Evel Knievel Project

Transcription

1 Evel Knievel Project Team 2 Kevin Tu kevin2@yorku.ca Gunbir Singh gunbir@yorku.ca Anthony Calce calce@yorku.ca Abdullah Merei amerei@yorku.ca Damir Gumerov damirg@yorku.ca ENG2000 Professor Eshrat Arjomandi Room 2043 CSEB March 6, 2007

2 Table of Contents Page 1 Needs Assessment 1.1 Abstract 1 2 Problem Formulation 2.1 Introduction/Goals Aspects Priorities Resources 2 3 Abstraction and synthesis 3.1 Approaches Invalid Approaches 4 4 Analysis 4.1 Preliminary Analysis Comparison between Plausible Solutions Calculations and Analysis 6 5 Implementation 5.1 Initial Water Pressure Car Final Water Pressure Car Safety Issues Risk Management Preliminary Testing True Testing/Demonstrations 14 6 Time Management 6.1 Project Timeline Time Management 16 7 Conclusion 17 Appendix A Gantt Chart 18 References 21

3 1 Needs Assessment 1.1 Abstract The purpose of this project is to design a land vehicle that is able to travel up a ramp and become airborne at the end of the ramp. While designing this land vehicle to meet the requirements given by the customer, Team 2 will execute the project design cycle learned in ENG1000 and currently in ENG2000 to maximize efficiency and minimize risk of failure to deliver a functional and successful land vehicle. To maximize efficiency, Team 2 will strive to design a vehicle that is easy to use, lightweight for a high force-to-mass ratio, and a structure that minimizes air drag. Minimizing risk of failure includes designing a stable structure that can withstand the force applied without breaking, and examining all aspects of the car from start to finish ensuring a vehicle that is reusable. 2 Problem Formulation 2.1 Introduction/Goals The land vehicle must be a unique design which does not use any commercial batteries to power its movement. This requires brainstorming of alternative ideas to induce enough kinetic energy to move the land vehicle from a stopped position. The vehicle also requires enough force to propel it up a 1.83 meter long ramp inclined at approximately 15 degrees where it will need to maintain enough velocity to become airborne at the end of the ramp to travel at least 5 meters and land on target. The target will be a one meter square which will contain a 30 centimeter diameter green zone in the centre. The mission is considered successful if the vehicle lands on target. If successful, the target will move 2 meters further every time to become 7 meters, 9 meters, 11 meters and so on. There are also different degrees of success. Bonus points will be awarded if it lands in the green zone. 2.2 Aspects Knowing that the vehicle must land on target, the method of inducing kinetic energy should be one which is controllable to be able to manipulate the amount of force used to deploy the vehicle, therefore controlling the airtime and distance that the vehicle travels after leaving the ramp. The hardest obstacle in the design is finding a way to control the amount of force applied in order to land on target. To proceed in the design of a new land vehicle that meets the specified requirements, basic knowledge of physics is essential in calculating and predicting movement. To maximize the efficiency of the vehicle, the physical design is important to minimize air drag when 1

4 airborne and reduce friction when on land. The design of the vehicle must also take into consideration the size of the ramp (40 centimeters wide inclined at 15 degrees). Therefore, the width of the car from tire to tire cannot exceed 40 centimeters. While doing risk management, one needs to take into consideration the chance the vehicle does not travel directly in the middle of the ramp hence the need to allow room for error in the control of the vehicle. 2.3 Priorities For the vehicle to be considered a success, it must be able to travel up a ramp and become airborne at the end of the ramp; so the first priority is to ensure that the land vehicle has enough kinetic energy to make it all the way up the ramp and take off. Traveling further than the 1.83 meter long ramp is the first priority and the most essential. Once the vehicle can continuously take off from the ramp, the group can focus on creating more and more force to drive the vehicle further and further. When the vehicle is able to launch off and travel 5 meters from the ramp, designing a method to control where the vehicle lands will be the final step. 2.4 Resources/Budget Budget 5x 1L bottle: $5.00 Copper pipes/valve: $10.00 Pressure Gauge: $4.00 Bicycle pump: common tool Tape: $2.00 Water: free Wheels: free from old toy car Wood: $1.00 PVC: $2 Bicycle tire valve: free from old bike. This gives a current running total of $ group members $25 budget Due March 27th, Abstraction and Synthesis 3.1 Approaches Hydraulic pressure car The car would be remotely controlled by transmitting a force through a confined fluid. Because hydraulics can transmit high forces rapidly and accurately along lightweight pipes of any size, shape and length, this is a possible solution to creating enough force to 2

5 propel the vehicle off a ramp. The basic principle behind a hydraulic system is that pressure applied anywhere to a body of fluid causes a force to be transmitted equally in all directions, with the force acting at right angles to any surface in contact with the fluid. This method requires high air pressure. Air pressure car The idea is to pump air into a corked bottle on the land vehicle and when the pressure is too much for the container, the bottle will fly off propelling the vehicle. This is the simpler version of the hydraulic pressure car (water pressure) without the water. Mousetrap car The energy to propel the vehicle will come from a mousetrap using its spring to drive the wheels of a vehicle by connecting strings from the jaws of the mousetrap to the wheels. The mousetrap will be set and when it is released, it will pull the taught strings which will rotate the wheels and move the vehicle. 3

6 Solar powered car Solar arrays mounted on the vehicle will convert the sun s energy to electricity to power a motor via wires connected from solar cells to the dc motor. Helium balloon car A helium balloon car was another alternative. A very light land vehicle will have a helium balloon strung around it and the vehicle will be propelled by something simple like a mousetrap. The idea is that the vehicle will travel up the ramp and when it reaches the end, the helium balloon will support the weight and the car will glide down slowly onto the target. Firecracker car A firecracker at the end of the car will be ignited to propel the car forward. Chemical reaction Mentos & Coca Cola in a bottle. Adding Mentos candy into the coke bottle will induce a reaction that produces an enormous amount of force. 3.2 Invalid Approaches The chemical reaction of Mentos and Coca Cola is easily considered an invalid approach because of its instability. Although the amount of cola can be controlled, the force, and the direction of propulsion cannot be controlled. Not knowing and not being able to control the direction of movement is a serious risk to all people involved in launching and the bystanders as well. As engineers, public safety is paramount. The helium balloon may work theoretically but that would require a super lightweight vehicle that has its own propulsion mechanism. It was decided 4

7 that even a mousetrap on the vehicle would make the vehicle too heavy for the helium balloon to hold it in the air and gravity would push the vehicle straight down after it gets off the ramp. Also, there was the problem that if the vehicle was too light, the helium balloon would just lift the car up in the air and not come down. 4 Analysis 4.1 Preliminary Analysis Given the specifications of the ramp, the first idea was to choose a design that implements a lightweight vehicle and also one that can minimize the width of the vehicle so that it can travel up the 40 cm wide ramp without falling off before reaching the end of the ramp. The problem with a small and lightweight design is that with the amount of force required to propel the vehicle up a ramp and fly five meters, the vehicle would go out of control at takeoff. The key is to have a good balance of weight distribution and force to create a stable car. 4.2 Comparison between Plausible Solutions The hydraulic and air pressure cars follow similar concepts and with the right implementation, these two methods could work amazingly well. These techniques provide a way to control the amount of pressure supplied via air or water which will control the speed of the vehicle. The pressurized method is ideal because it is the simplest way to generate enough force to propel the vehicle up a ramp and land at a fair distance away from the ramp. This method is the best in the aspect of generating a good amount of force, without endangering anyone in the process. The mousetrap car is a simplistic idea that is the easiest to implement because of the many mousetrap car tutorials that can be found online. It has been done repeatedly in the past so it has a history of working well. Unfortunately, it only works well in creating enough force to move a vehicle while on flat land. It does not perform as well when it travels along an inclined ramp. It was assumed that the mousetrap design could not generate enough force to make the vehicle accelerate fast enough to become airborne at the end of the ramp. This is due to the small design of mousetraps and its limited distance from open to close. An alternative was to extend the middle piece of the jaw with a metal piece like a clothes hanger and have the string tied at the end to lengthen the radius of the contraption. The distance traveled can be controlled by the length of string or the length of the extended metal piece in the middle of the jaw. With the mousetrap car came the rattrap which is much larger. The rattrap works the same way as the mousetrap but again, it was not believed that it can generate enough force to match what is needed for this project. 5

8 The solar powered car is the most innovative. It incorporates cutting edge technology using solar cells to harness the sun s rays to convert it into electricity to power a motor that would turn the wheels and make the vehicle run. One of the problems with this idea was the $25 budget which would have covered a pack of solar cells and some glue for the car base. Another problem was that for $25, the solar array would have been a small pack that may not be able to produce enough electricity to power a motor to the rpm required to travel up and off the ramp. With solar arrays, we would have no way of controlling the amount of power it generates unless we control the time of illumination. The key comparison factors were the amount of force generated and being able to control the vehicle to a certain extent. In this case, controlling the vehicle refers to controlling the speed of the vehicle and how far it can travel. Taking these factors into consideration, the pressure methods are favored because they can generate more force. Although pressure methods are less accurate to control than a mousetrap or solar cell car, the tradeoff is not extremely significant which makes the pressure car the clear choice. 4.3 Calculations and Analysis The ramp was 1.83 m long, m high, inclined at an angle of 15 with the horizontal. A 2-D diagram has been drawn below: x sin15 = 1.83 x 15 x = 1.83sin15 x = 0.474m We could have assumed that the pressure in the bottle remains constant while there is loss of water until the car reaches the end of the ramp in which there is a burst of pressure and the pressure inside the bottle is equal to the atmospheric pressure. A graph of pressure versus time has been drawn below: 6

9 Where t represents the time it takes for the car to reach the top of the ramp. We measured t 0.2 sec. We decided not to take this approach because treating the pressure as constant would greatly skew the results of our calculations. Our car s mass was 800 g without water. One-third of the bottle was filled with water. This gave us a total mass of 1.4 kg. Now, we pump air into the bottle using a hand pump and note down the pressure. We pressurize the bottle until 80 psi. When we launch the car, water is going to come out and the force generated by this water will propel the car in the opposite direction. 7

10 As water rushes out of the car, the air pressure inside will decreases. So, the pressure has been calculated inside the bottle for 5 time intervals using the gas laws (P 1 V 1 = P 2 V 2 ). We have assumed that every 0.04 second 100 grams of water flows out, it takes 0.2 seconds for the car to reach the top of the ramp and by the time the car reaches the top of the ramp no more water flows out of the car. (Density of water = 1gm / 1cm 3 ) Time (s) Pressure Pressure Mass of car Mass of Volume of (psi) (KPa) (kg) water (kg) air (L) For instance, at t=0 t = 0.04 sec Pressure = 80 psi Pressure =? Mass of car = 1.4 Kg Mass of car = 1.3 Kg Volume of air = 1.4 L Volume of air = 1.5 L The pressure at t=0.04 sec can be calculated using the gas laws as follows: P 1 V 1 = P 2 V 2 Therefore, P 2 = P 1 V 1 / V 2 = 80 * 1.4 / 1.5 = psi As the car moves up the ramp, force of gravity and force of friction will oppose the motion of the car. We have ignored the force of friction to keep the calculations as simple as possible. Free body diagram has been drawn below: 8

11 F represents the force that propels the car upward and N is the normal reaction. The net force acting on the car can be calculated using the pressure values from the table on the previous as we know that P = F / A, where A is the area of the bottle cap of diameter 1.0 inches. The net force will be F mg sinθ. The net force and hence the acceleration produced by that force has been calculated from t=0 to t=0.2 for A = 5.064e-4m 2 : Time (t) Pressure Net Force (N) Mass of car Acceleration Force (N) (KPa) (kg) (m/s 2 ) The average acceleration came out to be ( ) / 6 = m/s 2. The average acceleration was then used to calculate the velocity of the car at the top of the ramp using the following way: v = a avg * t = * 0.2 = 41.3 m/sec (We calculated it took 0.2 sec for the car to get to the top of the ramp) The slope of the ramp was 15. Therefore, the x and y components of the velocity came out to be: V x = v cos 15 = 39.9 m/s V y = v sin 15 = 10.7 m/s The time of flight of the car can be calculated using the equations of projectile motion. h = v y t ½ g t 2, where h = (height of the ramp) = t ½ * 9.8 * t 2 t = 2.2s x = V x * t = 39.9 * 2.20 = 87.7 m 9

12 Taking a look at the calculations, it was estimated that the car should travel 87.7 m after taking off from the ramp. The method looks amazing on paper, but putting it to practice is a lot more complicated. On the day of demonstration, the vehicle traveled approximately 4 meters, 83 meters short of the calculated distance. This drastic difference in distance can be explained by many factors. One factor can be the neglecting of friction in the calculations for simplicity. Since Team 2 used fairly big wheels, the surface area, as well as the material of the wheels could lower the amount of total force of the vehicle. Other factors include the assumptions of various values such as the rate of water flowing out of the bottle, and the time it takes the car to reach the end of the ramp. Another reason may be the rate of water flowing out because that ultimately determines the force and pressure which is what propels the car. Since the estimated distance traveled was 87.7m, one can assume that Team 2 underestimated the amount of water flowing out. Another big factor included the fact that the car traveled off the side of the ramp and not even reaching the top, thus taking a different route than calculated, yielding very unexpected results. 5 Implementation 5.1 Initial Water Pressure Car The water pressure method was chosen because it has been done many times in the past and shows great promise. The first prototype consisted of a 1L bottle, a cork, and a bicycle tire valve. The tire valve was drilled into the cork and the cork was put into the opening of the 1L bottle. The idea was to fill the bottle with water, cork the bottle and pump air into the bottle until the pressure was too much and the cork would release from the bottle forcing the bottle to be projected away. The bottle was mounted on balsa wood and taped down with electrical tape. This method gave fair results as the vehicle traveled 5 meters on flat land but it was insufficient considering the vehicle was required to up a ramp inclined at 15 degrees. The release was also unpredictable since we were just pumping until the cork flew out. So the next step was to design a way to create more force. To generate more force, Team two tried a method which uses three 1L bottles all connected using copper tubing. The three bottles were connected via different types of copper tubes which led to two outlets where the water will be released from, and one long tube where the team will pump the air in. Figure 1 is a sketch of the model of a 3 bottle system where 1 is the tire valve to pump the air into the bottles, 2 are the release holes where the plan was to have those two holes covered and we have a release mechanism to uncover the holes to propel the car, and 3 denotes the three 1L bottles. 10

13 Figure 1. 3x1L bottle water pressure system There were a few problems with this design which ultimately made the team scrap this idea. First, the copper tubing, along with three 1L bottles filled up 1/3 of the way made the vehicle very heavy. This tipped the vehicle to one side. Another problem was trying to design a proper release mechanism for the copper tubing exits at 2. The team had 2 copper caps for the holes, but there was no way to fasten them tight enough to hold in all the pressure when pumping air into the model. The caps flew off at very low pressures; less than 5 psi. The idea was to pressurize the bottles up to 70 psi, and when ready, release the caps at 2 which will then release all the pressure contained in the 3 bottles and propel the car forward. Theoretically, with three bottles the car would be able to hold more pressure and hence push the car further. The proposal of using PVC instead of copper for the tubes was brought forward. It was determined that the PVC parts are not as user friendly when it comes to different sizes where this model requires different sizes and shapes of tubing to connect three bottles to a main pathway. With this in mind, Team 2 was able to finalize the water pressure car design. 5.2 Final Water Pressure Car The final design is an enhancement of the first prototype of using one water bottle. It consists of using a 1L bottle to hold the water which will be pressurized using a normal bicycle pump which is capable of reaching at least 80 psi. The bottle has Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubing connected to the opening along with a bicycle tire valve connected to the end of the PVC tube to pump air into the bottle. The bottle ruptures at 90 psi so it will only be pressurized up to 80 psi. This 1L bottle is mounted on a car base made from balsa wood and the car uses wheels from a toy Hummer car. The length of the axle from wheel to wheel is 24 centimeters with the width of each wheel being 6 cm making the width of the total car 36 cm. Although the 36 cm width is dangerously close to the total width of the ramp, we felt that this makes the vehicle stable and with more surface area from the wheels, it is easier to land after taking off from the ramp. The 11

14 decision to use such big wheels came after seeing other designs of smaller cars flip over, crash, and break when it landed on the ground. With the big wheels, the car is able to land smoothly and continue traveling on the ground after it lands on its wheels as opposed to its back or sides as seen from other vehicles. Shown below is the final design of our vehicle (without the PVC fitting). The bottle sits on the car base (balsa wood) and it is held in place by plastic fasteners. The top of the bottle (the opening) is situated at the back of the car so that when the pressure is released, the car will shoot in the direction that the bottom of the bottle is pointing. The water bottle will be 1/3 filled with water and then air will be pumped in. This 1/3L of water was chosen from experimenting with different volumes in the bottle. It was seen that 1/3 gives the best results with respect to distance traveled. The PVC tubing has a pressure gauge attached in the middle to gauge the amount of air pumped in which will allow us to know when to stop pumping. A valve is also attached at the end of the tube where we can close off the tube so that when we have pressurized the bottle to the required psi, we close the valve and then disconnect the air pump from the bicycle tire valve. When the car is aligned and ready to be released, the valve will open be manually opened and the car will accelerate. This gives the model more control of when to release the car as opposed to the first prototype where the bottle was pressurized until the cork could not keep the pressure in and it released on its on. With the valve and the pressure gauge, we can pressurize the car fully, transport it to wherever needed, align it properly, and finally release when everything is ready. The only component of the vehicle that could not be fully controlled to Team 2 s content was the aerodynamic aspect. The sheer size of the vehicle made it hard to construct a base or a frame to cut down wind resistance. Also, this method of launching a vehicle depends solely on the amount of pressure pumped into the car which determines how far or how long the car is in air. Unfortunately, with this prototype, there was no obvious solution to the problem; there was no other mechanical way to determine how long the car stays in the air or how far it travels in the air. 12

15 The initial ideas were to create a relatively small and lightweight vehicle, but the final design turned out to be a relatively big vehicle to keep it stable. There is a major tradeoff between the amount of force generated and the weight of the vehicle. The lighter the car, the harder it is to stabilize it for launch which makes the car veer off in different directions and it tends to do flips while in the air. With the design of a bigger base and large wheels, the car does not lose control as much as a lighter model would. This final design is superior to the others because it has a pressure gauge, a stop valve to control when to release the vehicle, and a strong base that includes thick wheels that create stability in the vehicle. The stability of this design is one aspect that supersedes any other design in the class. As others just try to reach the target 5 meters away from the ramp, emphasis was not put on landing the car on its wheels. With our model, the weight distribution is evenly spread and the wide axles and wide tire surface area allow for the vehicle to have a high percentage of landing on its wheels. 5.3 Safety Issues While working with any type of compressed gas, safety issues must be addressed. Although the pressure in a 2L bottle can contain approximately 80 psi until it bursts (from our own experiments) safety precautions need to be taken to ensure that the bottle will not fly out of control and hit someone or break something within the vicinity. When pressurizing the car, bystanders will be kept a safe distance away in case of a mechanical failure. This will minimize the chance of someone getting injured in the event that the vehicle accidentally veers out of control. Safety goggles should be used by the operator who will be pumping the vehicle for personal safety reasons. As long as bystanders are more than 2 meters away from the vehicle, there should not be any serious, life threatening problems we should worry about. With respect to the physical design of the car, the base was made to not have any sharp corners to injure anyone in the event that a catastrophe would occur. The base was not much of a concern though, since the size of the water bottle is much larger than the base, and the head and tail of the bottle stick out past the base, therefore the bottle will be the first thing to hit something. Concerning the sides of the car, the wheels are wide and have a large surface area therefore it covers the edges of the wood base. Since the wheels are soft plastic, they do not pose a threat to anything. Overall, this car s body does not have any sharp edges or corners that users or bystanders need to be aware of. 5.4 Risk Management Since there are clear specifications for the project, there is no risk that the group members will stray off track. Everyone knows their role because the roles have been assigned by 13

16 the project manager. With specific specifications, every member knows the ultimate goal of the project and there are no cloudy spots that may confuse any of the five group members of Team 2. This allows for coherent working strategies and ideas. Even if there were some things that were unclear, the project manager was able to clarify any questions. Timing is a critical factor since the group has a deadline to meet. While keeping in mind risk management, creating a stringent project timeline keeps the group on track and keeps the design flowing. What the group wants to do is avoid the risk of the project not being completed on time because not delivering the finished product on the day given will result in grave consequences in the members final grades. It is the project manager s responsibility to ensure that the group adheres to the timeline. When brainstorming the possible designs of the vehicle, weather can be a factor. A wet surface results in less traction. Team 2 uses wheels from a Hummer toy car to mitigate this risk factor. 5.5 Preliminary Testing Using the final design discussed in 5.1, tests on flat land show that having the bottle filled approximately 1/3 full and pressurized up to 80 psi makes the vehicle travel more than 20 meters. The initial thrust of the water pressure accelerates the vehicle for the first 5 meters, and the momentum carries the car the rest of the way. The car is able to continue rolling because of its large wheels that have minimal friction with its axles. Ramp testing was not available to us, so we analyzed how straight the vehicle can travel when it is released. Surprisingly, the vehicle traveled straighter than expected. Out of 6 runs, the vehicle seemed to pull to the right 2 out of 6 times which was a concern. Trying to decipher the problem, we observed the surface that the vehicle was traveling on, the wind factor, and the wheels themselves. Since the wheels were from a toy car, the axles were not 100% stuck onto the base of the car, which means there was movement in the wheels. It was concluded that the wheels needed alignment, but any type of gluing would cause the axles to not spin so this problem could not be corrected with the current materials that we had. The only thing to do was to try to ensure that all four wheels were as perfectly aligned as possible before launch. 5.6 True Testing/Demonstrations April 5, 2007 was the date for demonstrations. For the first run, the 1L water bottle was filled approximately 1/3 full, pressurized up to 80 psi. It was released on the bottom of the ramp and it took off and veered slightly to the right. Because it went to the right, it could not take off from the ramp at the middle; hence, the car landed about 4 meters from the ramp, but also to the 14

17 right of the 1x1 meter target. The good thing was that it landed perfectly on its wheels and continued rolling along. By looking at the water left behind from the expulsion, we could see that the car took off from the ramp about 5 centimeters before the end of the ramp, and it took off on the right side of the ramp. For the second run, we tried to correct this by moving the start position 5 centimeters higher on the ramp. Unfortunately, the alignment was off in positioning the vehicle for a straight take off and the vehicle veered off the ramp a fair distance from the end of the ramp and flipped over. Videos of the demonstrations can be found by following these links: Test 1: Test 2: 6 Time Management 6.1 Project Timeline Below is a project timeline of what Team 2 did, and when. Gantt Charts can be found in Appendix A February 1, Preliminary design sketches of land vehicle. Discuss the materials to be used, dimensions of the vehicle. - With preliminary estimates of mass of vehicle, calculate the amount of force needed to move the vehicle from a stopped position. - Predict budget ($). - Keep track of time phase budget throughout project. February 6, Allocate the work breakdown. (Do the WBS). Assign members actual physical tasks for the creation of the vehicle. February 8, Collect all materials needed. - Do more calculations if needed. - Start building vehicle. February 15, Stress testing on what we have done so far. - Experiment with different weight classes. - Recalculate accordingly. March 6, Hand in Interim Report - Evidence of project planning, including logic and Gantt charts. - Predicted budget, including actual expenses to date. 15

18 - Results to date (calculations, experiments, etc.) - Background information needed to understand our design. - More detailed design plans use of design process from ENG Status of work relative to proposed milestones - Analysis and proposed resolution of problem encountered. March 8, First complete vehicle made ready for full stress testing with ramp conditions. - Re-calculate if needed. March 13, Re-model, retest, recalculate. March 20, Minor changes in design. - Use of PVC pipe fittings in certain areas. March 24, Vehicle made ready for testing with ramp conditions. - Measure distance travelled and perform other related calculations. March 26, Re-test and re-calculate. March 29, Presentation of designed land vehicle. - Break up final report write-up. March 30, Goal To have the vehicle fully functional according to client specifications and requirements. April 5, Demonstration of land vehicle. April 10, Hand in final report. 6.2 Time Management At the beginning, the group did not quite follow the timeline given in the first report handed in but with the lenient slack days in between the first and second report, team 2 was able to finish their first stress testing of the vehicle components. Although four days behind the scheduled stress test for February 15 th, stress testing on February 20 th still gave ample time to work on the interim report. After the interim report, due dates became more crucial and time could not be wasted. Frequent meets and discussions about the design and prototypes became more in 16

19 depth and productive. At the end, Team 2 was able to meet every milestone that they had set, and most importantly, Team 2 had a fully functional and successful vehicle made before the due date. 7 Conclusion Overall the group is fairly content with the performance of their land vehicle. Although it did not reach its required destination of 5 meters off the ramp, Team 2 prides themselves on the fact that their vehicle was the only one to stably land on its wheels and continue traveling onwards. The other vehicles either landed on its sides, backside, or it just broke apart when it landed on the ground. After launches, Team 2 s vehicle only needed to refuel on water and it was ready for launch again, as opposed to other group who needed to re-tweak their vehicles until they were able to go for a second run. Team 2 realized that their calculations were misleading but were able to correct the problems and make their own estimates through trial testing. Even though the car was big for the dimensions of the ramp, Team 2 stands behind its purpose of using such a big model in order to maintain stability. The problems that need to be addressed in the future are: the accuracy of the deployment, and generating more acceleration to get the vehicle to fly off the ramp and land at least 5 meters away. 17

20 Appendix A Gantt Chart 18

21 19

22 20

23 References Blanchard Paul, Robert L. Devaney, Glen R. Hall. Differential Equations 2 nd Ed. Pacific Grove, CA. Wadsworth Group, 2002 Voland G. Engineering by Design. Addison-Wesley Inc, California