesofemptyspaceimmediatelyaboveit. Theaircraftwillcompletethreelapsasfastaspossible. Alap
CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity,SanLuisObispo 7
AIAADesign/Build/Fly 2013/2014
will be recorded as the aircraft crosses the start/finish line. The time will begin as soon as the throttle is
advancedfortakeoffandstopwhentheaircraftcrossesthestart/finishlineonthelastlap. Theaircraftmust
completeasuccessfullandingtoreceiveascore. ThescoringcriteriaforMission3isgiveninEquation4.
T
M3=6∗ fastest (4)
T
team
RoughFieldTaxi
This mission is a timed taxi test with aspecified cargo. It consists of taxiing the aircraft across a 40x8 foot
coursewithinatimelimitoffiveminutes. TheaircraftmustcarrythesamepayloadasoutlinedinMission3.
Thecoursewillbeacrosscorrugatedfiberglassroofingpanelsorientedperpendiculartothe40footcourse
direction. The panels are corrugated with a spacing of 0.625 inches high by 3 inches wide. Additionally,
two obstacles will be placed at one-third and two-thirds of the distance along the course. They will span
halfofthecoursedistancealternatingsidesfromthecenterlinetotheedgeandwillstand3.5inchestallby
1.5 inches wide. The mission will be deemed successful if the aircraft travels from one side of the course
to the other within the allotted time limit without damaging the aircraft. If the aircraft departs the course or
becomes airborne, the attempt will be deemed unsuccessful. A successful attempt will receive a score of
TS =1andanunsuccessfulattemptwillreceiveascoreofTS =0.2.
3.1.2 ScoringSensitivitiesAnalysis
Anidealaircraftwouldmaximizethetotalmissionscore(TMS)byoutperformingallotherairplanesineach
of the three missions. However, the missions require the aircraft to perform well in several different areas.
The first and third missions emphasize speed whereas the second mission emphasizes payload capacity.
Additionally, the sum of the mission scores is divided by empty weight. Since it is not possible to improve
the performance of one metric without negatively affecting another, it is necessary to determine the most
importantmetric.
In order to determine the most important metric, a sensitivities analysis was performed on a simplified
versionoftheTMS.TheTMSwassimplifiedbymakingtheassumptionthattheaircraftwouldsuccessfully
completethetaximissionandreceiveataxiscoreofone. ThesimplifiedTMSbecomesEquation5.
2( NLaps )+4( NCargo )+6(Tfastest)
TMS = NLaps,max NCargo,max Tteam (5)
EW
Thisequationisafunctionoffourvariables:
1. TheratiooflapsflownbyCalPolyinMission1tothemaximumflownbyanyteam, NLaps
NLaps,max
2. The ratio of cargo pieces carried by Cal Poly in Mission 2 to the maximum carried by any team,
NCargo
NCargo,max
3. TheratiooffastestMission3timetoCalPoly’sMission3time, Tfastest
Tteam
4. Theaircraftemptyweight,EW
ThesensitivitiesanalysiswasperformedbycomputingthepercentchangeintheTMSforapercentchange
CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity,SanLuisObispo 8