Team Blackbird 09’ UAS Project Description
Team Members
Randy Breingan, Jerson Mezquita, Michael Fabula
Faculty Advisors:
Dr. Massood Towhidnejad
Submitted:
May 27, 2009
Proof of Flight Statement: We certify that the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle described in this paper has undergone a fully
autonomous test flight.
I. Abstract
For the 2009 Student Unmanned Aerial Systems Competition, The Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University’s (ERAU) Team Blackbird decided to start from square one and
design a system from the start that worked best for the team and its members. Due to the
fact that last year's system was overly complicated because of the number of subsystems
that were interdependent (see Blackbird 2008 Journal Paper), the team required a simplistic
approach that reduces setup time and human interaction. Using a quality function
deployment systems engineering approach, Team Blackbird has designed an airframe
around the system rather than a system dependent on the airframe. This allows for a
greater degree of adaptability which will be applied to future competitions and future
successes. The current team goals warranted the use of both a simplistic and safe system.
Therefore, the new system is fully electric, operating off of custom A123 battery packs; a
tried-and-true autopilot, the Piccolo II; and streaming digital video from an Axis 207MW
camera with a 1 Watt amplifier. Based on the team's experience along with resources
available, this systems approach was the most cost effective way of producing the quality
intelligence required by the mission statement.
II. Introduction
Team Blackbird has gone through radical roster changes since last year, resulting in a
completely new team comprised of two freshmen and one junior. The team members are
enrolled in Mechanical, Software and the Aerospace Engineering programs respectively. Due
to the nature of the new team, it was concluded that a two-year plan should be enacted to
achieve the greatest results. The team investigated the strengths and weaknesses of the
each of the teams from last year in order to emulate and originate a successful system.
Quality function deployment (QFD) was then used to generate the relationship between the
competition goals and design parameters. The result of the QFD is the optimal correlation to
be used in the systems design process. The Team has decided to currently focus primarily
on composite materials testing and the electronics system which includes the targeting and
autopilot subsystems, leaving advanced airframe construction for next year. This will allow
us to compete sufficiently in both the 2009 and 2010 competitions.
III. Development Process
Approach
Team Blackbird began its development process similar to last year's, by using Alistair
Cockburn's Crystal Clear Methodology [1]. Cockburn summarizes his ten years of research
into successful software teams into seven properties.
• Frequent Delivery- incremental software updates to client or a test workstation
• Reflective Improvement- Periodic project retrospection
• Osmotic Communication- co-location of team members
• Personal Safety- fostering good team member relationships
• Focus- Team members should know the top two priorities at all times; no person
working on more than one and one-half projects simultaneously
• Easy Access to Expert Users- semi-weekly meetings or co-location of expert advice
• Technical Environment- automated tests, configuration management and frequent
integration
For 2009 the Blackbird Team works on weekly deadlines with tasks clearly listed on
whiteboards. Progress made is tested frequently and members work in the same lab with
advice from a graduate student adviser. The team works as a single unit and not a cluster of
individuals which allows greater achievements to be made than one with many more
members. Cockburn's approach applied together with issue tables and quality research has
allowed Team Blackbird’s system engineering a greater chance of success in this year's
mission.
Quality Goals
To ensure the greatest quantity of progress while maximizing project quality, Team
Blackbird relied on Quality Function Deployment. QFD is a “method to transform user
demands into design quality, to deploy the functions forming quality and to deploy methods
for achieving the design quality into subsystems and component parts and ultimately to
specific elements of the manufacturing process.” [2] QFD has been an integral part of the
Japanese car manufacturing process since 1972 and has seen use in the United States after
1983. The Joint Strike Fighter F-35 and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program
also use QFD. A brief overview of the QFD procedure is seen below.
The standardized graphical approach to QFD is a House of Quality (HOQ). The HOQ is a
planning matrix that correlates customer desires with the methods that a producer has to
meet them. The customer needs were determined based on the cash barrel rewards and
judging rubrics. Additional needs were based upon Team Blackbird's quality goals of safety,
simplicity, repeatability, performance and maintainability, in order of importance.
Qu
ality
Ch
ara
cte
ristic
s
(a.k
.a. "F
un
ctio
na
l
Re
qu
irem
en
ts" o
r "Ho
ws")
De
ma
nd
ed
Qu
ality
(a.k
.a. "C
usto
me
r
Re
qu
irem
en
ts" o
r "Wh
ats
")0
12
34
5
19
5.5
4.2
29
5.5
4.2
39
5.5
4.2
49
5.5
4.2
59
5.5
4.2
69
5.5
4.2
79
11
.08
.3
89
11
.08
.3
99
11
.08
.3
10
911
.08
.3
11
92
2.7
17
.0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
Stro
ng
Re
latio
nsh
ip
Mo
de
rate
Re
latio
nsh
ip
We
ak R
ela
tion
sh
ip
x
Ob
jectiv
e Is
To
Min
imiz
e
Ob
jectiv
e Is
To
Ma
xim
ize
Ob
jectiv
e Is
To
Hit T
arg
et
!
Title
:Q
FD
Au
tho
r:E
RA
U T
ea
m B
lackb
ird
Da
te:
5/2
7/0
9Stro
ng
Ne
ga
tive
Co
rrela
tion
"#!
Stro
ng
Po
sitiv
e C
orre
latio
n
Po
sitiv
e C
orre
latio
n
No
tes
:
9
Ne
ga
tive
Co
rrela
tion
!" !!"#
Le
ge
nd
2.7
25
21
22
23
24
18
19
20
17
15
"
Survivability
9
23
7.1
6.1
Sa
fety
#"
"#
"
"
##
#
Au
tom
atic
targ
et c
ue
ing
, reco
gn
ition
or lo
ca
tion
##
"
"
"
"
#
Au
ton
om
ou
s ta
ke
off a
nd
lan
din
g#
#"
Ove
rall re
qu
irem
en
t for in
terv
en
tion
du
ring
the
co
nd
uct o
f
the
mis
sio
n#
""
"
#!
Au
ton
om
ou
s n
avig
atio
n#
!"
Incre
ase
se
arc
h a
rea
in flig
ht
!#
" "
#
Na
vig
ate
to n
ew
wa
yp
oin
t in flig
ht
!#
"
""
!
Vibration
Number of parts
Aircraft performance
Response time (from mission briefing to
returned intelligence)
!!
Ide
ntify
all ta
rge
t ch
ara
cte
ristic
s o
f ON
E ta
rge
t du
ring
fligh
t"
"!
#
Lo
ca
te a
nd
ide
ntify
rea
listic
po
pu
p ta
rge
t"
""
"
Co
mp
etitiv
e A
na
lys
is
(0=
Wo
rst, 5
=B
est)
Pow
ere
d b
y Q
FD
Onlin
e (h
ttp://w
ww
.QF
DO
nlin
e.c
om
)
ERAU Blackbird 09
ERAU Blackbird 08 (no flight)
ERAU SOAR 08
MSU
UTA
USU
""
""
"!
99
99
8.7
19
.32
2.0
3.9
85
0.1
14
9.8
74
4.6
32
7.2
3.9
4.3
1.3
8.5
14
9.8
16
6.5
49
.9
99
9
Min
imu
m m
issio
n tim
e"
"
!
!!!
#!!
!!!
"!!"
"!
#!
#!
#"
!!
!!
!!
"
!!!
!!
!9
10
11
12
13
!!
"!
!!!
!!
!"
Row #
Dire
ctio
n o
f Imp
rov
em
en
t:
Min
imiz
e (!
), Ma
xim
ize
("), o
r Ta
rge
t (x)
Total cost of operation
Weight / Importance
"
14
16
Relative Weight
!"
x"
x"
x
45
67
Co
lum
n #
12
38
"
!x!
!"
Mean time between failure
20
4.1
9.1
!
9
34
9.9
99
10
5.4
33
7.0 Cost per vehicle
Ease of operation
Autopilot selection
Attitude accuracy
GPS accuracy
79
.05
5.5
55
.5
5.3
2.0
1.4
1.4
93
99
Image quality
Endurance
Complexity
"!
""
"#
""
""
#
Re
lativ
e W
eig
ht
Diffic
ulty
(0=
Ea
sy to
Acco
mp
lish
, 10
=E
xtre
me
ly D
ifficu
lt)
Max Relationship Value in Row
Lo
ca
te ta
rge
ts to
gre
ate
st a
ccu
racy
Ma
x R
ela
tion
sh
ip V
alu
e in
Co
lum
n
Ta
rge
t or L
imit V
alu
e
We
igh
t / Imp
orta
nc
e
x!
"
ER
AU
Bla
ckbird
09
ER
AU
Bla
ckbird
08 (n
o flig
ht)
ER
AU
SO
AR
08
MS
U
UTA
US
U
Qu
ality
Ch
ara
cte
ristic
s
(a.k
.a. "F
un
ctio
na
l
Re
qu
irem
en
ts" o
r "Ho
ws")
De
ma
nd
ed
Qu
ality
(a.k
.a. "C
usto
me
r
Re
qu
irem
en
ts" o
r "Wh
ats
")
13
9.1
34
9.9
29
8.7
33
7.0
39
19
.37
44
.6
49
22
.08
50
.1
59
3.9
14
9.8
69
3.9
14
9.8
79
4.3
16
6.5
89
1.3
49
.9
99
8.5
32
7.2
10
95
.32
04
.1
11
92
.07
9.0
12
91
.45
5.5
13
91
.45
5.5
14
92
.71
05
.4
15
96
.12
37
.1
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ma
x R
ela
tion
sh
ip V
alu
e in
Co
lum
n
Ta
rge
t or L
imit V
alu
e
We
igh
t / Imp
orta
nc
e
Max Relationship Value in Row
x
Re
lativ
e W
eig
ht
Diffic
ulty
(0=
Ea
sy to
Acco
mp
lish
, 10
=E
xtre
me
ly D
ifficu
lt)
To
tal c
ost o
f op
era
tion
!
User Interface Ease of Use
AP Reliability
RF Transparecy
Tensile Strength
Light Sensitivity
Datalink Quality
Shutter Speed
Autopilot Autonomous Accuracy
!"
""
#
#"
#
9
< 10 Mins
> 5.5
> 10
49
6.0
8.0
0.5
2.3
15
.9
99
9
24
9.1
16
.87
2.1
Electric
49
7.1
46
5.1
54
.81
95
.6
9
31
8.1
2.1
96
.6
9
> 40 Mins
Resolution
38
6.6
"
#!
Glide Ratio
Motor Type
9
66
.6
16
Relative Weight
!!
!!
!!
!
Weight / Importance
"
Co
st p
er v
eh
icle
!
#
Su
rviv
ab
ility
Vib
ratio
n
13
89
10
11
12
!!
56
7C
olu
mn
#1
23
14
!!
99
39
47
.5
99
99
1.5
3.4
10
5.1
47
.5
Po
we
red
by Q
FD
On
line
(http
://ww
w.Q
FD
On
line
.co
m)
>Wireless B
4
!!
>640x480
"
Row #
Dire
ctio
n o
f Imp
rov
em
en
t:
Min
imiz
e ("
), Ma
xim
ize
(!), o
r Ta
rge
t (x)
Run Time
Assembly Time
Aspect Ratio
Au
top
ilot s
ele
ctio
n#
#
!"
!"
!!
# #"
Ea
se
of o
pe
ratio
n# #
!"
!#
!#
"
!
!!
Attitu
de
accu
racy
#
#!
"
"
En
du
ran
ce
Ima
ge
qu
ality
##
##
""
#
GP
S a
ccu
racy
#
Co
mp
lexity
#"
##
!
##
"!
##
"
#"
#
Nu
mb
er o
f pa
rts
"#
#"
Me
an
time
be
twe
en
failu
re
Re
sp
on
se
time
(from
mis
sio
n b
riefin
g to
retu
rne
d
inte
llige
nce
)#
#
##
#"
"#
Airc
raft p
erfo
rma
nce
"!
#"
!"
Composite
> -82 RSSI
1.5
12
.41
6.0
14
.91
.86
.31
0.2
15
!
Power Density
"
17
3.1
19
20
18
25
21
22
23
24
Title
:Q
FD
Au
tho
r:E
RA
U T
ea
m B
lackb
ird
Da
te:
5/2
7/0
9
"
We
ak R
ela
tion
sh
ip
"! !!x
Ob
jectiv
e Is
To
Min
imiz
e
Ob
jectiv
e Is
To
Ma
xim
ize
Ob
jectiv
e Is
To
Hit T
arg
et
!
931
Stro
ng
Re
latio
nsh
ip
No
tes
:
Le
ge
nd
!"#
Stro
ng
Po
sitiv
e C
orre
latio
n
Po
sitiv
e C
orre
latio
n
Ne
ga
tive
Co
rrela
tion
Stro
ng
Ne
ga
tive
Co
rrela
tion
#
Mo
de
rate
Re
latio
nsh
ip
The HOQ, above, determined both the quality characteristics that should be focused on in
the system and their weighted percentage of importance to meeting the customer’s needs. The most important characteristics and their weights are:
Attribute Percentage Importance
User interface ease of use 16.0%
Motor type 15.9%
Autopilot reliability 14.9%
Autopilot autonomous accuracy
12.4%
Image resolution 10.2%
Assembly time 8.0%
Tensile strength of Material 6.3%
Although quite surprising, the results demonstrate the necessity of the QFD process.
Rationally, one should come to the conclusion that image resolution would be the most
important characteristic for a system competing in targeting exercises. However, this is not the case. The HOQ on the first level compares relationships between the competition goals
and Team Blackbird's quality goals. The second level is the relationship between our quality
goals and system characteristics to meet them. The results from the House of Quality diagram can be compared and connections between the different areas can be established.
The “user interface ease of use” attribute of the system was determined to be the most important because it is integral to the speed and accuracy of the system’s ability to return
intelligence. The motor type was second in importance because of the cost per vehicle, ease
of operation, aircraft endurance, performance and vibration (in relation to image quality). Both autopilot reliability and autonomous accuracy have strong relationships to autopilot
selection. It turned out that image quality was only necessary for identifying all target
characteristics of one target during flight and locating and identifying a realistic pop-up target, both of which combined are scored less than autonomous navigation. A number of
factors affect the system set up time prior to flight including the autopilot and its operation
set up, complexity and the number of parts for the overall system. The strength of a material, specifically it’s tensile strength, is important to factor into the design process
because it affects the price of the materials and the survivability factor which contributes to
the mean time between failures. The QFD showed that image quality should not be at the forefront of the design process, which is contradictory to what the team had originally
anticipated. Therefore quality function deployment, systems engineering, and the House of Quality have become an integral part of the planning aspect of this year’s design process.
Issue Tables
Issue Table 1: System Complexity o Quality Goals: This issue is directly related to three of our quality goals. They are:
safety, simplicity and survivability. o Description: The metric for determining system complexity is the number of people
required to operate system at optimal performance. The number of points that the
team will receive is related to the number of persons on the team and it is also related to the time that it takes for the team to complete the task. The number of
team members required to operate the vehicle must be related to the amount of
time it will take that number of members to complete the task. Adding another operator must be justified by a shorter time; such that points gained from shorter
time is greater than points lost due to additional members.
o Metrics: The less people the better. Zero operators is optimal. o Influencing Factors:
! IF1: Operational complexity; Level of autonomy of the system ! IF2: Mechanical complexity
o Strategies: ! ST1: Launcher Launched
! Description: The vehicle uses a launcher for takeoff. ! Benefits: Can launch from almost anywhere. Repeatability. Provides
capability to fly with a greater payload-power ratio than hand
launching, but not as much as taxi launch. ! Drawbacks: Need a launcher. Many moving parts. Hazardous if parts
are fatigued. ! ST2: Taxi Launched
! Description: The vehicle performs a rolling takeoff from a suitable
runway. ! Benefits: Can carry more payload with lower engine power. ! Drawbacks: Need a runway. Need extra sensors such as RTK GPS
and/or magnetometer to support autonomous rolling takeoff. ! ST3: Hand Launched
! Description: The vehicle is launched by hand. ! Benefits: no need for runway or launcher, no landing gear needed,
terrain independent, ! Drawbacks: launch varies every time
! ST4: Runway landing ! Description: The vehicle lands on a flat runway ! Benefits: Allows for heavier airplanes to land ! Drawbacks: requires a big and flat landing area
! ST5: Apparatus Landing (net, wire, chute) ! Description: The vehicle lands using some apparatus such as a flying
into a net, being caught on a wire, or deploying a parachute. ! Benefits: A parachute landing eliminates the need for a runway. Using
a net or being caught on a wire allows the vehicle to land in a shorter distance.
! Drawbacks: Each apparatus will add complexity to the system and
additional points of failure. In a parachute landing will increase the stress on the vehicle as the cute is deployed, a net will cause the
aircraft to stop suddenly and being caught on a ! ST6: Belly Landing
! Description: The vehicle lands on the fuselage instead of using a
landing apparatus. ! Benefits: Mechanically simple. Reduces weight. Faster, simpler landing. ! Drawbacks: Wear and tear on the underside of the fuselage.
! ST7: Autonomous Targeting (addressed in more detail in IT 3) ! Description: The ability of the system to identify targets autonomously. ! Benefits: Decreases the complexity of the system allowing the operator
to simply monitor the system. ! Drawbacks: Difficult to acquire, possible bugs and errors.
Issue Table 2: Bandwidth
o Quality Goals: This issue directly relates to the reliability and the performance goals. o Description: The available bandwidth and overall reliability of the data-link directly
affects the performance of the imaging system since it is geared towards an active
intelligence mission for the UAS competition. These two features of the data-link are dependent on the type of transmitter/receiver and the antennas used to broadcast the
signal. o Metrics: The metric for quality bandwidth is how many kilobits per second at varying
ranges. o Influencing Factors:
! IF3: Amplification ! IF4: Antennas ! IF5: Spectrum ! IF6: Radio Frequency Bandwidth ! IF7: Robustness
o Strategies: ! ST9: Use 802.11a Wifi Connection
! Description: Point to point wifi connection ! Benefits: 5 GHz, 54 megabits per second ! Drawbacks: Not widely supported
! ST10: Use 802.11b Wifi Connection ! Description: Multi point wifi connection. ! Benefits: Well supported, widely available hardware ! Drawbacks: 2.4 GHz, Interference from other devices using the same radio
spectrum. 11 megabits per second. ! ST11: Use 802.11g Wifi Connection
! Description: Multi point wifi connection ! Benefits: 54 megabits per second. Possible MIMO ! Drawbacks: 2.4GHz (interference). Movement may cause data loss.
! ST12: Use 802.11n Wifi Connection ! Description: Multi-in/Multi-out connection. ! Benefits: Multiple channels used for reduced loss of communication. 108
megabits per second. 5 or 2.4 GHz. ! Drawbacks: Not widely supported.
! ST13: Serial Radio Modem Connection ! Description: Serial radio communication ! Benefits: Very long range ! Drawbacks: 900MHz (conflicts with autopilot), 115 Kilobits per second
! ST14: Using Amplifiers ! Description: Use an amplifier to increase the range of the wifi connection. ! Benefits: Vastly increases the range of a wifi connection. ! Drawbacks: Adds weight, draws power, generates heat.
! ST15: Omi-directional Antenna ! Description: With a unity gain antenna power is radiated uniformly in all
directions. The higher the gain the more directed it becomes in a 360
degree arc around the antenna ! Benefits: Antenna does not need to be pointed in a specific direction. ! Drawbacks: Disperses power in 360 degrees
! ST16: Directional Antenna ! Description: an antenna which radiates greater power in one or more
directions allowing for increased performance on transmit and receive,
and reduced interference from unwanted sources. ! Benefits: increased range, widely available
! Drawbacks: concentrated beam, requires ! ST17: Radio Robustness
! Description: The ability for the radio system to continue functionality
despite interference. ! Benefits: Constant communication despite radio interference ! Drawbacks: Overhead
Issue table 3: Targeting o Quality Goals: This issue relates to the goals of quality performance o Description: The capability of identifying targets accurately and efficiently is critical to the
success of the UAS. o Metrics: The metric to justify quality targeting is dependent on how long it takes for the
system to identify a target. o Influencing Factors:
! IF8: Speed at which an operator can use the system to identify and collect
attributes of a target. ! IF9: Color accuracy of the imagery. ! IF10: Resolution of the target imagery. ! IF11: Altitude and airspeed of the vehicle. ! IF12: Positional Accuracy of target.
o Strategies: ! ST18: Use low-res camera (640x480)
! Description: analog video camera with video radio transmitter and receiver. ! Benefits: Simple and inexpensive. ! Drawbacks: Low target resolution.
! ST19: Use a hi-res video camera (1280x1024) ! Description: analog video camera with video radio transmitter and receiver. ! Benefits: High resolution of targets. ! Drawbacks: Expensive. Bandwidth required to transmit video is high.
! ST20: Use a hi-res still camera ! Description: Digital point and shoot camera.
! Benefits: High resolution, mechanically simple, wide selection.
! Drawbacks: Expensive. Bandwidth required to transmit video is high, difficult to interface with the camera
! ST21: Use a Gimbaled Camera.
! Description: Use a camera with pan, tilt and zoom capability. ! Benefits: Ability to direct the movement of the camera to track targets
and/or survey the target area independently of the movement of the
aircraft. ! Drawbacks: Added mechanical complexity. Increased chance of critical
failure. Off the shelf solutions are expensive. ! ST22: Use a fixed-position camera.
! Description: Use a camera without pan, tilt and zoom capability.
! Benefits: Mechanically simple. ! Drawbacks: View of the camera is directly tied to the attitude and position
of the aircraft.
Summary
Using QFD in conjunction with our issue tables, components were chosen to meet as many
requirements as possible. Detailed reasoning for choices made between likely candidates are as follows:
Power Plant
Using the results of the HOQ it was determined that motor type was crucial to the system
and an electric one would be the best solution over a gas or glow fuel engine. An electric system that runs on battery packs would increase the ease of operation, reduce complexity
and the number of parts and reduce vibration, thereby increasing image quality. It was for
this reason that a fully electric system was chosen.
Battery Supply In previous competitions, the primary source of battery power has been Lithium-Polymer
(LiPo). The problem with LiPos is that they can be extremely volatile when charging,
discharging or when slightly damaged. This violates our first quality goal of safety. As an alternative source, DeWalt donated 36V drill battery packs which contain 10-A123s cells
each. By separating the battery packs and removing the A123s the team was able to create
custom 5-cell packs that could be arranged to fit the payload area. The A123s are larger and heavier than LiPos but provide a larger C-rating which allows a greater amperage to be
pulled before damage. The power to weight ratio can therefore be offset with the increased
amps. A123s also hold the advantage in price, at $139.99 for a 10-cell rechargeable drill pack as compared to a single 4-cell Extreme V2 at $104.99.
Programming Environment
In previous years, Team Blackbird tried an approach using Python and other scripting
languages. This year the team decided to use Labview and its Vision Development Module.
Labview is a very powerful programming tool designed by National Instruments. It provides an easy to use graphical interface and programming environment. The program is especially
useful in measurement, automation and data acquisition. It also provides tools for various
types of programming, including event oriented programming, object oriented programming
and scripting in languages similar to C and MathScript. The Vision Assistant provides plenty
of image processing and machine vision capabilities. These capabilities include optical
character recognition, geometric matching, object classification and particle analysis. With the Vision Assistant application it is quick and simple to create, prototype and implement
vision software. Also included in the package is driver software for countless cameras. It
also provides tools like ActiveX and internet communications to interface with most digital cameras on the market.
Imaging
An Axis 207MW camera was ultimately chosen because the fixed position coincided with our
quality goal of simplicity. The digital capabilities of the Axis provide high resolution of
targets which increases the goal of performance. See Issue Table 3: Targeting.
Autopilot There are many different autopilots available that the team could use. The team attempted
to use a Micropilot three years ago, however, it was found that the Micropilot did not
provide the accuracy and ease of use that the team required. Therefore, the team purchased a Piccolo II autopilot and found that it was an ideal solution. The Piccolo II
provides a reliable system capable of maneuvering an aircraft through GPS waypoints with
incredible accuracy using its higher rate GPS. The Piccolo can control up to 10 servos.
Airframe Materials
Our QFD analysis led us in the direction of composites for our airframe construction because of cost per vehicle, endurance, MTBF, aircraft performance and survivability. Balsa was
discounted because of its low tensile strength which means it has very low survivability in the event of a crash. Composites also allow for expedient repairs as compared to balsa. In
our search for composite materials we first researched carbon fiber and fiberglass since they
were used on Team Blackbird's Vampire at last year's competition. Fiberglass was ruled out due to our desire to construct an airframe that will be hand launched and land on its belly
repeatedly on surfaces ranging from grass to asphalt. Carbon fiber has incredible strength
but it has a fatal flaw of severely diminishing Radio Frequency (RF) communications which are vital for an RC plane. Seeking other alternatives, we came across a product called Zylon
which showed great promise. It is incredibly strong, has a high tensile strength, better
elasticity than brittle carbon fiber and is RF transparent. Zylon is an aramid, similar to Kevlar and is the strongest commercially available composite on the market. At similar
prices to a yard of carbon fiber it was decided that our airframe would be comprised of Zylon for its multiple advantages.
IV. Features
Electrical Subsystem:
A123 M1 Cells
• Description o According to the developers of
these batteries, the cells are
"abuse tolerant" and environmentally friendly. The life
of the battery is 10 times that of
a conventional Lithium ion battery. The battery cell is
constructed using laser welds instead of the crimp seals. This provides for low
humidity penetration and stronger heading plates to strengthen the batteries against impact damage.
• Details o Nominal voltage: 3.3V o Core cell weight: 70 grams o Typical fast charge current: 10A to 3.6V [3]
Axis 207MW • Description
o The Axis 207MW provides high bandwidth efficiency by using
MPEG-4 video stream and motion estimation. Digital video is provided in MPEG-4 or MJPG formats.
• Details
o Megapixel resolution up to 1280x1024
o Wireless IEEE802.11g and Ethernet
o Simultaneous Motion JPEG and MPEG-4 [4]
Piccolo II • Description
o The Piccolo II Autopilot is an advanced system
designed by Cloudcap Technologies. It provides
a competent system capable of maneuvering am aircraft through GPS waypoints with incredible
accuracy using its higher rate GPS. The Piccolo can control up to 10 servos for as many control
surfaces that you might require. For safety
concerns the piccolo has a dead man output for when communications times out.
• Details
o Weighs 233 grams
o Operates on 8 - 20 Volts DC
o GPS Update rate of 4Hz
o Utilizes the 900 MHz radio frequency [5]
Hacker A40-10S
• Description o The hacker A40 series was designed to create incredible torque. The motor can
easily be used with in a direct drive prop configuration and eliminate the need for a gear box. The motor series has oversized bearings, curved magnets and high
efficiency stator design. Also there is a cooling fan mounted on the motor to provide appropriate motor cooling in a closed cowl configuration.
• Details o RPM per Volt: 750 o Weighs 265g o Operates on 11 - 18.5 Volts DC [6]
Castle Creations Phoenix 80 • Description
o A high efficiency motor controller designed by Castle Creations to provide reliable power capability for aerial platforms. This motor controller features a battery
eliminator circuit (BEC) and "safe power on." With an audible arming signal and
auto-motor cut-off this controller provides a high level of safety around the motor and prop. The controller is also programmable including adjustable switching
rate, programmable brake and several different timing modes.
• Details
o Operates with no BEC on 25.2 Volts DC
o .001 Ohms resistance
o Reversible directions by simply switching any two wires
o Weighs 60g [7]
Castle Creations RX Battery Eliminator Circuit • Description
o Although the Phoenix-80 comes with an on board BEC the maximum wattage
would be reduced. For this reason Castle Creations makes a separate BEC that
controls the voltage going to the servos. This little device requires no extra batteries, simply plug it in with the motor controller and it will provide power to
the system. Similar to the Phoenix the BEC is programmable to change the
output voltage of the device, which ranges from 4.8 to 9 volts DC. • Details
o Takes 5 - 25.2 Volts o Weighs 11 grams [7]
Airframe Subsystem:
Kadet LT-40
• Description
o Due to time and manpower restrictions for Team Blackbird, a two year plan
allowed us to focus on an adaptable system which could be transplanted into any airframe. It was decided to use a Sig Kadet LT-40 Almost Ready to Fly (ARF)
airframe for its simplicity and cost.
o We hope to complete the design and construction of a Zylon UAV airframe this year but our main goal to meet our software agenda will be fulfilled by the Kadet.
• Details o Clark Y airfoil widely used in general aviation
o 70 inch wingspan
o Planform area of 900 square inches o Length of 56 inches
o Empty weight of 6 pounds
o Generates approximately 45 Newtons of lift o Max airframe and payload weight of 35 Newtons [8]
o Using MotoCalc with the Hacker A40-10S
! Cl = 0.52 ! Cd= 0.063
! Stall Speed 21 mph ! Cruise Speed 32 mph
Zylon
• Description
o For Phase Two of our two-year plan, Team Blackbird is striving to use Zylon for
our airframe structure because of its incredible material characteristics. Zylon has many real world applications ranging from police body armor to parachute tethers
and even parts of the Martian Rovers.
o Zylon does have a few downsides such as its strength degradation when exposed for extended periods of time to ultraviolet light and moisture absorption. Both of
the negative characteristics can be remedied with a simple coat of paint, so it is
ideal for our UAV needs.
o Zylon has as much strength as Carbon Fiber but without the brittleness. This
allows for our airframe to be unbelievably strong and work as a belly-lander where mild crashes will not result in catastrophic fractures or failure as with Balsa
or Carbon Fiber.
o During loading or a crash the fibers of Zylon will stretch into the plastic deformation region of a stress-strain diagram, giving a warning of failure, where
as composites like Carbon Fiber will shatter unannounced or have internal fractures, severely weakening the structure.
o Zylon's long list of benefits has made it an ideal choice for our final construction
which we hope to have completed before this year's competition. • Details
o A 0.6 to 2.0% moisture pick-up rate (common amongst aramids)
o Tensile strength of 5.8 Giga Pascals (GPa) as related to Steel, 2.8 GPa or Balsa, 32.2 Mega Pascals [9]
Ground Station Subsystem:
Blackbird System Software
• Description
o The Blackbird System software was developed by Team Blackbird for the 2009
Student Unmanned Aerial Vehicles competition. It is capable of communicating with an Axis camera and a Piccolo Autopilot simultaneously. This was important
so that the system can put the two different sets of data together to identify the
target attributes accurately. These abilities were separated into three different software packages, the vision package, the Autopilot Communications package
and the Integration package. The system was designed in three parts so that each part could be produced separately and independent of each other and then
the Integration package combine all the necessary data together in on simple
program. • Structure
o The system software has two application executable files. One for acquiring
images and aircraft attitude and another for processing the images and identifying targets.
o The vision software is designed to not only acquire images from an Axis Camera,
but also to process these images and identify possible targets. Using the Labview Vision Development Module, the targeting software is able to easily display
images from the aircraft to the user and allow the user to save the image as a target easily and quickly. Saving the image as a target image also saves the
attitude and location of the aircraft at that time. This allows for post or mid
mission processing of images using a secondary application. The secondary application is designed to allow the user to identify the 8 characteristics of a
target and save the updated information. All images and data are stored in a
binary file generated by Labview using the Target object format designed by the team.
o The Autopilot Communications (AC) software interfaces with the Piccolo II
Autopilot to receive telemetry and location data. The AC is also able to assign new, update existing and delete waypoints to the autopilot. Another ability of the
AC is to show a map of the area that the aircraft is flying in and display the
aircraft in the map as well as all of its waypoints.
V. Testing and Evaluation
Architecture
Evaluation of the architecture was the process of comparing the final system as a whole
with the expectations of the design. The three categories below are the main attributes evaluated.
Antenna interference: The camera was run on 2.4 GHz and the Piccolo on 900 MHz. Multiple
range tests were conducted while both systems were in operation to verify there was not an
increase in latency.
Waterproofing: The system components with the greatest risk of failure due to moisture, such as our voltage regulators and Piccolo, were individually wrapped or sealed. A final
weather-proofing was then completed on the external airframe. Testing in high winds and
severe rain demonstrated no ill effects on the system.
Power plant efficiency: Using the program, MotorCalc, the specifications for the Hacker motor as well as the Kadet LT-40 were entered and a theoretical efficiency was calculated.
MotorCalc gave detailed information on the most synergetic propeller to use as well as the
most efficient cruise speed. Experimental thrust calculations were then done with the actual propellers on the complete aircraft which was attached to a scale to determine pounds of
thrust.
Autopilot
Our House of Quality table was able to identify that the autonomous accuracy of the aircraft is one of the most important issues. Along with its safety features, it is for this reason that
the Piccolo was chosen. The Piccolo uses a u-blox GPS module that has an accuracy of 2.5
m. With this kind of high level GPS the team will easily be able to navigate the GPS coordinates. Having no prior experience with the Piccolo II, we began using the Piccolo
Flight Simulator which demonstrated how to use the autopilot, maximizing efficiency. Once
the Piccolo operators were comfortable with the simulator, autonomous testing began. The aircraft was flown under manual control and the autopilot was enabled so control loops
could be tuned sequentially. The bank loop was tuned first, followed by the airspeed, the altitude, and finally the heading. After the loops were all tuned, a simple rectangular flight
path was set to test tracking and gains. Altitude was then varied along points on this path
and deviations were recorded and troubleshot. Final testing involved the airframe and autopilot being flown under various conditions ranging from calm weather to rain and winds
at 20 kts. gusting up to 25.
Imagery
Our system for identifying targets includes the Axis camera and the software to
autonomously identify targets and store the images. Our imaging software was designed with the functionality of autonomously identifying targets in mind. Therefore, the team used
images from previous years as well as computer generated images of targets. The team ran
a simulation in Google earth that was able to simulate a flight of the aircraft. The simulation consisted of pointing the Axis Camera at the computer screen while Google Earth simulates
the view that the camera would have from the aircraft in flight. The team then placed
simulated targets into Google Earth as new layers. The software was able to successfully identify more than 75% of the targets, both real and computer generated images were in
the pool. The software encountered a few errors with markings on the runways. However,
after tweaking the imaging software it was able to eliminate the markings due to their elongated form.
Flight test data provided sample images simulating expected mission scenarios. Although
high resolution, the camera has limitations on the quality of the images in flight, therefore the light sensitivity and shutter speed must be calibrated manually. The image above shows
wash out due to over exposure of the lettering on a pale green target and blur of the blue
target. This is caused by the auto adjustments being made as the camera transitions with respect to its position with the horizon. The camera, once manipulated, produces targets
similar to the white ‘Z’ on the red target. Once the images were acquired and the
appropriate telemetry data was applied, they were saved in a format to make them reusable for testing the imaging software. Images in this format could be run through filters in the NI
Vision Assistant to test the quality of the programming. By recording the location of the
targets, ground plane transformation equations can be tested.
Component Placement The placement of components in the aircraft is an important aspect of designing the aircraft.
It is important to keep in mind that the aircraft has a maximum weight limit and therefore
each component must be weighed and placed securely in the aircraft so as not to disturb the balance of the craft. The team decided to put the batteries in the front of the plane
while the Piccolo and the camera as close to the center of the wing as possible to conserve
the balance. Another important aspect to consider when placing components is where the antennas go. The system has a total of two RF antennas and one GPS antenna. The antenna
for the camera on the 2.4 frequency serves best if it is pointed towards the ground so that
our ground station communications won't be interrupted or disturbed by anything inside the aircraft. The team had to ensure that the antennas would not interfere with each other or be
interfered with while the plane was flying. The team did countless range tests and found
that the while both systems, camera and autopilot, are running there was no problem communicating to either system.
VI. Safety
Safety is Team Blackbird's primary quality goal and has been at the zenith of our systems
engineering process. Safety for each of the subsystems is as follows:
Autopilot
The Piccolo II has a built-in manual override which allows for an experienced RC pilot to take command in the event of an unforeseen aerial malfunction. In the event of
communication loss with the receiver in which the pilot is unable to take command, the
autopilot asserts flight termination by means of immediate spiral descent.
Power Plant
Along with advantages in complexity and ease of use, an electric motor was chosen for its noncombustible nature as opposed to a gas or glow fuel engine.
Battery Supply Team Blackbird installed A123s instead of LiPo batteries for cost and safety considerations.
In the event of a crash or during charging and discharging, LiPos pose an immediate threat to those in range of a possible explosion. It was for this primary reason that LiPos were
discarded as a possible battery source.
Materials
For future airframe construction Zylon has been chosen for its amazing properties, of which
failure inspection is one of the greatest. Zylon will stretch out giving a warning of impending failure and its single ply construction allows for visible inspection of all surfaces. Other
composites and balsa have much smaller plastic deformation regions or none at all which
might allow a fracture to go unnoticed, causing mid-air structural failure on subsequent flights.
Checklists
Team Blackbird has constructed both preflight and post-flight checklists which allow for
inspection of the airframe and subsystems ensuring they are in working order before current and future operations.
VII. Acknowledgements
Dr. Towhidnejad, Dr. Reinhotlz, Soller Composites, Jayson Clifford, DeWalt
VIII. References
[1] Cockburn, A (2005). Crystal clear: A human-powered methodology for small teams.
Addison-
Wesley.
[2] Akao, Yoji. "Development History of Quality Function Deployment". The Customer Driven
Approach to Quality Planning and Deployment. Minato, Tokyo 107 Japan: Asian Productivity Organization. pp. 339. ISBN 92-833-1121-3.
[3] A123 Systems Website. www.a123systems.com.
[4] Axis Communications Website. www.axis.com
[5] Cloudcap Technologies. http://www.cloudcaptech.com/
[6] Hacker Brushless Motors. http://www.hackerbrushless.com/
[7] Castle Creations. http://www.castlecreations.com/
[8] SIG Manufacturing Co. Website. www.sigmfg.com/
[9] Toyobo’s website. http://www.toyobo.co.jp/e/seihin/kc/pbo/menu/fra_menu_en.htm