School of Mechanical and

Aerospace Engineering
Ashby Building
Stranmillis Road
Belfast
BT9 5AH

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Final Project Report

Module Code-AER3021

Development of First Year Aeronautical Lab Project

Author Harsh Shukla [40110350]

Project supervisor Dr Danielle Soban
Programme BEng Aerospace Engineering
Date 22/03/2016
Summary
Engineering laboratories are a valuable part of the engineering curriculum. They provide hands-
on experience, as well as demonstration and reinforcement of important foundational
engineering principles. Students who have progressed through the curriculum are often in a good
position to provide valuable feedback on the content of laboratories, including innovative ideas to
replace traditional lab projects. In addition, many students are unaware of the lab resources
available to them, and are only familiar with a small subset of lab tools.

The project projects light onto pedagogical practices being applied across global institutions
through literature search. It also lists current lab projects with their foundational principles that
they convey. It provides a list of school lab resources with their specifications. Thirdly, it proposes
an experiment beneficial to first year students with a reason behind proposal and after comparing
it with other possible experiments. Lastly, a prototyping was made as a proof of proposed
project. Basic calculations were made to show the effect of bending, deflection and shear.
Simulation was also carried out to support the theoretical calculations. Solidworks was used as a
3d modelling computer program.

Page 1 of 40
Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Project Aim ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Literature Review and Lab Equipment’s ...................................................................................... 4

2.1 Engineering pedagogical practices with respect to labs and experiments .............................. 4

2.2 Current QUB’s projects involving labs and experiments...................................................... 9

2.3 List of School Lab Equipment’s ........................................................................................... 11

3.0 Project Requirements, Proposal and Selection .................................................................. 22

3.1 Project Proposals and Selection ......................................................................................... 23

3.2 Initiation and Process of Experiment ................................................................................. 24

4.0 Calculations and Conclusion............................................................................................... 29

5.0 Images and Figures ............................................................................................................. 35

References........................................................................................................................................ 39

Page 2 of 40
1.0 Introduction
Aerospace engineering covers a very broad, crucial and fast growing sector of industry. It has
been a long journey so far, with many milestones, but as always it still needs to travel a long way.
There are many areas which needs to be covered and lightened, but the sectors where problem
has been identified are a major focus. The report focusses on educational ways of learning the
engineering which involves labs and experiment. Beginner students are unaware of many things
such as resources granted to them by the university and this limits creativity and innovation to an
extent. The report tries to summarize all the available working lab equipment’s of the university
and their functions along with other specifications.
Generally, and traditionally first year students get all the information about the course in form of
theory, lectures and presentations. However still continuing but not fully, from the past few
years’ structure of the course has been changed or upgraded to a new level, in which along with
lectures and presentations there happens a practical or lab class which introduces the students to
real world. Those labs implement what has already been taught in class with some additional
knowledge like error factors, analysing and minimizing methods. There is a proper structure for
each subject in schools, so for the labs. Therefore, the report mentions the pedagogical practices
with respect to experiment oriented projects. It also mentions current lab projects and their
fundamental principles and skills required to complete the project. Lastly, it proposes a prototype
based project for first year students, in order to improve/clear their concepts and also states the
method for prototyping. The prototype is built to verify the proposed project authenticity.

1.1 Project Aim

The very purpose of the project was to provide a scientific approach beneficial to both stage 1 and
stage three student. As part of project, a list of relevant school lab tools and equipment was to be
prepared, which involved a tour of school resources. As the list was only meant for first years,
emphasis was on machines and resources, that they were allowed to access. Second aim was to
design an experiment suitable to stage 1 student and build a working prototype of the proposed
project. The experiment was to fully comply with constraints like educational goals, timetables,
resources, cost, experience requirements, and use of at least one of the school lab resources.
The experiment must also show consistency in theoretical and project values. To Teach is to
Learn is the best approach, which explains the projects purpose wholly.

Page 3 of 40
2.0 Literature Review and Lab Equipment’s
2.1 Engineering pedagogical practices with respect to labs and experiments

The whole course of engineering travels on a pathway which is a mixture of basic, applied, and
practical or industrial sciences. Each subject differs in content and concentration of each science.
A very old saying is: First do the basics then advanced and lastly apply it. But over the course of
time, this has been twisted to meet the modern needs. In today’s education system learning and
implication travels together as this has proved to be much more efficient than doing them
separately. For this to happen, beginners would have to work on real projects while learning the
basics thus applying the same simultaneously.

In any engineering course, labs/experiments play a very crucial role in learning concepts. Courses
which include lab experiments as part of the course, or extra activity not only adds to the
technical aspects of the subject but also helps in improving interpersonal skills like team
spirit/work, team coordination, conversation skills, problem solving, time management, error
analysis, etc. Students get chances to practically apply their learned theories and cope up with
upcoming unexpected problems/situations. Through this approach, brain performs several tasks
simultaneously which are applying, learning and reinforced learning. All these tasks result, a fully
skilled creative mind which is the need of the hour. Nearly, all major universities across the globe
include a laboratory experiment project as part of their course. In engineering these labs based
projects are mainly common in aerospace, mechanical, product design, civil, electrical and their
sub areas. The main engineering goals of introduction of pedagogical ways in engineering lap
projects is to push the limits of a student, to develop creativity, innovative. The main challenge
for educational institutions with respect to development of pedagogical practice is to shift or
restructure the traditional structure of curriculum without increasing additional academic load on
students.

[1]Nearly all the papers mentioned below have some common engineering goals described for
ex:- a) Improving the quality and quantity of teaching – This can be achieved by training them in
industry centred areas, by encouraging them to take part in innovative industrial and school
works, by organising workshops, by recruiting industrial technical faculties,
b) To improve the output of students – This can be achieved by integration of computing with
labs, by making them work in teams with students from all stages, by encouraging them to take
part in activities that exposes technical skills along with industrial skills (team collaboration,

Page 4 of 40
professionalism, manufacturability, work load, flexibility), by allowing them to take reasonable
risks.
c) To create an environment which could fulfil the above two factors – This includes the need for
new assessment/grading techniques. This can be done by introducing design optimized
infrastructure.

[1]Brian E. Thompson in his paper “Studio Pedagogy for Engineering Design” presents a
pedagogical way of teaching/learning engineering design and presents an example in support of
the theory. The paper mentions a studio whose environment helps in development of industrial
skills and identification of technical problems. It also fosters a fact that, a percent of the demand
of new technology is being compensated by innovating and customizing existing/emerging
technologies. The paper mentions a very productive and effective way of increasing student
efficiency which are as follows; -
a) Seniors teaching their juniors as teaching clears doubt and strengthen learned concepts,
b) making efficient use of labs for both research and education simultaneously
c) Integrating other engineering department with aero and design
d) designing new special parameters for assessment.
The paper talks about individual and team projects but presents the case study of only team
project work instead of both and fails to give ways of mentoring facilities.

[2]Crawley et al. in his paper proposes a new method known as CDIO1 approach, which structures
a new way of teaching and learning and measures the efficiency of students along with checks
and balances in between them. The CDIO approach is fully optimized, defined and well-structured
for both students and faculties and institutes. It emphasis on technical, experiential (problem
solving and decision taking), active and industrial driven learning which is also economical and
socially compatible. [2] The CDIO method was developed with the consents from
industrial/technical partners, program leaders, students and graduates. The structure is divided
into 12 standards each focussing on every possible areas of development such as engineering
workspaces, enhancement of faculty teaching and industrial skills and learning outcomes. The
standard 3 states about integrated curriculum which mentions a need for introductory
engineering experience. Implementing this introductory experience, MIT introduces a “Lighter
than air Vehicle design” project for its first year students. By this, students get an idea of
concepts lying ahead. Manufacturing and building is carried on to subsequent years. The project

1
CDIO- Conceive Design Implement Operate

Page 5 of 40
is a team based and constitutes seniors at later stages. First year mainly focusses on conceptual
designs and preliminary tests while seniors/PhDs are more concentrated towards prototyping,
detailed design and building. The CDIO scheme increases project output efficiency by guiding
students to the very technical/practical extent, by introducing different assessment criteria such
as presentations and by giving creativity challenged (problem solving) innovative projects. A very
wide implementation of the CDIO approach can be seen as, most of the universities have projects
in their curriculum. However, not all aspects have been addressed.

[3] William et al. in his paper mentions aero design and building project case studies and
highlights the challenges faced by the team. The paper reiterates use of computer software’s in
aircraft designing and simulation. It also postulates the cumulative work of juniors with seniors,
as juniors test the design which the seniors have proposed and then joint work on prototyping of
the design. A case study of Postal Penguin has been mentioned in which team takes a different
route instead of traditional to introduce pelican tail concept. Another case of wing morphing in
an UAV, shows the structured breakdown of project into various stages and rationale arguments
behind selection of each component of aircraft. It also, shows the failure and redesigning and
structuring in a given time. Somewhere faculty support lacks in these projects. Assessment
parameters are not mentioned. But the paper supports the idea of practical approach in design
leads to better performance and understanding of course.

[4]Herivelto et al. in his paper explains the relevance of pedagogical knowledge and its industrial
advantages. The paper stresses on teacher’s didactics, course structure and other areas such as
behaviour of faculties, way of dealing with problems, amount of enthusiasm etc. It explains the
causes of less efficient learning and outcome. [4]From the students perspective the causes of
inefficient learning are as way of teaching, attitude of teachers, inability to explain/demonstrate,
lack of motivation, lack of industrial knowledge and traditional structure of course. The paper
doesn’t mention the checks and balances of data gathered plus students surveyed were
intentionally chosen, secondly amount of students surveyed is very small to get conclusion and
lastly, it only reveals one side of a case.

[5] Chaturvedi in his paper puts light on importance of hands on experience obtained in the virtual
domain. Due to the rise in computing, simulations and visualizations have picked up a pace in
solving real world problems with least possible error. [5] New options in education such as
distance learning, part time studying and limited availability of resources opened a path towards
learning through virtual environment. The idea behind introducing this virtual experimenting is to

Page 6 of 40
prepare students for the physical one. [5] In order to prove the arguments, sample virtual
experiments in the junior level thermos-fluid lab course were introduced in mechanical
curriculum. Results showed that those who were exposed to simulation environment have better
understanding of course and high GPA scores than those who completed the lab course without
virtual simulation experiments. It thus, again proves that, performance in lab oriented courses
can be significantly increased to a higher level by preparing a virtual experiment involving
visualisation and simulations. But, these visualizations and simulation experiments are difficult to
design and operate, require extensive technical computing knowledge and time. Also, there is no
defined criteria of assessment in this sector and efficacy depends on trial and error, but at the
same time they reduce the cost significantly and increases the performance.

Nothing is perfect, everything has pros and cons, so has experimental work, this paper [6]
presents a case study done in a collaborative manner to explore more efficient ways of
introducing lab work to concept learning. It presents both the strengths and limitations of
laboratory work, while simultaneously exploring for new ways of conducting lab in its most
efficient and optimized manner. Some of the drawbacks or weakness that the paper pointed out
are as: a) structure of lab work, b) methodology, c) explanation of its context and purpose, d) time
frame, e) relation of teacher-student view, etc. [6]. Usually aim and purpose are considered the
same but that’s not the case with respect to lab work, so the paper helps in understanding the
difference. The study was on chemistry teacher, who tried some very different approaches to
teach a scientific concept. Researchers observed both the teacher and student and their
perspectives towards the experiment. Some of the key points related to this project which paper
highlights are a) Students may not see the experiment in the same way as teachers expect them
to see, so here comes the role of well structuration of contents of lab work within available time
limit, b) Assessing students by allowing them to asses each other and share each other’s work
came out as an effective way of making them learn, c) In order to make students understand
“What and Why they are doing”, “How they will be doing” should be the centre point, as it
integrates students with the purpose and not just with the aim2. The paper also points an unusual
fact that students can only benefit fully from their experiment if they enjoy the process.

2
Aim & Purpose: Aim refers to specific outcome, which comes as a result of performing a lab work, while
purpose gives a broader sense of an activity, such as activity’s relativeness to course time and the process
of the work, etc. [6]

Page 7 of 40
This paper was also a reason why fun was included as a category while designing questionnaire3
for faculty and students.

Project should be framed as such which helps in dealing with real world problems. The paper [7]
supports the idea of introduction of projects in engineering taught courses, so as to strengthen
the basic fundamentals and make students familiar with real life problems. It also lays the
effectiveness of the method which was developed and then applied to improve learning through
classroom activities. “Measurable Outcomes4” were set to evaluate students correctly and
efficiently. The pedagogical method used consisted two parts, first learning and application of
theoretical aerodynamic theories in real world structures on an individual basis. Secondly, solving
a specific problem (project based) through designing, experimenting and analysing as a team. The
project procedure involves modification of current design (chosen/given) after validating the
model aerodynamically. This whole process thus makes students to use an integrated approach
of theory, experiment and computational methods and trade-offs between them. Apart from
this, students also get pros and cons of each and every method (experimental, computational or
theoretical) which is very crucial for real/industrial problems. The paper also sheds some light on
other common but effective in-class mechanisms like engaging students in class through group
discussions, demonstration of concepts through some simple apparatus, pre-class home works
and oral exams. *Many of these are already being applied in some manner at Queens.

The paper [8] gives an insight into 4 different types of learning such as collaborative, cooperative,
problem driven and project based. Features of cooperative learning which makes it applicable at
most places (also in this project’s selected experiment) are: positive interdependence,
accountability of every member (without this project based have drawbacks like extra burden on
other students), on the other hand collaborative doesn’t take accountability of every member.
Paper rationally points that in comparison to individual competitive learning, cooperative scores
better in academic, psychological and interpersonal relationships. The paper also provides
evidence of ineffectiveness of problem based learning in engineering schools as compared to the
cooperative learning.

Development of faculty along is as important and needed as development of students. This paper
[9] talks about “Activity Led Learning” and applying this method in learning, teaching and

3
Discussed later
4
Phrase used in paper for course conceptual objectives.

Page 8 of 40
assessment, thus an act of making a self-sustainable environment where a community can
develop, whose goal is to make a loop of trial, asses and change. Creation of a method which not
only helps in innovative learning, but also checks and balances itself is a practically sustainable
much required approach. An “ALL” approach can also provide strong opportunity to work beyond
subject boundaries (this project also uses an integration of structures, material science and
aerodynamics, though not in a deep manner). This paper also iterates previous paper’s [6] view
that the consistency of expected outcomes with actual learning outcomes is very important. In
order to prevent students from getting diverted, it is encouraged to keep asking these simple
questions like “What/Why am I doing, how can I improve the results” [9], and the same is
proposed by the paper as an effective research methodology.

2.2 Current QUB’s projects involving labs and experiments

This year a large number of projects have been proposed which would involve some kind of
prototyping, lab experiment and interpersonal skills. However, the report only mentions the
projects which have been proposed for aerospace engineering students. The list contains both
the BEng and MEng projects as, many of them were listed for both.

Title of the Project Principles, Technology, and skills they involve

Build and testing of efficient aero-structures -
flying wing
Design and Fabrication of a Mini Mobile Stage for
additive layer manufacturing
Design, fabrication and performance evaluation
of a 2-DOF planar parallel mechanism
Development of First Year Aeronautical Lab
Project
Design, Build, and Validation of an Environmental
Aerodynamics, stress, strain and aero-structural
analysis, material and manufacturing skills, CAD
skills, engineering design, avionics
CAD and simulation skills, Engineering design,
knowledge of basic electronics and their
interface(motors), fabrication/manufacturing
skills, CNC machines speed and preciseness
Planar mechanisms, CAD and engineering
design skills, fabrication skills, information on
basic machine elements (motors, actuators),
prototype operational skills
Information on 3d printing, lasers and foam
cutting, aerodynamics, manufacturing skills,
design, pedagogical practices in engineering
Engineering design and CAD skills, 3d printing,

Page 9 of 40
Chamber for Sample Conditioning and
Mechanical Testing
Design, Build, and Validation of a System for in-
situ Microscopic Imaging of Mechanical
Deformation
In-situ 3D Imaging of Deformation Mechanisms in
Polymer Foams
Developing a laboratory experiment for a first-
year fluids module
Design of a MGU test rig for heavy-duty HEVs
Modelling and Analysis for WHR systems
Design of Installation for Bus Engine Skid in a Test
Cell
Influence of Nozzle Array Configuration on
Impinging Jet Dynamics
Build and testing of efficient aero-structures -
glider
Laser Dissimilar Welding of Shape Memory NiTi
and Pure Ti foils for Medical Device Applications
Laser Joining of Plastics and Metals for Medical
Device Applications
Experimental Study of Corrosion Behaviour of
Laser-treated Shape Memory Alloy for Bio-
implant Applications
Fabrication and characterization of novel boron
Page 10 of 40
lasers and foam cutting, structural analysis,
manufacturing and operational skills,
mechanical behaviour of metals in an ambient
environment
In Situ imaging, mechanical behaviour of foams,
non-contact measurements for mechanical
testing, engineering design, manufacturing and
operational skills
microCT imaging, mechanism of polymer foams,
in-situ 3d imaging, structures
Information on CNC machining and its
operation
Information on Motor/Generator Units and
heavy-duty Hybrid Electric Vehicles, design and
CAD skills, structures (stress-strain)
Waste heat recovery, organic ranking cycles,
simulations,
Engine, transmission and installation
technology, design and fabrication skills, 3d
printing, laser/foam cutting, machining skills
Nozzle flow, 3d printing, machining, laser/foam
cutting, engineering design, turbulence in flow
Aerodynamics, use of composites and fibres,
design/CAD skills, machining/fabrication
Laser dissimilar welding/cutting, engineering
design, machining
Laser joining and optimized parameters,
mechanical properties of hybrid joints,
machining, micro-CT and optical microscope
analysis skills, metal-plastic interaction
Laser surface treatment of alloy, corrosion of
shape memory NiTi alloy , machining, 3d
printing, polarisation/potentiodynamic tests
Structure and Properties of Boron Nitride nano-
nitride / polymer nanocomposites
Manufacturing and characterization of
PET/graphene nanocomposites through
industrially relevant processing route
sheets/polymer Nanocomposites, machining
and mechanical testing
Information on graphene Nano-fillers and
graphene/polymer nanocomposites,
fabrication, process-structure-property
relationship

It can be clearly seen that most of the project involves CAD skills, structures, engineering design
and aerodynamics and manufacturing skills. Besides, the foundational principle that they convey
is specific material characteristic with respect to experiment, fluid dynamics, phenomenon of heat
exchanging, ability of tensile/compression, optical sensitivity etc. A common shortcoming in these
projects is the lack or less involvement of virtualization and simulation technology, however some
of the projects do include them as an optional part but it still needs to get introduced in many
areas. Another shortcoming which could be taken is lack of opportunities to develop
interpersonal skills, through visits to industrial areas, conversation with industrial technicians,
taking part in workshops/seminars. The assessment and grading criteria for the prototype type
projects is no different, thus affects the learning outcomes. As many of the projects involve
prototyping so, there should be a workshop/short training for students to learn about
manufacturing, building, assembling and handling.

2.3 List of School Lab Equipment’s

According to the project requirement, a survey of school labs was carried out to get an idea of
available resources at Queens.
Universal Mechanical Machines

Page 11 of 40
Name –Amsler HC 25

Manufacturer-Zwick/Roell

S/No – 162889

Max Frame Load – 25KN

Function – Mainly for fatigue testing, tensile

and compression testing

Name – Dartec 250

Manufacturer – Zwick/Roell

S/No – 80070

Max Frame Load – 250KN

Function - Mainly for fatigue testing, tensile

and compression testing

Page 12 of 40
Name – Fractovis Instron Calibration

Manufacturer – CEAST (Italy)

Model/Serial No –6785.000 Range 0-500

6785.000 Range 500-1000

Striker Diameter – 20mm

Drop Height - > 1m

Function - Instrumented falling Impact

tester, IFWI tests, coating tests
Name – Resil Impactor

Manufacturer – CEAST (Italy)

Model/Serial No – 6545.982 No 233 Izod ,

6547.917 No 117 Charpy

Range – 1-50 Joule

Function - Impact tester, materials

characterizer (brittle or ductile)

More Spec - http://www.ccsi-inc.com/p-

impact-ceast-resil-impactor-6956.htm

Page 13 of 40
Name – Lloyd LRX (screw driven)

Manufacturer – LLOYD

Load Capacity – 2.5KN

Comp. Software – Lloyd Nexygen

Functions – Tensile/ compression testing,

cycling (repeated tests over a period of time).
This is the machine which was used for this
project.
More Technical Specifications -
http://www.tts-
ltd.co.uk/index.asp?PageID=136
Name – Instron 5564

Manufacturer – Instron

Model/Serial No – EX2525-818/72079,
2525-807/40978,
2603-080/1254

Load cell capacity – 2KN (Tension) ,

10N (compression)

Functions - tensile, compression, peel, and

flexural testing

Page 14 of 40
Name – Vickers Hardness Testing Machine

Manufacturer – Vickers Armstrongs

Serial No – 254718

Mode – Semi-Automatic

Max Load – 120KN

Functions – Hardness testing, indentation

Name – Durotwin DT-10

Manufacturer – MITUTOYO

Mode – Manual

Max load – 150KN

Function – Hardness tester, indenter

Hardness – Rockwell

Page 15 of 40
Name – Biaxial Tester

Model No- BTM-01

Serial No – 015-1998

Functions – Biaxial/Uniaxial stress/strain

testing

Image 1 corresponds to a structural test rig, which is a truss system and measures micro strain
developed by an application of external force. Image 2 corresponds to flight simulator, which
simulates take-off, landing and cruise stages of flight. It gives a real flight pilot experience.
Image3 refers to Baxter robot which is mainly used by mechanical students. 5It can carry out
several tasks such as loading/unloading, kitting, machine tending, material handling and even
packaging. Image 5 refers to Reynolds number demonstration apparatus mounted on the
Cussons hydraulic bench. The flow is studied in a bell mounted glass tube by bore, which is
mounted horizontally and concentrically in a much larger diameter tube fitted with baffles.

5
http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/baxter/

Page 16 of 40
Image 1 Image 2

Image 3 Image 4

Page 17 of 40
Image 5

Image 6 refers to dynamic balancing apparatus. These are two different apparatus for the same
objective (balancing rotating mass system). The apparatus is empowered with angular and
longitudinal scales and suspended. Weights are used to create moment polygon, so that angular
and axial position of blocks can be determined. The blocks are rotated by a motor to check
dynamic balancing of the apparatus. Image 7 refers to a low speed wind tunnel, which provides
data on pitch, roll and yaw. Whereas, image 8 and 9 corresponds to high speed wind tunnels. Air
is made to flow over an object by creating a vacuum one side and filling a large balloon with
compressed air at the other side then the vacuum is allowed to suck the air into it. Despite the
advancement in computational fluid dynamics, wind tunnels are used to cross-verify the results.

Image 6

Image 7

Page 18 of 40
Image 8

Image 9

Image 10 refers to the mechanical testing machine, which performs tensile/compression and
cycling. It is manufactured by Zwick/Roell6 and has the same specifications as Dartec 250 have.
Image 11 refers to the compression machine which only performs compression.

Image 10 Image 11

Image 12-13 represents a solar PIV (by new wave research), used in particle image velocimetry
applications. It emits a highly stable green light and is a dual laser head system and has great
flexibility. Mostly used for liquid based PIV experiments but can also be used for air based.

6
http://www.zwick.co.uk/en.html

Page 19 of 40
Image 12

Image 13

Image 14 corresponds to fluid (generally liquid) flow analysis apparatus. It shows the flow around
an object at a certain speed and pressure and how nature of flow changes past the object.
Image15 refers to jet engine. All parameters (pressure, temperature and fuel flow) are displayed
as engine runs. Thrust can be controlled from outside.

Image 14

Image 15

Page 20 of 40
 7
Image 16 corresponds to heat transfer equipment. It measures heat input, heater surface
temperature, air flow rate etc. Image 17 corresponds to an experimental setup to study the
aerodynamics of a symmetrical airfoil under some conditions (reynolds number and angle of
attack). Change in height of liquids iun capillary tubes gives data. When the tubes are inclined,
precise data is obtained. Generally, water is used as a liquid as it gives precise data.

Image 16 Image 17

Image 18-19 refers to foam cutter. Later is an advanced CNC 4-axis cutter. It cuts by running the
electricity passed hot wire over foam according to design. Image 20 refers to FB1800 laser cutter,
which can cut 12.7mm medium density fireboard (usually) and 10mm acrylic. It can’t cut PVC,
carbon fibre, polycarbons and chipboards. Image 21 refers to 8Stratasys object-30 3d printer. It
prints rigid transparent, rigid opaque white-blue-black-grey (material is ABS: Acrylonitrile-
Butadiene-Styrene) and has an accuracy of 0.1mm.

Image 18 Image 19

Image 20 Image 21

7
http://cussons.co.uk/education/products/thermodynamics_and_heat_transfer/heat_transfer_equipment/
8
http://www.stratasys.com/3d-printers/design-series/objet30-pro

Page 21 of 40
3.0 Project Requirements, Proposal and Selection
It is always necessary to know the drivers (requirements) of the problem, as they lay down the
fundamentals of upcoming work. They act like objectives and deliverables for the project, so to
do that one questionnaire was prepared each for the faculty and colleagues (students). The
objective was to get an idea of stage 1 project level, current projects, and problems that students
and teachers both face at later stages of engineering courses. Apart from this, a short interview
was organised with some faculties9 to get more about “How a project should be like”. Because a
survey of all the necessary lab tools was already carried out, so a basic obvious constraint was to
design/make something from available resources. Below is a list of questions and their answers
given by
Details of ongoing current stage I Projects/Experiments.10 All these experiments are a part of
Intro to Aerospace module. Time limit for 2 & 3 is 8 weeks each (4 weeks from each semester).
1. Aircraft Design Laboratory: Students build basic aircraft design tool in excel. In groups
they are tasked with designing their own light aircraft (design wings, fuselage, calculate
range, speeds, take-off/landing distances etc. Design work is complimented by Flight
Simulator sessions to experiment with flying/landing/taking-off with various aircraft
parameters (wing geometry, control surface geometry, centre of gravity etc.)
Resources used: Computer suite, Flight Simulator. No additional costs.

2. Structural Design Laboratory: In groups of 4, students must design and build a scale model
of an aircraft wing spar. The spar is constructed from wooden lollipop sticks/glue etc.
Spar models are experimentally tested in the laboratory to measure its strength.
Students must review the performance and behaviour of the tested spar, and build and
test a second, “improved” spar.
Resources used: Project rooms, Lloyd Universal Testing Machine. It costs approx. £400/50
students per year.

3. Wind Turbine Design Laboratory11: In groups of 4 or 5, students must design and build a
scale model of a wind turbine. The design is performed in a simple piece of free software
– analysing aerodynamic performance and turbine power. Once designed, the students

9
Interview – Dr. Joseph Butterfield, Dr. Damian Quinn, Mr. Paul Hermon
Questionnaire - Dr. Damian Quinn
10
Information provided by Dr. Damian Quinn
11
This project will not continue in future due to various problems being faced by students.

Page 22 of 40
 must build a scale foam model of one of their turbine blades. Students are provided with
foam sheets and craft tools. They are tasked with creating cutting templates, creating all
the relevant parts and then assembling the turbine blade together.
Resources used: Project rooms. The experiment costs approx. £300/50 students per year.

Student response and conversation with faculty have been combined and framed in following
lines. Another Question was “Which educational principle is more important /relevant for stage I
students”, students and faculties rated all academic subjects (such as structures, aerodynamics)
equally with an extra emphasize on design, though there was a difference of 5% between them.
With respect to individual or team based, both of them favoured a team based project which
should make every group member accountable for specific tasks. This types of distribution of
work was also supported by authors of paper [5] & [6], which also provides evidence of its
importance. Some other important aspects which were considered are fun/enjoyment while
performing experiment, hands on experience with basic lab tools & manufacturing, reinforcement
of taught concepts through experiments and how experiments will benefit future projects
(especially stage 3rd design, build and fly project). While teacher’s response didn’t give much
importance to fun, response from students showed it does play an important part overall The
importance of fun and real experience with tools and manufacturing stuff has been discussed and
mentioned in almost every paper referenced. The project’s approach should also not be a fool-
proof as this would try to nullify various types of error which are inseparable part of any
manufacturing real life experiment. An experiment should be framed in such a way that allows
students to apply their own approach at certain points to solve the problem.

3.1 Project Proposals and Selection

After the foundation of educational goals, selection of an appropriate experiment which can fulfil
the goals was next difficult part. Some of the common constraints were pre-knowledge of
students, accessibility to certain lab resources (like heat gun), cost, time management, level of
difficulty, other academic (module) commitments, and some other small factors such as inter-
personal relationship among students. Therefore, three projects were compared for the selection
of one. The three are:

Project Pros Cons

Development of a small Lots of learning, hands on Quite complicated for stage I,
simple electric powered various types of tools time consuming, expensive, etc
aircraft
Development of a wing, able Reinforcement of math and A coursework of same type

Page 23 of 40
to fly farthest in a shortest aerodynamic concepts. available to student at stage 2.
amount of time Requires some advance
concepts.
Design and build a wing and Revision of structural concepts Concepts strengthening but at
testing it (by applying load being taught currently, an the same time not much realistic
on tip) on a machine. Then experience for stage 3 as lift loads are distributed over
calculating & comparing the design/build/fly project. the wing & not just on tip.
theoretical values with Strengthen team spirit. Secondly, some concepts were
experimental ones not at the level of stage I.

Materials: cardboards/foam/ thermocol/wood/MDf12. Wooden glue, drawing pins

As it is clear from above that every experiment has its own strength and limitations but due to
following limitations like stock availability and their ordering/arrival time, faculty/technician
availability, equipment operability, difficulty level and lastly manufacturability with respect to
time available, experiment 3 was chosen as a stage I team based project. *The experiment was
also initially suggested by Dr. Joseph Butterfield during the interview.

3.2 Initiation and Process of Experiment

It is always appreciated (often necessary) to visualize the whole setup which is going to be
prototyped, therefore initially a very rough drawing was created on paper. From visualisation, it
became clear that at least three things will be required for the experiment, which were: a rigid
structure for fixation of wing, something that can hold wing tightly and lastly the wing itself. For
load application, Lloyd’s13 tensile testing machine was selected. As according to the project, the
wing was going to be clamped onto a rigid structure, therefore a short conversation was carried
out with chief technician Jonathan Stewarts, finally with his suggestion a strong rigid structure
was selected (figure 1). After the selection of fixed geometry, it was apparent that a plate with
holes and clamping profile is required, so that they could be used to fix wing horizontally. After
that, measurements (for figure 1) were taken using meter scale for CAD drawings. Solidworks was

12
Medium-density fiberboard
13
Apparatus no 5 in universal testing machines
Note: Machine and lab resource selection was carried out with the consent of Dr. Damian Quinn, Dr.
Danielle Soban, chief and other technicians.

Page 24 of 40
used to create 3d models of backplate, airfoil profile14, wing and loader15. Next stage was to
select an airfoil and model all components in 3d.

Airfoil selection and wing modelling

For this experiment symmetrical airfoil E168 was selected. Following reasons explain its selection:
1. Symmetrical, so flexibility in mounting as wing would flex in same manner irrespective of
its mounting orientation. Flexible wings are required in real life, as they reduce the risk of
fracture, helps in distributing stress created by wind pressure and gusts, and helps in
weight reduction as more material will be required for the same output. It should be
noted that wings flex upwards (as weight of aircraft act downwards, particularly due to
fuselage) and force applicability by machine is downwards, therefore it becomes
necessary to choose the type of airfoil and its orientation while clamped, so that it could
produce same results as if loads were applied other way around. There is more into wing
flexibility, for more information: Ref 1,2,3,4 in experiment section. Symmetrical also,
makes manufacturing, mathematical calculation and setup easy.
2. Low Reynolds Number Airfoil16, first because most model airplanes (at this stage) fly at
less than the speed of sound, secondly stage 3rd design, build and fly project recommends
(as models fly at lower speeds but require higher lift) using such kind of airfoil, thus
preparing for that too (an educational goal of this experiment). Thirdly, making
aerodynamic calculations easy and accurate, although not required in this experiment but
again at later stages.
3. Medium cambered, having camber is good, but too much of anything can result in adverse
effects. The airfoil is medium cambered which is encouraged for this experiment as highly
cambered [Exp. Sec.5] airfoil can increase drag, pitching moment, etc. Plus, no
aerodynamic measurements are involved in this experiment, so high or very low would
only effect manufacturing and setup negatively. Again, usually stage 3rd students choose
medium cambered airfoil’s. Last but may not be the least, Epplers have a name in model
aircraft building.

It was decided that wing will only contain some very basic elements such as ribs, spars, stringers
and wing skin. The reason behind this was to familiarise students with some of the components
of the wing, lab and knowledge related to their course simultaneously in the form of some
mathematical calculations. Wings containing these components are more common and help in
better understanding of concepts than foam or thermocol wings.

14
An airfoil profile is something which is carved same as wing’s airfoil onto a wooden sheet and cut
accordingly to fix the wing. Image
15
Loader: Image 30 designed to distribute applied load over last wing rib.
16
A dimensionless number for calculation of viscous behavior of Newtonian fluids.

Page 25 of 40
Material Selection:
Following are the components and their chosen materials for the experiment.
Component Material
BackPlate MDF (from 12mm thick sheet)
Airfoil Profile (clamping structure) MDF (from 12mm thick sheet)
Wing Ribs 2 from MDF, 7 from balsa
Wing Front (Main) Spar Balsa (rectangular cross-section)
Wing Rear Spar Balsa (10mm dowel)
Stringers Balsa (strips of 2, 8mm square cross-sectioned)
Wing Skin Balsa (0.8mm thin sheet)
Loader Profiles MDF
Other Materials: 8 M10 washers and nuts, 4 stud bar of length 10cm, wooden glue, mini hacksaw,
drawing pins, meter scale. Material Properties are listed below.

Reasons: - For backplate and profiles MDF was selected because first it is cheap, second it is easily
available in school’s stock, third its strong and not much heavy. There were only two types of
sheets available, one with thickness 10mm and other with 12mm, so as strong backplate was
needed sheet with 12mm thickness was chosen. For wing ribs (7ribs), spars, skin and stringers
balsa wood of thickness 10mm17 was selected because again it is cheap, available in school’s stock
(though school of civil engineering) and most importantly due to its material properties (listed
below). Another reason was, balsa is quite common and realistic among model airplanes and
stage 3 aero projects. First two ribs were decided to be made from MDF because they were going
to be under clamping profiles, so something stronger than balsa was needed to provide more
rigid, stronger and tight clamping. Also, in order to ensure nearly perfect clamp, thickness of each
clamping profiles and ribs should match, so that there would be no spacing left and in model
aircrafts root ribs are preferred to be thicker. As can also be seen below MDF has higher strength
than balsa, so risk of fracture at root reduces than if it were balsa rib. Dr. Quinn also advised the
same. M10 nuts were selected because of M10 stud bar, which was chosen because this was the
biggest stud bar available in the stock.

17
Though we had sheets of max thickness 19mm, due to wings length calculation and weight consideration,
10mm was chosen. Thicker rib is preferred but there is always a trade-off between thickness and weight
increment [15].

Page 26 of 40
Material Properties Balsa18 MDF19
Compressive Strength 7 MPa 10MPa
Elastic (Young's Modulus) 3GPa 4GPa
Shear Modulus 0.23GPa 2.5GPa
Strength to Weight Ratio 108 Kn-m/kg 24 Kn-m/kg
Ultimate Tensile Strength 14MPa 18 MPa
Yield Strength 20MPa

Component Spacing, Placing and Dimensions: See images for better view of dimensions.
Airfoil coordinates were downloaded from Airfoiltools.com. A chord of 250mm20 was chosen and
wings length was chosen to be 908mm, because we only had balsa sheets, strips, and dowels of
max length of 915mm and it was necessary to give a feeling of realistic wing. Secondly, due to the
calculation limitation, wings length (spar length) which was under clamping profile could not be
taken for deflection and other calculations. Except first two ribs, all other ribs were then equally
spaced at a distance of 128mm, the first two MDF ribs were then spaced at 48mm, so that first rib
would sit at start and second rib would sit right under the last clamping profile, thus giving a tight
clamp. Last wing rib consisted two glued balsa ribs, as this was going to be under loader which
had a thickness of 24mm.

Loader (MDF) was made from gluing two airfoil profiles, each of thickness 12mm. They were
glued in order to get attached with the load cell of the machine which had a diameter of 20mm,
so that the applied load can be expected uniform at the last rib. Regarding the number of MDF
airfoil profiles, a total of 12 (half at the top and bottom) profiles were decided to be cut using
laser cutter. The number 12, was decided after having a short conversation with Dr. Damian
Quinn, who proposed that thickness of clamping profiles should be in between 2t~3t (t-distance
between upper and lower surface at highest point). Eight holes were drawn on backplate (4 for
itself to get attached to vertical iron setup and four for clamping profiles). From the
measurements, those who were for itself attachment had a diameter of 14mm and rest had
10mm diameter, as the chosen stud bar had diameter of 10mm. The upper part of 10mm holes
(only those on backplate) were broaden a bit (negligible), so that bar could go easily through
them.

18
http://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties/Balsa/
19
http://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties/Medium-Density-Fiberboard-MDF/
20
Not too big as well as not too small, but no rigid reason behind this length.

Page 27 of 40
Two square stringers (one for each surface) of side 8mm were chosen, to keep the shape of airfoil
constant throughout the span and provide stiffness to wing skin. It is recommended that stringers
are placed nearer to leading edge, so they were placed at 15% from leading edge. Stringers also
help in bearing structural loads. Theoretically spar should sit at position held by centre of
pressure [16], but as c.o.p. changes during flight, it is recommended that for model planes main
spar (front spar) should be put at the thickest position [17] of chord (usually at quarter chord),
therefore front spar was put at 26.47% (thickest position). Tubular spars are very common
nowadays for model airplaines, as they provide strength in all directions in contrast to other
cross-sectional spars [18], but for this experiment rectangular cross-sectioned balsa spar was
decided, first because this cross-section would have less deflection dues to higher moment of
inertia as compared to tubular, secondly due to time and cost constraints. The rear spar was
placed at 60% of chord, balsa dowel of 10mm diameter was chosen for rear spar [19]. Rear spar
was placed to avoid twisting and torsion of wing.

Balsa sheet of thickness 0.8mm was selected for wing skin, as this was the thinnest available sheet
in the stock. Solar films could also be applied but, as the project didn’t involve aerodynamic
calculations and it takes quite a while to arrive from external suppliers, balsa was finalised. It also
helped in gripping of wing during clamping.

Areas of student selection

Building the Wing and Performing the Experiment
After the 3d computational model creation and material selection, materials were bought and
drawings were sent to technicians for materials to get cut using Laser Cutter. After that, building
started which involved careful placements of ribs, spars, stringers and skin, all according to model
dimensions. Ribs were glued to front (main) spar, whereas rear spar was just inserted into the
wing due to the precision of holes, as it was already very tight. Skin was glued as well as pinned
using drawing pins. Finishing and smoothing of skin at the leading edge was avoided because the
skin was balsa wood (it would just crack, if tried) and also because the experiment didn’t involve
any flow (aerodynamic) calculations, however solar film is preferred as wing skin. Loaders were
also glued and drilled in order to get fit into load cell. An appointment was made to perform exp.

Wing and Loader were weighed on weighing scale and found to be 241.9g and 154.4g
respectively. Then, wing was placed with utmost care following the airfoil profile section and the
two profiles were tightened using spanners. Loader was attached to the load cell and machine

Page 28 of 40
was calibrated according to its weight. It was placed right above the last wing rib (without
touching it). After that a series of loads were applied and data was collected. Due to the very
tight booking schedule, experiment had only 30mins to be performed. So, when machine was set
to apply 40N of load, at 33.8N of load some cracking sounds were heard, (plus another scheduled
student had arrived for his experiments), therefore machined was stopped at that point. A
simulation (load of 10N) was also performed using Solidworks Simulation and Ansys Workbench.

4.0 Calculations and Conclusion

For this particular type of experiment, following weight and sizing parameters were taken and
calculated, in consideration to their material properties. It should always be checked that an
applied load wouldn’t increase beyond yield strength or compressive strength, so iteration is
necessary before deciding the limit loads.
Mass of the wing = 214g, ∴ Weight of wing = 2.14N (g =10m/s^2) Load Factor = 1.5
Max. Weight = 20N21 Limit Load = 30N (Max. weight x Load Factor)
Based on above numbers (which arrived through: Max. Load Theoretical calculations), a
series of loads, starting from 5N to 40N (goal was to go beyond 30N) was decided to be applied in
following manner. The strain rate was chosen to be 0.5mm/s, in consideration to the theoretical
deflections. Dr. Quinn advice was to keep the rate below 5mm/s. After the application of 10N of
load, a permanent deflection was observed (reported here). The machine was stopped at a max
load of 33.8N (due to above reasons), but as the goal was to go beyond 30N, the experiment was
successful.

Theoretical & Experimental calculations and Results

Before the experiment, theoretical deflections, stiffness, etc. were calculated assuming whole
wing as a cantilever beam. Formula F1 was used to predict deformation, the P refers to applied
load, L = length of beam, E = elastic modulus, I = total moment of inertia. Moment of inertia was
calculated by adding MOI of spars, and stringers. Length was taken as 836mm (total – clamping
thickness: 908-72mm). Cross-sectional area of components is: Stringer 0.000064m^2, Rectangle
0.0002m^2, Dowel 7.85398E-05m^2, ∴ Total Area = 0.00040654m^2. It should be noted that
all the deflections mentioned in below table are in mm and stiffness is in (N/mm), figures
have been rounded to d.p. 3, stiffness was calculated as a slope of two points. Excel Sheet was

21
Iteration of calculations were performed, so that the wing wouldn’t fail. Also, the applied load was at the
tip, so a realistic wing can carry more weight [15].

Page 29 of 40
created for all these calculations. Bending moment and stress was calculated at each rib
(Table 3). Graphs from 1-9 represent experimental load vs deflection

𝑃𝐿3 𝐵𝐷 3 𝜋𝑟 4 𝑎4 𝑀𝑦
𝛿= 3𝐸𝐼
, 𝐼𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑟 = 12
, 𝐼𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑟 = 4
, 𝐼𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 = 12
+ 𝐴𝑦 2 , 𝜎𝐵.𝑆 = 𝐼
,𝑀 = 𝐹 ∗ 𝐷

F1
Load Theoretical Experimental Permanent Total Experime. Difference Shear
(N) Deflection Deflection Deflection Deflection (%) Stress
(MPa)
5 15.727 7.233 0 7.233 54.00 0.0123
10 31.453 23.797 ~4 27.797 11.62 0.0246
15 47.180 36.917 ~2 38.917 17.51 0.0369
20 62.906 50.689 ~3.2 53.889 14.33 0.0492
25 78.633 61.762 ~2.87 64.632 17.80 0.0615
30 94.359 81.462 ~5 86.462 8.37 0.0738
33.8 106.311 142.894 ~23 165.894 35.92 0.0831
Table 1

Points (load) Theoretical Stiffness Experimental Stiffness Difference (%)

5-10 0.318 0.243 23.58

10-15 0.318 0.450 29.3
15-20 0.318 0.334 5.03
20-25 0.318 0.465 31.62
25-30 0.318 0.229 27.99
30-33.8 0.318 0.048 84.91
Table 2
Bending Force (N)
5 10 15 20 25 30 33.8
on II MDF rib 4.25 8.5 12.75 17 21.25 25.5 28.73
on I balsa rib 3.56 7.12 10.68 14.24 17.8 21.36 24.0656
Moment
on II balsa rib 2.86 5.72 8.58 11.44 14.3 17.16 19.3336
on III balsa rib 2.17 4.34 6.51 8.68 10.85 13.02 14.6692
on IV balsa rib 1.48 2.96 4.44 5.92 7.4 8.88 10.0048
(N.m) on V balsa rib 0.79 1.58 2.37 3.16 3.95 4.74 5.3404

Bending on II MDF rib 3.294541 6.589081145 9.883621718 13.17816229 16.47270286 19.76724344 22.271094
on I balsa rib 2.759662 5.519324442 8.278986663 11.03864888 13.7983111 16.55797333 18.655317
on II balsa rib 2.217032 4.434064018 6.651096027 8.868128036 11.08516004 13.30219205 14.987136
Stress
on III balsa rib 1.682154 3.364307314 5.046460971 6.728614628 8.410768285 10.09292194 11.371359
on IV balsa rib 1.147275 2.294550611 3.441825916 4.589101221 5.736376526 6.883651832 7.7555811
(Mpa) on V balsa rib 0.612397 1.224793907 1.837190861 2.449587814 3.061984768 3.674381721 4.1398034

Page 30 of 40
Table 3

Load vs Deflection

Theoretical Experimental
40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Graph1
5
Load vs Deflection Load vs Deflection
4 12
10
3
8
Load (N)

Load (N)

2 6
4
1 2
Deflection (mm) 0
0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 -2 0 10 20 30
-1 Deflection (mm)

Graph 2 Graph3

20 25
Load vs Deflection
Load vs Deflection
15 20
Load (N)

15
10
Load (N)

10
5
5
0
Deflection (mm)
-10 0 10 20 30 40 0
-5 Deflection (mm) -20 0 20 40 60

Graph 4 Graph5

Page 31 of 40
 30 35
Load vs Deflection Load vs Deflection
25 30

25
20
Load (N)

20

Load (N)
15
15
10 10

5 5
Deflection (mm)
Deflection (mm) 0
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-20 0 20 40 60 80 -5

Graph 6 Graph7

40
Load vs Deflection

30
Load (N)

20

10

Deflection (mm)
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Graph 8

Experimental Load vs Deflection

40
10N 15N 20N 25N 30N 33.8N 5N

35

30

25

20
Load (N)

15

10

5
Deflection (mm)
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
-5

Graph 9

Page 32 of 40
Simulation

Image 22

Image 23

Comparison
Table 1-3 shows the calculations of deflections, stiffness, bending moment and bending stress. As
mentioned earlier, simulation was done at a load of 10N, image 22 shows the
deformation/deflection occurred due to load. Simulation reported a max deflection of 37.23mm
in y direction at 10N of load. From table 1, it can be seen that theoretical and experimental
deflections at 10N of load are 31.453mm and 27.797mm respectively. Thus, a difference of
11.62% between theoretical and experimental, and 25.33% between simulation and
experimental. It can also be seen that at lower and higher load (5N, 33.8), difference becomes
very large whereas at 30N (which is also a limit load) it reduces to 8.37 %. Another important

Page 33 of 40
point was permanent deflection, which was negligible at 5N, which could be a reason for high
difference in between theo. and exp results. Again, when load exceeded the limit load permanent
deflection became quite large. The reasons for permanent deflection could be small
displacement of wing from its initial clamping position or internal structure breakdown. Graph 2
to graph 8 depicts the load vs deflection plot at various loads (5,10,15,20,25,30,33.8 respectively).
Again it can be seen that at 5N the graph is not quite linear but as the loads gets increment, the
plot follows an elastic behaviour. Small irregularities were due to cracking of components internal
structure. In graph 8, it can also be seen that after a max load of 33.8N, irregularities increased
and magnitude of load kept decreasing, which was a sign of structure failing. Graph 9 shows a
collective picture of all the load vs deflection curves, where a max load of 33.8N gives nearly
elastic curvature. Stiffness is considered as a gradient of load vs deflection curve, stiffness was
calculated by finding slope of two points, it can be seen that lowest was at 15-20 and quite high at
large deflections. The reason for big difference at large deflections was failing of structure or any
individual component which a theoretical calculation couldn’t predict. Graph 1 shows a collective
curve of theoretical and experimental load vs deflection.

The wing was treated as a beam, so when a point load is applied at tip, the lower part tends to be
in compression whereas upper part tends to be in tension. Image 37 and more precisely image 39
shows that the lower part of the wing tends to bulge out which is a sign of compression, therefore
wing behaving as predicted. Due to the application of load, reaction occurred as one end was
fixed, therefore bending moment was calculated at each rib (distance taken from tip to last
surface of rib) for each load and so was bending stress22. As mentioned above, yield strength of
balsa is 20MPa and it is clear from table 3 that past 30N of load, the bending stress crossed the
line, which again indicates failing of wing. In aerospace, it is asserted that stresses must not
exceed yield strength as that could results in fatalities. Shear stress was also calculated for Y-Z
plane, image 23 corresponds to the shear stress experienced by wing across y-z plane in y
direction. It was calculated using formula Force/Area, where area of all the sections (front spar,
rear spar, stringers) was included and added. Shear stress are those which try to tear apart the
material, and are represented by Ʈ. Shear stresses were under range as shear modulus (2.3GPa).

22
Formulas have already been mentioned above.

Page 34 of 40
5.0 Images and Figures
CAD Drawings of Components and Assembly

Image 24

Image 25

Image 26

Image 27 Image 28

Front Spar
Stringer

Page 35 of 40
 Loader

Image 29 Image 30

Image 31

Real Images of machines and prototypes

Page 36 of 40
Image 32 Image 33

Image 34

Page 37 of 40
Image 35 Image 36

Image 37

Page 38 of 40
Image 38 Image 39

Bulge
References
1. Brian E. Thompson (2002) '', Studio Pedagogy for Engineering Design, 18(1), pp. 39-49.
2. Edward F. Crawley, Doris R. Brodeur, Diane H. Soderholm (2006) '', THE EDUCATION OF
FUTURE AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS: CONCEIVING, DESIGNING, IMPLEMENTING AND
OPERATING
3. William H. Mason, * Harry Robertshaw† and Daniel J. Inman (2004) '', Recent Experiments
in Aerospace and Design Engineering Education
4. Herivelto Moreira1, *, Samoara Viacelli da Luz1, Rozane de Fátima Zaionz da Rocha1 &
Armando Kolbe Junior (2015) '', Pedagogical Practice in Engineering Courses: Students’
Contribution, 7(2)
5. Sushil K. Chaturvedi (2011) '', Simulation and Visualization Enhanced Engineering
Education – Development and Implementation of Virtual Experiments in a Laboratory
Course
6. Christina Hart, Pamela Mulhall, Amanda Berry, John Loughran, Richard Gunstone (2000) '',
What is the Purpose of this Experiment? Or Can Students Learn Something from Doing
Experiments? 37(7), pp. 655-675.
7. David Darmofal (2001) 'Re-engineering Aerodynamics Education'
8. KARL A. SMITH, SHERI D. SHEPPARD, DAVID W. JOHNSON, ROGER T. JOHNSON (2005) '',
Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices, pp. 87-101.
9. Sarah WilsonMedhurst (2008) 'Towards Sustainable Activity Led Learning Innovations in
Teaching, Learning and Assessment'.

Experiment Section
10. Rwessel (2007) Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?, Available at: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-
forums/tech_ops/read.main/253605/ (Accessed: 18/03/2016).
11. Peter Kämpf (2015) Is wing flex good? Available at:
http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/14719/is-wing-flex-good (Accessed:
18/03/2016).

Page 39 of 40
12. Dan,Peter Kämpf (2015) What are the effects of the Boeing 787's very flexible wings?,
Available at: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/838/what-are-the-effects-of-
the-boeing-787s-very-flexible-wings (Accessed: 18/03/2016).
13. Mir (2008) Wings Flex Up or Down. Which Is Better? Available at:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/233503/ (Accessed:
18/03/2016).
14. Dana (2011) Whats the downside of high camber? Available at:
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/light-stuff-area/9140-whats-downside-high-
camber.html (Accessed: 18/03/2016).
15. BMatthews (2013) Rib thickness at 1/4 scale? Available at:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1836835 (Accessed: 13/03/2016).
16. Spar Location, Available at: http://www.propdesigner.co.uk/html/spar_location.html
(Accessed: 13/3/2016).
17. BMatthews (2004) Wing help: spar location with respect to airfoil and planform., Available
at: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309227 (Accessed: 13/3/2016).
18. Erk (2005) Flat spars vs. tube spars, Available at:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=562584 (Accessed: 13/3/2016).
19. Akshay A, Pradeep S. Shet,Pavan Kumar N. R, Raghunandan M, Lakshmana H. B, Chetan A.
V. (n.d.) Design of Front and Rear Spars for The Trainer Aircraft Wing., India:
cadestech.com.
20.

Page 40 of 40