monthly NEWSLETTER March 2016 Copyright 2016 M-Fly Edited by Matthew Wick

IN THIS ISSUE The month of March has been an incredibly busy and exciting one! The month began with seven team members going to Washington DC as a part of an Alternative Spring Break trip; everyone had a great time teaching DC s youth about aerospace engineering and exploring the DC area. Additionally, 25 team members traveled to Fort Worth, Texas for the 2016 SAE Aero Competition. 2 March 2016

Touring the Plant Before the competition began, we were lucky to tour the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, the primary manufacturing location of the F-35. One team member, Adam Licavoli said after the tour, Touring Lockheed s F-35 facility was amazing. Getting to see such complex flight vehicles come together up close in itself had me feeling like a kid in Disneyland. On top of it all, I had the privilege to watch the professional fabrication of composites as well as have questions answered about the process. As a structural composite engineer on M-Fly I found this especially rewarding. The use of composites on the F-35 has challenged my thoughts on composites and has me excited about the future use of composites on M-Fly. Overall, the team performed very well at competition and everyone that attended had a lot of fun watching the planes fly and spending time with the team. Everyone returned to Ann Arbor optimistic for next year and excited to start designing the next M-Fly planes. 3 March 2016

Regular Class Results The regular class team performed well in all aspects of competition taking 8th/35th place overall along with 16th place for the presentation, and 5th in the design report. The team was able to participate in all 4 flight rounds. The first round got off to a great start, and the M-8 took off quickly and flew well. Unfortunately, strong winds lead to a hard, uncontrolled landing and our landing gear was badly damaged. This prevented any scoring for the round. Repairs were made in time for the second round, which had similar results. The M-8 took off and flew well, but the landing gear sheared off due to another hard landing. The third time was the charm, and the M-8 successfully lifted 20.1 lbs, our predicted payload. The final round didn t go so well, as it spun out of control before leaving the ground and lost a wheel in the process. While we were unable to perform as well as we had initially hoped, we still produced an exceptional aircraft and made it into the top 10. The lessons we learned will pave the way for more success next year! 4 March 2016

Advanced Class Resutlts Despite many attempts at test flights, by the time competition rolled around, the advanced class plane had yet to get the necessary flight video required for competition. With the last hope of recording our qualification video, which must include a successful take-off, payload drop and landing, the team packed up the plane and headed to the Thunderbird s Flying Field in Fort Worth, TX where the competition was held. The plane was assembled and the motor tuned as daylight was running out. One of the competition supplied pilots, Dave Hudson, flew the plane with expertise unmatched and the qualification video was completed in conjunction with our first successful flight! The team then spent the rest of the evening putting final touches on the plane to prepare for technical inspection the following day. The Advanced class team performed well in both the written design report and the oral presentation. The design report submitted in January was scored and took 9th place out of 19 teams. The advanced class leads gave their oral presentation on the day of tech inspection and received 1st place! The combination of our excellent oral presentation and written design put the team in a good standing going into flight rounds. 5 March 2016

We participated in all 4 flight rounds. During the first round, we took off and dropped the payload successfully, but unfortunately one of the ribbons attached to the dynamic payload prematurely deployed which automatically disqualified the team from scoring any points. The second round went much better, but the payload was dropped from under 100 ft due to pilot and telemetry team miscommunication; therefore, no points were scored. The third round was scratched due to a computer issue affecting the video feed. Due to high winds on the final day, the aircraft was unable to takeoff in a controlled manner, and the flight had to be aborted once it started veering out of bounds Overall, the MX-1 performed exceptionally well for a first year aircraft. We learned many lessons on the way, and are excited to apply those lessons to next year s plane, the MX-2. 6 March 2016

Alternative Spring Break The team recently went to Washington D.C. as a part of Alternative Spring Break. Alternative Spring Break is a program sponsored by the University of Michigan to create the opportunity for students to engage in a service-oriented learning experience. The team members toured the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, a massive museum filled with models of old airplanes and the Spaceship Discovery. Members of M-Fly drove to Walter Johnson High School where they taught high school students about the importance of engineering and problem solving. The team members also took time to tour the capitol hill. Members toured the Smithsonians and walked through 7 March 2016 the memorials. The final day of Alternative Spring Break was spent at the Capitol where members had the chance to listen in on a committee hearing of the Ways and Means committee. Next, they met with Ann Arbor House Representative Debbie Dingell before going on a tour of the capitol building. Alternative Spring Break was a great way for members of M-fly who could not attend competition, get the chance to be involved with something in M-fly. The trip was a success and M-fly looks forward to being involved with Alternative Spring Break in the future.

Future Improvements This was an exciting year for M-Fly and the Contributors team enjoyed much success. This was the first year in which we competed in the advanced Kathryn Shepherd, Overview class competition, and despite many challengjoshua Anibal, Regular Class Results es the team took on each with stide. This was Beldon Lin and Nicole Gallant, the first year in which we worked with com Advanced Class Results posites and glow motors, and taking on these challenges did eat into our testing schedule. Emily Kusulas, Alternative Spring Break However, these experiences from the new dematthew Wick and Nathan Kaisler, sign challenges will pave the way for future Future Improvements improvements. Our shortcomings in the regular class competition were primarily due inadequate testing due to time constraints. In particular, not enough testing was performed on the landing gear. This component of our aircraft caused the most trouble in competition, and not testing the gear used for competition was another mistake. Like we improved the electrical problems we had the year prior, one of our focuses next year will be to solve these problems as well. 8 March 2016

SPECIAL THANKS! 9 March 2016