Hovercraft Design

1
Hovercraft Design
TEAM 1
2
Introduction
Team Members Brandon Fichera Dave Rabeno Greg
Pease Sean Gallagher
Sponsor Dr. Stephanie Wright Delaware Aerospace
Academy Advisor Dr. Michael Keefe
Mission Statement To design a two person
hovercraft for the Delaware Aerospace Academy
that will demonstrate the scientific principles
of a hovercraft, foster teamwork between
students, and provide a fun, safe, and
educational environment for all students involved.
3
Summary

• Introduction
• Team, Sponsor, Advisor
• Problem/Mission Statement
• Background

• Concept
• Generation
• Selection

• Customers, Wants,
• Constraints
• Benchmarking
• System
• Functional

• Concept Development
• Test Results, Modifications
• Recommendations
• Prototype Evaluation

• Budget
• Construction hours
• Engineering Hours
• Prototype Cost

• Metrics
• Target Values

4
Problem Background
Delaware Aerospace Academy

• Sponsor of past UD senior design projects.
• Specializes in teaching kids about technology
• involved in the space program.

Hovercrafts

• New and exciting technology that has yet to be
• widely distributed.
• Interesting tool for teaching scientific
  principles
• to children

5
Customers

• DAA
• Dr. Stephanie Wright
• Robert Bloom (Aerospace Engineer)
• Students
• High School Students
• Junior High School - Eric Rabeno
• Middle School - Ted Elizabeth Pease
• Teachers
• High School - Martin Rabeno
• Junior High School - Selina DiCicco
• Industry
• Ron Perkins - Educational Innovations
• School System
• Mark Ellison - Principle High/Jr High School

6
Wants

• Educational
• Demonstrate Hovercraft Principles to Children

• Recreational
• Make it fun, Cool Looking

• Operational
• - Maneuverable - Durable
• - Reliable - Transportable
• - Reproducible

• Economical
• - Low Cost

7
Constraints

• Size of door in Spencer Lab (4.5 by 6.3)
• Allowable Funds (2000)
• Number of pilots (must be 2)
• Operation (must be able to hover)

8
System Benchmarking

• Triflyer - Hovercraft Design
• Pegasus - Hovercraft Design
• Universal Hovercraft - Hovercraft Construction
  Kits
• Hover Club - Hovercraft Articles
• Science Project - Laboratory Experiments

9
Functional Benchmarking

• Smithsonian AirSpace Museum
• use videos to excite peoples interest
• Six Flags Amusement Parks
• use acceleration and jerk for fun
• Briggs and Stratton Engines
• HP, RPM and price
• Elibra / Hovertech
• Magnetic levitation

• Grainger Industrial Equipment
• Electric Motors
• RPM, HP and price
• Universal Hovercraft
• Fans for personal hovercrafts
• Northern Tool and Equipment Co.
• Gas Motors, price comparison

10
Metrics Corresponding Target Values
1) Number of Principles Taught - 3 2) Performance
on lab experiment - average score 80 3) Height
of hovering (Object Clearance) - 6 4) Skirt to
ground clearance - 1/2 5) Speed of Vehicle - 5
- 10 mph 6) Acceleration - 1 mph/s 7) Directions
of Horizontal Travel - 360 degrees 8) Travel
Range - limited by fuel capacity alone 9) Turning
Radius - 15 ft 10) Fuel Efficiency/Capacity - 3
1/2 hrs 11) Cost - 2000 12) Weight - 1000 lbs.
11
Concept Generation Evaluation Against Metrics
What are the different aspects of our project?
Education, Operation, Recreation How can we
satisfy our mission statement in various ways?

• Education Recreation
• 1) Smithsonian Approach use a video or
  descriptive poster to explain the principles to
  the children
• 2) Amusement Park Approach - just let children
  operate it and then attempt to explain how it
  works
• Operation
• 1) Means of Lift 2) Power Supply
  3) Thrust
• Magnetic Levitation Electric
  Engine/Fan
• Fan(s) and Air Cushion Liquid Fuel
  Human Power
  Suspension Fuel Cells
  Rocket Thrust

12
Concept Generation Evaluation Against Metrics

• 1) With regard to Education Recreation
• - Choose Smithsonian Approach
• - videos and posters allow for easy
  explanation
• 2) With regard to Operation
• - Choose a fan/motor lift and thrust system
• - Magnetic Levitation too expensive
• - Suspension System too bulky, doesnt
  demonstrate hovering principles
• - Human Power for thrust is a viable
  alternative
• - Choose Liquid Fuel
• - engines are relatively inexpensive
• Doesnt demonstrate appropriate principles
• Choose Fans and Air Cushion

13
Concept Selection Mathematical Models (Lift)
Steady-Flow Energy Equation
Bernoullis Equation
14
Concept Selection Mathematical Models (Lift)
From Energy Equation
From Bernoullis Equation
15
Concept Selection Mathematical Models (Lift
Thrust)
W 1000lbs. (from Metrics)
l 10 ft
w 6 ft
Pressure Required 0.116 psi
W 1000lbs. (from Metrics)
a 1.5 ft/s2 (from Metrics)
go 32.2 ft/s2 (from Metrics)
Thrust Force Required 60lbs.
16
Final Concept Selection
1) Educational Poster (education) a)
Discusses uses of Hovercraft as it relates to the
Delaware Aerospace Academy b)
Discusses Construction Design c) Explains
principles of - Lift - Thrust 2) Laboratory
Experiment (education) - Students learn about
lift first hand - Hands on approach similar to
Smithsonian museum 3) Prototype Hovercraft
Demonstration (fun) - Students get to operate a
working hovercraft
17
VIDEO
Hovercraft Specs. Shape Rectangular (10 x 6)
- most stable - ease of construction Fan
System Lift - 8 hp lift engine - 4 blade
26 diameter fan Thrust - 3.5 hp thrust -
2 blade 34 diameter fan Weight - empty weight
of 450 lbs.
18
Lift Test Results
19
Test Results Education

• Lab
• Experiment and laboratory model brought into
  classroom and demonstrated to a class
• All students were overwhelmingly enthusiastic
  about the lab and interested in the hovercraft
• Students demonstrated understanding of principles
  by discussing them
• Students wanted to build their own model
  hovercrafts. Asked how to build one

20
Modifications

• Thrust Fan Replacement
• Add collar to Lift Motor Shaft
• Apply protective screens prior to delivery
• Add ballast to the front of craft

21
Recommendations

• Safety
• Eye and Ear protection for pilots and operators
• Familiarization of Safety manual
• Run only under adult supervision
• Perform safety check before and after operation
• Maintenance
• Familiarization of Operation manual
• Check skirt for holes and tears

22
Budget

• Materials (Wood, Hardware) - 734.45
• Lift fan, Skirt, Hub - 361.22
• 8hp Lift Engine - 358.70
• Thrust Fan - 157.00
• 3.5hp Thrust Engine - 167.99
• TOTAL 1779.36

23
Development and Fabrication Time

• Engineering Concept Development
• 110 hours
• Fabrication
• 610 hours
• Redesign and Modification
• 20 hours
• TOTAL 740 hours

24
Projected Production Costs

• Total Material Costs
• 1779.36
• Estimated Production Hours
• 200 hours
• 25/hr
• Projected Cost 5000 1779.36 6779.36