SAE Design West
by Bob Tarlau
It was a cold, windy, rainy morning in mid‑March in Van Nuys, California. I was the first member of the San Fernando Valley RC Flyers (AMA club #152) to arrive at Apollo 11 Field in the Sepulveda Basin. It was still dark, and water was beginning to puddle in the pit area. It was hard to believe that 90 minutes later, 372 students from 53 universities around the world would be here too, despite the blowing rain.
Nearby, in the wet predawn at Apollo 11 Field, roughly a dozen students from two universities were using flashlights, braving the elements, unloading, and beginning to assemble their creations: one‑of‑a‑kind aircraft they hoped would fly their schools to a top prize in the 2012 SAE Aero Design West engineering competition.
Overview
Aero Design is the airborne element of SAE's Collegiate Design Series, which also includes the Clean Snowmobile Challenge, the Formula SAE Series, Baja SAE Series, and SAE Supermileage. Each year Aero Design holds West and East competitions. In 2012 the Aero Design West competition was March 16–18 in Van Nuys and the East was April 27–29 in Marietta, Georgia. Both drew international competitors, with teams this year (making one or both events) from:
- Canada
- Mexico
- India
- Brazil
- Turkey
- Venezuela
- Poland
- China
- Numerous campuses across the United States
The competition uses student‑designed and -built model aircraft to lift the maximum amount of weight within the stringent rules of three classes: Micro, Regular, and Advanced. An entry must lift a lot of weight to do well; a Regular Class aircraft from Politechnika Poznanska (Poland) lifted a competition best of 29.8 pounds at the West event.
Competition structure
The SAE staff says the event provides students with real‑life professional engineering challenges with an emphasis on design. Each team writes a comprehensive design report (maximum 30 pages), due roughly six weeks before the flying competition. Active and retired engineers read and score the reports.
On the Friday of the competition weekend, each university team presents its aircraft to a panel of professionals. Oral presentations consist of a 10‑minute explanation of the machine’s highlights, which may include projected graphics. A question‑and‑answer session follows, during which students defend their design decisions. Judges time certain tasks: Regular Class teams must load and unload lead bars used to add competitive weight—one minute to load, one minute to unload. In Micro Class, unpacking an aircraft from its specified-size package and constructing it is also a timed event.
Scores from the oral presentation grilling are added to the design report scores; flying over the next two days yields the final scores and rankings in the three classes: Micro, Regular, and Advanced.
Inspection and rules
Before any airplane may fly in competition, it receives a thorough airworthiness inspection on the same Friday as the oral presentations. The Valley Flyers provided most of the volunteer inspectors. Many of the aircraft had never flown before arriving in their crates.
Sam Gengo, the event Contest Director, headed the Friday inspection team. He warned students, "We will tug (firmly!) on your horizontal and vertical control surfaces. Hinges must be able to resist the force of a good pull. Leave a couple of hinges loose and we'll be happy to hand you—say—your rudder for your enjoyment of taping, gluing, or pinning it back on more robustly."
Inspectors measure aircraft and check many requirements, including:
- Regular Class wingspan limit of 49 inches
- Fuselage fitting within a specified box
- Proper type and size of wheels
- Propeller safety
- Control throw limits
- Identification markings
- Battery securement
If any item fails, teams are given time to repair or modify before flying. In Regular Class, the rules state that "fully configured for takeoff, the free‑standing aircraft shall have a maximum combined length, width, and height of 225 inches." Anything over that triggers the inspectors' advice: "The way it is, it's not going to complete. So you'd better figure out where to chop."
The Advanced Class requires an onboard Data Acquisition System (DAS). During technical inspection, a rolling test confirms the DAS readout shows accuracy to 1/10 foot.
Some teams managed test flights at the field on Thursday and Friday. More than half the teams did not arrive with their own pilots; the host club provides pilots for those teams.
Flying and weather
The rainy Saturday morning marked the first of two flying days. Teams built shelters ranging from simple plastic sheeting to elaborate structures. The pilots’ briefing was at 7:30 a.m.; Air Boss Rick Silz planned to start the first round at 8 a.m., but heavy drizzle became a downpour shortly after the briefing.
Rick called a weather delay until 9:15 a.m. Many students, expecting usually sunny Southern California, lacked rain gear and became soaked. At 9:15, the air boss, SAE staff members Sam Barill and Lonnie Dong, and Gene Holloway of Lockheed Martin decided to further delay flying until 1 p.m. With danger of flooding, lightning, and gusty winds, teams were urged to pack most of their equipment and leave the field.
We reassembled at 1 p.m. at the nearby AirTel Plaza Hotel where most teams were staying. The decision was made to return to the field and attempt at least one round. Despite puddles and mud, conditions were good enough to allow each of the three classes to fly once.
That first flying round provides bonus points to teams whose airplanes don't carry any weight. Gusty crosswinds and occasional showers made flying especially challenging for the all‑electric Micro Class.
For 2012 the Micro Class rules had changed: runway takeoffs and landings were prohibited. Small aircraft had to be "launched either by hand, or by use of an engineered launching system having elastic bands." That launching mechanism, together with the aircraft itself, had to fit into a foam‑lined carrying case no larger than 24 x 18 x 8 inches. Regular Class models, loaded with nearly 30 pounds of weight, must get off the ground within 200 feet and have all wheels back down within 400 feet.
The flying portion of the Aero Design Series is a visual feast with many brilliant flights and some failures. Collapses and crashes often mean overnight repair jobs. The University of Michigan experienced such setbacks—their yellow monoplane failed Saturday on final approach; repairs lasted until 5 a.m. Sunday. A Sunday attempt ended with a wing separating and the aircraft plunging into weeds well off the runway, undoing months of planning.
Kettering University’s Blue Bulldog Aviation team (my son David is the team captain) fought deadlines all the way. Their large tandem craft wasn't ready until Sunday and encountered problems on the runway, never taking off.
Whether success or flop, each university team put forth nonstop effort toward achieving successful rounds. Valley Flyers president Chuck Thompson said: "It's interesting to see the various aircraft designs, envision how they will fly, and then see how they perform in a high‑stakes contest. Each successive flight is burdened with increasing weight, so even a simple takeoff and landing is challenging for the pilot and entertaining to the crowd."
We completed one round of flying on Saturday instead of the typical seven or eight. The weather partially cleared Sunday morning, allowing for two rounds of Micro, Regular, and Advanced Class flying. Three rounds provided enough of a showcase to let the best of each class shine.
Results and awards
The best and most thrilling flights brought cheers from spectators and group hugs from jubilant team members. I commend the Polish teams on their enthusiasm whenever an attempt paid off.
After an hour of lunchtime tallying (during which Valley Flyer pilots put on an impressive jet and 3‑D flying display), trophies were awarded:
- Micro Class best overall: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities — overall score 249.1167 (design report + oral presentation + flying)
- Regular Class first place: Polytechnique de Montréal — overall score 228.3183
- Advanced Class first place: Boise State University (graphite V‑tail airplane) — combined score 203.2200
- NASA Systems Engineering Award: University of Petroleum Energy Studies (India)
- Best Crash: University of Michigan (for the airplane that failed twice)
Sunday afternoon was time to pack. Some airplanes went on to SAE Aero Design East in Georgia in late April (the same aircraft may be used in both competitions in a single year). Others were shipped back to their universities—some to become showpieces, others as boxes of badly smashed parts. The memories of achievements and failures are valuable learning experiences for these engineers of tomorrow.
Thanks and next event
The SAE Aero Design Series could never be held without corporate support and invaluable volunteer help. To the professional engineers who give time and to Valley Flyers members who provided weeks or months of support: you have done much to enhance these students' chances for successful careers.
What could be a greater reward? You can do it again. SAE Aero Design West returns to Apollo 11 Field in Los Angeles in March 2013.
—Bob Tarlau [email protected]
Sources
- SAE Aero Design: http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
