Introduction

The MAE2 Klein Flugtag consists of two competitions. The first

competition requires design and construction of an aerial
vehicle that is intended to maximize vertical flight distance
(altitude). The second competition requires an aerial vehicle to
maximize horizontal flight distance (range). Vehicles in both
competitions are propelled by compressed air that is stored in a
portable tank. Pressure in the air tank is kept at approximately
sixty pounds per square inch, but this pressure may vary as each
competition progresses.

Vertical flight.
The Klein Flugtag competition hosted by Professor anderson
consisted of two different types of criterias. The first
competititon required the designing and construction of an
aerial vehicle that will fly at a maximized vertical flight
distance (altitude). The second competition required the
designing and construction of an aerial vehicle that will fly at
a maximized horizontal flight distance (range). The contraption
that launches the vehicle is compressed air through a series of
pvc pipes that branch off into two launch pads. Pressure in the
air tank varied from 60 to 90 and the tank was constantly
refilled. The pressure within each individual vehicle was also
separated by the amount of friction on the opposing vehicles
lunch platform and aerial vehicle.

The Daniel Double Vertical Flight (DDVF) vehicle is shown in

Figure 1. The vehicle is meant to be a similar design to a full-
scale rocket, with the key aspects such as fuselage body and
tail fin assembly. The fuselage body is constructed from
computer paper wrapped around it’s horizontal orientation. The
paper was overlapped in order to increase the strength of the
structure. The vertical flight vehicle had a fuselage diameter
of 2.1 cm. It fit tightly on the PVC pipe we used to construct
the vehicle itself, but fit snuggly without too much friction on
the actual competition’s PVC pipe(which proved crucial later on
during the actual competition).
We decided the fuselage length to be 19.5 cm. This length
resulted in a fuselage body fineness ratio of about ten. This
fineness ratio resuted in the profile drag coefficient of about
0.08. The drag coefficient value could be lowered with a shorter
fuselage length, but that would have resulted in a reduced boost
velocity. We conducted several test trials with hypothesize
fuselage lengths and chose the best performing vehicle fuselage
length. Too long of a fuselage length would have resulted in the
vehicle being too heavy and having too high of a drag
coefficient. We figured the launcher wouldn’t launch the
vehicles under intense pressure, so we chose the smaller of the
fuselage lengths to be on the safer side. A styrofoam cone
shaped by shaving a block of styrofoam was mounted to the top of
our vehicle to provide an airtight seal on the tip of our
fuselage. We attached the cone with hot glue to ensure the
airtight seal. The vertical flight vehicle was equipped with
four identical tail fins that were aligned parallel to the four
quadrants of the fuselage. These fins ensured that the vehicle
had substantial static longitudinal and directional stability.
Several sizes of tail fins were hypothesized and tested. We
found that a tail fin with a surface area of 7cm^2 proved to be
most optimal. The fins provided enough stability but weren’t too
heavy to throw off the balance of the vehicle. The fins were
constructed from thin foam boards, attached with double sided
frame tape and reinforced with hot glue.
As more and more weight was added to the vehicle, the boost
velocity was decreasing due tot he inverse proportion of the
boost velocity and the square root of the vehicle’s mass. Due to
this, we tried to maintain a minimal mass to the vehicle without
sacrificing structure and stability. The final mass of the
vertical flight vehicle was 8 grams.
The ballistic coefficient of the vertical flight vehicle is
estimated at about 35 kg/m^2. It was explained that the higher
ballistic coefficient leads to greater altitude in relation to
the boost velocity.
We test flied this vehicle with several differing sizes of tail
fins and fuselage length. We considered attaching the tail fins
at a slight angle in order to induce a spiraling flight pattern
similar to those found in foam footballs. We found that this is
unnecessary as long as enough care was put into aligning the
tail fins perfectly with the rocket. The misalignment would
rather introduce more drag than to help our vehicle. We didn’t
have to worry about excessive wind or other inhibiting factors
when creating our plane, so the misaligned tail fins were
unnecessary.
Lessons Learned
Our verticle flight and horizontal flight vehicles performed
according to our predictions and test flights. The vertical
flight vehicle was eliminated in the second round with 32
vehicles remaining. The vehicle that we lost to seemed to be
lighter than our vehicle. We could have replaced the material of
our tail fins with something that has less width and less mass.
Also, many rockets had smaller fuselages, which made the vehicle
considerably lighter. Other vehicles that had long fuselages had
a difficult time lifting off the launch platform and gaining any
considerable altitude. Many of the better performing vehicles
also seemed to have a much thinner and lighter materials for the
main frame/fuselage. Next time, we may consider sacrificing some
structural support for a lighter vehicle and ultimately better
performance.
Our horizontal flight vehicle lasted until the third round when
16 competitors remained. Many planes were eliminated early on
because they failed to launch from the platform itself. When
this occurred, due to the prevention of pressure to distribute
evenly among the two launch platforms, the vehicle with the
lower coefficient of friction gained an additional boost. We
discovered that it is crucial to make sure that the fuselage
doesn’t fit too tightly over the launching platform. The static
stability of our vehicle was optimal. It flew straight, but were
outflown by vehicles with larger wing span and area due to the
increased lift. Several planes performed greatly in gliding
distance, but due to the lack of trim and static stability,
would often fly around in circles, and sometimes even loops.
Also, many competitors decided to compete with a design that
resembled closely to the vertical flight vehicle rather than a
plane meant for lift and gliding. These competitors often
outflew many of the designs that seemed optimal for gliding.
This was due to the small scale of the vehicle and the minimal
thrust provided by the non continuous thrust of compressed air.
This showed that drag and weight were two of the greatest
factors in this small scale experimentation.