Disaster Relief: Final Report

Seth Malusky
Date: 4/20/2019
Abstract:
The following report contains several design dynamics for an aircraft design. Over the course of
several weeks, I have conducted trial and error research with my newly learned engineering
design skills. The final design for the aircraft will be presented with an explanation of all design
aspects.

Problem:
This design needs to alleviate the harsh aftermaths of natural disasters in Rome, Italy. Wildfires,
Tornados and Earthquakes are the natural disasters my design would help alleviate. My target
beneficiaries are the citizens of Rome that have suffered from natural disasters. The user and
payer would be either government or non-government entities trying to aid in natural disaster
relief in Rome and the citizens of Rome would be the beneficiaries. Problem Definition/POV
statement: This design needs to alleviate the harsh aftermaths of natural disasters in Rome,
Italy. Wildfires, Tornados, Earthquakes and the potential threat of zombies are the natural
disasters my design would help alleviate. After digging on the internet, I found almost no
disaster relief organizations for Rome specifically. After reading a lot about the devastation
Rome has had from earthquakes and floods, I found that a big limiting factor in past natural
disaster aid was scandalous mis funding for natural disaster projects that were never finished
When natural disaster strikes, a lot of potential stakeholders emerge because a lot of people
feel compelled to help. The Italian government, its’ allies and non-profit disaster and
humanitarian relief programs are all potential stakeholders

Business card of Tom Mueller (Propulsion chief technology officer and potential stakeholder):

List of design requirements​.

1. Must have capacity to extinguish small wildfires

2. Must be able to fit up to 100 passengers for air transport.
3. Must be able to carry up to 80,000 pounds of cargo in flight
4. Must be safe for flight
5. Must be able to withstand 20 knots of either tailwind, headwind or crosswind
components in flight
 6. Must meet FAA guidelines
7. Must be able to reach 30,000 feet in altitude
8. Aircraft must have turnaround time of 30 minutes or less (period between landing
and expedited takeoff)
9. Must have 8,000 km impact radius
10. Must be reinforced for protection against zombies

Prioritized list of design criteria​.

1. Accessibility for passengers

2. Ease of landing on short runways
3. Easily maintained
4. Able to fly with speeds up to 350 knots
5. Comfortable

AHP TABLE FOR CRITERIA 1-5

CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 2 CRITERIA 3 CRITERIA 4 CRITERI TOTA WEIGH

A5 L T

CRITERI 1 1 3 2 7.33 0.209

A1 1/3

CRITERI 1 1 3 6.5 0.185

A2 1 1/2

CRITERI 3 1 4 14 0.4
A3 2 4

CRITERI 1/3 1 1 2 4.583 0.131

A4 1/4

CRITERI 1/2 1/3 1 2.583 0.074

A5 1/4 1/2

TOTAL 5.833 5.333 2.333 9.5 12 35

I feel the criteria are important for this design. Criteria 1 and 2 are put in place with the
fact that the aircraft may be needed for rescue missions. If there were a rescue mission,
the aircraft should be accessible to passengers and a swift landing and takeoff should
ensue for evacuation purposes. I believe criteria 3 is the most important because I’ve
worked in aviation for the last four years almost and an aircraft that’s realistic to
maintain is better than aircraft that isn’t available in a crisis as a result of unrealistic
maintenance requirements. I feel my AHP reflected that. Criteria 4 is important but not
completely necessary for providing aid. Lastly, Criteria 5 was valued significantly less
than the other criteria because almost no rescue victim is going to care if their getaway
is saddled in comfort. However, I still think comfort should be implemented if it’s
achievement doesn’t take away from the requirements or other criteria. All of my criteria
will be measured quantitatively with the exception of criteria 5, comfort. Accessibility can
be measured to number of entrances and total size of entrances. Ease of landing on a
short runway can be measured to how long in feet it takes to come to complete stop
upon landing on an airfield. Ease of maintenance can be measured with how often the
plane is considered flight ready as opposed to not flight ready as a result of needed
maintenance. Knots is already quantitative and comfort may remain subject to popular
opinion.

Background:

List of resources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/world/europe/27iht-letter27.html

https://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/where-we-work/europe/italian-red-cross/

https://www.epactnetwork.com/corp/blog/geographical-breakdown-natural-disasters-eur
ope/

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/01/21/Rescue-efforts-yield-survivors-
days-after-Italy-hotel-avalanche/8181485025793/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/world/europe/italy-avalanche-rescue-hotel.html
-Wildfires, tornadoes and earthquakes are the three types of natural disasters I hope to 
provide aid to with my aircraft design. Relief in the form of passenger and cargo 
transport and air-drops consisting of medical supplies, food, water and other amenities 
that could be needed in the midst of the natural disasters I’m aiding with my design. In 
addition, water dumping to combat wildfires are what my design will be built to do along 
with the previously mentioned forms of relief. My aircraft design will be made to 
transport large payloads of people or cargo, so my design will be mostly resemblant of 
a cargo plane. I’ve broken down my aircraft’s flight mission into 3 mission profiles; 
Profile 1: In the event my aircraft can aid in a wildfire, my aircraft would utilize its ability 
to dump water to combat the spreading fires as well as carry medical supplies that 
would be unloaded near a humanitarian aid location. After the aircraft’s wildfire water 
reservoirs are depleted and the medical supplies are unloaded in a secure location, 
passengers are welcome to board the aircraft for evacuation as needed. 
Profile 2: This profile specializes in the evacuation of as many passengers as possible, 
of both adult and children. Since this would be a rescue mission, medical supplies, 
stretchers and water would be included in the payload. 
Profile 3: In the event any of the 3 natural disasters I intend to aid are inevitable and are 
soon to strike, my aircraft would transport a large payload of resources needed to aid or 
prepare for the impending disaster. The aircraft would then be used to evacuate citizens 
as needed. 
As you can see, all three of my profiles utilize my aircraft’s ability as a cargo plane 
because large payloads of resources transported, large quantities of passengers 
transported and large quantities of water to help extinguish wildfires all require a large 
cargo aircraft to ensure the job is done. 
Design Overview:

Reference 1: 3 View drawing

The span of the aircraft is 50 meters. The length of the aircraft is 45.11 meters and the
overall height is 34.5 feet.

-Passenger evacuation, fighting wildfires and emergency aid is the purpose of my 
aircraft design. 12000 pounds is the total payload of the aircraft as it is fully equipped 
and on its way for a profile 1 mission. Once the aircraft is emptied of the firefighting 
water and other supplies that’s to be offloaded once it’s landed, 6,800 pounds will 
remain in the aircraft awaiting additional weight for passengers in need of evacuation. 
1400 miles is the maximum range of my aircraft. The aircraft will also fly for no longer 
than 7.5 hours at a time. The cruising speed is 380 miles per hour.  
 
The life span of my aircraft will have an estimated lifespan of 25 years. The final cost 
for the design is estimated at 75 million dollars and maintenance is approximated at 
1.75-2.25 million a year. The cost of humanitarian aid is inevitably high with such an 
ambitious design, however, the return on an investment like this is priceless, being that 
human life is preserved. The monetary return (PV) will be between 5.75-6.25 million a 
year with an ROI of 13.333 million over the aircrafts full life span of 25 years.  

The automated design I’ve incorporated in my aircraft a PIR sensor which will be 
monitoring for infrared light radiated from wildfires. This will be helpful in alerting 
crewmembers on board of my aircraft when and where forest fires are. My code has 
two major decisions, an “if, else” decision. If the PIR sensor is senses infrared light then 
the LED will be actuated, alerting the crewmembers. If infrared light isn’t detected, then 
the LED will not be actuated. What are the boundaries or parameters necessary to 
cause your different reactions? My sensor reacts reacts be actuating an LED light. 
 
 
I’ve had two trade-offs from the engineering process I’ve used for this design. Both of 
these trade-offs were a result of underestimating the weight of the material used to 
build the aircraft. First trade-off was when I had to decrease my maximum payload to 
12,000 pounds instead of 37,216 pounds. Second tradeoff was decreasing my 
wing-span by 10 meters and utilizing aluminum to use less weight. I had to be cautious 
in how I added or subtracted weight in the aircrafts final design. By choosing two 
lighter-weight options, I was able to get a lighter operational aircraft weight of 84,000 
pounds which enabled my missions to be realistic as far as lift and drag were 
concerned. These trade-offs were a necessity and were made in the best interest of the 
stakeholders and customers. 
 
Subsystem description:  
 
Reference 1 is a rough sketch of my aircraft. The wing-span is 50 meters and the length 
is 45.11 meters. I have 4 turbine engines total; 2 on each wing. With the cockpit 
windows counting as 1, the aircraft has 9 windows total 3 entrances; one large entrance 
in the farthest back for either passengers or cargo, one entrance forward of the port 
elevators for passengers and one entrance for crewmembers port-aft of the flight 
station. The firefighting hose is part of the plane’s exterior aft of the crew entrance door. 
My trade offs were based on takeoff weight. I was able to get a lighter operational 
aircraft weight of 84,000 pounds which enabled my missions to be realistic as far as lift 
and drag were concerned.  
Profile 1​: 80 plane seats for passengers, 20 child car seats, a cable pulley system for 
loading and off-loading payloads into and out of the aircraft, 10 gallons of fire retardent, 
3000 gallons of groundwater for ground or aerial firefighting purposes, a water pump, 
an aerial water bucket, an EEG monitor machine, 10 5 gallon drinking water jugs, 3 
food/water bundle pallets, 50 Emergency Preparedness Kits, 10 first aid kits, 10 rescue 
blanket packs, 10 emergency relief tents, 20 portable emergency oxygen mask and 
tanks and 10 evacuation stretchers are what will always be in the aircraft before a 
profile 1 mission. Once the water has been depleted for the use of aerial and ground 
firefighting, everything with the exception of the 10 gallons of fire retardent, 80 adult 
passenger seats, 20 small child car seats, cable pulley system, water pump and water 
bucket will be offloaded in the secure location the plane has landed, leaving space for 
up to 80 adult passengers and 20 small children. 37,216 pounds is the total payload of 
the aircraft as it is fully equipped and on its way for a profile 1 mission. Once the aircraft 
is emptied of the firefighting water and other supplies that’s to be offloaded once it’s 
landed, 8,291 pounds will remain in the aircraft awaiting additional weight for 
passengers in need of evacuation. Attached below is a chart with the quantity, weight 
and dimensions of the payload for profile 1. I tried to attach this as an active link or a 
file but was unsuccessful so uploading it as an image was the only way I could include 
it. 
 
Attachment 1: Profile 1 payload chart 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Profile 2​: 80 adult passenger seats, 20 small child car seats, 10 gallons of water 
retardant, a cable pulley system, water pump, water bucket, 10 first aid kits, 10 5 gallon 
water jugs, 10 rescue blanket packs and 10 evacuation stretchers will be included on 
this profile. 8,836 pounds would be the total payload of this profile before you factor in 
how many children or adults board. Attached below is a chart containing the details of 
the payload. The below attachment, attachment 2, is a chart containing the estimated 
total weight and dimensions of the payload. Again, I tried to attach this as an active link 
or a file but was unsuccessful so uploading it as an image was the only way I could 
include it. I apologize for the inconvenience. 
 
Attachment 2: Profile 2 payload chart 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Profile 3: T
​ his profile is similar to profile 1, however, no firefighting will be used on this 
profile so no groundwater, water pumps or aerial water buckets will be used. Instead, 
only the aids included in profile one will be included for the purpose of dropping off an 
aiding payload and picking up passengers for evacuation. 80 plane seats for 
passengers, 20 child car seats, a cable pulley system for loading and off-loading 
payloads into and out of the aircraft, 10 gallons of fire retardent, an EEG monitor 
machine, 10 5 gallon drinking water jugs, 3 food/water bundle pallets, 50 Emergency 
Preparedness Kits, 10 first aid kits, 10 rescue blanket packs, 10 emergency relief tents, 
20 portable emergency oxygen mask and tanks and 10 evacuation stretchers are what 
will be in the aircraft for this profile, totalling to 12,805 pounds before you factor in how 
many adults and children board. The below attachment, attachment 3, is a chart 
containing the estimated total weight and dimensions of the payload. 
 
Attachment 3: Profile 3 payload chart 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Profile 1 Drawing 

 
Profile 2 Drawing 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Profile 3 drawing: 

 
 
Human factors were taken into consideration during the design of the aircraft interior. 
The crew entrance door in the front was designed for the crew while the cargo door 
compartment was designed for the majority of the passengers.  
 
Airfoil 1: Aluminum
Airfoil 1 stands out from the other 2 airfoils because its’ thickness is higher, measuring at 0.3. The span is
60 meters because my aircraft is cargo based and will need to produce more lift as a result of the higher
than average weight of the aircraft. The chord is also the highest as well, measuring in at 2.5 meters. The
camber and angle of attack are relatively average compared to the other airfoil designs with camber
measuring at 0.5 and angle of attack measuring at 3.
Airfoil 2: Fiberglass
Airfoil 2 is very similar to airfoil 1 except some measurements are slightly less. Measuring at 0.2, the
thickness seems to be in the middle of the pack. The span is also 60 meters again because of my high
aircraft weight. The chord is measuring in at 2 meters. The camber is slightly larger than the previous
airfoil designs with camber measuring at 0.6. Angle of attack is also slightly larger than the previous,
measuring in at 5.
Airfoil 3: Steel
Airfoil 3 is the smallest of the 3 airfoils presented. This may seem like a negative feature for a heavy
cargo based aircraft, but this means I can use heavier and stronger material. The span is the smallest at
50 meters. The chord is also the smallest of the three at 1.5 meters. The camber is on par with the other
designs at 0.05 as well as the angle of attack; 3. The thickness is the same at airfoil 2, coming in at 0.2.
 
 

<----- Airfoil 3 was chosen  

 

 
Above is the spar design for airfoil design 3. The operating weight of the aircraft has 
changed as a result of the airfoils inability to withstand the weight of the original weight. 
The first two airfoil designs were not chosen despite passing the initial spar design test 
because of the wings large weight.  
 
Description of Automated Feature:​My circuit has a PIR sensor which will be monitoring 
for infrared light radiated from wildfires. This will be helpful in alerting crewmembers on 
board of my aircraft when and where forest fires are. My code has two major decisions, 
an “if, else” decision. If the PIR sensor is senses infrared light then the LED will be 
actuated, alerting the crewmembers. If infrared light isn’t detected, then the LED will not 
be actuated. What are the boundaries or parameters necessary to cause your different 
reactions? My sensor reacts reacts be actuating an LED light. The stakeholders will 
benefit from a more effective design, which this automation is.  
 
Use case diagram: 

 
Aircrew, passengers, maintenance and fire are all users in my use case diagram. 
Aircrew must treat wildfire, transport passengers, fly plane safely and remain safe in 
flight. With aircrew treating wildfires, the thermal heat sensor and water are extended. 
For transporting passengers and flying the plane safely, seats are included. Safety 
mechanisms are also included with aircrew flying the plane safely. Passengers will 
remain safe in flight. Maintenance will inspect the plane and repair as needed. Fire just 
exists. The user of the automated sensor is the aircrew. 
 
 
Sequence diagram: 

 
 
Whether or not heat is detected by the thermal or infrared sensor has no effect on the 
sequence of which the thermal or infrared readings are transferred to and displayed on 
the LCD sensor. The most viable form of automation should be when installation of a 
newly acquired automatic device is a vast majority of the effort used to get the desired 
output of the device. Other than simply turning on the LCD sensor, or looking at an 
already actuated LCD sensor, the user only reaps the desired outcome of the device. 
Once the LCD display is turned on, a real-time and continuous display of the infrared 
readings are available to the user. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Activity diagram: 
 
  
 
This activity diagram is simple. If the LCD sensor doesn’t turn on then it must be 
repaired by maintenance. If the LCD sensor powers on successfully but doesn’t display 
the infrared readings then it must be repaired by maintenance. If the LCD sensor 
successfully powers on and the infrared readings are displayed on the LCD sensor, then 
no further action is required. 
 
Description of Automated Feature:
My circuit has a PIR sensor which will be monitoring for infrared light radiated from 
wildfires. This will be helpful in alerting crewmembers on board of my aircraft when and 
where forest fires are. My code has two major decisions, an “if, else” decision. If the PIR 
sensor is senses infrared light then the LED will be actuated, alerting the crewmembers. 
If infrared light isn’t detected, then the LED will not be actuated. What are the 
boundaries or parameters necessary to cause your different reactions? My sensor 
reacts reacts be actuating an LED light. 
 
Circuit Diagram: 

 
To someone (like me) who doesn’t know much about coding or electrical engineering 
yet, this diagram looks like alot is going on when in actuality, there’s only one input and 
two possible outputs. The PIR sensor on the top right will detect infrared light and 
actuate the LED light as a result. If the PIR sensor doesn’t detect infrared light, then the 
LED is not actuated. I received help from instructibles.com with figuring out how to build 
and code this assembly. 
Arduino Code​: 

 
The void setup in this code enables the outputs from the PIR sensor inputed in pinmode 
2 to be used in the loop. Pinmode 13 is the designs output which is the LED sensor that 
actuates depending on whether or not infrared is detected by the PIR sensor. The void 
loop is an “If, else” decision. In block 17 and 18, if digitalread (Pinmode 2) sensor state 
is HIGH, then pinmode 13= HIGH. In block 19 and 20, the intended “If, else” decision is if 
no input from digitalread 2 is present, then pinmode 13=LOW. 
I feel as though my original vision for this sensor was not met with my attempt at 
modeling it. First, I did not implement an LCD that would be able to display an image of 
the infrared light detected by my PIR sensor. I only had an LED to be able to display any 
reaction to the inputs received from the PIR sensor. Second, my code actually failed 
when I ran my simulation which is a hurdle I didn’t overcome before the submission of 
this memo. However, I can say that I was still mostly happy with the knowledge I gained 
about the arduino as well as the other components I experimented with. My original 
design idea was still mostly met with the PIR sensor being able to sense infrared light 
and then inputting that data in my design to actuate a light; at least there was still an 
indication to the crew that infrared light was present or near. I realized that this design 
is very delicate. Some slight changes to the input sensors can completely void the 
viability of a design. I had many obstacles in learning this new design tool. At first I 
could hardly actuate an LED, but the more I experimented and read online, the more my 
initial design idea came to life. This was challenging but I’m glad I could learn as much 
as I did. I will definitely be using this in the future. 
 
The entirety of this process has been trial and error. The original design requirements 
have not been satisfied because they were too ambitious and otherwise unrealistic. If I 
were to design a new airplane, or anything at all, I would be much more cautious and 
realistic with the goals I set forth. Out of my design requirements, only 5 out of ten are 
realistic and can be reasonably met with my current design. The other 5 requirements 
are either not present, tested or even remotely realistic the more I learned from this 
design process. 100,000 pounds of cargo was a pipe dream in comparison to my 12000 
pounds I ended up with. Testing my wing designs and reworking the weight of the 
aircraft and airfoils accordingly was a major test factor in this process.  
 
The final airplane design did not turn out how I initially planned. The design process has 
guided my design to be more realistic as far as payload, size and lift/drag were 
concerned. The final design that I’ve ended up with is far beyond anything I could’ve 
made without proper guidance. The amount of things I’d still have to change before I 
could have a comprehensive aircraft design seem inconceivably high, however, the 
design process would be right by my side if I were to seriously attempt designing my 
own aircraft.  
 
The final design actually solves the problem of forest fires, but only aids in the 
prevention of harm to people as a result of earthquakes or zombies. This aircraft is still 
a viable cargo and passenger aircraft despite not being able to carry 100000 pounds in 
its payload.  
 
There are actually so many things I wish I had more time in this course to improve about 
my design. The wings, payload and size of my aircraft need to be more universal to each 
other. Almost every aspect of this assignment would be different if I had known what I 
know now about aircraft weight, wing span, automation and size. All of these things I’ve 
learned were a result of trial and error and I learned a lot of knowledge from a lot of 
error.   
 
I learned there’s always more to know about something before you start your design 
process. I’ve learned how quickly and how much a vision for a design can change from 
further insight acquired through the design process. There’s so much room for 
improvement on a design when you can allow the design process to mold and shape 
the design idea.  
 
 
 
 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/world/europe/27iht-letter27.html

https://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/where-we-work/europe/italian-red-cross/

https://www.epactnetwork.com/corp/blog/geographical-breakdown-natural-disasters-eur
ope/

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/01/21/Rescue-efforts-yield-survivors-
days-after-Italy-hotel-avalanche/8181485025793/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/world/europe/italy-avalanche-rescue-hotel.html