Judge 63

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Shared by: HC120915032530

Tags

Stats

views:: 1
posted:: 9/14/2012
language:: Unknown
pages:: 13

Public Domain

Document Sample

University: Entry Name: Final Score: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Check
Team 1 Georgia Institute of Technology pBuzzadactyl 72.00 9.00 4.00 6.00 14.00 26.00 3.00 3.00 7.00 72.00
Team 2 New Mexico State University NMSU 3.0 - The Flying Version 46.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 17.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 46.00
Team 3 University of Central Florida AeroKnightical 81.00 7.00 4.00 13.00 17.00 26.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 81.00
Team 4 Washington State University Stall & Fall 70.00 5.00 3.00 11.00 10.00 26.00 4.00 3.00 8.00 70.00

Note: Enter all data on the individual team scoring pages. Data on this sheet will transfer automatically
University: Georgia Institute of Technology
Entry Name: pBuzzadactyl
Final Score: 72

9 Executive Summary Possible Given
Maximum of 2 pages. If exceeded, score as 0 points 10 9
Summary description of selected design and why it best meets the mission
Describe key mission requirements and associated design features
Document the performance/capabilities of your system solution
Format, completeness, readability

Judges Comments:
S 1.2 - "The airplane's ability to successful carry…" - spelling. Good, concise &
clear description.

4 Management Summary
Describe the organization of the design team 5 4
Chart of design personnel and assigments areas
Milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of major elements
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
Team composition and ratio given. S 2.1 - defines 5 sub-teams: structures,
performance, wing, CAD & propulsion + a writing team. The untitled chart shows 4 -
Subsystems, Structures, CAD & Writing. Multiple other disconnects between written
description and chart. Gantt clear & readable, but shows actuals for March & April. If
you are ahead of schedule, actuals should be displayed at the real time they were
completed.

6 Conceptual Design
Describes mission requirements (problem statement) 15 6
Translate mission requirements into design requirements
Review solution concepts/configurations considered
Describe concept weighting and selection process and results
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
S 3.1.1 - "…as the plan taking…" & "…course is compromised of…" - spelling. Figs
3.2 & 3.3 - hard to determine which line is which, colors too close to same. S 3.1.3 -
"Figure 3.3 shows…" - wrong font. Table 3.1 - What are the design reqs for TO
beside low stall speed? "Etc" has no place in a technical document! Table 3.2 is
very confusing. Why so many blank spaces? Does Opt C have no wing and 3
fuselages? This table tells me nothing about your design choices or trade studies..
Section 3.4 is not needed, you already picked a configuration in 3.3. Is 3.4 merely
justification of your choice? The process is: Problem - Investigation - Solution. The
answer should not come first. Why is T 3.3 full of blank spaces? If you have a single
value for each FOM, then you just need two columns in this table; unnecessary
complexity. Again, you give the answer before you show me the process.. S 3.4.1 "
in Table 3.4." - font. Table 3.4 - I understand the FOMs, not labeled but included in
column 1 as FOM(*FOMNum), but what are all the other numbers? Where did they
originate? Why is the Flying wing a 4 and the Conventional wing a 5 wrt weight?
This tells me nothing of the decision process! Table 3.5 - V-Tail & T-Tail captions

14 Preliminary Design
Describe design/analysis methodology 20 14
Document design/sizing trades
Describe/document mission model (capabilities and uncertainties)
Provide estimates of the aircraft lift, drag and stability characteristics
Provide estimates of the aircraft mission performance
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
S 4.2 - refers to Fig 4.1 for basis of decision but plot line colors are so close that they
cannot be correctly identified. Motor chosen but not identified. S 4.3 - Uncertainties
realistically identified. S 4.4 - 2 of the colors on the plots are too close to differentiate.
"...the airfoil in Figure 4.4 ..." & "...seen in Figure 4.5..." - wrong font. Fig 4.4 is
labeled S6062, but Figs 4.2 & 4.3 used a S6061. S 4.5 - "...while Figure 4.6 ..." &
"Figure 4.6 shows..." & "...displayed in Figure 4.8..." - wrong font. Fig 4.6 is
unreadable, don't use dark letters on dark colors! S 4.6 - "...below in Table 4.2." &
"...below in Table 4.3,..." - wrong font. Good investigation of stability. S 4.7 - lap
segments in Fig 4.9 not labeled as discussion claims. Mission performance for M1 &
M3 only.

26 Detail Design
Document dimensional parameters of final design 15 12
Document structural characteristics/capabilities of final design
Document systems and sub-systems selection/integration/architecture
Document Weight and Balance for final design
- Must include Weight & Balance table empty and with each possible payload
Document flight performance parameters for final design
Document Rated Aircraft Cost
Document mission performance for final design
Format. Completeness, Readability
----- Drawing package 15 14
3-View drawing with dimensions
Structural arrangement drawing
Systems layout/location drawing
Payload(s) accommodation drawing(s)

Judges Comments:
Table 5.1 gives HT span as 9 in. but dwg shows 18.98 in. No aileron span or chord
provided. S 5.2 - text says "Only Missions 1 and 2.." should be 3. "…that the plane
will not to be able to… - grammar. S 5.3.2 & 5.3.3 - All 6 Figures are mis-numbered
in text and title lines. S 5.3.2 - This is good, but what about gear, engine & servo
integration. Are they trivial? Fig 5.4 "Passenger Restrain.." S 5.4 - Table 5.3 needs
units for CG arm. Don't believe empty aircraft weights for M2 & M3, payload tray and
water tank not assessed. No identification of RAC. S 5.5 - 2 Figs are mis-numbered.
S 5.6 - Fig mis-numbered in text and title line. S 5.7 - Figures are mis-numbered in
text and title lines. Nice clean Dwg package. Things are large enough to be clearly
read & understood.

3 Manufacturing Plan
Document the process selected for major component manufacture 5 3
Manufacturing processes investigated and selection process and results
Manufacturing milestones chart: plan and actual
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:

S 6.1 - Format error wrt table reference. Refers to Fig 6.1 to show how balsa forms
around LE of airfoil. Fig 6.1 is of fuselage construction. S 6.2 - "Repairability" mis-
spelled twice in text & twice in tables. S 6.3 - Fig 6.2 shows planned & actuals.
However, there is no schedule for wing or cargo pod construction.

3 Testing Plan
Test Objectives and schedule 5 3
Test and flight check lists
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
Fig 7.1 - 'Endurance' is mis-spelled; "Test Labs for M1" -?? S 7.3.2 - Fig 7.3
structural checklist is weak. It could mean anything. Fig 7.4 - same comment for LH
side of checklist. What is being checked?

7 Performance Results
Describe the demonstrated performance of key subsystems 10 7
Compare to predictions and explain any differences and improvements made
Describe the demonstrated performance of your complete aircraft solution
Compare to predictions and explain any differences and improvements made
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:

S 8.1.2 - Mission 3 does not carry passengers. S 8.2 - What is a/c configuration?
Presented some velocity and current data. No indication of changes being needed.
University: New Mexico State University
Entry Name: NMSU 3.0 - The Flying Version
Final Score: 46

5 Executive Summary Possible Given
Maximum of 2 pages. If exceeded, score as 0 points 10 5
Summary description of selected design and why it best meets the mission
Describe key mission requirements and associated design features
Document the performance/capabilities of your system solution
Format, completeness, readability

Judges Comments:
S 1.2 - "…so transitions could me made..." - spelling. No description of selected
design.

2 Management Summary
Describe the organization of the design team 5 2
Chart of design personnel and assigments areas
Milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of major elements
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
No indication of team composition of seniors vs. others. Fig 2.1 nice and clear. Fig
2.2 is useless. There is very little detail, just broad overview labels. No planned vs.
actual notation.

5 Conceptual Design
Describes mission requirements (problem statement) 15 5
Translate mission requirements into design requirements
Review solution concepts/configurations considered
Describe concept weighting and selection process and results
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:

S 3.0 is rather long. Simply repeating the contest rules in great detail is not
necessary. S 3.2 - Eqs. 3.1 - 3.4 all missing. S 3.3 -Summary paragraph is simply
repeated for the speed design requirement. S 3.4 - This whole section is so badly
flawed as to be unreadable. No sense of process can be obtained from it. I have
reviewed the AHP and do not find its application to be clearly demonstrated or
supported by data. This evaluation does not even address the numerous spelling,
grammatical and consistency errors (refer to 2 configs & show 3 as in Fig 3.5). The
numbers in the decision matrices seem to have come out of thin air with no
explanation of how they were derived. It appears to be very thin air, indeed, since
the 'final' choices had to be reversed in several cases. Also included are many
detail design issues, like material selection, that do not belong in this section. No
summary of final configuration at end of section.

8 Preliminary Design
Describe design/analysis methodology 20 8
Document design/sizing trades
Describe/document mission model (capabilities and uncertainties)
Provide estimates of the aircraft lift, drag and stability characteristics
Provide estimates of the aircraft mission performance
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
S 4.2.1 - Say you have selected motor, but it is not identified. A picture is not
adequate. Reasons for choice are sketchy. Format of Section 4.2.3 is incorrect.
No details on final tail size design, just that there is one. S 4.2.4 - Airfoil analysis of
what? For what? Wing, Tail, Fuselage ???? Fig 4.3 is unreadable. No information
on comparison of airfoils. No calculation of lift, drag or stability. Did tunnel test for
yaw stability, but not pitch. Information is anecdotal only, no data. Only
uncertainties identified are environmental, i.e., wind speed & air density. No
uncertainties wrt to the aircraft design. Too many spelling, grammer, reference and
format errors to identify here.

17 Detail Design
Document dimensional parameters of final design 15 10
Document structural characteristics/capabilities of final design
Document systems and sub-systems selection/integration/architecture
Document Weight and Balance for final design
- Must include Weight & Balance table empty and with each possible payload
Document flight performance parameters for final design
Document Rated Aircraft Cost
Document mission performance for final design
Format. Completeness, Readability
----- Drawing package 15 7
3-View drawing with dimensions
Structural arrangement drawing
Systems layout/location drawing
Payload(s) accommodation drawing(s)

Judges Comments:
All figures and figure references in S 5.0 are mis-numbered. Figure 4.5 - no units
for aileron span, no information for elevator or rudder. S 5.2 - nothing to show that
the wings will stay on. S 5.3 - Wings appear to be designed for bending only with no
determination of torsional rigidity. S 5.3 - In general this section is complete and
well written. There are some confusing structural descriptions that might be
clarified by better dwgs. Fuselage - "Connecting the center support and two outer
..." No center support has been described. S 5.4 - Only W&B data is for total a/c cg.
S 5.5 - Does not identify configuration of flight tested aircraft.. MS Excel is a brand
name and should be capitalized. M2 - "Though it was the mission test unsuccessful
due to.."- grammar. M3 - "...will be higher than the estimate performance score." -
spelling. Dwg Pkg: Dwg 1 - dark shading makes it very difficult to
distinguish detail parts. Dwg 2 - the y-direction parts are shown floating in space,
bad perspective, no way to identify location or orientation, no context to these parts,
many of the labels add confusion. The body, wing ribs, and tail are reasonably clear

2 Manufacturing Plan
Document the process selected for major component manufacture 5 2
Manufacturing processes investigated and selection process and results
Manufacturing milestones chart: plan and actual
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
S 6.1 - Figure 6.1 is not a schedule, it is just a list of dates. There is no comparison
of planned vs actual. Need to check out Gantt charts for ideas. S 6.3 - Landing
Gear - "..to run an axel…" "..over their axel…" Cargo Modules - skimpy details on
materials & assembly. Tail - Elevator to horizontal tail attachment is different.
Wings - "...foam-fiberglass ribs where..." Use of the term 'dihedral' as other than a
measured angle is confusing. In discussion of wing skinning there is mention of
birch plywood being used to create the top surface of the wing. This has not been
presented in any of the design discussions. This section needs a good editor. It is
extremely difficult to get a clear picture of the manufacturing process. It is also
uncertain whether the documented process applies to the prototype, or production
a/c, or both.

2 Testing Plan
Test Objectives and schedule 5 2
Test and flight check lists
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
S 7.1 - Chart is for Flight Testing only, no structural or system testing. Just list of
dates, not a schedule. S 7.1.1 Format error, two "7.1.1" given. Wing tip test
mentioned, no details how it was tested. Other test information was prefunctory.
No definition of criteria. S 7. 2 - Checklist provides no information on wha aspect is
to be checked.

5 Performance Results
Describe the demonstrated performance of key subsystems 10 5
Compare to predictions and explain any differences and improvements made
Describe the demonstrated performance of your complete aircraft solution
Compare to predictions and explain any differences and improvements made
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
No demonstrated performance. Mainly discussed flight testing in very broad terms.
Brief mention of wing test, but no details. Indicated numerous structural and
systems changes, but provided minimal data or explanations. Miscellaneous
spelling errors.
University: University of Central Florida
Entry Name: AeroKnightical
Final Score: 81

7 Executive Summary Possible Given
Maximum of 2 pages. If exceeded, score as 0 points 10 7
Summary description of selected design and why it best meets the mission
Describe key mission requirements and associated design features
Document the performance/capabilities of your system solution
Format, completeness, readability

Judges Comments:
Table of contents & list of acronyms contain multiple errors. S 1.3 - TOGW not defined
or included in Acronyms and Nonmenclature (A&N). Otherwise well written, clear and
concise.

Judges Comments:
Brief and to the point. Gantt chart very clear & readable, however it stops at report
submittal date. No information given for activities between then and contest dates.
Team composition and ratio included.

13 Conceptual Design
Describes mission requirements (problem statement) 15 13
Translate mission requirements into design requirements
Review solution concepts/configurations considered
Describe concept weighting and selection process and results
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
S 3.1.2 - "…and plotted in figure ## with.." S 3.3 should be 3.2 & S 3.4 is 3.3. S
3.3.3 Lifting Canard - description is incomplete. S 3.3.4 - First sentence is
incomplete. Table 8 - do not split across pages. Very nice job on this. Kept
discussion to the required information and did not wander off into detail territory. FOM
tables are clear and easily understood. I would like to see a summary of the
configuration at the end of this section.

17 Preliminary Design
Describe design/analysis methodology 20 17
Document design/sizing trades
Describe/document mission model (capabilities and uncertainties)
Provide estimates of the aircraft lift, drag and stability characteristics
Provide estimates of the aircraft mission performance
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
Flowcharts are a good way to provide the process information. All the plots are easy to
read; the legends show distinct differences between each line. S 4.2.1 - How were
airfoils evaluated/studied? Good presentation for 5 finalists. Discussion on page 22
should refer to Fig 12 for Cl choice. Table 10 - don't split between pages. S 4.2.2 -
para below Fig 16, "... effects of flap deflection," Do you mean "elevator"? S 4.2.4 -
Good explanation of drag calculations & CFD simulation. S 4.3 - very sketchy
description of performance calculations. S 4.4 - No units. No discussion of
uncertainties.

Judges Comments:

S 5.1 - Don't split tables. Vertical data has wrong units. Should include more data
than just aero surfaces. S 5.2 - Figure mis-identified in text. Otherwise it's good.
5.3.1 - Wing - "…such as taiper…" How does it attach to the fuselage? S 5.3.1 & .2
present design & selection but not much integration. S 5.3.3 -Table 14 - don't split.
"..the second and third mission requires..." - grammar. "...less than the One Colum
method..." - spelling. S 5.3 - Datum not defined. S 5.5 - S5.7 are mis-numbered, 2 S
5.4. S 5.6 - Don't provide M1 performance wrt #laps. Nice analysis of water drop.
"...it may go acquire negative..." No RAC. Nice Dwg pkg. The dark background on
Dwg 5 makes it difficult to see servo locations and/or identifying arrows. Some
dimensions differ from the chart in S 5.1

4 Manufacturing Plan
Document the process selected for major component manufacture 5 4
Manufacturing processes investigated and selection process and results
Manufacturing milestones chart: plan and actual
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
S 6.2.1 - "…a much more antiquate design…" ??? S 6.3 - No legend on Gantt.
Very nice presentation

3 Testing Plan
Test Objectives and schedule 5 3
Test and flight check lists
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
No schedule. S 7.3 Grammar in last sentence?? Good presentation of objectives
and process.

Judges Comments:
No flight performance data beyond that the aircraft flies.
University: Washington State University
Entry Name: Stall & Fall
Final Score: 70

Judges Comments:
Not very readable. Much more detail on design considerations than appropriate
here. Not really sure what are final configuration & performance numbers; data
scattered all over in section. Definitely NOT a summary.

3 Management Summary
Describe the organization of the design team 5 3
Chart of design personnel and assigments areas
Milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of major elements
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
Table 1 - numerous incomplete sentences; several sentences/phrases that make no
sense. S 2.2 - refers to 4 subsystems in Fig 1; there are 7 subsystems in Fig 2.
Confusing that Fig 1 & 2 have the same title, but show different organizational
information. Did not identify ratio of seniors to other grades. S 2.3 - "…expanded
categories are not show." Gantt chart looks good except that it is impossible to
differentiate between 'Actual Time" and 'Late Finish'.

11 Conceptual Design
Describes mission requirements (problem statement) 15 11
Translate mission requirements into design requirements
Review solution concepts/configurations considered
Describe concept weighting and selection process and results
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
S 3.2 - refers to Table 3.1 when it should be Figure 5. S 3.3 - " …total score and
positively effects…" It should be 'affects". S 3.3.2.1 - ""…using the figure merit
chat." Fig 7 - the total score of 11 for the Contra seems off. S 3.3.5.1 - "…support
the aluminum bocks waterproof the tank." ????? S 3.4 - "Compellations of
aircraft...". Fig 6 - Switched Left & Right designations in title. The overall style of
Section 3 could be better. Long declarative paragraphs are not as readable as
shorter, more focused discussion. It is difficult to do, but worth it. Did a good job of
keeping to the point of this section and not going into extraneous detail. Like the
summary at the end.

10 Preliminary Design
Describe design/analysis methodology 20 10
Document design/sizing trades
Describe/document mission model (capabilities and uncertainties)
Provide estimates of the aircraft lift, drag and stability characteristics
Provide estimates of the aircraft mission performance
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
Your design analysis seems to be limited to MatLab simulations. The design/sizing
trades are adequate, but the presentation of information is buried or spread over so
much discussion that the information is hard to find. Poorly organized. S 4.2.3 -
Refer to Fig 12 & Fig 11 here. If S 4.2.3 depends on S 4.2.4.1, then it should follow,
not precede. If wing area was "of chief concern", then why put Batteries & Props
first? Why is Motor evaluation between the Wing & Canard sections? S 4.2.4.1 -
"..cannot be shown Figure 9 for clarity" - ???? "... as described in section ().". "High
lift devises..." "These devises would.. " S 4.2.4.2 - "...is within 95% the ..." S
4.2.4.3 - "The max ROC is plotted in Fig 11 - should be 12. Discussion says M1 not
plotted in Fig 13, but it is. Fig 13 is unreadable since all lines appear to be the
same color & weight. S 4.2.5 - Fig 14 uses same symbols on plots for both
variables - unreadable. S 4.2.6 - Labeled Canard Sizing but includes location
discussion. Discussion is very poorly organized. Starts with calculation for canard
area, goes to cg location, without disclosing area, then to aspect ratio, span,

Judges Comments:
S 5.1 - Wing area - wrong units, Fuselage - 'GTOW' term not defined, also is it
fuselage or a/c? Motor - Thrust "Figure 7" - what does this mean? S 5.2 - say
torsion not considered so plan to load wing. Do not define load type or application.
Don't show substantiation of fuselage or gear, just say it will work. S 5.3 - Wing &
Canard - nice attachment design. Vertical stabilizers - "...portions of the
horizontals were..." ??? TEIS not defined. "... one on each rudder.." ??? Table
17 located in wrong place. Put in section where discussed, not previous one. S 5.4 -
discussion of a/c weight is in lbs., Table 17 uses N. If you are going to mix units,
you need to provide both, i.e. 4.25 lbs. (xx N). Datum defined in cm, Table 17 uses
M. S 5.5 - Table 18 - same comment as Table 17. "...to propagate at a slightly
slower speed." Slower than what?? S 5.6 - Nice job. Has RAC but is it correct?
Plan to add TEIS only for M3. Is it included? Not listed in Table 17. Dwg Pkg:
Gold star for putting datum on 3-view. Despite the 8.5x11 paper, these are nice
clean dwgs, very clear & readable. Dwg 2 has motor mount mis-labeled as 11.

Judges Comments:
S 6.1.2 - ".. In a lager variety…" Have you been spending too much time at the Ag
School? "…tongue and grove…" Another woodsy reference. No definition of
aileron construction or attachment. S 6.1.3 - Rudder construction? S 6.1.4 -
Elevator construction? S 6.2 - Gantt is ok, but a little too busy. With all the possible
options in the legend, it is hard to differentiate or tell what is done.

3 Testing Plan
Test Objectives and schedule 5 3
Test and flight check lists
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
No schedule, estimated dates given for flight test only. S 7.1 - don't define wing
loading configuration; no gear testing. S 7.3.1 - Checklist is for flight test only; very
detailed. S 7.3.2 - Flight test procedure very detailed, specific objectives.

8 Performance Results
Describe the demonstrated performance of key subsystems 10 8
Compare to predictions and explain any differences and improvements made
Describe the demonstrated performance of your complete aircraft solution
Compare to predictions and explain any differences and improvements made
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
S 8.1 - appears to be a point load added. Is that weight 6.4 Kg - Empty a/c weight?
Not sure what you did. S 8.3 - refer to 'steerable tail gear'. When did that change?
Indicate incidence angle of canard increased by 2 deg. Does that mean it is now at
0 deg (Ref Table 16)? Mixing units, moved MLG forward 4 inches, should be in cm.
Since you have made so many changes, it would be beneficial to have a summary of
changes.
University:
Entry Name:
Final Score:

0 Executive Summary

0 Management Summary

0 Conceptual Design

0 Preliminary Design
0 Detail Design

Document systems and sub-systems selection/integration/architecture
Document Weight and Balance for final design
- Must include Weight & Balance table empty and with each possible payload
Document flight performance parameters for final design
Document Rated Aircraft Cost
Document mission performance for final design
Format. Completeness, Readability
----- Drawing package
3-View drawing with dimensions
Structural arrangement drawing
Systems layout/location drawing
Payload(s) accommodation drawing(s)

Judges Comments:

0 Manufacturing Plan

0 Testing Plan

0 Performance Results
Enter all data on team pages, do not change this page
enter school name here
entry name here
0

Executive Summary
Maximum of 2 pages. If exceeded, score as 0 points
Summary description of selected design and why it best meets the mission
Describe key mission requirements and associated design features
Document the performance/capabilities of your system solution
Format, completeness, readability

Judges Comments:

Management Summary
Describe the organization of the design team
Chart of design personnel and assigments areas
Milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of major elements
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:

Conceptual Design
Describes mission requirements (problem statement)
Translate mission requirements into design requirements
Review solution concepts/configurations considered
Describe concept weighting and selection process and results
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:

Preliminary Design
Describe design/analysis methodology
Document design/sizing trades
Describe/document mission model (capabilities and uncertainties)
Provide estimates of the aircraft lift, drag and stability characteristics
Provide estimates of the aircraft mission performance
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:
Detail Design
Document dimensional parameters of final design
Document structural characteristics/capabilities of final design
Document systems and sub-systems selection/integration/architecture
Document Weight and Balance for final design
- Must include Weight & Balance table empty and with each possible payload
Document flight performance parameters for final design
Document Rated Aircraft Cost
Document mission performance for final design
Format. Completeness, Readability
----- Drawing package
3-View drawing with dimensions
Structural arrangement drawing
Systems layout/location drawing
Payload(s) accommodation drawing(s)

Judges Comments:

Manufacturing Plan
Document the process selected for major component manufacture
Manufacturing processes investigated and selection process and results
Manufacturing milestones chart: plan and actual
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:

Testing Plan
Test Objectives and schedule
Test and flight check lists
Format. Completeness, Readability

Judges Comments:

Performance Results
Describe the demonstrated performance of key subsystems
Compare to predictions and explain any differences and improvements made
Describe the demonstrated performance of your complete aircraft solution
Compare to predictions and explain any differences and improvements made
Format. Completeness, Readability
Judges Comments:
Possible Given
10 0

5 0

15 0

20 0
15 0

15 0

5 0

10 0