22/10/2014

Assignment 1
Unmanned Cargo Delivery

The content
This assignment is a LITERATURE SURVEY to gain
the understanding for future activities.

- How do we design?
- What elements constitute to aircraft design?
- What are the design considerations?

22/10/2014

The task
Write a concise literature review (up to 3000
words) on the conceptual design of civil cargo
transporter Unmanned Ariel Vehicle (UAV).

Learning outcomes
Writing the review will enable you to:
become familiar with the key concepts that
are relevant to your group design project.
develop your understanding of the project
area.
see your project in a wider context.
It will also provide an opportunity for you to
work on your critical analysis and writing
skills.

22/10/2014

The word count is low

3000 word limit
Be concise with reporting
Use figures to represent information
Use tables to represent values

Must be fixed wing layout

Source: Dr Hans Heerkens, University of Twente. Netherlands

22/10/2014

Some starting points(1)

Unmanned means: lower cost, higher productivity (quantity, price)
No pilots, so:
Reduced salaries (1 long-distance plane may require 12 crews)
No cockpit (cargo doors)
No fatigue (long flights, efficient cruise speed with turboprop engines)
No rest facilities
No back-up crew
No traveling expenses

Smaller is beautiful (exception in technology):

More direct flights, so less damage to cargo
New routes/applications

Sustainability:
Yes: more efficient flight profiles
No: reducing cost increases demand

Some starting points(2)

Safety
In the air
On the ground

Certification
Infrastructure will be there, but when?
Chicken-or-egg problem; no tradition to build on
Probably more market creation than substitution
Public opinion?

Are these problems temporary or principal?

22/10/2014

Possible payload-rangecombinations
Medium/long distance, 10-20 tonnes
Oversea routes
No competition with bellyfreight
Low cruise speed
Europe-China, new connections or increased frequencies

Short distance (intra-Europe), 3-10 tonnes

2500 airfields in Europe

Flying boat, floatplane, amphibian?

90% cities near waterways

Marking Scheme

22/10/2014

Marking criteria(1)
Marking Criteria

Max

Knowledge and
understanding

35

Analytical content

35

Grade

10

Demonstrated substantial understanding of and responds appropriately and

insightfully to the topic of both design and aircrafts

21-24
(2:1)

Good level of understanding of the topic demonstrated, but without the depth
of knowledge shown by the first class student.

18-20
(2:2)

General level of understanding of the topic areas demonstrated but some

evidence of minor mis-conception and gap in certain areas.

14-17
(3rd)

Limited understanding of the topic area. Frequent factual or other errors.

0-13
(Fail)

Inadequate knowledge and understanding demonstrated with substantial mismatch between topic and content.

25-35 (1st)

Demonstrates a very good analytical treatment of the design, resulting in a clear

synthesis.

21-24
(2:1)
18-20
(2:2)

10

0-13
(Fail)

A content offering inadequate and often inaccurate description of the design

objectives.

6
(2:1)
5
(2:2)
4
(3rd)
0-3
(Fail)

6
(2:1)
5
(2:2)
4
(3rd)
0-3
(Fail)

6
(2:1)
10

May show some analytical treatment, but tends towards description.

Largely descriptive with little evidence of analytical argument. Analysis may be

flawed in some areas.

7-10 (1st)

Reporting style

A good analytical treatment of the design

14-17
(3rd)

7-10 (1st)

Conclusions/ summary

Rationale

25-35 (1st)

7-10 (1st)

Argument and
Structure

Mark Awarded

5
(2:2)
4
(3rd)
0-3
(Fail)

The main themes and issues are clearly identified. Argument is coherent and
logical.
The report is well organised and material mostly well used.
The report is well structured though there may be lapses in places.
The report has a discernable structure but some sections may lack coherence and/or
direction.
Disorganised and lacks a logical structure.
Conclusion provides appropriate, thoughtful final perspective with succinct closing
comment.
Conclusion provides appropriate final perspective with logical closing comment.
Conclusion provides a summary that relates clearly to the results of the analysis.
Conclusion provides a summary but strays from the main points.
A summary is provided but does not relate clearly to the results of the analysis and /
or introduces new material.
An excellent presentation. All question s were enthusiastically answered and
demonstrated an understanding that far exceeded the bounds of the assignment.
Very good presentation. Questions revealed a very good understanding of underlying
theory and context of the assignment
Good presentation. Questions revealed a good understanding of underlying theory
and context of the assignment. There may be some omissions in terms of breath and
depth of coverage.
Presentation lacked structure and clarity. Questions were not really answered and/or
demonstrate little knowledge.
Very poor presentation. It was quite difficult to determine exactly what had been
done or needed to be done.

22/10/2014

Submission detail
Electronic submission Only!
Set date: 13/10/14

Hand in date and time: By 23:59 14/11/14

Feedback date: 24/11/14