Aero design team continues international success
Texas A&M’s Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aero Design team competed against universities from around the globe and garnered top 10 distinctions in multiple categories for their work in developing cutting-edge aircraft.
The micro class team in Lakeland Fla. for the SAE Aero Design East Competition.
The Texas A&M University Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aero Design team returned from the SAE Aero Design East Competition in Lakeland, Fla. this month with an international championship for the seventh straight year against over 35 teams from around the world.
“It is unprecedented to have the type of success that we have experienced,” said Scott McHarg, the team’s adviser and pilot of seven years. “Many universities compete yearly and will never even see the podium.”
The multifaceted organization develops and tests cutting-edge aircraft for the international competition. Texas A&M is one of only two universities in the world to enter the competition’s advanced, regular and micro classes all at the same time.
Micro class
This year’s micro class team secured the first overall award for their plane. They also won second place for their mission, flight readiness and presentation as well as third in design impact. Their accolades have resulted in three consecutive titles for the micro team.
This year’s award-winning plane was built off past designs that were modified for improvements. The final product ended up being just 3 feet by 3 feet.
Dhruval Rangrej, chief engineer, admitted he was nervous going into competition, but wasn’t worried about winning. His main concern was to ensure the team of 19 students made the best possible version of their project.
The team spent a significant amount of time trying to understand the dynamics of building a flying wing, as they tried last year with no success. They had to work together to solve what Rangrej called their biggest challenge leading up to competition. As a result, he found that one of the main contributors to securing the win was the team support and positive culture.
“My biggest role in this year’s design was analyzing why our system failed last year and how it could be fixed,” Rangrej said. “I gave overall ideas of how to fix this year’s aircraft to our design leads and product owners. They translated my advice into digestible information for the team members.”
All three SAE Aero Design team members pose together in Lakeland, Fla. at the SAE Aero Design East Competition in March.
Regular class
The regular class team focused on heavy lift and figuring out how to carry their payload of weighted 2-liter plastic bottles that were then attached to the 10-by-10-foot plane.
Their biggest challenge was incorporating last-minute adjustments when their primary flight model suffered a rough landing due to a power failure. According to Edward Eiche, chief engineer, the team worked through the night prior to competition to ensure the model would be successful.
“We try to flight test as much as we can before competition, not every team does that,” Eiche said. “We’re pushing the limits of what we can do aerodynamically and structurally to win, so there’s always a chance that a plane goes down.”
The team was ranked fifth overall and first in flight readiness and presentation. They were also ranked sixth in their mission and 14th for their design report for a point total that separated them from first by just six points.
The advanced class team in Lakeland, Fla. for the SAE Aero Design East Competition.
Advanced class
The advanced team was faced with the task of designing an aircraft that can fly both vertically and horizontally. Their design needed to be capable of dropping a robotic payload that parks itself, stays in place for another robotic payload to attach itself, then return autonomously to an original point.
This is only the second year Texas A&M has sent a team to be a part of this class, resulting in a learning curve that involved trial and error. Despite this, the 22-student team managed to place sixth for their design report, eighth in their mission, 11th in flight readiness and presentation, and seventh overall.
“It’s a tough balance, especially as you get to complex systems. It’s very important to spend time up front analyzing and making sure you’re building the right system,” said Malachi Drew, chief engineer. “Once we do that, we have a lot of iterations. We were able to build a total of about four or five aircraft this year.”
Drew agrees with Rangrej that a strong team culture contributed to this year’s successes. He is confident that upcoming students will be able to continue the legacy after he graduates.
As for future members, Drew encourages them to keep an open mind and to be willing to learn as much as possible from the experience.
“None of us come in knowing all that much about aircraft engineering,” Drew said. “But if you approach it with the right attitude and are sufficiently confident, you will learn.”
