MAE 151 Group 72 Final Design Report

1
Group 72: Analysis and Design Final Report
Prepared by:
Katie Leong
Daniella Lopez
Jesus Zepeda
Lute Chen
Andre Barkhodaee
Daniella Lopez (CAD &
Project Manager)
Jesus Zepeda
(Design &
Manufacturing)
Lute Chen
(Research &
Connections)
Katie Leong
(Documentation &
Tasks)
Winter 2015 MAE 151 Speedboat to Tugboat Design Challenge
Andre Barkhodaee
(Research &
Design)

2
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................2
1.0 Constraints and Specifications................................................................................................................3
2.0 Concept Generation................................................................................................................................5
Summary of Rough Concepts....................................................................................................................5
3.0 Down-selection Process..........................................................................................................................8
4.0 Design Choice..........................................................................................................................................8
BOTE Calculations ...................................................................................................................................10
5.0 Construction..........................................................................................................................................13
Electric Connections Schematic .............................................................................................................14
6.0 Testing and Redesign ............................................................................................................................15
Overall Results: .......................................................................................................................................16
7.0 Design Recommendations ....................................................................................................................17
8.0 Responsibilities and Contributions .......................................................................................................18
9.0 Operating Procedure.............................................................................................................................23
10.0 Appendices..........................................................................................................................................24
Video Link:...............................................................................................................................................24
Testing Matrices......................................................................................................................................24
Propeller Designs Testing & Speed Trials:...............................................................................................26
Weekly Tasks...........................................................................................................................................28
Component Drawings .............................................................................................................................30
List of Figures
Figure 1. Needs Table....................................................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Specifications Table Highest Importance = 5.................................................................................3
Figure 3. Needs Metric Matrix ......................................................................................................................4
Figure 4. Preliminary Brainstorming ............................................................................................................5
Figure 5. Preliminary Brainstorming ............................................................................................................8
Figure 6. Bill of Materials ............................................................................................................................13
Figure 7. Final Design Statistics..................................................................................................................16
Figure 8. Boat Chassis .................................................................................................................................16
Figure 9. Speedboat Configuration.............................................................................................................17
Figure 10. Tugboat Configuration...............................................................................................................17
Figure 11. New Prop for Tugboat Configuration.........................................................................................17

3
1.0 Constraints and Specifications
Our group decided that the customer for the interchangeable speedboat/tugboat would be the
same age group (14+) as specified on the box. The manufactured parts would have easy application and
not pose any additional safety concerns. As a part of the potential customer pool, we compiled our
opinions and asked for others’ input to establish our customer needs. Through our joint opinions and
research of Double-Horse Speedboat customer reviews, we found that the largest emphasis for
modifications was: better battery life, durability/lifespan, safety, and stability. Our needs specifications
and metrics are defined below.
Figure 1. Needs Table
*Highest Importance = 3
Metric
#
Needs
#
Metric Importance
level
Unit Estimate
1 1 Abide by Budget of $10 4 U.S $ 10
2 2,3 Resist Receiver Signal Errors 3
3 2,3,9 Rudder Turning Capacity 2 º 60
4 5,7
Resist Servo, Motor, and Battery
Overheating 3
ºC 27
5 5 Lower Voltage Losses (Battery Life) 3 V/min 1/30
6 9,10 Part Materials 4 GPa varies
7 2,4,5,8 Adjust Boat Weight and CG 3 g 340.19
8 5,7,9 Eliminate Water Leakage 5 Oz 1
9 5,8 Increase Thrust (Pulling Capacity) 5 N; g 2.826,
1.124
10 5,8 Lower Drag Force 4 N
11 5,8 No Corrosion 3 Defects
per unit
3
12 6,9,10 Resist Two-Phase Fluid Interaction 4
13 7,9 Easy Part Interchangeability 4
Figure 2. Specifications Table
Highest Importance = 5
# Need Importance
1 Cost 2
2 Stable 2
3 Maneuverable 1
4 Portable 1
5 Efficiency 3
7 Safety 3
8 Tugging Ability 3
9 Quality 2
10 Durability 2
6 Ease of Use 2

4
Figure 3. Needs Metric Matrix
Our goal was to have an interchangeable design from a speedboat to a tugboat by easily
switching some parts from the stock boat. The additional inexpensive parts made would increase the
speed of the stock boat and allow it to pull a heavier load. Key objectives include: increasing thrust by
removing two phase fluid that the propeller interacts with (allowing only water to be propelled and not
air), and reducing stall characteristics by increasing number of blades and slowing down initial thrust
force.
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
#
Need
1 Cost x
2 Stable x x x
3 Maneuverable x x
4 Portable x
5 Efficiency x x x x x x x
7 Safety x x x
8 Tugging Ability x x x x
9 Quality x x x x x
10 Durability x x
Metric
EasyPart
Interchangeability
VaryBoatWeightand
CenterofGravity
EliminateWaterLeakage
IncreaseThrust(Pulling
Capacity)
LowerDragForce
NoCorrosion
x
ResistTwo-PhaseFluid
Interaction
6
AbidebyBudget$10
ResistReceiverSignal
Errors
ReliableRudderTurning
capacity
ResistServo,Motor,and
BatteryOverheating
LowerVoltageLosses
(IncreaseBatteryLife)
StrongPartMaterial
Choices
Ease of Use

5
2.0 Concept Generation
When making design decisions, we first brainstormed different possibilities based upon
techniques and characteristics of current tugboats. We exercised a modified version of the 6-3-5
brainstorming technique in which each one of our group members generated 3 concepts for the tugboat
modification all within a 5 minute time span. We exercised this activity twice and noticed that a lot of
our member’s ideas overlapped and thus modified the 6-3-5 technique to a smaller 2-3-5 method. As a
result of this activity, we compiled a table with generalized brainstormed ideas (see Figure 4). Each
generalized idea was then scrutinized for its applicability and its effectiveness. The analysis was
conducted using the basic fundamentals like Bernoulli’s equation and Newton’s Laws of motion.
Figure 4. Preliminary Brainstorming
Summary of Rough Concepts
Design Concept 1: Two Propellers (Props) with Nozzles
1- Gear box attached to original motor shaft
2- Bevel gears attach original shaft to new
outer propeller shafts
3- Nozzle (dashed lines)
4- Gear to propeller shaft
5- Shaft between bevel gear and new
propeller shaft
Initial Design Brainstorm of Ideas:
Bigger Propeller
2 propellers of same size on a linkage to the copper rod
Reduce play in prop rod
Semi-submergible
Resistor/Fuse (to slow down motor)
Change CG to front
Gear on propeller
Movable mass
Gain changes
Water seal on top/component protection
Modify blade angle to lower the pitch and increase the blade area to have a higher thrust
Water weight/rejection (watertight compartment)
Remove Servo
Coolant lines along components that give off heat (using water from ext.)
Include linkage to lower elevation of propeller (maximum water contact)

6
The two-propeller configuration above will: 1) decrease RPM of the props, increasing torque
and reduce speed, 2) increase torque via nozzle, and 3) allow for bigger diameter prop
(increases the torque).
Design Concept 2: 4 Blades Decreased Pitch Propeller
A larger diameter prop will increase the mass flow rate and thus, thrust. Higher number of blades also
increases thrust by having more surface area in contact with the water. Pitch is defined as the number
signifying the linear motion per revolution. Decreased pitch would mean less travel per revolution and
as a result, decrease speed and increase thrust.
Design Concept 3: Semi- Submersible
1- Waterline
2- Lead weight in front of receiver
3- Lead weights on sides of boat

7
The semi-submersible design would allow for increased stability by decreasing the roll moment of the
boat and lowering the center of gravity. The pitching moment of the boat would decrease, optimizing
the thrust line under the loading environment. Lastly, the propeller would always be submersed in
water, eliminating the two-phase fluid interaction exhibited in the current speedboat. Interaction
exhibited in the current speedboat is broken down within the calculations section (pg. 11)
Design Concept 4: Converging Duct
1- Converging
duct
2- Linkage to
lower propeller
The center of gravity will be pushed forward to counter-act the pitching moment induced by the load by
the intake of water; this will help keep our thrust line parallel to the force being exerted onto the
attachment point. The converging duct will also accelerate the flow, which will reduce the thrust load on
the motor and reduce overheating. The propeller will also be shifted down via linkages which will allow
for a bigger diameter propeller used for increased thrust. This design could utilize water flow within the
inside of the existing boat that could also serve other purposes in modifications (possible engine cooling,
lowered center of gravity).
Design Concept 5: Two Phase Fluid Prevention Cover
1- Two phase prevention cover
This design proved to be the most feasible in preliminary down-selection for fulfilling our customer
needs-metric matrix. Although the semi-submersible aforementioned is perceived to eliminate the two
phase fluid interaction with the propeller, a cover overhanging on top of the propeller will ensure that
only the 1 phase fluid (water) interacts with the propeller and thus maximize thrust. The cover would
also act as a quarter nozzle to further accelerate the flow.

8
3.0 Down-selection Process
After research, testing, and analysis we decided to use a Pugh chart to see the positives and
negatives of our design possibilities more vividly. The modification idea that had the most positive
attributes would result in the highest positive number and would be ranked the highest. Anything lower
would be discarded and no longer considered in our design. In our case the 2-Phase interaction
preventative cover ranked the highest, but instead of discarding all other modifications, we decided to
also keep the 4-blade propeller to help when the boat was changed to a tugboat. Since most of the 4-
blade propellers attributes were neutral we did not think it would be bad idea to have both.
Figure 5. Preliminary Brainstorming
4.0 Design Choice
1 2 3 4 5
Main Factors: Semi-Submersible 4-Blade Propeller Horizontal Dual Propellers Converging Duct
2-Phase Interaction
Preventive Cover
Manufactuarability - + - + +
Cost - + + - +
Power/ Thrust + + + + +
Speed - - - 0 0
Weight (heavier) 0 0 + + +
Safety - + + + +
Battery - 0 - - 0
Drag - 0 0 + 0
Water damage - 0 0 - +
Total + 1 4 4 5 6
Total 0 1 4 2 1 3
Total - 7 1 3 3 0
Overall Total -6 3 1 2 6
Rank 5 2 4 3 1
Continue? No Yes No No Yes
Modification Ideas
Our design for the speedboat was to use
the stock boat propeller, but add on our
preventative cover to increase its speed.
Our design for the tugboat required us to
change the stock propeller to a four-blade
propeller and add the cover.

9
Below is a list of the modeled parts and their drawing number which references to all the part drawings
in the appendix (Component Drawings).
Drawing No. Part Name
7009-00 Servo Brace
7009-01 Frequency Receiver
7009-03 Motor
7009-04 Battery
7009-05 Top Cover
7009-06 Propeller-0
7009-07a Servo Body
7009-07b Servo Top
7009-10 Boat Hull
7009-11 Rudder with Brace
7009-12 Propeller Shaft
7009-15 Battery
7009-21 Rudder Support Shafts
7009-26 Motor Brace
7009-29 Shaft Holder
Modifications Part Name
7009-A Propeller-5
7009-B Prop Cover
Back of the envelope calculations were done on the design choices previously introduced. The
calculations are presented below.
Additional safety features were not required because of the established customer market comprised of
ages 14 and up. The customer should be able to alter and handle the boat without any problems,
assuming no misuse of the boat and its intended purpose. As for environmental issues, the boat is
mainly made up of plastics and reusable electronic components and is thus recyclable.

10
BOTE Calculations
Static Boat Thrust Test
Inclined Plane:
Thrust Test:
Ft = Force tension
Fn = Normal Force
f = friction
Fg = force gravity
M = mass
µ of mass M was calculated by inclining the table at one in and noting the displacement in y as soon as
mass began to overcome static friction and slide down inclined table.

11
FBD: Pressure Differential Propeller
𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 𝐹𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 𝐴(∆𝑃)
𝐹𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡
𝐴
= 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃0
*Force of thrust is related to the mass and acceleration of the fluid that crosses the propeller stream.
𝑚 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑎
𝐴
= 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃0
*Since M(air) is less than M(water) it is important to eliminate suction of air from the environment for
maximum thrust.
∆𝑃 =
1
2
𝜌(𝑉𝑒
2
− 𝑉0
2)
𝐹𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 =
1
2
𝜌 𝐴 (𝑉𝑒
2
− 𝑉0
2)
Bigger Diameter will increase the thrust. Thrust is also dependent on the density of the fluid; with the
cover on, air, which is 1000 times less dense than water, will not enter the upstream fluid that the
propeller does work on and thus increases the thrust.

12
Converging Duct
𝑚̇ = 𝜌𝑉𝐴
𝑚̇ 1 = 𝜌𝑉1 𝐴1 = 𝑚̇ 2 = 𝜌𝑉2 𝐴2
𝐴1 > 𝐴2 𝑠𝑜 𝑉2 > 𝑉1
The following YouTube link shows the air passing the propeller cross-section particularly during
maximum throttle. In order to maximize pulling force for tug applications, some sort of duct or cover
must be devised to prevent air from getting into the stream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryb-n4D5J_4&feature=youtu.be

13
5.0 Construction
Figure 6. Bill of Materials
*Chinese Wholesale values translated and values converted from tabao.com
Part Name Part # Source Qty. Price Estimate Chinese Wholesale
Double Horse K-Marine 7009 RC Boat Parts Receiver7009 -1 banggood 1 $10.96 $4.48
Antenna (screw-in metal) 7009 -2 shuangma 1 $5.00 $0.80
Motor 7009-03 7009-3 banggood 1 $8.00 $3.20
Battery Pack 7.2V 7009 -4 shuangma 1 $9.00 $4.00
K-Marine Top Cover 7009 -5 shuangma 1 $7.00 $1.28
Replacement Propellor 7009 -6 banggood 1 $2.74 $1.12
Servo 7009 -7 shuangma 1 $9.00 $4.00
Remote Controller 40mhz 7009 -8 shuangma 1 $13.00 $5.60
9V Battery (controller) 7009 -9 1 $3.00 $0.48
Boat Hull (full) 7009-10 alieexpress 1 $8.70 $2.88
Rudder 7009 -11 heli-parts 1 $2.50 $1.12
Drive-Shaft (Spindle) 7009 -12 heli-parts 1 $7.50 $2.40
Brass Lopper Tube 7009 -13 alieexpress 1 $3.85 $2.40
Boat Rack/Stand 7009 -14 alieexpress 1 $6.49 $0.80
Battery Holder 7009 -15 alieexpress 1 $5.60
Phillips Screw
7009 -16 McMasterCarr 17
316 Steel 1/4" # 2
Estimate:
$0.056/screw
Total: $0.95 $0.95
Phillips Screw, Small
7009 -17
1 Couldn't find, same
as above. Total:
$0.05 $0.05
Phillips Screw (long)
7009 -18
2 Couldn't find, same
as above. Total:
$0.11 $0.11
Locking Nut 7009 -19 1 N/A N/A
Rudder Steering Rod 7009 -20 1 N/A N/A
Rudder Support 7009 -21 2 N/A N/A
Rubber Grommet 7009 -22 1 N/A N/A
Rudder Brace 7009 -23 1 N/A N/A
Drive- Shaft Clamp 7009 -24 1 N/A N/A
Motor Clamp 7009 -25 1 N/A N/A
Antenna Support
7009 -26 1
Can replace with
straw
Can replace with
straw
Top Cover Latch 7009 -27 1 N/A N/A
$103.45 $35.67

14
Electric Connections Schematic

15
6.0 Testing and Redesign
Many tests were tried. The most
important tests were speed tests and
pulling load tests. During speed tests we
made sure to have a measured length of
water for the boat to run on and we timed
how long the boat took to finish. We tried
to keep it at full thrust every time. For the
load test we made a rectangular barge
with a hook close to the water line and
connected it to the boat using string that
would stay hooked with the latch. We
added weight to the barge progressively
to see how much it could pull. We then
fixed a load so we could test the boats
time it took to pull the load across a fixed
length.
Other tests we tried were a CG test with a
table and our own version of the static
test.
During our test, one person was usually in
charge of writing down all the data
possible while others were in charge of
steering the boat, charging battery and
the set-up of the test.

16
Overall Results:
Figure 7. Final Design Statistics
These are the main results of our final designs that can be compared to the original stock boat. Other
tests of variations of the boat can be referenced in the appendix (Testing Matrices). The final design cost
was $4.00 to manufacture the propeller and propeller cover.
After trying to build the converging duct, we realized that the construction of the converging duct would
not be effective because of the limitations presented by the interior components of the boat. The frame
and structural supports of the boat would need to be modified reducing the structural rigidity of the
overall hull (Figure 7). In addition, the boat would need to be re-sealed with silicon or some other sort of
water resistant that could develop other future failures. Even with the top red half of the hull removed
the internal components are tightly packed. Due to the lack of experience and tooling of high precision
machining, we eliminated this method and proceeded to move the center of gravity of the boat to
improve the thrust vector direction. After several load tests, we confirmed that our boat improved in
thrust slightly but would not count as a significant improvement that would justify the cost. We
continued to construct several variations of propellers with 3 and 4 blades with varying pitch. We found
that the 4 blade propeller with a pitch value of 10 increased the pulling load by 15% and did not cause
our motor to stall. We continued to try to improve our pulling load by adding a cover that would
eliminate the two phase fluid interaction with the propeller. This further increased our pulling load to an
overall 34% improvement from the stock boat.
Figure 8. Boat Chassis

17
7.0 Design Recommendations
Based on our tests, the two-phase prevention cover coupled with the new 4 blade propeller
with a 10cm pitch satisfied both our design goal and the customers need metric matrix. The
interchangeable propellers allow for a fast and user friendly boat that can transform from a
tugboat to a speedboat. As a tugboat, the new propeller and cover was able to increase our
max pulling load significantly whereas the cover on its own with the stock propeller (speedboat
configuration), slightly increased the speed of the boat. See figures below for models.
Figure 9. Speedboat Configuration
Figure 10. Tugboat Configuration
Figure 11. New Prop for Tugboat Configuration

18
8.0 Responsibilities and Contributions
Jesus
My immediate responsibility was manufacturing and design. Although my title gave me those
responsibilities, I helped my team members with their respective assigned responsibilities as
well. In terms of manufacturing, I was in charge of attaining all the tooling, materials and
constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing the boat. In terms of design, with the help of
my team’s brainstorming, I evaluated our designs and decided which general designs the team
should pursue.
Everyone on the team contributed in some way to the manufacturing of the boat. However, I
(along with Andre) provided all the tooling and materials for the redesign of the boat. Our initial
task was to deconstruct the boat to CAD every component of the stock boat; I was in charge of
the deconstruction. From there I photographed, weighed every component of the boat and
drew a rough schematic of the electronics as my team dimensioned the parts for computer
modeling purposes. Once the goal of the deconstruction was met, I reconstructed the boat and
ensured its functionality. I configured the boat for every design choice we deemed feasible.
To narrow down our design choices, I initially built a loading test table to experiment with
center of gravity change. I also did all the modeling for the propeller designs followed by their
3-D printing, post-3-D printing processing, mounting and testing. I researched gearing and
linkages for one of the design choices but concluded that the required manufactured parts
would exceed our budget and 3D printed parts (ie. Gears) would slip and gear meshing would
break the parts. Andre and I did all the BOTE calculations for various designs to further help
with the down selection process. I, along with Dani, did all the testing for every modification
made to the boat; followed by a redesign, remanufacturing and testing phase after each
iteration.
I helped with the reporting and documentation of my contributions for both the midterm and
final reports. I developed our logo and team name as well as the rough sketches of our designs
(by hand and computer). I conducted research on propellers, tugboat configuration, CG change
and fluid mechanics.

19
Daniella
My initial responsibility was to create a 3D model of the boat and all of its components using
SolidWorks. Any additional modifications made to the boat would also be modeled. Because I
would not be able to accurately dimension the boat until the time of decomposition, I helped
the group with other tasks in the meantime. I began with the group’s determination of Team
Ethics and Gantt chart so the group could give their opinion of how they wanted the team to
function. I made sure to read all the documents posted by Professor Dunn-Rankin to make sure
the team wasn’t doing extra work, going on a tangent, or not doing the necessary.
I would suggest meeting dates so that we could brainstorm as a group and discuss our findings
or test the boat. I attended every meeting and tried to keep it as productive as possible. When
we tested the boat I took photos and wrote down the data, making sure to take notes of our
observations for future reference. So that everyone could write their work down during our
meetings and individually, we created a weekly progress report spreadsheet that I would print
every morning with Jesus at CAMP.
When the week of decomposition was reached, I dimensioned the components of the boat, and
created the models on SolidWorks. I tried to keep them detailed with color and accurate. I also
created an assembly of the models. As Jesus mentioned, I helped with the modifications of the
boat and testing them to compare it to our old boat. We were able to use the student printers
here at UCI to create the modifications.
Lastly, I helped with the reporting and documentation of my contributions for both the
midterm and final reports. Parts of the midterm report that I did include: cover, customer
needs, matrix, definitions, specifications, model snapshots of the boat. Lute and Jesus helped
create the one-minute presentation slide. As for the final report, parts that I contributed to
include: design choice, construction, testing and redesign, and provided all CAD snapshots and
drawings in the appendix.

20
Katie
My job title description is documentation and task organization. As with everyone else,
the overall boat project was a group effort in which we contributed to each other’s work where
applicable.
My individual responsibilities were based around helping to determine tasks according
to each person’s role and expertise from personal background and project research.
Furthermore, with the help of Dani and Jesus, we organized the weekly memos. I was also in
charge of organization of our google drive folders and documents, tracking our initial testing
matrices, and editing, organization, and compilation of the midterm and final reports. In
addition to my job responsibilities I constructed our wooden testing barge for tugging tests that
we conducted in conjunction with determining design feasibility.
Contributions overall to group effort included: attending majority of group meetings,
conducting some research for possible use of a fuse and CG changes, organizing and adding to
group brainstorm of design ideas, testing of the stock boat and some design performances
(changing of weight and tugging capability), sketching the rough initial wiring schematic, and
helping with deconstruction and inventory (weighing and documenting parts).
Specific documentation contributions were:
Midterm documentation:
- Bill of Materials
- Gantt chart
- Cost Analysis
- Testing Matrices
- Decomposition
- Overall compilation and editing
Final Report:
- Overall Formatting
- Cover Page
- Needs Table
- Specifications Table / Write-up
- Needs-Metric Matrix edited
- Compilation/Edit of Rough Design Concepts
- Bill of Materials
- Contribution
- Edits to content
- Appendix Components

21
Lute
I am responsible for the electronic components. I analyzed the initial wiring diagram with other
members when we deconstructed and opened the Electrical Speed Controller/receiver box. I
finished the final electric diagram which is attached in the appendices. The electrical
component was hard to be modified since ESC was not connected with Arduino. However, I
further did the research on methods of increasing the torque of DC brush motor. The simplest
and way was to put a magnet around the motor to change its magnetic field therefore
increasing its RPM and torque. Nevertheless, the testing result showed that there was no
significant improvement. We end up not using the magnet.
I also took the advantage of being able to directly communicate with the manufacturers as a
mandarin speaker. Servo and motor specifications were acquired from them. Additionally, I did
the bill of materials research from Taobao.com to get a reasonable cost of each components of
the boat. It resulted in a significant cost drop compared to America wholesale website.
My main contributions included researching and drawing electrical parts, communicating with
the manufacturer, performing boat tests and analyzing the boat with other members, doing
initial power delivery calculation, researching on boat stability and drag.

22
Andre Barkhodaee
Throughout the ten-week engineering project my main task encompassed providing design
ideas and testing their performances. Most of which was done in close proximity of Jesus
Zepada. During the research gathering stage, I provided numerous modification alternatives
that were recorded and later presented to Vinicius for feedback. By disassembling the boat, I
gained a strong understanding of the boats overall construction and performance. This
knowledge benefited streamlining any brainstorming that the team or myself would record as a
possible modification. Then the down selection stage would occur after a thorough
understanding was attained researching and developing calculations to provide relevance and
results for the modifications.
After documenting the calculations of the modifications I recorded videos of the static loaded
boat in full throttle position. By slowing the speed of the video and freeze-framing it, I could
visually understand the phenomena occurring with the boat particularly the propulsion aspects.
This event led to my design theory of reducing the amount of air passage into the propeller
stream to fulfill a 1 phases (water) propulsion system.
Alongside the brainstorming of modifications, overall group activities would take place in which
all team members that were present provided help. Some of these activities included
measuring the boats velocity, load testing the stock boat in the Camino pool with water bottles,
and some other group tasks throughout the quarter. Also, some of the documentation for the
midterm power point and project binder was developed by all of us working together prior to
the due date. Other documents that I produced included the Bill of Materials and photography
and videos.

23
9.0 Operating Procedure
Our goal was to create an interchangeable configuration such that the user had the option to
operate the boat as a tugboat or speedboat. All of this was accomplished by the change of one
parameter: the propeller.
In order to attain the maximum performance out of the boat, either within the tugboat or
speedboat configurations, we must use a two-phase fluid prevention cover. This cover is
permanently mounted to the drive shaft encasing and comes over the propeller and rudder-
assembly. This cover, as the name suggests, stops air, which is 1000 times less dense than
water, from mixing with the upstream flow the propeller encounters.
If the user wishes to experience maximum speed, the user should opt for the original,
unmodified propeller. If the user wants to use the boat as a tugboat, then they should use a 4-
blade propeller with a pitch value of 10 cm and a 1 inch diameter. The change of propellers only
requires a set of plyers; to change the propeller, the user must first remove the nut at the end
of the drive shaft, followed by the unscrewing of the already mounted propeller; finally, the
user must then screw the propeller that meets their boat performance desires and tightly
screwing the nut back onto the drive shaft.
If the boat is being used in proximity with other boats that use similar receivers, the user must
be certain the controller frequencies are not matched; if not, the boat might not obey the
user’s controller inputs. A safety feature is installed in the boat that only allows the boat to
function only if the boat’s sensor is in contact with water. However, the user may choose to
disable this feature if they want to by simply removing the wire that is connected to this sensor
(screw under the servo).
In order to operate the boat to its maximum potential and ensure its integrity, the user should
1) monitor the battery voltage drop periodically so as to not get stranded in the middle of a
body of water 2) not run the boat at maximum throttle for extensive periods of time as it will
cause the motor to overheat and stall (especially for the tugboat configuration under loaded
conditions) 3) frequently do float bys to see if the rudder is calibrated to the user’s desired
input (if not, there is a knobb that will adjust the neutral position of the rudder), 4) after using
the boat, make sure to open the cover to let the motor and battery cool down, 5) not do sharp
turns under the speed boat configuration as it may cause the boat to capsize and may endure
irrefutable water damage and 6) abide by all established guidelines where the boat is being
used.

24
10.0 Appendices
Video Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyEb0kpNMLE&feature=youtu.be
Testing Matrices
Measurements: Observations: Methodology:
Max Velocity
(Estimated in
booklet): 5 m/s) 3.34 m/s V= distance/time
Water Disturbance
Drag = 1/2 Cd * density *V^2 *area;
Cd = 2Fd/rho*V^2*SA
Force Exerted by
Boat Thrust=kx (spring scale)
Weight
Boat (no batt.): 9.4 oz
Boat (w/ batt.): 12.0 oz
Battery Pack: 2.6 oz
Balance Changes Rudder favors the left causing misdirection
Center of Gravity
Original center of
gravity
4.5" from back (w/o
battery)
Front of hull lifts as there is more water
disturbance at higher speeds; [need weight to
balance]
4.25" from back (with
battery)
Stability
Easily hydroplanes when performing steep turn at
high speed [probably advisable not to run too
quickly]
Reliability
Battery reads voltages higher than specs
Turning Radius:
-Forward
Left Right
~3' - 4' ~3'
Rudder favors left even when controller direction is
straight
-Backwards
Clockwise (Left)
Counter-Clockwise
(Right)
1' 1' -1' 1/2
Much slower/lower performance while operating
backwards
Measurements/Calculation Results:
Boat Observations/Notes:

25
Trial Weight of Water Added Weight of Water + Chassis
Resulting Weight (if components
included) Notes:
1 9.7oz. = 276g 13.6oz. = 376g 21.7oz. = 616.2g Empty Chassis: 3.9oz = 110g
2 15.8oz. = 438g 19.7oz. = 548g 27.8oz. = 778.2g Complete Boat: 12oz = 340.19g
3
23oz. = 630g
(Progressively sank) 26.9oz. =740g 35oz. = 970.2g
Weighed empty chassis with
water to test sinking without
damaging inner components
Time Elapsed Voltage Notes:
0 7.05
*Started charging with battery at 7.05V after the
load testing (and after interrupted responses)
32 8.2
67 8.34
77 8.37
*Note: Battery was not warm at all when charging,
but i stopped charging after 77min since it was not
dead and there is no indicator for full charge.
Time Time Driven (min) Voltage Performance
4:22 0 8.45 High
4:25 2 8.12 High
4:33 5 7.86 High
4:40 5 7.82 Moderate
4:47 7 7.68 Med-High
Time Driven (min) Voltage of batt. Load (lbs) Length (string) [in] Able to pull?
0 7.75 3.5 24in No
2.5 24in
No; (Last trial - boat died for ~ 7
s)
12 7.3 2 24in Yes
1 8in Yes
22 6.26 2 8in Yes
Notes:
Maximum Load 38.025 fl oz. 1124.533 grams 1.1245 kg
Load Test 1
Battery Charging Test
Battery Performance Test
Weight Modification Test

26
Propeller Designs Testing & Speed Trials:
Battery:
7.2 V Ni-Mh battery
700mAh
Remote Battery: 9V
Dimensions of Hull: 13.5” x 3.5” x 3” with rudder 11.5" length without rudder
Motor Specs (from
manufacturer &
translated) 370 motor
Rated Voltage: 7.2V
No-Load Speed:
30300±10% rpm
No-Load Current: 1.1A
max
Locked Rotor Current:
60.0A
Rated Torque: 104.7±15g-
cm
Locked Rotor Torque:
900±120g-cm
Rated Speed:
26800±10%rpm
Rated Current: 8.0A max
Servo Specs (from
manufacturer &
translated) Working Voltage: 4.8V
Speed: 0.12s/60˚
Torsion: 0.7kg-cm
General Boat Specifications:
Propellor Design Testing 3/8/15
PROPELLER #5 (Red) MODIFICATION NOTES Adjustments
Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n) Rudder made too much variation
1 39-40ft 8.02 22.14 1.762 0.537 y stalled 3sec in Servo disconnected
*4 39-40ft 7.62 21.1 1.848 0.563 y no stall Servo disconnected
5 39-40ft 7.68 39.35 0.991 0.302 y stalled 12sec for 10sec Servo disconnected
*Battery Warm (wait 5 min) see pic of prop deformation
NEW PROPELLER WITH MAGNET as OFFSET WEIGHT
Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n)
1 39-40ft 7.65 22.33 1.747 0.532 y stalled after 4sec (warm batt) Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point
2 39-40ft 7.56 33.71 1.157 0.353 y stalled after 4sec for 10sec (warm batt/motor) Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point
3 39-40ft 7.48 25.63 1.522 0.464 y stalled after 2sec Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point
Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n) RUDDER ADJUSTMENT (3/16 in less than OG)
4 39-40ft 7.38 30.75 1.268 0.387 y stalled 6sec in (warm batt) Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point
7.25 CHARGE BATTERY
5 39-40ft 8.28 24.12 1.617 0.493 y stalled after 5sec Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point
RUDDER ADJUSTMENT (2/16 in less than OG)
6 39-40ft 7.98 x x x Major Stall Servo Turned off / Battery weight/ Point

27
NEW PROPELLER and TAPE ACROSS (no weight change)
Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n) NOTES Adjustments
1 39-40 ft 7.87 23.17 1.683 0.513 y stalled after 4sec Servo off -Straight rudder
2 39-40 ft 7.7 42.61 0.915 0.279 y Major stall after 6 sec (12sec) Servo off -Straight rudder
3 39-40 ft 7.58 26.16 1.491 0.454 y stalled after 2 sec More tape near rudder
4 39-40 ft 7.38 29.07 1.342 0.409 y stalled after 2 sec (Batt open) More tape near rudder
ORIGINAL PROPELLER w/ TAPE
Trials Track Battery (V) Time Full Track (s) Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throtle (y/n) NOTES Adjustments
1 39-40 ft 7.24 24.3 1.605 0.489 y Stalled twice No Servo Much Faster (sorry jesus)
2 39-40 ft 8.2 4.92 7.927 2.416 y No stall
3 39-40 ft 8.04 4.03 9.677 2.950 y No stall
4 39-40 ft 7.9 4.07 9.582 2.921 y No Stall
5 39-40 ft 7.87 4.36 8.945 2.726 y No Stall Awesome performance for speed
6 w/load 7.48 Average 9.033 2.753
MAX LOAD TESTING
Trilas Mod Approx Max load (lb) Barge? Oz ---- > Pounds ---- > Additional Weight Battery (V) NOTES
1 yes x 8.23 warm batt
yes 4.266 0.267 2 magnets 7.93
yes 7.831 0.489 2 magnets + Container w/ Pellets 7.59
yes 10.036 0.627 2 magnets + Tape+ container+Pellets 7.46
yes 39.536 2.471 " " + Entire Pellet box 7.33
yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.24
7.12 CHARGE
2 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 8.27 Less efficient
3 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.82 causes friction
4 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.6 Less efficient
5 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.49 More efficient
6 yes 91.536 5.721 " " + Both sand bags 7.42 More efficientOriginal Prop + Tape
new prop+tape+more tape
Original Prop
new prop + magnet
new prop + 2magnet
new prop
MAX LOAD SPEED TRIALS
PROPELLER 0 (2 blade) and TAPE to Represent the Cover Notes
Trials Battery (v) Track (ft) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throttle? Load (oz) Start from Barge at the end of the arc End with tip of boat
1 7.91 17.5 28.25 0.619 0.189 y 6lb 0.3oz Stalled after 5 sec
2 7.45 17.5 y Stalled after 3 sec/ Andre stopped testing -_-
3 7.5 17.5 50 0.350 0.107 y 6lb 0.3oz stalled after 3sec/ warm batt
PROPELLER 5 (4 blade) and TAPE to represent the cover Notes
Trials Battery (v) Track (ft) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throttle? Load (oz)
1 8 17.5 41.98 0.417 0.127 y 6lb 0.3 oz No stall / moves side to side a bit
2 7.72 17.5 38.81 0.451 0.137 y 6lb 0.3 oz No stall"choppy"
3 17.5 Battery Extremely Hot / Motor Extremley Hot
4 17.5 ^ 117F / ^ 125F
5 17.5
PROPELLER 4 (Four Blade) and TAPE to Represent the Cover Notes
Trials Battery (v) Track (ft) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throttle?
Total Load (oz)
[no barge] Start with boat under arc. Barge = 21.3oz
1 8.2 20 50.19 0.398 0.121 y 6lb 0.3 oz Stall after 30sec
2 7.56 20 more than a minute y 6lb 0.3 oz stall after 6sec
Speed Trials 3/14/15
SPEED TRIALS
PROPELLER 0 and TAPE to Represent the Cover Notes Adjustments
1 8.03 39 4.3 9.070 2.764 Stalled at the very end
2 7.75 39 8.01 4.869 1.484 Stalled after 2sec
3 39
4 39
5 39
PROPELLER 5 (4 blade) and TAPE to represent the cover Notes Adjustments
1 8.18 39 Stalled after 4 and reversed.
2 8.15 39 29.17 1.337 0.408 Stalled after 3sec
3 7.63 17.5 24 0.729 0.222 Stalled after3sec
4 39
5 39
PROPELLER 4 and TAPE to Represent the Cover Notes Adjustments
Trials Battery (v) Track (ft) Time Full Track (s) Avg Velocity (ft/s) Avg Vel (m/s) Full Throttle? Servo off
1 8.24 39-40ft 22.43 1.739 0.530 y Batter moves around becasue broken case Tape down Battery
2 8 39-40ft 30 1.300 0.396 y Stall after 20 sec
3 7.81 39-40ft 23.42 1.665 0.508 n (1/2) Half Throttle
4 7.59 39-40ft 25.3 1.542 0.470 y Stall after 6 sec
5 7.44 39-40ft 27.86 1.418 0.432 n (1/2) half Throttle Batter Warm

28
WEIGHTS
(oz) (lb) (kg)
Original Prop 0.035 0.002 0.001
lead pellets 0.262 0.016 0.007
lead pellets 0.264 0.017 0.007
Magnet (1) 2.133 0.133 0.060
Barge 21.3 1.331 0.604
Plastic container 0.323 0.020 0.009
Plastic container with pellets3.565 0.223 0.101
Tape container and pellets 5.77 0.361 0.164
Sand bag1 26.5 1.656 0.751
Sang bag2 25.5 1.594 0.723
Full Pellet box 29.5 1.844 0.836
Tape 2.205 0.138 0.063
Weekly Tasks
Week 2
Date Task Description Person in
Charge
Completed
1/15/2015 Group Responsibilities
Determined
Dani: CAD Design Jesus/Andre:
Manufacture/Design Lute: Electronics
Katie: Documentation
Group 1/18/2015
1/15/2015 Documentation Strategy Folder/Templates Organized Katie IP
1/15/2015 Gant Chart Draft Gant Chart Group Group Draft
Started
1/15/2015 Code of Ethics Determination of Team Ethics Dani + group 1/16/2015
1/18/2015-
1/19/2015
Speed Boat Testing (1) Velocity Test, Dimensioning, Battery
Usage Tests, Turning Radius, Kinks
Group 1/19/2015
1/20/2015 Bill of Materials Parts list with cost estimates Katie 1/21/2015
1/15/2015 Research RC tug boat design Continued research. Most have double
encased props with 3 or more blades.
Jesus IP
Week 3
Date Started Task Description Person in
Charge
Completed
1/22/2015 Cad/ Drawings of Boat Started making drawings and Cad mostly
of interior components
Dani IP
1/25/2015 Load Tests Attached water bottles to the back to
approximate current load limit; found
max load to be 1-2lbs
Group 1/25/2015
1/25/2015 Design
Brainstorming/Research
Modifications Suggestions compiled;
details need to be worked out
Group IP
1/22/2015 Contacted Manufacturer Discussed motor and servo specs with
manufacturer
Lute 2/3/2015
Week 4
Charge
Completed

29
1/27/2015 Battery Charging Test Measured voltage while the battery
recharged
Dani 1/27/2015
1/22/2015 Cad/ Drawings of Boat Continuing making drawings and Cad
mostly of interior components
Dani IP
1/31/2015 Disassembled Boat Removed/weighed every part of boat
and inspected interior of frequency box
Group 1/31/2015
2/1/2015 Started BOTE Calculation
Estimates
Group
2/1/2015 Started Connections
Determination/Schematic
Assessed connections in boat, drew
rough diagram, compiled visio schematic
Katie/Jesus 2/3/2015
Week 5
Charge
Completed
2/4/2015 2 Design calculations Thrust estimate and free body diagram
center of gravity
Jesus 2/4/2015
2/8/2015 Center of Gravity Test Placed table on boat and placed loads to
change point of CG
Group
2/9/2015 Start Binder Project
Components
Set up google drive to have a powerpoint
and folder system
Group
2/9/2015 Metrics Needs Chose the Needs of a customer Jesus
2/9/2015 Start Powerpoint Presentation
Midterm
Labeled each slide Dani
2/9/2015 Thrust Test Used the tank for buoyancy test and
force test
Andre
Week 6-7
Charge
Completed
2/10/2015 Project Definition Section of
Midterm
cover, customer needs, matrix,
definitions, specifications
Dani 2/11/2015
2/10/2015 Performance Section of
Midterm
Static and Dynamic Testing results Katie 2/11/2015
2/11/2015 Research Information Drag Force and Boat Stability Lute 2/11/2015
2/11/2015 Design Summary of concepts Jesus 2/11/2015
2/11/2015 Research Information Thrust, Propulsion Research, BOM, .ppt
reconciliation
André 2/11/2015
2/11/2015 Design Cost analysis, BOM, and decomposition Katie 2/11/2015
2/11/2015 Design CAD Drawings Dani 2/11/2015
2/17/2015 Design Propeller André
2/19/2015 Model Drawings Using solidworks to provide
measurements for each part
Dani IP
2/20/2015 Filling out Def/Spec.
Templates
Redefine goal/ edit Katie IP
2/25/2015 BOM edits Cost analysis research Katie IP
2/24/2015 Streamline Design
Implementations
Consider materials and machinery
necessary to perform mods
André
2/21/2015 Design Motor modification research Lute
Week 8
Charge
Completed
3/1/2015 BOM Update New Cost Analysis Lute/Katie 3/2/2015
2/28/2015 Propeller Design CAD Jesus 3/1/2015
3/1/2015 Research Compilation Propeller Design Rationale Jesus 3/1/2015
3/1/2015 Barge Manufacture of a barge for testing Katie 3/1/2015

30
3/1/2015 Servo/Motor Research Methods of preventing stalling of the
motor
Dani 3/2/2015
3/2/2013 Started Converging duct
modification
Determining feasibility/methods André IP
Week 9
Charge
Completed
3/3/2015 Visit RapidTech Attempt to print propeller Jesus, Dani,
Andre
3/3/2015
3/3/2015 Screwed Hook on Barge Katie 3/3/2015
3/4/2015 3D-Printing New Propellers Paid and printed the propeller Jesus, Dani 3/4/2015
Week 10
Charge
Completed
3/8/2015 Max load / Speed Testing Used the made track behind EG Jesus, Dani,
Lute, Katie
3/8/2015
3/11/2015 3D -Printing Cover Paid and printed the cover Jesus, Dani 3/11/2015
3/12/2015 Organize Documents for final
Binder
Made folders for better organizing Jesus 3/12/2015
Week 11
Charge
Completed
3/15/2015 Alter cover Printed new cover Jesus 3/15/2015
3/15/2015 One-minute Final Presentation Finished the Slide Jesus, Dani,
Lute
3/15/2015
3/15/2015 Discuss What tests will be
done on Monday
Listed variation of test needed for the
final
Jesus, Dani,
Katie
3/15/2015
3/17/2015 All CAD and Drawings PDF versions of Drawings Dani 3/20/2015
3/17/2015 Final Report
Organization/Start
Started organized word doc Katie 3/19/2015
3/18/2015 Final Report Contributions Worked on the report separately Group 3/20/2015
Component Drawings

.06
.31
.13
R.06 116.87°
R.06
1.38
.88
.25
.05
R.06
.13
.06
.13
R.13
.63.13
.03
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
Servo brace
SHEET 1 OF 1
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:
SCALE: 2:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-00A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF
<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY
REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

.75
.13
1.06
.50
1.63
2.31
.06
Reciever
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009- 01
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

1.00
.25
1.25.25
Motor
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-03
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

R.29
.38
.38
1.75
.38
.47
.95
.48
Battery
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 3:2 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-04A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

7.00
1.25
.88
.10
R.23 x2
2.24
.25
.20 .20
Entire part shelled from
the bottom
Top cover
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-05
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

.21
.15
.56
.50.54
.26
.13
.26
.04
1.12
.38
.09 .25
Max Thickness
1/16"
Propeller
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 2:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-06
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

R.11
.06.08
R.28
R.10
.31.41
.08
.26
.50
.09
.03.90
.62
.06
.12
1.00
.65
.11
Servo
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 2:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-07A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

R.09
97.82°
.21
R.13
.11
.06
.06 .10
.04 All holes have same spacing
.06
.41
.02
.03 R.03
.13 .25
.19 .29
Top of Servo
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 4:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-07
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

12.07
7.40
1.97
.08
1.09
5.91
3.54
R.94
.20 X2
TRUE R.10
TRUE R.10
.20
2.01
.28 .20 X3
.75
59.58°
7009-10 Hull
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:4 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-10A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

.63
.25
2.06
.44
67.74°
R.13
.12
.13
.69
.15
R.06
R.09
.13
30.51°
.13
.13.04
.04
Rudder with
Brace
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-11
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

.12
6.02
Prop Shaft
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

R.25
.35
.63
R.15
.94
.13
1.38
R.15
.20
.13
.31
.26
1.00
.50
.69
2.00
.63
.38
.07
.06
.69
Battery Holder
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-15A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

.13
.11
.88
Rudder Support
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 4:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-21
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

R.69
R.49
.04
.28
.55
.47
.28
1.97
.39x4
1.02
.10
1.23
1.80
2.28
Motor Brace
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-26
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

.05
.40
1.00
.33
.01
.27
Pitch: 15cm
Propeller-5 Blade
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 2:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-A
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

R1.95
.10
R.20
.20
.07
.08
R.05
.50
1.20
1.12
.15
.60
1.00
2.42
Prop Cover
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
7009-28
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

.88
.19
.13R.16
.13
.06
R.12
.44
.19
R.10
.31
shaft holder
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 4:1 WEIGHT:
REVDWG. NO.
A
SIZE
TITLE:
NAME DATE
COMMENTS:
Q.A.
MFG APPR.
ENG APPR.
CHECKED
DRAWN
FINISH
MATERIAL
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL
APPLICATION
USED ONNEXT ASSY
PROHIBITED.
5 4 3 2 1

MAE 151 Group 72 Final Design Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to MAE 151 Group 72 Final Design Report

Similar to MAE 151 Group 72 Final Design Report (20)

MAE 151 Group 72 Final Design Report