SAE Design West 2012/09

It was a cold, windy, rainy morning in mid-March, in Van Nuys, California.
I was the fi rst 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 this blowing rain.
The students would be joined by faculty, sponsors, and offi cials from SAE
International and Lockheed Martin, the principal corporate sponsor. Boeing
and Northrop Grumman also support the event.
Nearby, in the wet predawn at Apollo 11 Field, were roughly a dozen of
those students from two of the universities, using fl ashlights, braving the
elements, unloading, and beginning to assemble their creations, which were
one-of-a-kind aircraft they hoped would fl y their schools to a top prize in the
2012 SAE Aero Design West engineering competition.
Aero Design is the airborne element of the 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 has West and East
competitions. This year the SAE Aero Design West competition was March 16-18 in
Van Nuys and the East was on 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, and China, as
well as from campuses from 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 29.8 pounds
at our West competition.
The SAE staff says the event provides students with real-life professional
engineering challenges with an underlying emphasis on design. A comprehensive
design report—a maximum of 30 pages—is written by each team, and is due roughly
six weeks before the flying competition. Active and retired engineers read and score
the reports. Then, on the Friday of the competition weekend, each university team
takes its collective knowledge and its aircraft before a panel of
pros.
In these oral presentations, the students deliver a 10-minute
explanation of the highlights of their flying machines. This can
be enhanced with projected computer graphics. In a questionand-
answer session, the students are asked to defend their
design thinking.
Additionally, a judge wields a stopwatch because Regular
Class teams must load and unload the lead bars to be used
to add competitive weight. The time limit: a minute to put
them in and a minute to take them out. In the Micro Class,
unpacking an aircraft from its specified-size package and
constructing it is also a timed event.
The scores from the intensive grilling of each team are added
to the results of the design report submitted weeks earlier and
the flying follows during the next two days to produce a final
score. From that comes the ranking and the prizes in the three
classes: Micro, Regular, and Advanced.
Before any of the airplanes lift off in competition, they
receive a thorough going-over for airworthiness on the same
Friday as the oral presentations.
The Valley Flyers provided most of the volunteer inspectors.
Before arriving in their crates, many of these aircraft had
never flown. Sam Gengo was the event CD and he headed
the Friday inspection team. He warned students in advance,
“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.”
Another part of the inspectors’ job is to measure the aircraft.
In Regular Class, the rules say, “fully configured for takeoff, the
free-standing aircraft shall have a maximum combined length,
width, and height of 225 inches.” Anything over that and
the inspectors tell the teams: “The way it is, it’s not going to
complete. So you’d better figure out where to chop.”
The Advanced Class has an onboard Data Acquisition
System (DAS). A rolling test during the technical inspection
confirms the DAS readout shows an accuracy of measurement
of 1/10 foot.
Some of the teams managed to get their airplanes to Apollo
11 Field on Thursday and Friday for test flights. More than
half the teams didn’t arrive at the competition with their own
pilots. The host club is asked to provide pilots.
That brings us to the rainy Saturday morning and the first
of two days of flying. The teams built shelters—everything
from simple plastic sheeting to elaborate
structures. The pilots’ briefing was at
7:30 a.m. Air boss Rick Silz intended to
start the first round promptly at
8 a.m., but moments after the briefing,
the heavy drizzle became a downpour.
Rick called a weather delay until 9:15.
Many of the students, thinking they
were coming to usually sunny Southern
California, didn’t have the rain gear they
needed and during the next hour, many
became soaked.
At 9:15, the air boss, along with SAE
staff members Sam Barill and Lonnie
Dong, and Gene Holloway of Lockheed
Martin, decided to further delay the
flying until 1 p.m. With the danger
of flooding, along with the threat of
lightening 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 of
the teams were staying. The decision was
made to return to the field and attempt
at least one round. It turned out to be
a good decision. Although there were
puddles and lots of mud at the field,
conditions were good enough to allow
each of the three classes to fly once.
That first flying round of the SAE
Aero Design challenge provides bonus
points to teams whose airplanes don’t
carry any weight. Sometimes gusty
crosswinds mixed with occasional
showers made flying conditions that
afternoon a special challenge for the allelectric
Micro Class.
The Micro Class rules had been
changed for 2012 with runway takeoffs
and landings prohibited. According to
the rules, the 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
is up against strict takeoff and landing
limits. Loaded with nearly 30 pounds of
weight, these models have to get off the
ground in 200 feet and have all wheels
back down in 400.
The flying portion of the SAE’s Aero
Design Series is a visual feast—with
some brilliant flights, providing a view
of innovative designs aloft. There are
some attempts that inevitably fall short.
Collapses and crashes often can mean
an overnight repair job. The University
of Michigan had that—its yellow
monoplane failing Saturday on its turn
into final. Repairs lasted until 5 a.m.
Sunday.
An attempt on Sunday ended with
a wing separating and fluttering down
as the rest of the Wolverines’ craft
plunged into weeds a long way from the
runway. Months of planning and dreams
suddenly crumpled.
A fellow Michigan team from
Kettering University in Flint, where
my son, David, is the team captain,
had been fighting deadlines all the way.
The Kettering Blue Bulldog Aviation
team didn’t have its big tandem craft
ready until Sunday then encountered
disappointing on-the-runway problems
and never took off.
Whether a success or a flop, each
university team put forth a nonstop
effort and enormous drive toward the
goal of achieving successful rounds.
Valley Flyers president, Chuck
Thompson, put it well: “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,
instead of the typical seven or eight,
on Saturday. The weather had partially
cleared by Sunday morning, allowing
for two rounds of Micro, Regular, and
Advanced Class flying. Most teams
would have loved more, but three
rounds provided enough of a showcase
to let the best of each class shine.
The best and often most thrilling
of these flights brought cheers from
spectators and group hugs from jubilant
team members. I commend the Polish
teams on their enthusiasm whenever an
attempt really paid off.
After an hour of lunchtime tallying
(during which the students saw an
impressive display of jet and 3-D
flying by Valley Flyer pilots), it was
time to award trophies. Best overall in
Micro Class went to the University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities, with an overall
(design report, plus oral presentation,
plus flying) score of 249.1167 points.
Polytechnique de Montréal scored first
in Regular Class with 228.3183.
First in Advanced Class was the
impressive graphite V-tail airplane of
Boise State University with a combined
score of 203.2200. The NASA Systems
Engineering Award went to India’s
University of Petroleum Energy Studies.
Among the other awards is Best Crash,
and this year that twice-failed airplane
from the University of Michigan landed
that honor.
Sunday afternoon was time to pack.
Some of these airplanes went on to
compete in SAE Aero Design East in
Georgia in late April. (The same aircraft
can be used in both competitions in
a single year—but new ones will be
required for next year.)
Other airplanes were shipped back to
their universities. The good ones perhaps
become showpieces; some of the others
are merely a box of badly smashed parts.
The memories of achievements and
failings are a learning experience for
these engineers of tomorrow.
The SAE Aero Design Series
could never be held without both
the enormous corporate support and
absolutely invaluable volunteer help. To
the professional engineers who give so
much time to this, and to those from
the Valley Flyers who provided (in
some cases) weeks and even months of
support, you have done a lot to enhance
the chance these students have for a
successful career.
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.

It was a cold, windy, rainy morning in mid-March, in Van Nuys, California.
I was the fi rst 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 this blowing rain.
The students would be joined by faculty, sponsors, and offi cials from SAE
International and Lockheed Martin, the principal corporate sponsor. Boeing
and Northrop Grumman also support the event.
Nearby, in the wet predawn at Apollo 11 Field, were roughly a dozen of
those students from two of the universities, using fl ashlights, braving the
elements, unloading, and beginning to assemble their creations, which were
one-of-a-kind aircraft they hoped would fl y their schools to a top prize in the
2012 SAE Aero Design West engineering competition.
Aero Design is the airborne element of the 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 has West and East
competitions. This year the SAE Aero Design West competition was March 16-18 in
Van Nuys and the East was on 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, and China, as
well as from campuses from 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 29.8 pounds
at our West competition.
The SAE staff says the event provides students with real-life professional
engineering challenges with an underlying emphasis on design. A comprehensive
design report—a maximum of 30 pages—is written by each team, and is due roughly
six weeks before the flying competition. Active and retired engineers read and score
the reports. Then, on the Friday of the competition weekend, each university team
takes its collective knowledge and its aircraft before a panel of
pros.
In these oral presentations, the students deliver a 10-minute
explanation of the highlights of their flying machines. This can
be enhanced with projected computer graphics. In a questionand-
answer session, the students are asked to defend their
design thinking.
Additionally, a judge wields a stopwatch because Regular
Class teams must load and unload the lead bars to be used
to add competitive weight. The time limit: a minute to put
them in and a minute to take them out. In the Micro Class,
unpacking an aircraft from its specified-size package and
constructing it is also a timed event.
The scores from the intensive grilling of each team are added
to the results of the design report submitted weeks earlier and
the flying follows during the next two days to produce a final
score. From that comes the ranking and the prizes in the three
classes: Micro, Regular, and Advanced.
Before any of the airplanes lift off in competition, they
receive a thorough going-over for airworthiness on the same
Friday as the oral presentations.
The Valley Flyers provided most of the volunteer inspectors.
Before arriving in their crates, many of these aircraft had
never flown. Sam Gengo was the event CD and he headed
the Friday inspection team. He warned students in advance,
“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.”
Another part of the inspectors’ job is to measure the aircraft.
In Regular Class, the rules say, “fully configured for takeoff, the
free-standing aircraft shall have a maximum combined length,
width, and height of 225 inches.” Anything over that and
the inspectors tell the teams: “The way it is, it’s not going to
complete. So you’d better figure out where to chop.”
The Advanced Class has an onboard Data Acquisition
System (DAS). A rolling test during the technical inspection
confirms the DAS readout shows an accuracy of measurement
of 1/10 foot.
Some of the teams managed to get their airplanes to Apollo
11 Field on Thursday and Friday for test flights. More than
half the teams didn’t arrive at the competition with their own
pilots. The host club is asked to provide pilots.
That brings us to the rainy Saturday morning and the first
of two days of flying. The teams built shelters—everything
from simple plastic sheeting to elaborate
structures. The pilots’ briefing was at
7:30 a.m. Air boss Rick Silz intended to
start the first round promptly at
8 a.m., but moments after the briefing,
the heavy drizzle became a downpour.
Rick called a weather delay until 9:15.
Many of the students, thinking they
were coming to usually sunny Southern
California, didn’t have the rain gear they
needed and during the next hour, many
became soaked.
At 9:15, the air boss, along with SAE
staff members Sam Barill and Lonnie
Dong, and Gene Holloway of Lockheed
Martin, decided to further delay the
flying until 1 p.m. With the danger
of flooding, along with the threat of
lightening 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 of
the teams were staying. The decision was
made to return to the field and attempt
at least one round. It turned out to be
a good decision. Although there were
puddles and lots of mud at the field,
conditions were good enough to allow
each of the three classes to fly once.
That first flying round of the SAE
Aero Design challenge provides bonus
points to teams whose airplanes don’t
carry any weight. Sometimes gusty
crosswinds mixed with occasional
showers made flying conditions that
afternoon a special challenge for the allelectric
Micro Class.
The Micro Class rules had been
changed for 2012 with runway takeoffs
and landings prohibited. According to
the rules, the 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
is up against strict takeoff and landing
limits. Loaded with nearly 30 pounds of
weight, these models have to get off the
ground in 200 feet and have all wheels
back down in 400.
The flying portion of the SAE’s Aero
Design Series is a visual feast—with
some brilliant flights, providing a view
of innovative designs aloft. There are
some attempts that inevitably fall short.
Collapses and crashes often can mean
an overnight repair job. The University
of Michigan had that—its yellow
monoplane failing Saturday on its turn
into final. Repairs lasted until 5 a.m.
Sunday.
An attempt on Sunday ended with
a wing separating and fluttering down
as the rest of the Wolverines’ craft
plunged into weeds a long way from the
runway. Months of planning and dreams
suddenly crumpled.
A fellow Michigan team from
Kettering University in Flint, where
my son, David, is the team captain,
had been fighting deadlines all the way.
The Kettering Blue Bulldog Aviation
team didn’t have its big tandem craft
ready until Sunday then encountered
disappointing on-the-runway problems
and never took off.
Whether a success or a flop, each
university team put forth a nonstop
effort and enormous drive toward the
goal of achieving successful rounds.
Valley Flyers president, Chuck
Thompson, put it well: “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,
instead of the typical seven or eight,
on Saturday. The weather had partially
cleared by Sunday morning, allowing
for two rounds of Micro, Regular, and
Advanced Class flying. Most teams
would have loved more, but three
rounds provided enough of a showcase
to let the best of each class shine.
The best and often most thrilling
of these flights brought cheers from
spectators and group hugs from jubilant
team members. I commend the Polish
teams on their enthusiasm whenever an
attempt really paid off.
After an hour of lunchtime tallying
(during which the students saw an
impressive display of jet and 3-D
flying by Valley Flyer pilots), it was
time to award trophies. Best overall in
Micro Class went to the University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities, with an overall
(design report, plus oral presentation,
plus flying) score of 249.1167 points.
Polytechnique de Montréal scored first
in Regular Class with 228.3183.
First in Advanced Class was the
impressive graphite V-tail airplane of
Boise State University with a combined
score of 203.2200. The NASA Systems
Engineering Award went to India’s
University of Petroleum Energy Studies.
Among the other awards is Best Crash,
and this year that twice-failed airplane
from the University of Michigan landed
that honor.
Sunday afternoon was time to pack.
Some of these airplanes went on to
compete in SAE Aero Design East in
Georgia in late April. (The same aircraft
can be used in both competitions in
a single year—but new ones will be
required for next year.)
Other airplanes were shipped back to
their universities. The good ones perhaps
become showpieces; some of the others
are merely a box of badly smashed parts.
The memories of achievements and
failings are a learning experience for
these engineers of tomorrow.
The SAE Aero Design Series
could never be held without both
the enormous corporate support and
absolutely invaluable volunteer help. To
the professional engineers who give so
much time to this, and to those from
the Valley Flyers who provided (in
some cases) weeks and even months of
support, you have done a lot to enhance
the chance these students have for a
successful career.
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.