16.82  Flight Vehicle Engineering

Upload your Exec Summary to the Stellar homework link, please

Hi all,

When you are ready to upload your Executive Summary, please

1. label your file (name_date)
2. upload to the link you'll see under 'homework'.

This procedure makes it so much easier for us. All the documents are in one place for us to retrieve instead of hunting around in our email!

Thanks, everyone. The executive summaries are looking good!

Best,
Jennifer

Announced on 13 May 2014  2:06  p.m. by Jennifer L Craig

Comments on CDR

Hi all,

here are the usual stream of consciousness comments. I missed a few sections as I was writing individual feedback. Individual comments will come via email. Thanks for a good CDR! Jennifer

Like the way this presentation begins. I think slide 5 is effective. I would have put a graphic there, too, but it’s good as it is.

I would have lingered on the 3 view just a bit.

I liked the way Mission Requirements fit in behind the 3 view. slide 7

I thought the supply chain flow was a good graphic but might have been done more quickly because slide 11 was a good graphic. Billy explains well.

I would have lingered a bit on the truck graphic. That is a cool graphic and a big plus.

Nice intro.

Configuration slides are very strong. Graphics are well done, detailed. Color is used well. Nice work, folks.

Payloads: the graphics here help a lot in getting your point across. Nice graphics on #31. Sequence on 32 is good.
I thought the question answering on the payload drop was a bit messy. This was something they brought up at the PDR and I think you could have handled this better.

I didn’t get the transition from payload into parachutes. slide 33. I thought that was rocky.

I thought 50 was confusing. Need to slow down and make room for audience discussion. Thought 51 was confusing too—largely because speaker going so fast. But what IS the point of those slides here? Part of Mission Sim but we lost track of that.

Like the takeoff landing graphics

One of the strengths here is the attention you have paid to the client’s wishes and this comes through in many ways. Good job. Very persuasive.

You folks weren’t too consistent about introducing yourselves.

Graphics are strong here—e.g. the whole structures package.

I don’t think the traditional risk chart has a dark yellow category.

Really a good CDR. . . especially for a 1 semester course. You came a long way from the CoDR—hard work, good leadership, lot of contributions from everyone. Proud of you guys! I saw a lot of growth in your communication abilities, too.

Announced on 06 May 2014  4:28  p.m. by Jennifer L Craig

No draft due on your exec summary.

Hi all,
There is no draft due date as indicated on the syllabus. That's a relic from the earlier assignment.

However, I strongly encourage you to sign up for a writing conference with the link I sent you. And to that conference, please DO bring a draft (hard copy) of your exec summary.

Thanks, all.

Jennifer

Announced on 26 April 2014  3:47  p.m. by Jennifer L Craig

General comments on CoDR: J. Craig

Hi all,

I send out general comments here on Stellar. You'll also hear from Prof. Keraman and Drela. Individual comments on delivery style come by email.

Thanks for all your hard work. These comments are 'stream of consciousness' as I watched the review. We'll talk more about this next week!

********
General comments:

Folks, please. . .when you have a review, make sure the person with the presentation on their laptop has a dongle. You can't be looking around for one just as the audience is sitting down. Someone stepped up with one but if he had not. . . you would have been in deep water.

Also, I sure hope that someone is taking notes/action items?

Generally good support from classmates answering questions during review.

What happened to Jabba and Little buddy names?

Libby did a good job of explaining rationale. Good blend of connecting design thinking to requirements. maybe some Conops would have been better here.

Slide 9 is so useful. Good.

Hansman is right. What is the concept? Why do you need a big plane and also a small plane? That didn't come through. Libby answered or started to when JH asked question. I think maybe more ConOps was needed.

When you mention technical requirements that flowed from mission requirements. . .those technical requirements should show up in the presentation. Then you see the flow down but it was mysterious.

JH raises this again with the airfoil selection. Ben doing a good job of explaining why airfoil chosen but because the design requirements not clear, it's harder to explain. The configuration slide (16) talks about process but still we don't see requirements.

You folks got some good feedback from client on motors. Hope someone was taking notes.

No back up slide on thrust requirement, motors for small a/c?

Dominque's part had 'next steps' which I don't believe other sections had. Let's make sure parts of a presentation are consistent. Don't put something in one part and not in another.

Again, payload had lots of good ideas but missing that concept connected to the technical driver.

Maybe need some analysis on what kind of stress your payload can take. Weight of payload? Mass? and then impact?

The manufacturing seemed to veer off into a range of choices rather than connecting design to requirements. Marcel pulled it back to focus on design choice but it was difficult.

Slide 38 is an example of a slide with info that is weakly organized. The design choice should lead.

Some calculations needed here about impact of a/c on water, impact on payload. I feel the need for a few more numbers here.

I thought the flight optimization material was rather general. On the interface slide, you're trying to get at the requirements but it's not really in the right place.

Hansman is looking for material on sensors but I don't see it in the slides.

Software and control seemed slightly 'light' on information---we see the diagram but no specifics. Why is there a problem on talking about sensors?

Communication flow: I feel as tho this is filler. I don't see what the concept is. What are you trying to say about how these a/c work for customer? Not getting this at all.

Cost and weight---well, it would be good to fit this into your requirements.

I don't know what 'further considerations' was really about. I think you were trying to raise design questions, but these are not 'considerations'. Some of the items were things you weren't sure about and some were future work. You could have phrased this in a more focused way

on the summary and conclusion slide, I saw some of your concept. Great----better to have it in beginning. But the word 'practical'---yes, but the definition of what 'practical' means for your client---again . . . the definition should be much much earlier.

Announced on 27 February 2014  5:57  p.m. by Jennifer L Craig

Notes for CoDR--long email--plz read

Hi all,

We've received questions about CoDR length and structure. Here are responses from me, from Profs Keraman and Drela.

Structure:

From Keraman . . .

1. Start with a couple slides about the HADR application domain. Note that various types of UAVs may be useful for different reasons.
2. Present a couple slides on the multi-purpose two-aircraft concept. At this point, one can briefly outline the capabilities of each of the aircraft (e.g., aircraft 1 has range x, speed y, payload capacity z; It can handle large payloads, such as food, …; it can be ship deployed. Aircraft 2 has range …).
3. Present one or two slides showing 3 views of both airplanes. This should clearly indicate the size/shape of each airplane. Some differences/commonalities can be pointed out at this stage. For example, both airplanes are commanded using the same tablet interface.
4. Then, each group can present one by one. If they are doing different work for two airplanes, they present for Aircraft 1 first and then for Aircraft 2. Some groups (e.g., user interface) will be doing the same thing for both aircraft. They can say that in the beginning and continue.

Length:

Being concise is a good thing, but it is also important to be clear and thorough. Audiences can grow tired and confused by lengthy talks that aren't focused. We suggest that you try for 1.5 hours and then with discussion that might grow to 2.

Presenters:

We suggest about 10 people per review. Remember that everyone should present at least once during the semester. So easy math suggests about 10 per review. This means that a presenter could end up presenting work that isn't his/her own. This requires more preparation obviously.

Remember that EVERYONE can field questions. So if you've done the analysis on something and a peer is presenting it and cannot answer a question, you are on deck to answer that. So. . . listen up.

Delivery style:

In the progress report, I (JC) saw a lot of strong skills but also some places for improvement.

1. Speak up. This means men as well as women! That is a flat, wide room with road noise from outside and some of you could not be heard in the back row. When the room is full of people, it also changes the acoustics. So take a breath and talk to the back row. That usually is enough to help you project your voice sufficiently.

2. Talk to the audience, not to the screen. Know your material well enough that you do not have to rely on the screen for prompting. The audience is persuaded by you---not by the bright light behind you!

I'll keep sending you notes on delivery style just for fine tuning. But the most important help to delivery is to KNOW your material well. I cannot emphasize this enough. If you know what you want to say and you say it clearly and audibly, the audience tends to ignore all other little fidgets.

Questions? Please send them along.

Best,
Jennifer

Announced on 24 February 2014  6:22  a.m. by Jennifer L Craig